Quantcast

Conservative Kansas Group Suing to Remove Science from Schools, Claims Science is Unconstitutional

dunceIn one of the dumbest things I’ve possibly ever read, there’s apparently a conservative group in Kansas that’s suing to remove science from the classroom on the grounds that it violates separation of church and state.

What kind of asinine reasoning is behind this push?  Well, it’s quite simple—and completely idiotic.  This group claims that evolution is a religion and teaching it violates the separation of church and state.

Yes, you’ve read that correctly.  A religious group is claiming that evolution is a religion and therefore it shouldn’t be taught in schools.

According to the AP:

Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE) claims that public schools “promote a ‘non-theistic religious worldview’ by allowing only ‘materialistic’ or ‘atheistic’ explanations to scientific questions.”  The group argues that by teaching evolution “the state would be ‘indoctrinating’ impressionable students in violation of the First Amendment.”

And apparently they’re dead serious.

When I first read about this, I thought for sure it was some kind of article from The Onion or some other satire-based website.  But sadly, it’s a real story.

Now I’m a Christian, but to know that there are people who view science equally as proven as their religion is absolutely terrifying.  And these people are raising children—a truly sobering thought.  To think that there are parents so delusional that they would view evolution, something believed by probably 99.99% of the world’s scientists, similar to faith (faith being something that doesn’t rely on evidence) is astounding.

Basically this group is arguing that any kind of action taken that isn’t based on religious principles is a direct rejection of religion.

But apparently this isn’t the first time this kind of lawsuit has been attempted, and luckily history shows it’s been laughed out of court just as it should be.

Because while I’m a Christian who isn’t ashamed of his faith, I’m not dense enough to dismiss proven science.  Faith as a term is actually the opposite of evidence.  Faith is believing in something even though there’s little to no evidence to support its system of beliefs.  Science has rules behind it that scientists must follow for their theories or findings to be taken with any sense of validity behind them.

I can’t help but feel sorry for the children being raised by parents such as these.  To raise your child (or children) to reject proven science in favor of faith is the ultimate embrace of ignorance, and it’s setting them up for a life built on misinformation and delusion.  What a damn shame.

The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column, and an unapologetic Hillary Clinton supporter. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement. Follow Allen on Twitter as well, @Allen_Clifton.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • James Ingram

    It seems as if these people want to go back to the dark ages. Without science that is where we would be. They need to go off by themselves and start a commune and live in without any of the modern conveniences that science has created. No cars, no air condition, no modern appliances. Where were these people educated, in kindergarten.

    • JamesKelso

      They did all of their schooling on Sundays. In Sunday school.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Which is where their ideas should stay.

      • surfjac

        Isn’t “sunday school” indoctrination into a religion?
        Hmmm?

    • William

      Why do you think Dorothy took the dog and left Kansas?

      • mngrayfox

        She knew better William! :-)

      • langranny

        Wait for me Dorothy, I want to go too…

    • Jerry L. Young II

      Living in the area, I can assure you that it seems like they would like to push us back to the year 100. I really can’t understand the appeal, but most of the people in this part of the country feel like the group in this article are on the right track. And trust me, there is no reasoning with them about what science has proven and done for them. You explain that science has stopped diseases that would have most likely killed them or their children before they are 50, don’t care. You explain that the creator of the computer was gay, and unix was an atheist, and Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are atheists, and they don’t care. It’s a complete book of convenience. I agree if they don’t want to teach it in school, they shouldn’t reap any of the benefits of science. Imagine trying to find clothes that weren’t a blend made up by some scientific process.

      • James Ingram

        Well written Jerry. Thanks for putting it that way.

      • Linda Armstrong

        If they don’t teach science in school, they make it forbidden fruit. There’s no better way to capture a child’s interest!

      • Gary Menten

        If you stop and think about it, the suppression of knowledge is something that has been going on since the bible was written. Adam and Eve are cast out from the Garden Of Eden for eating the fruit of the Tree Of Knowledge. In other words, bible-thumpers have plenty of historical and religious precedent for keeping people ignorant.

      • Linda Armstrong

        Actually, I love that story. I see it as the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Have you read James Dickey’s poem “The Heaven of the Animals”? Animals do not worry about good and evil. They just do what they need to do to survive from one moment to the next. Not considering alternatives (better or worse) they are always in heaven. I think too many people lose useful information contained in sacred texts by taking them literally. Everyone studies figurative language and allegory in school, but I guess most compartmentalize their learning.

      • Gary Menten

        I went to school in Canada in the 1960′s and 70′s in a province where only confessional school boards existed and where teaching from the bible (I think only in grades 3-6) was not only constitutional, but an unavoidable part of the curriculum. In the protestant schools, only the Old Testament was taught as this is where all non-Catholics sent their children. At the time, the only non-Protestants, and non-Catholics in Canada were Jews, so teaching the Old Testament was acceptable to most.

        I don’t remember anyone referring to biblical stories as allegory. Children 9-10 don’t have much of a grasp of allegory at any rate, and we got very little context out of it. But they also taught a certain amount of science. Not Darwin, and certainly not Einstein or Hubble or Oppenheimer, but it was at the time of the moon race and so we did get our feet wet with astronomy.

        Well, there is nothing more dangerous (I think) to creation myths than teaching both the bible (without context) and science side-by side to children of that age. To make any sense of religious scripture, I think you need to be much older, however every child is a natural born scientist with an inquisitive mind, until we beat it out of them in their teens.

      • surfjac

        Frankly, I questioned the whole damn bible when I was in sunday indoctrinati, er, school. Nothing made any sense to me, adam and eve, noah, sodom and gomorah, burning bushes, seas parting, none of it and the teachers didn’t like my questioning them. Of course now, many things have been figured out by science that were considered divine over 2000 years ago.

      • William Carr

        There’s a bush that grows in the desert in Palestine, IIRC, that has an outer coating like creosote.

        It can, in fact, burn without being consumed.

        The Noah story may have been based on an actual Flood; evidence suggests the Mediterranean was once much smaller because the Straits of Gibraltar were closed by an earthquake.

        People who moved their herds down to the edge of the long, skinny Sea would have thought the world was ending when the Straits opened again and the wall of water swept through.

      • har650

        Yet this day and age – people wonder why a canyon – a geological structure carved from rock by periodic large flows of water, floods every few decades…

      • WrennS

        Actually most early civilizations were based around and near bodies of water, and most have flood myths. an event like, say, Katrina, or any of the Typhoons in Asia would have been seen as encompassing their entire world.

      • Gary Menten

        As I said…kids are natural-born scientists with inquisitive minds. By the time they learn there’s no such thing as Santa-Clause, the Easter-Bunny or Tooth Fairy, they can pretty much put two and two together and figure that the bible is just another story.

        “Inquiry is fatal to certainty.”

        Will Durant

      • Jim Sittnick

        Santa Claus

      • har650

        Same here. When in grade school I was beat up at church camp for wondering why god seemed like such a prick. I guess some *are* in his image? Only lesson “learned”.

      • Katerina

        Because you can’t control knowledgeable, intelligent, thinking people. It is not in the interest of the GOP leaders to have thinkers. They have to fight the smarts every step of the way.

      • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

        This is surely why the GOP has been hell-bent on destroying the public school system for decades.

      • Dee

        The public school system was destroyed the day God was told “get out”.

      • Gary Menten

        We’ll be happy to let him back in the moment anyone provides evidence of his existence that has been properly observed and tested by scientific method. When you have that, please fell free to call back.

      • Joe Golonka

        Really, Dee? Humans have the power to command God? Hmm… I thought that God could be anywhere that God wanted to be. Of course, we know what you really mean, that unless public schools indoctrinate children with Christian prayers, then God has somehow been banned. The complete absence of logic in your trite and ridiculous slogan indicates that perhaps you could use some science education yourself, perhaps starting with acquiring some critical thinking skills.

      • Eoin Maloney

        The man blew to smithereens two cities, incuding the children, simply because the place was sinful. He wiped out the entire planet in a flood because he didn’t like people’s behavior. He has a history of violence and wantonly disproportionate vengeance. I’d never let a guy like that near my kids.

      • Somebody_Else

        Don’t forget that whole Abraham incident where he cajoled Abraham into murdering his own son. Fortunately he yelled “Psych! Dude, I can’t believe you were about to do that!” at the last second. Let’s face it, anybody that would pull off F’d up stunts like that is majorly screwed in the head. Regular Jonestown type garbage.
        :p

      • regressive rightwing trash

        we never told GOD to “get out”,,,,,,,,,,,we wanted RELIGION ( see: SUPERSTITION) OUT!!!!!!!!

      • Martine Atherton

        yet many places around the world are thriving without god in it

      • Michael C. Thompson

        If that’s your definition of destruction, then I say we bring on a public education apocalypse.

      • lolno

        lol, no. First of all, that entire argument is a myth. Religion can’t be TAUGHT in schools but there is no moratorium on student prayer. If they want to pray, they can. You just can’t teach it because there’s no state religion and there never has been. With any luck, there never will be.

      • Somebody_Else

        Officially allowing prayer is seen as supporting religion, and that’s why it’s not allowed.

      • ACMEsalesrep

        Dee: “God” has no place in any public education system. If you want to send your kids to church, by all means go ahead – but don’t think you have a right to force your chosen religion on everyone else. After all, who’s to say your choice is even the correct one?

      • ACMEsalesrep

        Dee: “God” has no place in any public education system. If you want to send your kids to church, by all means go ahead – but don’t think you have a right to force your chosen religion on everyone else. After all, who’s to say your choice is even the correct one?

      • dzerres

        Your thinking is very provincial. Lots of children and schools around the world don’t have God in them and they are kicking our collective butts in math and science. How do they manage without God?

      • Dee

        You are incorrect. The tree was of the Knowledge of GOOD AND EVIL. Once they ate, they had knowledge of EVIL. Before they ate, they did not. It’s not knowledge that’s bad, it’s EVIL that’s bad. Evolution has not been proven, in fact it’s been disproven yet it’s still taught not as an unproven theory, but as incorrect fact. Children are being taught a lie.

        I’m not against all science, just against the teaching of a lie and the teaching of evil.

      • Gary Menten

        You are wrong. There is a massive body of scientific falsifiable evidence backing up evolution and none whatsoever backing up creation. It has not been disproven by any accepted scientific method, and science, which is a self-correcting process has been trying very hard to test it and disprove evolution for the last 150 years. This is what scientists do.

      • Oldfart

        Uh – Knowledge of GOOD and Evil – you forgot the part about Knowledge of GOOD. So, before they knew this they were just behaving and didn’t know whether they were GOOD or EVIL. It took the rest of the Bible to show them just how EVIL they were.

      • langranny

        Religionists are like mushrooms: Churches keep them in the dark and feed them s**t…;

      • Somebody_Else

        And it can be difficult to spot the poisonous ones without training.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        and I am guessing that U believe that a jewish carpenter–long DEAD– is GOD?????

      • sally

        Dee, you are entitled to your opinion. It is one of blind and wilful ignorance, but you are entitled to it. You are not entitled to keep the children of our country uneducated, bigoted and unprepared for their future.

      • Zod

        It’s called the “Theory of evolution” Not the law of evolution. If you had a shred of understanding about the scientific process. You would understand the difference.

      • Allyson Harris

        And if you understood what “theory” really means in Science, you would be better off. Lay people believe “theory” is just a whim or an idea; but scientific “theory” is something that has been tested over and over again. It doesn’t get to be a valid “theory” until that point.

      • WrennS

        To many of these people seem to think that a word in English can have only one meaning. They’ve never opened a dictionary in your life? The word “theory” has a literary meaning and a scientific one. they are different.

      • Pob7161

        How does one know something is good if you have nothing to compare it with. Also if god created us in his own image then why does he have a penis?

      • Allyson Harris

        How the hell has it been DISproven? Please cite credible examples, please – not something written in someone’s holy book.

      • Michael C. Thompson

        Your stupid ass stories aren’t going to convince anyone who hasn’t already had their brains vacuumed out by religious body snatchers.

      • the serpent

        Which is really funny if you think about it….. The first thing that they noticed was that they were naked. If god created them, and they were naked, and being naked is evil, than god created them in an evil state of being. I guess that god was the perpetrator of evil.

      • Andre Owens

        Whoa!

      • lolno

        Evolution has never been disproven. The evidence for evolution is there, practically smacking anyone in the face if they look for it. You can be deluded if you want to be, but that doesn’t mean we should force children into that same delusion.

      • ACMEsalesrep

        Dee: In science, the word “theory” is used to describe those ideas that cannot be proven directly (typically because of technological limitations) but which explain observed phenomena so well (to the point of having predictive powers) that they are accepted as factually correct anyhow. Evolution is a theory in the manner that gravity and relativity are theories. Creationism, on the other hand, fails to achieve any sort of standard of scientific merit. It does not explain that which is observed in the animal kingdom, nor does it offer any predictive powers. It is mythology, the same as those of the ancient Greeks, Native Americans, and every other group to have had its own creation myth. The only children being taught lies are those being taught that creationism should somehow be given the same standing as evolution by those who deliberately misinterpret scientific opinion for their own gain.

      • ACMEsalesrep

        Dee: In science, the word “theory” is used to describe those ideas that cannot be proven directly (typically because of technological limitations) but which explain observed phenomena so well (to the point of having predictive powers) that they are accepted as factually correct anyhow. Evolution is a theory in the manner that gravity and relativity are theories. Creationism, on the other hand, fails to achieve any sort of standard of scientific merit. It does not explain that which is observed in the animal kingdom, nor does it offer any predictive powers. It is mythology, the same as those of the ancient Greeks, Native Americans, and every other group to have had its own creation myth. The only children being taught lies are those being taught that creationism should somehow be given the same standing as evolution by those who deliberately misinterpret scientific opinion for their own gain.

      • dzerres

        Every time you get a flue shot you are proving evolution because the flu bug evolved since the last time you got the shot. I just wish there was a way to separate you and yours from the benefits of science and evolution so that you could suffer the consequences.

      • Somebody_Else

        Actually Evolution has been very significantly proven. There are specifics they are still arguing about and researching, but the same is true of gravity which doesn’t even have as much documentation and research as evolution. The difference is that anyone can perceive gravity in a crude fashion, but evolution takes time and in some cases microscopes and/or a polymerase system.

      • Fred

        In our society we have a methodology that helps us with the tough issues–a system of advocacy whereby each side presents it’s position with factual support–our court system. In two cases it has been ruled that “creationism” is not a science. In Kitzmiller Vs Dover Area Board of Education it was proven with scientific fact that it is more likely that evolution that it is not. This was done with a scientific study on one celled animals. The basis is that in order for evolution to be valid an organism must be able to create itself in order to start the chain. They have found an organism that can do this, e.g. create itself.

      • DannyEastVillage

        actually, in the story, interestingly enough, the serpent told Adam and Eve the truth about the tree. He told them that if they ate it, they would be like the god in that they would know about good and evil; whereas the god told them that if they ate it they would die. Well, they ate the fruit and “their eyes were opened,” and they knew good and evil, but they didn’t die. Who lied?

      • DannyEastVillage

        Dee it would be interesting to know where your science degrees are from.

      • DeeIsAnIdiot

        Dee, please get on board with reality if you are planning on joining in on any discussion. I don’t know where you are getting your info, but everything you have posted is a lie. It’s really hard to deprogram oneself from their religious fear based lies, So please, ask for help. I know it will be hard, but trust me, sooooo worth it. Brainwashed people don’t know they are brainwashed.

      • jeczaja

        No, it was the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil-now you become morally responsible. Prior to that you are no more morally responsible than a puppy.

      • Gary Menten

        That’s just plain idiotic, If there was no-one else in the world, and everyone was innocent, then neither evil nor good could have ever existed before and therefore there could be no knowledge of it.

      • Somebody_Else

        Your assumption is based on the idea that good and evil are both societal constructs, while many people, especially those that believe in a divine being, assume that good and evil were determined by the moral code of said divine entity and society has nothing to do with it. So in their minds, good and evil always existed, though mankind was unable to learn of them until after humanity was created.

      • Gary Menten

        They are societal constructs. All knowledge is based upon experience would have to be even for a divine being. God of the Old Testament is clearly not omniscient since he routinely fails to predict how badly man will disappoint him. But more to the point, I he did not want man to have knowledge of good and evil, then why did he plant the damned tree in the garden in the first place. Wouldn’t that be like leaving a loaded gun where your five year-old child can get at it?

      • Michael Mauck

        Define Morally..

      • Edward Krebbs

        Uh, that was the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and in the context of explaining our loss of paradise. Quite different when you don’t truncate the quote and when you include it in context. (the same problem arises from many fundamentalist truncated quotes). Otherwise, I agree (for many, many reasons) that banning science is a terrible course of action.

      • Edward Krebbs

        Uh, that was the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and in the context of explaining our loss of paradise. Quite different when you don’t truncate the quote and when you include it in context. (the same problem arises from many fundamentalist truncated quotes). Otherwise, I agree (for many, many reasons) that banning science is a terrible course of action.

      • Will Beach

        Divine Destiny. God created Man and Woman. God knew beforehand that with free will, his creations would eat the fruit of the tree. Just as he designed and created an angel to rebel against him in order to create a system of balance for the mortal plane. Faith is free to the masses, but comes with hidden requirements in order to be used effectively.

        I know people here in Texas that believe Jesus spoke English and went from baby to young adult over the course of a week.

      • Gary Menten

        The religious people, at least most of them it seems, believe Earth is some sort of experiment by God. If this were true, given the size of our galaxy, and that our galaxy is but one of not less than 176 billion galaxies -and probably much more- then we are a very insignificant experiment.

        But why would a perfect being need to experiment at all? Why not make everything perfect from the start?

      • Will Beach

        Perfection is boring. It’s like watching someone else play a RPG on a console and never getting a turn to play.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        look up MARILYN LANGE photos and tell me perfection nis BORING

      • Gogo76

        Marilyn Lange, proof God exists? No, but… GOOD LORD! Thats heavenly.

      • aSensibleWoman

        I had to google Marilyn Lange to see if it was what I suspected. Yep. Gigantic boobs (they are so big they are ugly and they will give her horrible back pain as she ages), pointy, sticking out incisors, a scrawny neck and a lantern jaw. You boys really know how to pick ‘em. I can see you didn’t go for her brains. Men are dead from the crotch up.

      • Somebody_Else

        Perfection is a myth and an unattainable goal.
        People are genetically programmed to be sexually attracted to various features, though the specifics can vary, thus there is no single definition of beautiful. That is absolutely normal, and anyone that doesn’t have such feelings, has something wrong with them. By the way, we are rational beings, and can overcome our built in wetware in many things, including this.
        However, sexism certainly exists. It is making judgement calls based on someones sex as opposed to actual relevant information. You know, like making blanket statements that a particular gender is incapable of thinking of anything other than sex.
        For your information, I used to study in a place that had the disturbing feature of attracting college women who thought they were alone. I can tell from many undesired yet overheard conversations that sex is a definitely popular conversation among them. By the way, those conversations were far more raunchy and crude than any I ever heard when I was in groups of men talking about sex. That is my objective observation, not a judgment call. Now perhaps you should remove ‘Sensible’ from your name, as sexist insults based on unvalidated claims is never sensible. Thank you.

      • Dee

        If everything was made perfect from the start, nobody would learn anything.

      • Gary Menten

        I would argue that even in an imperfect world, those who cling desperately to dogma and mysticism are often incapable of learning anything.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        amen

      • Sean Andersen

        Dee-
        “If everything was made perfect from the start, nobody would learn anything.”

        Well we know you haven’t, that much is obvious.

      • Michael C. Thompson

        It seems you are averse to learning anything yourself.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        if GOD made man in gods “image and likeness” that’s would extrapolate into GOD has a drinking problem; does screwy stuff ( and can usually fix that) and GOD doesn’t know everything yet

      • Born2AskY

        Have you ever heard of the book “The Christian Agnostic”? Leslie Weatherhead wrote it AFTER he retired as an Episcopal Priest It starts right where your 1st paragraph did, Gary.

      • Born2AskY

        Hahaha!!! (I live in Texas, too)

      • LateNightLarry

        Of course, all those children will have to start high school over from the seventh grade in order to get in any except “religious” colleges… They won’t be qualified to even operate a cash register or hamburger grill safely.

    • maxcat07

      Go back to? They never left!

    • Danny Wade

      “…back to the dark ages. Without science that is where we would be.”

      I have to argue: we’d be in something like the dark ages but with stockpiled firearms and ammo.

      • Runawaygirl83

        With what electricity or power?

      • Danny Wade

        Without electricity OR power? :)

    • KissMyAss

      Not to worry.

      Without antibiotics and anesthesia, they’ll all be dead soon enough.

  • Mikel

    I understand their point. Evolution has its ubber strict adherants just as does Christianity or Islam. While scientific evidence tends to support Evolution it is still a theory, albeit the most logical theory we have at this time. But there are those that defend it as absolute and proven fact just as some religious zealots do their versions of Creationism. Sadly, there is nothing in Evolution, nor science in general that outright denies Creationism(despite what Evolutionary zealots argue). It is sad that “Creationist” continue to deny the probability of Evolution and “Evolutionist” deny the possibility of Creationism.

    Could our universe not be someone else’s Petrie dish?

    • Pipercat

      I’ll be over here sharpening my Hitchen’s razor…

      • Chico Gonzalez

        We got it, dude, you ain’t the only puke who knows of Hitchens…

      • Pipercat

        Well, chalk one up for education!

      • Chico Gonzalez

        Education? Don’t you wish you had one???

      • Pipercat

        Well, how juvenile of you! What’s next, ad mominems?

      • AQ

        So you’ll go denigrate a few women when you’re done here, will you?

      • Pipercat

        What the fuck are you talking about?

      • noen

        Probably the very bad but well deserved bad reputation internet atheists regarding woman’s issues. Particularly over the sexual harassment of women at skeptic conventions.

      • Pipercat

        I understand now…

        Hitchen’s razor is a philosophical instrument, attributed to Christopher Hitchens, that states: It is up to the person making an assertion to prove the assertion and not up to those who question or challenge it.

        Hitchens was a mixed bag for me, but this is spot on in any debate, argument or discussion.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Actually,, I more of a fan of Hanlon’s razor.

      • AQ

        Hitchens was a pretty virulent misogynist, which alone is enough for me to not like him.

        That being said: Hitchens’ Razor is simply another way to point out a Burden of Proof logical fallacy.

      • Pipercat

        I was not a fan of his either. The term in question has more effect and isn’t as cumbersome to use as the more exact reference.

      • Linda Armstrong

        Not as bad as the Fundamentalists.

    • wendy

      What science has outright denied about Creationism is that the world wasn’t built in the time frame that the Bible suggests – and which many Christian zealots believe to be true. There are zealots on both sides of the issue (albeit for very different reasons) and while there may be some overlapping middle ground we are not yet aware of, the science that is “proven” such as the age of the earth and life on it, is thrown into the evolutionary theory as theory and not as fact. This is the point which makes many Christians who deny Evolution Theory as stubborn and unwilling to try to incorporate the known facts with their belief system.

      So should known facts try to fit a belief system? No, that is bad science. Should belief systems adjust when theories are proven fact? Yes. If they want to remain as viable arguments for the truth about the world around us.

      • noen

        There is no overlapping ground between science and religion. Creationism is not science. It is religion. “God did it” is not an explanation at all.

      • wendy

        perhaps you missed the rest of the sentence, “we are not yet aware of”.

      • noen

        I did not miss it. Science and religion do not overlap at all. Science tries to discovery facts. Religion does not. It has already decided what the facts are. Religion does not explain anything because it doesn’t even try to explain. It just says “This is how it is and if you don’t believe you’re going to hell.”

      • wendy

        Depends on which religion. Not all religions say if you don’t believe in them then you are going to hell.

      • Chico Gonzalez

        Science tries to discover facts. No one tries to “discovery facts.” If you cannot write above a first-grade level, who the Fu&k will believe you? Please, there are clues all over the floor. Pick up at least one…

      • noen

        I corrected my spelling error several minutes ago. Sorry it didn’t get to you in time. For me I ignore errors of grammar. No one likes a grammar Nazi.

      • Chico Gonzalez

        Oh contraire, dude. Grammar is germaine to life, as it shows a lack of couth and education…

      • I Once Was Andrew

        If you’re gonna talk about other people’s grammar, try to get your spelling right so you don’t look extra stupid. It’s “au contraire” and “germane.”

      • noen

        There is no word in English called “germaine”. I think you meant “germane” .

      • Pipercat

        Ouch!!

      • dagobarbz

        ” For me I ignore errors of grammar. No one likes a grammar Nazi.”

        Liar. Your pants are burning.

      • Linda Armstrong

        Grammar structures thought. (Typos and spell check on the other hand…)

      • Linda Armstrong

        The particular religion referenced in the original post does, indeed, say that. Not all do. Buddhism does not. Mysticism (in every religion) does not. Religions, like governments, are cultural power structures and there are many. They are as varied as snowflakes. Religions are built upon spirituality, a powerful and universal aspect of the human psyche. Spirituality is closely related to creativity and imagination, which are, indeed, vital to science.The workings of the mind, including the mind that does science, are far from fully understood. To dismiss science is unspeakably absurd, but if you try to dismiss intuition and creativity, you will suffer.

      • Chico Gonzalez

        The “time frame” suggested in the Bible is allegorical. How long was a “day” during the biblical creation story? The Bible references many stretches of ‘forty days,’ such as the Flood, Jesus’ time in the desert, etc. It was the ancient Jewish way of saying “an extended, unknown period of time.” The Genesis story was written for a group of people who could not possibly have conceived of a Million years, let alone a Billion. It was couched in terms they could comprehend, and they were probably aware that “forty days” meant a long, unknown amount of time.

      • wendy

        I agree that 40 days was allegorical (although some literalists may disagree). I am talking about the 4,000 or so years that have been calculated by backtracking the generations through the descendents since Adam and Eve.

      • Chico Gonzalez

        The problem there is one of perception, and the 4000 years you speak of are a product of said literalists. If a day of creation was not a literal day, what of Methusala’s supposed 969 year life span? Or, if the literalists are correct, why did people live longer back then?

      • Linda Armstrong

        It’s poetry. You know, metaphors.

      • Linda Armstrong

        You aren’t serious.

      • noen

        This does not help you any. Even if we take the Bible’s account in Genesis as being very long periods of time IT IS STILL WRONG.

      • Linda Armstrong

        Of course, but who cares? It doesn’t matter what other people believe, as long as they don’t try to shove their beliefs down your throat or insert poetry into a science curriculum. They should be aware that children are smarter than they are.

      • Linda Armstrong

        This is just sad. Our educational system has failed.

      • Mikel

        Yes and no. Our technology is advancing at such a rate that what is “proven” today may be disproven or at least adjusted in 100 or even just 50yrs. As always our knowledge is limited to our level of technology. And while a religion must remain viable, certain truths must remain constant, mostly in regards to human nature. The problem is making the required differentiation.

    • noen

      “Evolution has its ubber strict adherants just as does Christianity or Islam.”

      No it doesn’t. Evolution is not a religion. Evolution is not “just a theory”. And yes it really is both a fact and a *scientific* theory. It is not just a guess. And no you are WRONG that science has nothing to say about creationism. Creationism or Intelligent Design are NOT SCIENCE. You are making a false equivalence between between RELIGION and science. They are not the same kinds of things.

      • dagobarbz

        It IS a “theory,’ but in the context of scientific observation, not like “I have a theory that my car gets better mileage downhill.”

        Scientific theory =/= Joe Sixpack’s notions

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        People often confuse a working scientific theory with an untested hypothesis. And it’s not the same as religion either, seeing as how, if we discover new evidence, the theory changes to accomodate the incorporation of the new data, whereas religion mostly can’t. Fanatical religious people can’t stand to have new facts pop up and prove the old info wrong, science welcomes it and is totally jazzed to find out.

      • Linda Armstrong

        I can’t believe we are having this medieval discussion in 2013. Maybe it’s the 13 (winks)

      • Linda Armstrong

        That is true. Genesis is poetry. It is beautiful. Science is beautiful, too. The notion that paleontology, physics, and biology can be dismissed because a small group of people cannot fathom the concept of abstract language is terrifying.

      • Mikel

        Thank you all for proving my point.

        Noen, you just said Evolution is both fact and theory. But if it is indeed proven fact, it no longer needs to be referred to as a theory. Yet it is still the Theory of Evolution, yes? If something IS fact, you no longer need to prove it do you. Yet scientist are still seeking pieces of the puzzle are they not? Esp in regards to mans evolution.

      • Pipercat

        What point would that be? This Petri dish nonsense? If that’s your point, you have no point. Can you prove this metaphorical petri dish exists? I’ll answer that for you: No you can’t. Your just positing this nonsense in a feckless and fallacious attempt to undermine the science involved. Your arguments, or lack thereof, are not only fallacious, they’re based on a total lack of understanding about how the scientific method works.

      • Mikel

        Lol, again, point proven. The Petrie dish bit was a joke, but not beyond the realm of possibilty, however improbable.

      • Pipercat

        No, you haven’t proved anything. I understand your metaphorical joke and it’s still unmitigated bullshit. You can’t prove the Petri dish exists. So, it is not possible; it is only speculation.

      • Mikel

        And ten years ago, we couldn’t “prove” the expansiveness of our universe could we? But Hubble recently did, yes? Again, our knowledge is limited by our level of technology. Just because we are unable to “prove” something now doesn’t mean we wont in the future. Nor does it mean that we will. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t most theories begin as “speculation”? With out it science would be dead in the water.

      • Pipercat

        Actually, it’s called a hypothesis. It’s based on initial observations and is formulated with what is already known. Consider yourself corrected. Your notions are based on pure speculation since there is no evidence of, nor is there any existing science to support your claims. I would also point out that your Hubble example is completely incorrect since cosmology and theoretical physics predicted the outcome and the deep field and UDF ultimately supported the hypothesis. It’s why they pointed the telescope in those particular directions in the first place. You basically shot yourself in the foot without knowing you did so. The rest of your argument is not based on what is provable, but is based on you tell me I’m wrong. Furthermore, asserting we will do something in the future that will prove something now is just plain nonsense. It’s called the “burden of proof” fallacy. All you have to do is prove your assertion, but you see, you can’t, so you assert fantasy as fact and attempt to force a challenge to disprove the fantasy.

      • missdk

        No, that is not what law vs theory means. Gravity and atoms are facts but yet we have gravitational and electron theory. Educate yourself on the difference.

      • ThinkRationally

        It will always be referred to as a theory. Always. You apparently don’t know the proper definition of a scientific theory. It is not a mid-level rung on a hierarchy. There is nothing above a theory to which to promote one, no matter how solid it becomes, no matter how irrefutable the evidence becomes. It gets so tiring reading these types of comments, which could be resolved with a 30 second search and a little reading.

        Creationism isn’t even a scientific hypothesis, unless you can come up with a way to test it or falsify it. Creationism is just an idea. There is no comparison to evolution in that regard.

      • Mikel

        Please reread the last paragraph of the above comment.

      • ThinkRationally

        I read it, and I’m glad you are not making a false equivalency. I was, however, furthering my point about what a scientific theory is by also mentioning a hypothesis, which I guess could be considered a lower rung on the ladder. Sorry for maybe refuting a point you never made, but my central point was the misuse/misunderstanding of the definition of a scientific theory.

      • Linda Armstrong

        Well stated

      • Mikel

        No problem and I like the ladder analogy.

    • Chico Gonzalez

      Mikel, you misunderstand the use of the word ‘theory’ when applied to science.

      “When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that
      something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a
      theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation,
      and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a
      general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.”

      Evolution is a proven fact.

    • Bill_Clement

      Yeah, gravity’s a theory, as well. If you don’t know the first thing about scientific method; please don’t comment as if you do. Go back to school and learn science.

      • Chico Gonzalez

        If you think theories are not certain, then by all means, disregard the ‘theory’ of gravity. Jump yer but out of that tenth storey window. Make out your will first…

    • James Degenhardt

      I think you’re confused on the meaning of “theory.” A theory is something that can be tested, to show whether the idea is plausible. Conjecture, on the other hand, is an idea that cannot be tested, but must be believed or disbelieved on faith alone.

      So, the evolution of the universe as we are taught is a theory. It can be tested. It can be shown to be plausible.

      The existence of a divine being is conjecture. There is no test to show that God exists or does not exist.

      • Linda Armstrong

        I do agree with you. I think the Fundamentalists are ridiculous. I think many Christians have lost their way. That said, define your terms.

    • I Once Was Andrew

      Everything about this is wrong, but especially “there is nothing in evolution, nor science in general that outright denies creationism.” In fact, science and creationism are wholly incompatible.

      • Linda Armstrong

        Well, of course, I do agree with you. (Have you visited the site of the Creationism Museum? You must! It’s hilarious.) That said, if you go beyond the silliness and define god, then it could be The Unifying Theory–most definitely not anthropomorphic and most definitely not residing in any heaven, unless heaven is defined as everywhere and everything– and that would reconcile them.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      No, the very definition of science means coming up with an idea, testing it to see if it’s true or false, and changing your conclusions when more information becomes available. Evolutionists do not deny the possibility of Creation nor do we think they are incompatible. “God created everything in seven days” isn’t to be taken literally. Seven “days” could just as easily be seven “billion years.”

      • Mikel

        Exactly! Someone gets it. Thank you. However, if you read most of the replies to my statement, you will find that there are people that have similar attitudes towards both religion and science in that they consider any alternative or variation automatically wrong.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I’ve heard some scientists say the more knowledge they gain, the more it reinforces their belief in a higher power. I think there are far more religious types than scientists willing to dismiss alternatives as “automatically wrong.”

    • dagobarbz

      It’s really hard not to view it like that. If we are someone else’s Petrie dish, and if I were one of the observers taking notes, I would note here that, at this particular point in time, humanity is finally beginning to throw off the yoke of superstitious nonsense for the first time in the development of societies. At some point, the other power; the wealthy who influence government will decide to throw religion under the bus and assume the mantle of power alone.

      I’d also note that, at this point in time, certain people seem determined to permanently destroy the earth for profit; something we find excruciatingly stupid, as you sort of need this planet to live on.

      And speaking of your teeming hordes, 6 billion and climbing, stupidly and mindlessly reproducing, as all species will when unchallenged, until they crash their environment.

      I would add here that international corporations are poised to seize control of water and food supplies. And when that happens, if it’s allowed to happen, humanity is boned until something drastic occurs to shake it up.

      My final note would be a plea to come pick me up, because this planet of psychotic hominids is no longer very entertaining.

    • Angela Walker

      Don’t be silly, Mikel. The “evolution is only a theory” argument is used only by people who don’t understand either evolution or scientific methods. Read a book, pookie. :D

    • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

      Wrong. If you adhere to science and scientific method, you have to be prepared for the possibility, however much evidence there is to support it, could be disproved in part or in whole by some new discovery. Evolution does not have uber strict adherents. It’s simply that the massive body of scientifically conducted research into the matter since “The Origin Of Species” was originally published has generally backed up Darwin’s observations.

      “In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a
      really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would
      actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them
      again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should,
      because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it
      happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that
      happened in politics or religion.”

      Car Sagan

      • Mikel

        Absolutely correct. However, iirc, there have been times when the scientific community at large has denied things that were later proven correct. Even at that, my issue is not with scientists so much as other “laymen” like myself that will deny any alternative/variation based solely on someone else’s say so. And just as vehemently as any religious zealot.

      • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

        “There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That’s perfectly
        all right; they’re the aperture to finding out what’s right. Science is a
        self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the
        most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. ”

        Sagan again,

      • Mikel

        Exactly, but even that which is “accepted” can be wrong. Otherwise we may still be thinking non whites were somehow inferior. Which of course they are not. But that was once the going theory was it not?

      • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

        It was only the reasoning among whites, I am pretty sure, though not that I am aware of, a published scientific theory. If it was, it was falsifiable and easily so,

        But as I earlier mentioned, everyone who adheres to science has to be prepared that we may discover something tomorrow that may disprove any theory we we currently accept.

      • Linda Armstrong

        The gradual development of life through eons of geologic time is not going to be proven wrong. That’s ridiculous.

      • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

        Of course it’s not going to be proven wrong. My point is that the rigourous testing of falsifiable hypotheses by scientific means is what makes science a science a self-correcting process.

      • Linda Armstrong

        Oh, yes, of course.

      • Linda Armstrong

        I would like to know how these folks even define “evolution”. Their notions seem, according to what I can see at the Creationism Museum site (good for a giggle–when this all dies down, as it inevitably will, I wonder what they will do with it–but I digress) that they think the avian dinosaur fossils and early mammal fossils are some kind of trick. Maybe they believe in dragons, which is kinda cool, actually. (winks)

      • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

        First off, they tend to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, which are two different processes. Second, they don’t seem to believe that evolution takes place and that everything as it exists today is exactly as it was created by the creator.

        Some will rigidly cling to a timeline of 6000 years and claim that dinosaur skeletons are the remains of beasts escaped from hell, while others, like that idiot Marco Rubio will claim that the Earth was created by God, 4 billion years ago. However this version fails to give any explanation why God would create the world 4 billion years ago and not bother to create humans for for 3,999,900,000 years, then ignore them for another 95,000 years, only to choose one backwards lot as his favorite and settle them in one of the few places in the Middle East that doesn’t have any oil.

        When confronted with these questions, they’ll all simply shrug and say it’s pointless to try to understand God’s plan for us.

      • Linda Armstrong

        Good summary, from what I gather.

      • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

        One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled
        long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no
        longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured
        us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that
        we’ve been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the
        new bamboozles rise.) [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]

      • Linda Armstrong

        Love it : ). So you take pictures? Me too.

      • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

        Yes, I’m a photographer.

    • Linda Armstrong

      Remember the argument in Inherit the Wind? How long was the first day? There was no sun. Pretty soon they won’t let us teach poetry either. Someone might understand that language can be abstract. Gasp.

    • Mikel

      Lol, you all misunderstand me. I am a proponent of Evolution. It is the best theory, model, etc. that we have at this time. Hel, I saw proof enough of Evolution as I watched my daughter grow in utero. I also know that our knowledge is generally limited to our level of technology. What we know today may be set on its head tomorrow. Or it may be better confirmed.

      I DO NOT believe Creation should be taught as science in any form. But I don’t write creation stories, in general, off as complete nonsense either as many of them seem to have bits and pieces that our science today verifies. One minor verification doesn’t make any whole story true however. Most creation myths are actually “Origin” stories about where a tribe came from geographically. Or at least thats my hypothesis.

  • Bill_Clement

    Have you not been reading the news or following on facebook? This is not new. These idiots are everywhere; even in Congress.

    • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

      I guess if it’s good enough for the Inquisition, it’s good enough for Congress.

    • Andy Done

      This will however shut them up for awhile once the court hands down the decision we know is coming. So it is a good thing they are suing here.

      • TheLump

        Unfortunately, I don’t think it will shut them up for even a little bit. Once it’s shot down (again), they’re only going to vocalize about how unfair and biased the ruling was and how they’ll fight harder the next time. I wish it would, but history says otherwise.

      • John Crowley

        History? The school stuff that refuses to give theistic explanations for why things happened on the past? Onbviously a nonfaith-based and therefore illegal and unconstitutional course of study. And it’s so much easier to think without it!

      • Linda Armstrong

        No literature either.

      • TheLump

        Curses, you’ve tied me up with that point! lol

      • Linda Armstrong

        You have a point.

    • Jerry L. Young II

      And don’t you think its silly that those ones in Congress don’t just get the job, but are put there by us? We vote them in and then complain about them. Find young progressive people that want to do positive things and promote them for office. Have them start at the city or state level and move up, that’s what I am going to do. It’ll be pretty rough since I live in the area that things like this happen daily, but I want my kids and grandkids to have a decent life.

      • monsieur

        The problem is that the government has become a boy’s club. No average joe can become a successful politician. you need money, connections, and a concern about re-election, rather than a concern for the well being of the country.

      • LL11

        “you need money, connections, and a concern about re-election, rather than a concern for the well being of the country.”

        One of the most succinct and accurate sentences about current politics I’ve ever read.

      • Dianna Davids

        Not so simple because they gerrymander the districts to keep themselves in power.

      • Somebody_Else

        We didn’t really put them in office. Rather, the ones that snuck in earlier have rigged the system so that we have to chose between Worthless Party Chum 1 and Worthless Party Chump 2. Nobody else can possibly win, especially not someone that would be worthwhile, so we spend our votes desperately trying to choose the lesser evil based on the limited information and outright lies they told us.
        It’s not that much different than the old Soviet elections where you could vote for This communist party chump, or That communist party chump. Either way, it’s still a party communist party chump.
        We need a serious change of our entire election process, but the only ones who can make that change, are the ones that benefit from the current one. It’s obvious they will never allow it.

  • James Degenhardt

    So if we can’t teach theology, and can’t teach science, what are we supposed to teach ?

    If we can’t teach that a divine being created the universe, and can’t teach scientific theories about the universe’s formation, what would they have us teach ? There’s nothing left.

    • Pipercat

      That’s easy for these folks, the women can go to homemaking class and the men to the auto shop!

      • Chico Gonzalez

        And in da auto chop they can chop onions fer da casserole!!

      • Pipercat

        They just wipe their hands on the inside of the baking dish…

      • Chico Gonzalez

        Personally, I wipes me ‘ands on the instructor’s hooters, assuming, of course, that she is a she. I do have a sure-fire way of determining the sex of a teacher………

      • Pipercat

        You sound a bit preoccupied…

    • noen

      We can teach science because it is TRUE. We can teach *about* the world’s religions but it is immoral to indoctrinate children in public schools. It is permissible, but I think unwise, to indoctrinate one’s own children in a private school. Teaching science is not indoctrination because to indoctrinate means to “teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.” Which is not what science does.

  • Really Kansas?

    This is why we can’t have anything nice…

    • Chico Gonzalez

      Well now, hang on there, little buckaroo, I have many nice things, and I’ll bet you do, too! You are typing on a computer, so that is nice. That means you are alive and can afford a computer!! WTF else do you want out of life? HUH!!??!! You gots all the f&*&7ng NICE you need, ya Godd%%%ed whiner!!!

      • Angela Walker

        Chico is none too bright. Poor thing :D

      • huh

        what the actual fuck

      • Ellen H.

        I feel sorry for your inability to get humor.

      • lol

        hahahahaha chico you’re insane

  • dagobarbz

    You’re a Christian? That means you subscribe the the belief that there is some supernatural Sky Daddy out there with nothing better to do than watch every single person on earth and judge them.

    Therefore, whatever your views, they are not valid in my book. I feel sorry for children being raised by superstitious primitives. That includes you, science or not, you’re still no more evolved than the people who hurled their newborns down the flaming throat of a Moloch idol.

    • AQ

      “That means you subscribe the the belief that there is some supernatural Sky Daddy out there with nothing better to do than watch every single person on earth and judge them.”

      Or it could mean that he believes in helping out his fellow man, paying his taxes, and not being a dick (unlike, apparently, you).

      Gee, what a concept.

      • I Once Was Andrew

        What does helping out your fellow man, paying your taxes and not being a dick have to do with believing in god, besides nothing?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Some of the people who loudly proclaim to believe in God also act like dicks.

      • noen

        And some atheists are dicks too. “Dickishness” doesn’t change facts though but it is politically counter productive.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And most scientists I’ve known aren’t dicks. They are open-minded.

      • Linda Armstrong

        I agree! They are also literate.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Exactly, just because we are atheist doesn’t mean we are incapable of ass-hattery. Being a dick is not either religious OR secular, it exists in both spheres. And considering what the author wrote, his christian-ness is better than your atheism, as he isn’t being an asshole about it, he’s making every effort to NOT be a judgmental prick.

      • AQ

        You clearly missed my point–Jesus’ teachings are, despite what some would claim, specifically non-judgemental, and they boil down to “don’t be a dick, pay your taxes, and help your fellow man”.

        dagobarbz made claims about what the writer’s beliefs are. I countered, based on what the figure known as Jesus actually is claimed to have said, rather than what others said in his name.

        I’ll be glad to draw you a picture if you like.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        My nephew sent me a picture of Moses (Charleton Heston) with the 10 Commandments tablets, except there were only two:
        Be Cool
        Don’t be an A$$hole.

        Sums it up nicely.

      • dagobarbz

        Be excellent to each other…
        –Wyld Stallions

      • dagobarbz

        Draw us a picture of how asshole Christians have given the entire set a bad image. Extra points for oppression of women and hatred of homosexuals. Include an essay on how creationism is like some sort of parallel sciency thing that relies on truthiness in your heart for its benchmark of reality.

        Here is a crayon. Don’t ram it up your nose this time.

      • Linda Armstrong

        These folks are clearly not going to qualify for Mensa, but you don’t have to be rude. That is stooping to their level and giving them ammunition.

      • AQ

        You have clearly mistaken me for a Christian. Perhaps you are the one who needs the crayon, not me.

      • dagobarbz

        Not once in my reply did I ever accuse you of being a Christian.

        Now I’m wondering cuz you have that christy ability to read a paragraph and then pull an interpretation of it right out of your imaginative nethers!

      • I Once Was Andrew

        Does anyone really need Jesus to tell them “don’t be a dick, pay your taxes (because a full third of The Lord Our God’s main points were about paying your taxes, apparently?) and help your fellow man”?

        It’s a fact that you can’t sidestep that Christians cop to believing in god, and the god that they believe in is a supernatural humanoid who lives in heaven. And Jesus certainly made plenty of statements in the Bible on ultimate judgment, as dagobarz noted, and trying to brush them to the side in order to prop up your own inane argument doesn’t make them go away.

      • Linda Armstrong

        I thought He said “Judge not lest thou be judged.” That is, by the way, excellent spiritual technology. It will free your creative spirit if you follow it. His teachings were about freeing your soul from imprisonment by others. That, by the way, is why the Romans found him threatening. It amuses me that many who call themselves Christians are striving for the opposite, ignoring their own impasses and trying to control every detail of the lives of total strangers.

      • I Once Was Andrew

        He did say that (at least, according to the Bible, which is not much of a historical authority — but for our purposes here, we’ll assume that Jesus was a real person who existed and said most of the things that are attributed to him in the New Testament). However, that applies only to people judging other people — god, to the authors of the Bible, is above judgment. In this case, dagobarz was talking about god judging people, so “judge not, lest ye be judged” is not relevant here.

        It is, however, a good rule to live by, albeit one that people can come up with on their own without needing that whole Jesus bullshit.

      • Linda Armstrong

        You are limiting yourself by accepting a simplistic, concrete image of God. I suggest that you explore Eastern religions, especially those from India for a more subtle and abstract definition. (One that fits current astrophysics, by the way.) Some people do not understand abstraction and need something warmer to hold on to. If you do not, why begrudge them as they would begrudge you?

      • I Once Was Andrew

        We’re discussing Christianity here. What do Eastern religions have to do with this? Exploring Eastern religions is not going to make the Bible any truer.

        If you want to say that “God” is the laws of physics and chemistry or that the universe is “God,” be my guest. But know that what you’re saying is entirely beside the point.

      • Linda Armstrong

        The original post is not about Christianity. It is about a particular narrow sect, Evangelical Fundamentalism. The concept of God is not unique to Christianity. Every religion comes at it differently like the blind man and the elephant (a Sufi mystical story)

      • I Once Was Andrew

        Are you being purposefully dense? You entered a conversation about Christianity and Christian creationism, and your argument is “but look at other people’s definition of god — it’s different!” Well, no shit, Sherlock. That’s a great fact that everyone already knew, but this discussion you entered is about the Christian definitions of “god” and “creation.”

      • Linda Armstrong

        Every religion, including Christianity, has many levels. One of those levels is mysticism. People operating on varying levels of intellectual abstraction perceive religion in different ways just as every creature on the planet sees a different world. None is wrong. Each is different. .

      • curt1124

        “Judge not lest thou be judged” is one of the most often misquoted passages of the Bible. Matthew 7:1 says “Judge not that ye be not judged”, i. e., if you judge others, on judgement day you will not be invited to the queue of invitees waiting to be favorably judged to gain passage through the Pearly Gates.

      • Linda Armstrong

        What I quoted has helped me become a freer, fuller person. What you quoted would be limiting in the extreme and contrary to spirituality. (Certainly fits religion–but that is a power hierarchy and is also contrary to spirituality.) If it works for you and those around you are willing to put up with it, that’s fine. It certainly wouldn’t work for me.

      • curt1124

        I don’t disagree with you. My only point was that the quote you chose, a religious one from the Bible, was a misquote. I believe more evil in the world has been done in the name of religion rather than vanquished by it and that organized religion gets in the way of a true spiritual beingness.

      • Linda Armstrong

        There are different translations and different interpretations of many passages in the Bible.

      • curt1124

        Which is one of the reasons I have trouble with the fundamentalists such as this Kansas group who are trying to supplant science with faith. “Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) How can you prove anything without science?

      • Linda Armstrong

        When you are right, you are right, and you are right. (winks)

      • Linda Armstrong

        Actually, Curt, I do agree with that. As I said, religions are power hierarchies.I think we have reached a consensus.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        ::facedesk::

      • Linda Armstrong

        They’re hopeless, Rebecca. : ) Nice to meet you, though.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        AQ, you are A-OK! :)

      • Talon

        Jesus also said “”Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34.

      • Linda Armstrong

        Okay, I’ll play. For whom? How do you know it is not you? (winks)
        (And what is a sword in thought?)

      • Talon

        Lets cut the crap. Jesus cannot even be proven to have existed, let alone him being a god.

      • DoctorButler

        Because atheists are the same thing as libertarians, who are selfish and wish to abolish taxes. I never would have learned this had it not been for the internet.

      • Linda Armstrong

        LOL. Learn something every day, and don’t forget, Tebow is the greatest QB ever because his mom didn’t have an abortion. (rolls eyes)

      • dagobarbz

        Ah, I see you qualified your whole flawed attack with “apparently.” It’s still really really weak. Flamers who make unfounded accusations rarely get picked for “quote of the month.”

      • Angela Walker

        And dago goes on the defensive, realizing he doesn”t have a leg to stand on he attacks rather than coming up with a genuine, rational defense of his actions.

      • dagobarbz

        that’s the ‘offensive,’ you silly goose. When I make a negative statement about something, like flamers who post their sick fantasies about other posters, that’s not defensive. Clear?

      • Angela Walker

        Ever notice how some people go on the offensive as a defensive act? I did. Just now. And “sick fantasies”? No one needs fantasies with you, pookie, You’re very clear, very angry, upset to be caught with your pants down. Very clear.

      • dagobarbz

        You’re funny. You really think you can get into my head? I’m angry? Upset? LOL no. I do this for fun. I like enturbulating the pinks and I sure do appreciate your cooperation. Your display was quite amusing, like you think you’re The Amazing Kreskin, mind reader extraordinaire. Only you’re not, and 100% wrong in your assessment.

        I’m sure you’d love to imagine me sitting here all red-faced and infuriated, but I assure you I am only snickering gently at you.

      • Linda Armstrong

        You really are angry. I know this is fun, but it does seem to be tapping into an emotional magma chamber. Don’t say anything here, but think about how you were hurt by someone who was both controlling and religious. This anger is hurting you on some level and may be holding you back. For God’s sake don’t go to church (winks) but meditation is good. Even scientists, doctors, and medical students do it.

      • Kayleigh Herbertson

        *hugs*

        I don’t agree with what you’re saying but I wanted to hug you because I think you might be a bit depressed :) Chin up hun!

      • dagobarbz

        Everybody’s a profiler these days. Back off, Huggy!

      • Kayleigh Herbertson

        Never! :D

      • Linda Armstrong

        Sounds very defensive to me. You seem to feel you are being attacked and are lashing out, calling people names. I am on your side, but you are making us look bad.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Exactly, the author was saying that, even as a christian, he respects science and thinks this crap is nutty too! I’m an atheist, I generally have a problem with the concept of religion, but not with a person being reasonable and intelligent and respectful of non-religious people pointing out that some warped stuff is going down and that reason and logic need to win the day. THAT’S EVERYTHING I’VE EVER WANTED FROM A RELIGIOUS PERSON!!!! But yeah, be a douchebag jerk to the guy for being self-aware and rational, why the **** would we want THAT?? ::facedesk::

      • redscream5

        He’s speaking to those things that are unique to Christianity.

        You are not. You are talking about things that are secular by nature.

      • Talon

        Religion does not cause a person to pay his taxes or to refrain from being an asshole. Religion just means that the person subscribes to a group of ideas (myths mostly) that a larger portion of society also subscribes to. Religions aren’t any different than a cult save the amount of people involved.

    • noen

      This is uncalled for. This is a political progressive blog and you are just going to have to accept the fact that there will always be people of some kind of faith or another in the Democratic Party. Your attitude is counter productive. Stop being such a flaming asshole and you might find that your *political* objectives are easier to achieve.

      • James Ingram

        As long as the objectives are political and not personal.

    • Debbie Lass

      the authors religious views has nothing to do with the validity of his article. Science does in fact require guidelines and rules by which it follows that makes its findings more valid. There is more ability to prove scientific fact than there is belief in a supernatural. That still reigns true whether this author was an atheist or a Christian. Your hate for believers tells me youre an atheist, so let me ask this, since you feel you are more intelligent than those who are not atheist, do you believe evolution has anything to do with religion and violates the separation of church and state? IT seems to me you are just using an attack on religion to avoid giving an intelligent response to what the article was about.

      • dagobarbz

        If religious views have nothing to do with it, why announce your affiliation before writing your statement? I didn’t bring it up.

      • noen

        It’s not your blog. It’s his and he gets to say what he believes. Again… it is not in yours or my best interests to be a jerk to other Democrats over religion. Go to /r/atheism for that. I want to win elections and this is not how you go about doing that. You can correct errors without being a total jerk. I have not pulled any punches with people in this thread over evolution. But I think I have not alienated any fellow democrats. I don’t want to because…. again,,, I like winning elections.

      • AQ

        There are always going to be assholes like dagobarbz, whose e-penii are so small that they can only make themselves feel better by 1) putting words in the mouths of others and 2) being seeping fistulae on the ass-end of society.

      • dagobarbz

        Wow, did you write that all by yourself? And wow, ‘fistulae.’ I’m impressed by your ability to use a dictionary. And spell czech.

      • dagobarbz

        It’s not my blog but it is published on a public forum. So I get to say what I think too.

        And “other Democrats?” What the hell makes you think I’m a democrat?

      • Linda Armstrong

        Oh, don’t worry, few would confuse you with a Democrat. In fact, I am beginning to suspect that you are actually an Evangelical. The level of argument is similarly shallow, emotionally-based, and immature.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        SWEET, another intelligent mind recognizing the value of respect for people who are being respectful themselves!!!

      • Angela Walker

        Feeble attempt at backtracking and covering your ass, dago. Just accept responsibility for your bad behavior. Take it like a man :D

      • dagobarbz

        What the ef are you talking about? Again, and I will type this verry slow so you can follow, he announced “I’m a Christian.” Okay? Had he not, I would have said nothing about it. He opened the door. I just wandered in. Clear?

      • SomeBloke

        The author is obviously not a Christian, so don’t worry about it. It was merely announced in an attempt to hijack some credibility on the issue.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Bullshit, I am calling shenanigans on that heap of junk right there. I have known many christians who say much the same thing and really DO believe, however possibly misguided they might be, in god and jesus and all that. Just because something logical, rational and intelligent was said does NOT prove it wasn’t from a christian, it proves it wasn’t from an asshole.

      • SomeBloke

        You’re cute.

      • Linda Armstrong

        Hey, wait a minute. Evangelical fundamentalists have hijacked the term “Christian.” Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Unitarians, Lutherans, (I could go on) are all Christians, and most of them are not Evangelical fundamentalists. Most of them are very intelligent and a good number do, gasp, science.

      • Angela Walker

        Ah, the good old reliable “I’ll pretend to be talking to a child in an attempt to make it look like I wasn’t behaving like one”. Dang, dago, you’re hitting all the good (old but good) internet comment section tropes.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        You’re awesome.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        So that gives you the right to persecute him for it? Do you not see the irony? STOP MAKING US LOOK LIKE ASSHOLES!!!!

      • Linda Armstrong

        I think he may be doing that on purpose. We don’t know him or what he really believes.

      • Linda Armstrong

        I think you are too, and not only a Christian, but also a member of that hyper-emotional minority you pretend to attack.

      • Debbie Lass

        The author stated “Now I’m a Christian, but to know that there are people who view science equally as proven as their religion is absolutely terrifying”. The purpose of stating they were Christian was because automatically some might, because of his view, think he wasn’t Christian and dismiss him for that very fact much the way you dismissed him just because he stated he WAS Christian. He was trying to let someone who may dismiss him as not “getting it” because they assumed he wasn’t Christian that he in fact IS Christian and in fact DOES get it and still had the view that he did. I thought you were a little brighter than this dagobarbz that even you could pick up on that.

      • Debbie Lass

        The point of my original posting was that just because he IS Christian doesn’t mean what he stated was untrue. There is validity to what he stated. It is sophomoric to dismiss whats easily validated by others not Christian just because he is Christian and you find that to be foolish to be a believer.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        FINALLY, reason and decency. Could my fellow atheists please stop proving all the negative things people say about us correct, please? There’s a difference for defending your views and demanding proof when wild claims are made and just being an aggro douche-tard, giving a reasonable person shit just to get off on being nasty…

      • Linda Armstrong

        You don’t know that this person is really an atheist. He (? probably, but we really know nothing for sure) is certainly going out of his way to be obnoxious. What could the motive be? Hmm. I wonder. Some of these evangelicals are VERY immature and all of them are very emotional.

    • Kourtni

      whoa there
      THIS is why people have such a negative view of atheists.
      I’m an atheist, so don’t assume that I’m attacking you for your atheism, because I’m obviously not.
      However, you are just being plain rude and disrespectful based off of nothing other than someone else’s personal beliefs which they very clearly are not pushing onto other people. You have no right to sit behind your computer screen and look down on people for their views on things that have absolutely no effect on you whatsoever.
      Grow up and stop being such an ass.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Thank you for existing.

      • Linda Armstrong

        I agree! That said, grow up is the operative advice. We don’t know how old people are.

    • Sean Maddox

      You’re being a total ass, and no better than bible thumping Christians. It’s not your place to tell others or demeans them for whatever spiritual belief they have. Isn’t this the very thing Atheists scream about all the time, persecution from those religious types? I’m glad to see you have evolved past those dimwitted spiritual types and don’t persecuting others because they hold a belief you don’t agree in. Oh wait.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Yes it is the same thing, and as an atheist, I appologize for the morons. We get ‘em too…

      • Linda Armstrong

        That’s true, in fact so true, I am beginning to hear Bible-thumping in his posts. Motivation?

      • missdk

        To be fair, being an ass in the comments is completely different than religious types imposing their religion upon others and institutional discrimination against non-believers. But yes, it’s not his place to demean and I hate when atheists (small “a”) freak out at the mention of religion.

    • Rebecca Anne Inkster

      Trolls trolling along trollifically…

    • DoctorButler

      Alright, how about you and your fedora go back to Reddit?

    • Linda Armstrong

      Wait a minute. I understand what you mean, especially in the face of this Evangelical fervor (to which the post’s writer most emphatically does not subscribe), but you are discounting a very important, real, and universal dimension of human psychology. I suggest you read the works of Carl Jung and The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James.

    • Gregory Brown

      For your information, meathead, many scientists who do evolutionary research go to church on Sundays. Their minds are open enough to hold both ideas at the same time.

    • Chaucers Left Testicle

      Christians, other theists and atheists are discussing things politely and respectfully here, which is part of the solution to so many of the world’s problems.

      Run along now, and let them continue being decent and productive without your acidic bile.

      Signed,

      Me (I’m a pandeist btw, in case you wanted to pigeon-hole and insult me)

      • Linda Armstrong

        I love your handle : )

      • Chaucers Left Testicle

        Why, thank you. =)

  • John Perez

    I’m gona go out on a limb here and agree with the morons on this one. The reason being that scientist are payed big bucks to play devils advocate. They use educated assumptions to explain the unknown, which is logical but not always the truth. WHAT IF… in the future we find out that we were placed here by our alien ancestors in attempt to salvage what was left over from from a dying planet in the hope that we would do better on this one? Now that would mean evolution still took place but not here, and both the scientific and religious theories would be correct, more or less. So with that said, I would have science classes teach evolution as an ideology in a shortened version along with any other theories that might be out there until there is some actual evidence. I’m kinda tired of scientist saying the world is flat or we have 9 planets and then reneging on the idea only to recreate the wheel every time new evidence is found. The real problem here is not what is right or wrong. It’s our inability as human beings to simply say “I don’t know.”

    • noen

      “They use educated assumptions to explain the unknown” — Wrong. Science is not based on assumptions. It is based on observations or facts and then theorizes from those facts.

      “Now that would mean evolution still took place but not here” — Wrong. Even if life on Earth originated by panspermia (or aliens) evolution still took place here.

      “and both the scientific and religious theories would be correct, more or less.” — Wrong. Religion has no theories at all. Religion does not *explain* facts, it decrees what the facts are.

      “I would have science classes teach evolution as an ideology in a
      shortened version along with any other theories that might be out there” — Science is not an ideology and there are no other competing scientific theories that can explain the facts evolution can explain.

      “I’m kinda tired of scientist saying the world is flat or we have 9
      planets and then reneging on the idea only to recreate the wheel every time new evidence is found.” — I’m pretty sure no scientists have reneged on the fact that the Earth is round. What counts as a planet is just a question of definitions. So down grading Pluto from a planet changes no scientific facts about Pluto.

      “It’s our inability as human beings to simply say “I don’t know.”” — We do know some things but scientists are hardly reluctant to say they don’t know something. Not knowing the answer is the motivation for science in the first place. It is religion, not science, that claims to know without first trying to investigate and see what the facts really are.

    • I Once Was Andrew

      WHAT IF… you actually learned something about science instead of making wild, unfounded claims about it?

    • Linda Armstrong

      We can see creatures adapting to new situations right now. Through new digs, we are gaining more information about avian dinosaurs and early mammals. The history of the development of the creatures we see on the planet now and the continuously changing landscapes they inhabit is beyond miraculous. People who try to withhold such wonders from their children will suffer the fate of the parents who hid all the spinning wheels in the kingdom. Use the brain God gave you.

  • Adam Karp

    Just don’t get sick– they’ll use science on you.

  • Matthew Reece

    There is faith, and then there is stupidity. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. What these people advocate is belief despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is stupidity.

    • Linda Armstrong

      They have a very shallow, pedantic set of beliefs that does not admit the possibility of poetry (metaphor). They have not studied the history of their holy book or of the evolution (yes) of beliefs within the Church over the course of centuries.

      • Peter

        Hmm, yes, shallow and pedantic.

    • Lyola M Roeske Shafer

      Very well put. I plan to steal your phrasing. Thank you.

  • PatrickR

    Keep your people stupid and you can rule them forever!

  • Pingback: Just for Mark….()

  • JLWAwesomesauce

    To quote Futurama:
    “I don’t understand evolution, and I have to protect my kids from understanding it! We will not give in to the thinkers!”

    But seriously, what else do these people want to teach? That if you sail too far into the ocean you’ll fall off the end of the earth?

  • Linda Armstrong

    The comforting thing about children is that they seldom follow the lead of extremist parents. Sooner or later, they rebel. Think about the people you know and what they have told you about their parents. I understand what you are saying. This is beyond absurd, but, take heart, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

  • Scottsteaux63

    I’ve been a Christian for forty-six years. When I was a kid, what we learned in school was one thing and the stories we were told in Sunday School were a different matter entirely and my church (ELCA) did not claim even then that Genesis was literally true.

    These people are cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs and the mainline churches need to speak out louder against this fringe element that has taken center stage and become shrill, strident, and bat-shit crazy. It isn’t who most Christians are and it doesn’t represent what we believe. They make us look like fools and I do not like it.

    • Linda Armstrong

      I agree. The people who believe this are a tiny minority and are getting far more attention and power than they merit. I am beginning to understand how the Nazis, a small minority of people in Germany, came to power. I am not saying that these sects are Nazis, but they are a minority of Christians and yet claim to speak for all.

      • Scottsteaux63

        There are two reasons these people get so much attention: 1) They’re LOUD, and 2) Today’s media (I will NOT use the word “journalists”) is all about what’s sensational. The truth is often seen as too dull for “News” networks whose real agenda is a form of entertainment (!!!!!!) and whose eyes are squarely on the ratings. So what ends up happening is people listen to this pap and they swallow it and spew it back up claiming they heard it “on the news.”

      • Linda Armstrong

        You have a point. However, I wish this suit were not real. It is,

      • Scottsteaux63

        True, but anyone can FILE a lawsuit. And even with the Kansas venue I have a hard time seeing them prevail on the Constitutional question, unless all the judges on the court are as nutty as they are.

      • Kingeryand63rd

        Come on we’re talking Kansas here, guess on the judges.

      • Scottsteaux63

        LOL ~ Well call me a cockeyed optimist.
        :)

      • RickRayFSM

        Even if they are a minority they still have the majority of the same beliefs as moderate xians. So the falsehoods are still pushed by the moderates. Why are there over 33,000 different xian sects/denominations? Didn’t your god give you a book you could all agree on?

      • Linda Armstrong

        I am not a member of an organized religion. Buddhism would be my choice if I were. So the “your” does not apply to me. What I resent about the current crop of evangelicals is not what they believe, which is none of my business, but rather their insistence on minding everyone else’s business, which my mainstream Christian friends absolutely do not do. They do not believe in creationism or any of that other stupidity. They support women’s health and choice. They also do not attack me trying to push their beliefs.They are respectful.

      • Somebody_Else

        It’s been well argued that Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion. But there are entire books on that subject, we won’t go into that here. ;) :D

      • regressive rightwing trash

        yes— mad magazine in the 60′s

  • Eldergothfather

    I’d say let them go through with the lawsuit. If they claim that Evolution is a religion and should not be allowed in school (sep of church and state) then they have just shown support for every argument against teaching creationism and for having prayer in school. I’d say let them go forth and then reap from what they sew…

  • TomyK

    Bottom line is that ALL TRUTH IS OF GOD. He created the universe and put all the laws of physics and other natural laws into place. No one who believes in God should be afraid of truth being discovered. These religious nuts remind me of the Catholic Church in centuries past denying science.

    • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

      The laws of physics do not require a god to create them and it makes no sense whatsoever to pray to the law of gravity.

  • Edward_F

    In anything should be removed it’s RELIGION!

  • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

    Ooooh! Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov would be spinning in their graves at 10,000 rpm if dead people could actually do that or know what the living are saying and doing. But they can’t. The laws of nature forbid it.

    Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a set of laws to forbid stupidity.

  • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

    “That kind of skeptical, questioning, “don’t accept what authority tells you” attitude of science — is also nearly identical to the attitude of mind
    necessary for a functioning democracy. Science and democracy have very
    consonant values and approaches, and I don’t think you can have one
    without the other.”

    Carl Sagan

  • Bookwench

    Perhaps these Kansans, and others, should divest themselves of all the improvements Science has contributed to their lives so that they can get an idea of what life without Scientists would be. Do you think they would give up all their goodies that make them comfortable?

  • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

    Perhaps these nuts would like to turn the clock back another five-hundred years and argue that the sun orbits the earth and not the other way around?

    • Linda Armstrong

      That’s next.

  • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

    These wingnuts, convinced for now that they can’t get THEIR religion back into the public schools figure the next best thing is to ban the teaching of evolution which offers a credible and scientific alternative to the bible’s first chapter.

    But hold on guys! It’s not enough to suppress Darwin and the thousands of scientists who’ve expanded on his work. The science of physics would also seemingly contradict biblical explanations of the universe. To leave nothing but the bible in people’s hands, you also have to suppress Einstein, Hubble, Oppenheimer and hundreds of others you’ve never even heard of.

    • Linda Armstrong

      That’s the idea, I’m afraid, to march, flags flying and banners waving back to the Middle Ages with no vaccine, no birth control, a society built on lords and peasants constantly at war over crusts of stale bread. Hallelujah!

      • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

        Actually these nitwits love science and engineering when it provides them with conveniences like internal combustion engines, air conditioning, microwave ovens, color TV, nuclear weapons to threaten other countries with, but reject any part that clashes with their creation myths. Science to them is like a buffet; you pick and choose what you like. From what I’ve seen and heard, they tend to act the same way with their religion.

      • Linda Armstrong

        I agree. Some of them even run very large businesses with franchises all over the country. Those businesses use computers, trucks, warehouses, phones, satellite communication etc.

      • Celloman G

        Exactly! Science as buffet. Pick and choose what applies to thee, and what applies to me.

  • Ellen H.

    Could my state get any more embarrassing!?!

    • Ralf T. Dog

      I am sure, they will try.

    • KS_grandma

      Sigh….I agree with you Ellen. We’ve been down this road before and thought…it can’t get any worse. But Ta Da….more stupidity and more embarrassment. Kansas is becoming a Theocracy.

    • Rachel Hogan

      Don’t worry, I’m from the county in Oklahoma that tried to put the ten commandments on the courthouse lawn, and spelled adultery wrong in the process. We (not I, specifically, but my county) took it all the way to the supreme court. I feel your pain.

  • Craig

    Science only serves these type of people when it suits them to prove their faith.

  • http://www.garymenten.com/ ThePhotogsBlog

    If science is religion, then how is no-one ever prays to the law of gravity?

  • AfricanTraveler1

    Give me any stupid belief in the world and if you allow me a few days or weeks I will be able to find people who believe it.

  • Rohan

    It’s probably worth noting that the title is somewhat misleading. The call isn’t for the removal of all science, but rather one stream of scientific thought that is perceived as being ideologically, rather than empirically, motivated.

    It’s wrong, both ethically and in it’s analysis of the role of the separation of Church and state, but it’s important not to misrepresent the attitude as being anti-science-in-general.

  • Xindear

    That is just insane

  • gd

    The term “proven science” demonstrates a bit of a misunderstanding of what science is. All scientific theories are tentative, subject to testing and disproof. One can falsify a theory with evidence in contradiction to it. At no point is a theory “proven”, it’s just that all the attempts to test it have failed to disprove it. GD

  • http://leonardbowcott.com/ Leonard Bowcott

    Ignorant people have the right to speak aloud. And, as stupid as they are, if they succeed at removing science from schools it would hardly make the level of public school education any worse than it is now. After all, these morons are products of that system, and look what wonders they turned out to be.

  • Ben

    It’s funny because Evolution is a theory based on facts, and religion is a hypothesis. But I bet them religious nuts don’t even know what them two words mean.

    • ThinkRationally

      Religion is only a hypothesis if you can come up with some way to test it, or to falsify it. If we can’t come up with a test for creationism, for example, it is not even a hypothesis in the scientific sense. It’s just an idea, a story.

  • Dale Mulkey

    wgich is why all religion should be banned from this country period

  • kissyface

    lets keep our kids ignorant and poor so they don’t question their slavery!

  • Juliana Jaeger

    PT Barnum is chuckling in the great hereafter. Many suckers born per minute these days.

  • Ranelagh

    Such people should be required to live without any benefits of science. No electricity, no running water, no machine-made clothes, no automobiles, no mobile phones.

  • Jared Hoke

    People like this cannot see their error for the same reason that a fish does not know it is wet. When you hear and read only echoes of what you already believe, you are stuck … something all of us should ponder. Doesn’t The Web encourage that kind of parochialism? Hm. Off I go for a dose of Fox News (yech-h-h-h-h-h)

  • Joe

    ‘proven science’ does not exist. That is very important, and what differentiates it from religion and faith. Science does not and can not claim complete truth or certainty.

    • Jerry Covington

      Umm…no. Gravity exists. Fire is a chemical reaction. The ‘science’ behind these phenomena, and countless other characteristics of the world in which we live, has been unequivocally ‘proven’. To believe otherwise demonstrates a level of ignorance equal to that of those about whom this article was written. SMFH…

      • Andrew

        You either don’t understand science, or you misunderstood him. Nothing in science, including gravity, cannot be proven true. It can only be proven false. When we can’t prove something false, it becomes a theory supported by empirical evidence.

      • Andrew

        Nothing in science can* be proven true

      • redscream5

        Not so long as you’re resorting to Aristotle’s version of “absolute knowledge” which isn’t something that exists in the real world.

        You’re deliberately obfuscating the issue.

      • jake

        Science does not claim complete understanding or absolute truth of anything, Its always subject to change. Scientists have a comprehensive understanding of gravity but, it will always remain open to revision, just as every other theory does.

      • Andrew

        If by providing an actual definition of how science works, since many here are lacking one is obfuscating the issue regarding science, then I don’t know what to think.

      • Somebody_Else

        Gravity is accepted, but they are still arguing over the specifics. They have just recently found a new way for chemicals to react that was believed impossible just a few decades ago, but at least it explains how some of the impossible reactions occurred.
        Even the existence of this world as we seem to perceive it may be an illusion. They are trying to figure all that out, so at this point, nothing is “unequivocally proven” as you put it.
        Science is about improving certainty, and although things can approach 100%, it can never be achieved. Look up what scientists call Sigmas.
        I’m sorry Jerry, but you could use a refresher course on science. Check out the local community college, they probably have a course or two that could help, and at a reasonable price. (I would have suggested the internet, but unless you know a bit more, the signal to noise ratio is obscene.)

    • Maddiesmomma

      Proven science does not exist? While there are things that are still inexplicable, and truths which are still being sought in regard to “science”…there is more than enough “proven science” to make the above statement ignorant beyond belief. And just me here…but I don’t find God and Science incompatible. To understand science, IS to better understand creation. And perhaps to better understand God, God gave us intelligence, and curiosity and wonder…for a purpose. There ARE still things in science that we don’t understand, that are still beyond being proven. That are still a mystery. But there is plenty of “proven” science.

      • Linda Armstrong

        Well said.

  • Jerry L. Young II

    Does any one else feel like their logic in this case puts the final nail in the coffin that religion has no place in schools? If their claim happened to be true that evolution was a religion, it would have no place being taught, while we are laughing at that, they just admitted creationism has no right being taught to children in public schools, even though that’s what Midwestern conservatives want.

    • Linda Armstrong

      To sacrifice science teaching, and that is what they are talking about, is too great a price for this point, though, I agree, it is funny. The rest of the world is whizzing by us in science and math education. Our economy is built upon technology. This is beyond insane,

      • Somebody_Else

        It’s not just built on it, it is science!
        Our technology is the manifestation of our skill at employing and otherwise using what we’ve learned through science. Even your food is a result of that. Do you know how many people a medieval farmer could feed using a specific amount of land? There’s a reason we are so much more efficient, and it’s purely because of science. We learned, and we developed tools and techniques to take advantage of that knowledge. Everyone has reaped the benefit of that. (Also the detriments, but on the whole, there was a massive net gain. Any time a population can go from tens of millions to billions, you’ve had a massive overall improvement in something.) :)

  • MarkGoyette

    And yet this same group is likely fighting to keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance, and on our money, Hippocrates.

  • Bob Villa

    Try to take “under god” out of the pledge (I don’t see a problem with it staying in there) and these people would flip shit! It’s so hypocritical to argue that it’s a separation of church and state issue. They’ve convoluted the meaning so much to make this work for them it’s disgusting. Their issues doesn’t even fall under that statue.

    I don’t think this would ever happen, but if it does, we’re in some trouble. If you give a mouse a cookie…

  • Timothyj999

    I agree 100%, but I have one comment: I object to your statement that 99% of scientists “believe” in evolution. That conjures up a false equivalence among the creationists, that science is based on belief just like religion.
    I would prefer to say that scientists “accept” evolution, or better yet, “accept the evidence that supports” evolution.
    Thanks.

  • J

    In my Anthropology class, we are learning about how Evolution is a 100% scientific fact, however the process itself is a theory (IE, how it actually happens). Our teacher is open minded (he’s Agnostic) and said “You don’t need to change your views on your religion, for all you know God could be the power behind the process), which is a completely rational side to it. These people are idiots if they think it’s all about “converting people against their beliefs”, seriously…

  • Leland Stone

    Disagreed on the definition of “faith,” which in your usage is simply wishful thinking dressed in theological terminology. “Faith” in the Christian sense of the word means “reasonable confidence in the unknown based on experience with the known.”

    Yes, I know, this definition probably grinds your gears a bit, going against everything you were taught in church. But this definition bears Scriptural scrutiny; consider John the Baptist, languishing in prison and contemplating whether he was about to die for the Messiah or a charlatan. Sending messengers to Jesus to ask very nearly that question, what was the response John was given? Was it, “Have blind faith, and be comforted by that fantasy?”

    Of course not. The response to John was soundly evidentiary, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” (Luke 7:22, NIV)

    • ThinkRationally

      Setting aside for a moment that we have no way of ascertaining how any witnesses to these events evaluated what they saw, or any indication that the witnesses were telling the truth, or even any indication that the witnesses weren’t made up by the writers, I have a question about how this applies to the issue of evolution vs creationism.

      Who witnesses creation? Adam, when Eve was created? The ‘evidence’ in the bible for this event is not evidence. It asks for blind faith, for Genesis can easily be seen as some kind of allegorical tale, whereas taking it literally is asking for nearly complete faith.

      • Leland Stone

        The questions about the nature of the witnesses in the NT are fair, but outdated. The evidence provided by contemporaneous sources (i.e., Roman persecutors of the late 1st C.) is that early Christians died for their beliefs, and it’s simply illogical to aver that so many would die for something they knew to be untrue. Further, early converts to Xianity had access to rebuttal sources that would have decisively disproved the apostles’ claims; further, the apostles, particularly Paul, encouraged skeptical, empirical investigation of the claims made by the apostles. That is, contact with and examination of first-hand witnesses was encouraged.

        Granted, none of this validates the claims made by the NT as true, but it does invalidate skepticism based on the character of the witnesses.

        I’m puzzled by your assertion that ‘no one’ witnessed the creation, as you claim to be a Christian. By that I assume you affirm the existence and deity of Jesus, who — according to Xianity and NT claims — was himself present at the creation and and testified thereto. We have no extra-biblical witnesses to the alleged creation, but it is illogical to affirm belief in a divine Jesus and then question his attestation of history.

      • ThinkRationally

        Even if we consider the witnesses entirely sincere, that does not mean they correctly interpreted what they witnessed.

        “Christians died for their beliefs, and it’s simply illogical to aver that so many would die for something they knew to be untrue.”

        I think you are overestimating people in general. Even in modern times we have people who willingly die for some rather far fetched beliefs (Heaven’s Gate, for example). Also, they may not have known it be untrue, but that doesn’t mean their belief in it was based on any kind of solid evidence.

        No, the claims in the NT cannot be validated in this way.

        Did I claim to be Christian? I was baptized Catholic, but consider myself agnostic atheist. I cannot accept the logic that God is real, therefore the bible is true, therefore God is real. I simply cannot countenance that kind of “reasoning”, as it asserts nothing–you must already accept the conclusion to accept the reasoning. In fact, I would say this kind of begging the question circular reasoning pushes people away from belief.

      • Leland Stone

        As I qualified my statement initially, sincerity does not equal veracity. And of course there are numerous examples of people dying for causes which they believed to be true, but which were in fact delusions or lies. But what example do either history or human nature give us of anyone dying for a cause they knew to be false?

        You and I are agreed on the logical fallacy of circular reasoning; like you, I do not countenance reasoning in which the conclusion is embedded in the premise. However, it is incorrect to claim that my post committed that logical fallacy. The original post contained the following line attributed to Clifton: “Now I’m a Christian… .” As Christians typically affirm Jesus to be a reliable witness to history, it was logically valid to request a resolution to the conflict between that Christian view and the question, “Who witnessed the creation?” Either you are not Clifton, or if you are, you affirm some variant of Christianity in which Jesus is not a reliable witness to history.

      • ThinkRationally

        As I said, they may not have known it to be false. Their believing in it is not evidence of it’s truth. I think we agree on this point. We differ in that you choose to believe and I am unable to believe.

        I’m not Clifton, and I did not claim to be a Christian. I do not share your unfounded belief that Jesus is a reliable witness to history, nor to I believe in any variant of Christianity in which Jesus is not a reliable witness. I hope that clears up my views, and explains why, from my perspective, your reasoning is circular (even if you do not see it that way). I find that reasoning is kind of pointless if the premise is assumed without reason.

  • Zach Purnell

    “The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now.” — Abraham Lincoln

  • Charles

    This is the fossilization of the intellect. Thinking itself tossed on the trash heap. Why does this retrograde thinking appear now? What does history have in store for us? Why has faith become entangled with rigid theocracy? Should we start wearing tinfoil hats now?

    • Linda Armstrong

      I suspect that it is a reaction to the rapid advance of technology. There have been similar strange periods in history. Often, they have involved seances and such, though, come to think of it, there is the zombie apocalypse thing going on in the lit/movie/tv universe for teens and 20/30 somethings.

  • Guy_in_Kingston

    Well anyone who believes the hoax of man made climate change is against science. So it clear that liberals (communists) stopped learing and teaching science long ago.

  • Austin Williams

    Just so everyone is on the same page, evolution is still a theory. It is niether a fact nor is it a law. Believing in evolution is just that, believing. It takes faith to believe in evolution just like it takes faith to believe in creationism. Sure you can go to a group of people with scientific numbers and charts who tell you that evolution has been proven, but you can go to a different group of people who will tell you the same thing about creationism. Bottom line is we don’t currently know exactly how we got here and probably won’t figure it out anytime soon.

  • Mario Rodgers

    Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesn’t. Evolution is based on understanding. Creationism is based on ignorance.

  • Edvardkenfish

    I just have one question, what exactly is religious about a scientific theory that has gone through peer review, and has been consolidated by hundreds of studies?

  • Pam_L

    It’s pretty obvious that these people are a bunch of cracked pots, just like their comrades in the tea party.

  • rick dalton

    I don’t think we are in Kansas anymore total. If we had science I could prove we are in the land of OZ by the yellow brick road. Look in the sky is that a witch are the bubble world tea baggers lives in

  • LL11

    Stuff like this is why I lie about being a Canadian when out of the country. Go ahead, call me anti-American. When it comes to things like this, I am.

  • Cheyenne

    Jesus take the wheel…

    • greatconsumptor

      I dont think Jesus knows how to drive.

  • Anon

    Allen, it is so wonderful to hear a christian say the things you did. I am not a believer but thank you for your honest and well thought out opinion. Seriously, it was absolutely refreshing.

  • Jim Mader

    Austin Williams has NO idea what “scientific theory” means.

    Please, sir, read a book before you embarass yourself.

  • Charles Lee

    If these people feel this way, they should form their own schools that teach their own doctrine. Leave everyone else’s school alone…..

    • Linda Armstrong

      That’s true, and they have. Many home school, but the leaving others alone part isn’t accepted by their set of, uh, beliefs. That’s my problem with Evangelicals, and not all Christians are evangelicals.I have many friends who are not like that at all.

  • Dianna Davids

    I feel sorry for the kids who might be subjected to this type of lunacy. Can you imagine them trying to get into college or a job in the real world?

  • Jonathan Roshad

    This story is so extreme. I also read somewhere that in the Jewish Hasidic community, they cross out words like ‘gymnasium’ or ‘dinosaur’ from text books. I can understand discretion with serious adult topics, but sheltering them from learning about evolution or even different religious faiths would only be detrimental to a child’s learning and integration into the real world. I think they’re being weirdly vengeful..like ‘If we can’t teach the Bible, they can’t teach Science,’ which is not a very spiritual reaction to have. It’s also about the kind of control that stunts the inner growth of their children and ignites rebellion against the parents. These people are using religion as an excuse for their own fear and insecurity, which are the polar opposites of what their religion actually teaches: faith.

  • mike mattaponi

    well the theory of evolution is about as dumb as any other theory. Oh yeah I evolved from a worm….sure. If evolution is the “strongest survive” we would all be moss and algae. Even Darwin refuted this before his death. Also I’m sure billions thought of evolution before him.

    • DJEB

      You’ve made it clear you don’t understand evolution and don’t even know what a theory is. Bully for you!

  • David

    I don’t know the details of this case, and I think the idea is a terrible one, and I think the theory of evolution well explains the differentiation of species on this planet. However, this particular challenge raises interesting questions for me. Where does science end and philosophy begin? I have often heard good science taught together with a materialistic philosophy, and I actually can see why people would want this not to be taught in schools. I’m not talking about the people who say that humans have evolved, I’m talking about the ones who say that once you understand that humans have evolved, it follows naturally that human consciousness is merely an emergent property of matter, that God and spirituality and religion are simply constructs of our attempts to explain the world, etc. These are philosophical points, and if there is any science that can investigate them empirically, it hasn’t been invented yet.

    So teach the science, but not the philosophy. Teach the kids that according to our best evidence – and it’s very good evidence – species evolve over time as an involuntary response to environmental conditions, which suggests among other things that Biblical passages describing creation stories and genealogical progressions are not good subjects for literal interpretation. However, by itself that evidence says nothing about the existence of God or the soul; and as for human consciousness and behavior, there are numerous scientific disciplines devoted to exploring those mysteries, and all of them are awash in a sea of differing opinions and insights about what it is to be human and why we do the things we do.

    • jchastn

      I was never taught that evolution was true so God and spirituality was not true or not important. Either overtly or covertly. In fact, I once heard a pastor preach in a friends church that evolution was the tool of God to create the earth. It has only been in recent years that churches and preachers have gotten into politics and it has been an “either or” proposition. I think that it is stupid and short sighted to focus on evolution as a slap against the bible. They both exist as ideas, one as a scientific theory, the other as a spiritual guide. Scientific Theory taught in school. Spiritual guide taught in church.

  • Rationalist1

    “To think that there are parents so delusional that they would view evolution, something believed by probably 99.99% of the world’s scientists” Except evolution is not believed by 99.99 % of scientists, it is accepted as a fact because of overwhelming evidence by the vast majority of scientists. No belief required.

  • slobis

    I never cease to be amazed at the complete and total ignorance of so many Americans…

  • surfjac

    They live in a dream world. Could this argument that evolution is a religion be any more idiotic? I can dream too; I imagine being the judge and as the plaintiff’s lawyer stands and utters his first word, I would throw him out of the court, with prejudice.

  • Michael

    If these idiots end up winning at least there is one benefit I could see out of it. The precedent is then set for removing creationism/ID out of the classroom too since it would fulfil the same criteria

  • Katerina

    Wow. When fools use the word “conservative,” it no longer means actually conservative. In the GOP, “conservative” simply = idiot.

  • Allison Moss-Fritch

    There is an alternate reality problem here….Just wish they’d migrate into that alternate dimension…

  • Mark Edward Talboom

    Well, this is consistent with repug and teabugger philosophy. Remember when Rick (Old Frothy) INSANEtorum castigated Obama for wanting every child to have the opportunity to go to college….He called the president a SNOB.

    This is just another link in the chain to keep the poor stupid and ignorant, gays in the closet and women chained to either the bed or the kitchen poppin’ out them yunguns ’cause they don’t need no birth control.

    They want a country where someone else tells you what your opinion is and are proud that someone else does their thinking for them. And it’s FACT FREE!

  • Deanne Smith

    It’s not a matter of “99% of scientists believe”, it is “this is what has been observed to be factual, can be proved by facts and other real artifacts”. Science is a fluid thing, and what was fact two hundred years ago may now be proven to be false, but that isn’t a matter of belief. That’s a matter of scientific process.

  • Stealth Avenue

    Hey, the world needs unskilled laborers. That’s where a good number of these religious morons’ kids will end up… I consider this child abuse, honestly. Deliberately denying your kids a shot at a decent future ought to be illegal.

  • Michael Souza

    Mind you THESE are the very same people that fought for getting PRAYER INTO the schools…..SMH at the COMPLETE IGNORANCE of these MORONIC people.
    This is akin to Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) saying “Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about.” (GGGRRROOOAAANNNNNN!!)

    If you think that’s bad, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC that “the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. … Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.”

    NO BONER oops I mean boehner it’s called METHANE. See folks, THIS is what happens when you let texans dictate what goes into our school’s TEXTBOOKS.
    I WEEP FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY!!!
    SMH in UTTER DISGUST!!!

  • Carrie Rostollan

    What does “I’m a Christian” mean to you?

  • Rickey Miller

    I wonder if they consider, ‘indoctrinating’ impressionable students’, to be a bad behavior in its self?

  • scottrose

    Oy vey.

  • David Lucier

    Does this mean they will no longer be required to complete the witch float test in order to graduate from high school in Kansas?

  • boboberg

    Evolution is not a religion it is a FACT proven by reproducible evidence !!!!

  • Pingback: Grupos conservadores de Kansas demandan para que se remuevan las clases de ciencias de los colegios ¿SERIO?…. | Abdiel()

  • bigmitch

    The basic creed of my religion, known as the Shema, says, “Hear O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is One.” Now obviously, this makes a statement about the number One. And yet, schools in Kansas continue to flout the First Amendment’s separation of Church and State, by teaching arithmetic. Where will it stop???

  • Jake Huber

    Hey Kansas, remember when you were in, like, third grade and there was that kik who still believed in Santa Claus when you and your buddies stopped believing in first or second grade? How you laughed behind his back, but still felt kind of embarassed and sorry for him? That’s the way the rest of the WORLD feels about you, Kansas.

  • Thommy Berlin

    Really? REALLY REALLY? Ah jeez. there is no bottom to conservative stupidity.

  • Pierre Rhymeswithbare

    “evolution, something believed by probably 99.99% of the world’s scientists”

    I am sorry to need to point this out but evolution is not a matter of belief. It is a fact of life.
    What might be a matter of dispute, preference and, hence, belief is how evolution works. Darwin seems to have got it right, as far as we know.

  • larrymotuz

    According to Montaigne, there were those in his day who, to safeguard their beliefs and their salvation, took vows of ignorance. Despite the fact that many of these coupled their vows of ignorance with vows of poverty and chastity, methinks that those launching this suit from their Seven Story Anthill must be the direct descendants of these forbears.

  • langranny

    It is people like these who will ultimately make the country a better place. Their lunacy will cause more and more people (especially young people) to turn away from religion. It make take several generations, but I see hope of reality in our future. Keep doing and saying crazy stuff, religionists. The rest of us will reap the rewards.

  • Rob14or15

    “To raise your child (or children) to reject proven science in favor of
    faith is the ultimate embrace of ignorance, and it’s setting them up for
    a life built on misinformation and delusion.” Sure sounds like you’re setting up your kids to be Republicans for life!

  • Skip Patterson

    Unfortunately many of the children raised in these right-wing fundamentalist Christian homes many many times end up with life long emotional and psychological problems, many of these problem being intense anger issues. One day maybe we will have justice and parents who subject their children to this kind of brain washing, will be see for what it is. Psychological abuse of a child.

  • B.C.

    I want mandatory Bible study in all schools. The caveat being it require the kids to read it in order from cover to cover.

  • Joel

    If only the author had gone that last step and realized that, since faith is merely the belief in something without any evidence to back it up, that faith is ultimately foolhardy and irrational!

  • Pingback: Ku Klux Kracker Strikes back!!!! | Dummidumbwit's Weblog()

  • disqus_i88CuQm6xR

    IF you don`t believe in science you cannot use automobiles, computers, cellphone, internet, television…. also you cannot live in a house full of things that are just possible to research and development like concrete, paint, etc, etc, etc.

  • Karen Mitchell

    You reasonable Christians need to get out there and make yourselves known. The wackaloon Christians are getting all the press and giving the rest of you a bad name. Kind of like the bad PR radical Muslims do to the reasonable Muslims.

  • Jared Beekman

    If nothing else they’ll make it easier for me to get a job.

  • Concerned50

    Thank you for reporting this.. but we need more information… If you have the Board Members names and contacts of this organization so we can tell them that Science needs to stay in school, religion needs to stay out of school. Also if you can get the names and contacts of the 15 people that filed this suit it is time to turn the tables on them and have people call, write, email, etc them to let them know this is just stupid and will hurt their children and the community. They shouldn’t be getting any support at all … even publicity wise. Can you help?

  • Zen1

    Can someone tell me the distinction between these guys and the Taliban…in terms of religious dogma…and zeal?

    • Bardmorgan

      Hmmm. Ummmm…. let me see… I’m sure there’s something different… nope.. not that… not that… that’s pretty much the same… oh.. yeah.. got it. The Taliban are terrorists… no.. wait, that’s not it… nope.. I got nothing.

  • twitch

    scientifically prove that an organism needs oxygen by putting a plastic bag over their heads

  • Suzan Sarasin

    If these people think that science is so wrong then they need to stop wearing glassed, driving cars, using a computer, using a toilet and most of all, going to you doctor because many medicines such as antibiotics have to be redeveloped because of evolution.
    Until they put their money where their mouth is, then they are just full of it.

  • jeczaja

    If that is the worst thing that happened to a child as they grew up the world would be a better place. Kids grow up and make up their own minds about…well, everything. Of course organisms change over time, but Darwin”ism” has been used and abused for political purposes with tragic results. Eugenics for example?

    • jchastn

      They can’t make up their own minds if their minds are not educated. Taking science out of schools fits the ultra religious agenda because if you don’t know science, you will fall for any stupid statement that comes out a preacher or believers dishonest mouth. Ban churches.

  • Pingback: #60 – Radio Houdi ser på Star Wars | Radio Houdi()

  • Alan Foxman

    You can’t fool me! It’s turtles all the way down!

  • disqus_CGonmBcI1B

    I guess they don’t think that God gave man the ability to reason. Maybe God is responsible for science?

  • Pingback: Ah, Kansas! You Never Disappoint! | The End.()

  • Steve Wascher

    Right on with this one. It IS a damn shame.

  • Steve Wascher

    Right on with this one. It IS a damn shame.

  • John Lindauer

    Natural Selection is a Law. Not a suggestion.

  • Allison Sweeney

    Just…wow. I’m not really sure what to say to this other than that’s probably the uneducated opinion of this “plaintiff” that I’ve ever read.
    Wow…

  • joelsk44039

    The article vastly overstates the intent of the Kansas group. They are not “anti-science.” They don’t believe in the theory of evolution, but instead believe in “intelligent design,” which is, of course, another “theory” that cannot be proven or disproven. To speculate that this group wants to eliminate all science from the school curriculum is a lie.

    Why is Darwin’s theory of evolution sacrosanct, anyway? Have any intermediate species ever been found either in preserved or fossil form that have proven the concept?
    Does anyone on this list know? Just asking.

  • Gary Menten

    Evolution is SCIENCE, not religion. Religion is belief, or faith without evidence. Scientific theory on the other hand, requires massive amounts of carefully collected evidence along rigorous testing of the hypothesis.

  • David

    The Taliban is alive and living in Kansas.

  • brewster mccloud

    but its KANSAS…so, there ya go

  • lurch394

    So KU Med Center will now only practice faith healing?

  • http://radiomankc.blogspot.com/ Radioman KC

    So who are these clowns? I think before we give publicity to any “GROUP”, we should investigate who they are and make it part of the debut coverage. Too many “Groups” are one or two crackpots, or on the other side, yet another grassroots sounding front group from Wichita oil billionaires.

    I think nutcases need their pictures on the stories,

  • Justice4U

    My children will tell you that their childhood was filled not with just playing video games, not with busying themselves with things that they ought not to be engaged in – but with science. Projects, to exploration of plant and animal life in the fields, the earth, forest and waterways surrounding our home – they absolutely loved discovery and what they found. My oldest son memorized the scientific names of most local sea life when he was three and could identify the species he named. He wanted to sponsor an endangered leather-back sea turtle which was named after him – both were encouraged to turn over rocks and identify the animals and plant life they saw to describe to me what happened, and to care for animals in husbandry as they got older. They learned stratification of the earth within the Grand Canyon, about dinosaurs in Utah, and about marine life in Boston Harbor. They were excited by annual events especially in spring when lambs were born and fish spawned in our pond and of course capturing species to carefully examine them and return them to their habitat as Darwin did.

    Most excellent is God’s magnificent world and that he gave us the ability to think about it.

  • Sal Paradise .

    There was a time, before the internet, when I imagined that there were a lot of dumb people in the world. The internet has peeled back the curtains and proved to me that it is just so much worse than I thought. People are stupid beyond my worst nightmare. I imagine that the people leading these groups are merely cynical and manipulative but their supporters are truly imbeciles who exist in a strange state of cognitive dissonance, self delusion and anger. For example almost all of them would probably take needed medicine produced by science, founded on the understanding of evolution, while at the same time continuing to rail against it. This I will never truly understand, but it’s horrifying to me.

  • Mrs_oatmeal

    Do these people realize how other countries laugh at us for wanting to go back to the “good old days”? How much further behind the rest of the world do we want our education system to fall? No one needs to find religion in school unless you go to a religiously based school. I don’t want my family to have your religion forced upon us. Do you want mine forced upon you?

  • The Lorax

    Scientists don’t “believe in” evolution.

  • Chris Harmon

    My BIL believes in this nonsense. It has led my husband to unfriend him on FB as he cannot stand seeing his idiocy displayed so constantly. I keep on trying to point out actual facts and such.. I am close to giving up as well though. He is a climate change denier as well- even though he is a meteorologist and lives in Alaska where climate change is actually rather obvious. :/

  • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

    The Pacific Justice Institute’s fight to ban Science.

    “The orthodoxy, called methodological naturalism or scientific
    materialism, holds that explanations of the cause and nature of natural
    phenomena may only use natural, material or mechanistic causes, and must assume that, supernatural and teleological or design conceptions of nature are invalid (the “Orthodoxy”).

    They’re agin it.

    They’re also correct that that’s what Science is, by definition.
    Natural Philosophy – what we call Science these days – can only deal
    with the Natural, not the extra-Natural or Super-Natural.

    Otherwise every question can be answered by “gods did it” or “because a
    god wanted that and they could change their mind next time”. Nothing is
    knowable. “What does 1+1 equal? Whatever gods want it to”.

  • Kevin

    They don’t need to subvert public education if they wish to raise scientifically- ignorant children. They just need to pull their kids out of public schools and send them to a private Christian school that has the the freedom to teach them a narrowly-structured faith-based curriculum.

  • mittfh

    By their logic, schools shouldn’t be able to teach creationism, intelligent design or possibly even religious studies in general either…