Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Christian groups sue to keep Kansas schools from teaching science as if it's true   (rawstory.com) divider line 247
    More: Fail, Kansas, Kansas schools, faith groups, orthodoxy, creationisms, standards, Pacific Justice Institute  
•       •       •

3630 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2013 at 12:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-27 12:22:55 PM  
These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.
 
2013-09-27 12:26:41 PM  

Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.


And also really non-self-aware: FTFA:

"The statement went on to say that "teaching the materialistic/atheistic ideas to primary school children whose minds are susceptible to blindly accepting them as true" is unconstitutional and dangerous, and therefore the new science standards must be stopped. "

And yet apparently teaching primary school children about religion is not dangerous at all.
 
2013-09-27 12:30:51 PM  
Everyone knows that Atun masturbated onto the ground creating the other gods.

Why won't the Kansas school board teach this?

DAMMIT WEENER!
 
2013-09-27 12:32:19 PM  
My level of tolerance for these people is quickly dwindling .
 
2013-09-27 12:32:41 PM  
The world needs ditch diggers too.
 
2013-09-27 12:33:30 PM  
Next up: renaming Liberal
 
2013-09-27 12:33:51 PM  

Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.


Yes. Yes they are.
 
2013-09-27 12:33:56 PM  
Here, I'll list all of the medical achievements made through an analysis of the bible:
 
2013-09-27 12:35:21 PM  
That's one of the greatest accompanying photos I've ever seen with an article like this.
 
2013-09-27 12:36:12 PM  
FTFA: The suit alleges that the new standards will "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

On the contrary, teaching based on the science will not promote any religious beliefs at all.  Teaching creationism, on the other hand, would favor one religious view over others, as different religions have different creation stories.

Science class should be based on science.  If you want to teach creation stories, do it in Sunday School, or push for a comparative religions class where students can learn the history and beliefs of multiple faiths and how they've shaped society.
 
2013-09-27 12:36:14 PM  
I hope a teacher starts telling students about the Hindu view of creation.
 
2013-09-27 12:36:30 PM  
What's science ever done for us?

*clicks add comment*
 
2013-09-27 12:37:56 PM  

Blues_X: I hope a teacher starts telling students about the Hindu view of creation.


I hope so too, because it's important to study the major religions of the world in order to understand how they have shaped the world, and how the world has shaped them.  As a computer science major, my absolute favorite non-major course in college was an objective, historic factual study of just that.  BRB I am going to become death, destroyer of worlds.
 
2013-09-27 12:38:35 PM  
And most of them will continue to home-school their kids anyway. Or send them to private Christian schools.

Oh, and starve the public schools of funding too. Forgot about that one.

How Jesus-y of them.
 
2013-09-27 12:40:28 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Next up: renaming Liberal


That town has always confused me. It's my mother's hometown and I've been there more times than I can count (I grew up in eastern KS). I remember at a young age asking my mom, "But WHY is it called 'Liberal?'"
 
2013-09-27 12:41:37 PM  

Blues_X: I hope a teacher starts telling students about the Hindu view of creation.


I can't wait for pagans getting to lead morning prayers...
 
2013-09-27 12:44:13 PM  

TwistedIvory: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Next up: renaming Liberal

That town has always confused me. It's my mother's hometown and I've been there more times than I can count (I grew up in eastern KS). I remember at a young age asking my mom, "But WHY is it called 'Liberal?'"


Having been there myself, I'm going to guess "comic relief"
 
2013-09-27 12:49:49 PM  
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.

i105.photobucket.com

If you want to teach kids about your personal religious beliefs, do it in church. That way, everyone who wants to hear about your god can do so, and everyone who wants to hear about some other god can go to some other church.

I assure you, you don't want to require me to teach your kids about your creation myths; you would not like the results.  Let your priests and ministers do their jobs and let me do mine.
 
2013-09-27 12:50:23 PM  
truly frightening the quotes in tfa

reads like - my faith and parenting are weak - therefore, you may not expose my child to anything scientific I may have to explain - or anybody else's child because Jesus

also science fair projects invite the Devil's fire right up to the kitchen table - why else would so many of them feature Volcanos?
 
2013-09-27 12:53:31 PM  
Why in the world do judges even hear these bullshiat cases?
 
2013-09-27 12:55:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.

And also really non-self-aware: FTFA:

"The statement went on to say that "teaching the materialistic/atheistic ideas to primary school children whose minds are susceptible to blindly accepting them as true" is unconstitutional and dangerous, and therefore the new science standards must be stopped. "

And yet apparently teaching primary school children about religion is not dangerous at all.


My brain wanted to climb back into the primordial soup when I read that.
 
2013-09-27 12:55:43 PM  
We need to start treating Christians just like their ululating wacko babby raping worshiper counterparts that squat in the desert.
They are 100% the same kind of ignorant philistine schizospiritual terrorists andthey havenothing to offer society or civilizationexcept for patented fear and prejudice.
There is no place for them on this earth but an insaneasylum.
And whenarmed, they are a clear and present danger to all around.
Period.
 
2013-09-27 12:58:09 PM  

parasol: truly frightening the quotes in tfa

reads like - my faith and parenting are weak - therefore, you may not expose my child to anything scientific I may have to explain - or anybody else's child because Jesus

also science fair projects invite the Devil's fire right up to the kitchen table - why else would so many of them feature Volcanos?


Not having to explain things you don't understand to your kids is like 99% of conservative social policy.
 
2013-09-27 12:58:15 PM  
proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com
 
2013-09-27 12:59:42 PM  
What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?
 
2013-09-27 12:59:44 PM  
Religion and people like this turn people off from religion.
 
2013-09-27 12:59:48 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Why in the world do judges even hear these bullshiat cases?


At this point, the judge should be allowed to just skip ahead to the penalty phase.
 
2013-09-27 12:59:56 PM  
They've lost the battle to raise religion up to the level of science, so now they're trying to drag science down to the level of religion. Fascinating.
 
2013-09-27 01:00:16 PM  
Luckily for them, the hard core post-modernists are also starting to reject empiricism because of "privilege" and "social constructs".

Looks like all derp converges at the top.
 
2013-09-27 01:00:43 PM  
Question. Is there a judicial test to determine what does and does not qualify as a religion?
 
2013-09-27 01:00:50 PM  

Schools are like polling places. And religion is like a penis. It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it.It is NOT OK to wave it around in public.

 
2013-09-27 01:01:25 PM  

dletter: [proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com image 440x260]


Just like Jesus

/is how the dense, defeat that point
 
2013-09-27 01:01:48 PM  

qorkfiend: Question. Is there a judicial test to determine what does and does not qualify as a religion?


Is it based on peer reviewed science or an invisible friend?
 
2013-09-27 01:02:11 PM  

Nurglitch: What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?


What if they each religious beliefs in church, and science in science classes?

Evolution happens.  Evolution has happened.  Evolution will continue to happen as long as there are organisms that reproduce.  If the creationists can't deal with that simple fact, that's their problem.
 
2013-09-27 01:03:34 PM  

vudukungfu: qorkfiend: Question. Is there a judicial test to determine what does and does not qualify as a religion?

Is it based on peer reviewed science or an invisible friend?


I mean, I know most people have one, but is there an accepted standard for the courts? There must be, otherwise you could classify almost any action as "religious".
 
2013-09-27 01:04:12 PM  

qorkfiend: so now they're trying to drag science down to the level of religion.


Maybe I should sue to make sure that they also teach "Jesus Math" where 2 + 2 = 5.  I mean, how dare they teach that secular 2 + 2 = 4 shiat?!!
 
2013-09-27 01:04:28 PM  
There is a thing called mental constipation.  The subject can not release a belief no matter how hard they try.  They keep pushing, and pushing, but nothing comes out.  Calling science a religion is a good example of this.  Trying, 42 times, to defeat a law, which was already upheld by the Supreme Court is another example.  These people are stuck and cannot move.  Time simply passes them by.
 
2013-09-27 01:05:02 PM  

super_grass: Luckily for them, the hard core post-modernists are also starting to reject empiricism because of "privilege" and "social constructs".

Looks like all derp converges at the top.


The po-mo epidemic peaked in 1996 and has been receding ever since.  The virus will always be endemic because actually understanding things is harder than bulls**ting, but the epidemic is past.
 
2013-09-27 01:05:12 PM  
Brad Dachus of Pacific Justice complained that is a violation of a child's rights to teach them that Creationism isn't the truth.

Which f*cking religion are you talking about, moran? I went to a Catholic high school and learned about evolution in freshman biology, and was taught the creation story in Genesis was allegory.
 
2013-09-27 01:06:48 PM  
how do you no evulushon, you wurnt even thar!

/BIBLE!
 
2013-09-27 01:07:04 PM  
There are religious schools you can send your fat children to, bootstrap that shiat.
 
2013-09-27 01:07:16 PM  
Just call it Sharia law. Get a Muslim to speak on behalf of the anti-science point of view. Watch support disappear.
 
2013-09-27 01:08:04 PM  

vudukungfu: Schools are like polling places. And religion is like a penis. It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it.It is NOT OK to wave it around in public.



...or to ram it down childrens' throats.
 
2013-09-27 01:08:37 PM  

give me doughnuts: vudukungfu: Schools are like polling places. And religion is like a penis. It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it.It is NOT OK to wave it around in public.


...or to ram it down childrens' throats.


zing!
 
2013-09-27 01:08:38 PM  

FloydA: Benevolent Misanthrope: Why in the world do judges even hear these bullshiat cases?

At this point, the judge should be allowed to just skip ahead to the penalty phase.


I'd happily support the death penalty for morans like these.
 
2013-09-27 01:09:09 PM  

nekom: What's science ever done for us?

*clicks add comment*


The Aqueduct?
 
2013-09-27 01:09:33 PM  

give me doughnuts: ...or to ram it down childrens' throats.


BINGO.
 
2013-09-27 01:10:09 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: There are religious schools you can send your fat children to, bootstrap that shiat.


They can't do that until they get vouchers so the taxpayers can pay for their instilled ignorance
 
2013-09-27 01:10:44 PM  

Speaker2Animals: Brad Dachus of Pacific Justice complained that is a violation of a child's rights to teach them that Creationism isn't the truth.

Which f*cking religion are you talking about, moran? I went to a Catholic high school and learned about evolution in freshman biology, and was taught the creation story in Genesis was allegory.


Evangelicals.... Catholics are practically athiests compared to them.
 
2013-09-27 01:10:49 PM  
Speaker2Animals -
   me too - no conflict between faith and science -
   my mother, however, once quipped "The Jesuits taught us that Jesus discovered America"

   some religious orders, however, make exceptional teachers - including in the field of science
   pretty sure none of them are currently housed and working in Kansas
 
2013-09-27 01:10:55 PM  

qorkfiend: but is there an accepted standard for the courts?


Put your left hand on the bible and raise your right hand.
You you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god?

Yes

GTFO.
 
2013-09-27 01:11:18 PM  

super_grass: Luckily for them, the hard core post-modernists are also starting to reject empiricism because of "privilege" and "social constructs".

Looks like all derp converges at the top.


Starting?  That crap was going on in the early 90s during the heyday of Political Correctness in education.
 
2013-09-27 01:11:35 PM  

FloydA: Nurglitch: What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?

What if they each religious beliefs in church, and science in science classes?

Evolution happens.  Evolution has happened.  Evolution will continue to happen as long as there are organisms that reproduce.  If the creationists can't deal with that simple fact, that's their problem.


Well, we think it happens, and it kinda looks like it happened, and it's a really good, useful explanation for things happening, but calling it a 'fact' is kind of antithetical to the point of science.
 
2013-09-27 01:12:59 PM  

vudukungfu: Schools are like polling places. And religion is like a penis. It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it.It is NOT OK to wave it around in public.


Oh I don't know, sometimes it's amusing to see someone waving their religion-penis around for us to all point to and laugh at.
 
2013-09-27 01:13:00 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Everyone knows that Atun masturbated onto the ground creating the other gods.

Why won't the Kansas school board teach this?

DAMMIT WEENER!


Ned Flanders: We want you to teach alternative theories to Darwinian evolution.

Principal Skinner: You mean, Lamarckian evolution?
 
2013-09-27 01:14:27 PM  

vudukungfu: qorkfiend: but is there an accepted standard for the courts?

Put your left hand on the bible and raise your right hand.
You you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god?

Yes

GTFO.

Suppose the Bible they hand you to swear on is upside-down. Or backward. Or both! And you swear to tell the truth on an upside-down backward Bible. Would that count? Suppose the Bible they hand you is an old Bible and half the pages are missing. Suppose all they have is a Chinese Bible-in an American court. Or a braille Bible, and you're not blind! Suppose they hand you an upside-down backward Chinese braille Bible with half the pages missing. At what point does all of this stuff just break down and become just a lot of stupid shiat that somebody made up? - George Carlin

 
2013-09-27 01:15:27 PM  
the real question: why did Jesus put water on Mars?
 
2013-09-27 01:15:28 PM  

Quasar: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.

And also really non-self-aware: FTFA:

"The statement went on to say that "teaching the materialistic/atheistic ideas to primary school children whose minds are susceptible to blindly accepting them as true" is unconstitutional and dangerous, and therefore the new science standards must be stopped. "

And yet apparently teaching primary school children about religion is not dangerous at all.

My brain wanted to climb back into the primordial soup when I read that.


Don't be silly. The primordial soup from which we emerged has been gone for 6,000 years.
 
2013-09-27 01:16:31 PM  

pacified: the real question: why did Jesus put water on Mars?


that's was SATAN

/TRICKSTER!
 
2013-09-27 01:17:04 PM  

FloydA: Nurglitch: What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?

What if they each religious beliefs in church, and science in science classes?

Evolution happens.  Evolution has happened.  Evolution will continue to happen as long as there are organisms that reproduce.  If the creationists can't deal with that simple fact, that's their problem.


I thought they kinda sorta believed in evolution, that a little bit happened cause Noah couldn't fit two of EVERYTHING on the ark, and just brought a sampling and what we have now evolved from that? Or did I dream it?
 
2013-09-27 01:18:07 PM  
they-tried-to-teach-my-baby-science.jpg

/for some reason i am no longer able to post pictures - when i click the icon, it greys the screen but does not pop up the box
 
2013-09-27 01:19:23 PM  

haolegirl: FloydA: Nurglitch: What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?

What if they each religious beliefs in church, and science in science classes?

Evolution happens.  Evolution has happened.  Evolution will continue to happen as long as there are organisms that reproduce.  If the creationists can't deal with that simple fact, that's their problem.

I thought they kinda sorta believed in evolution, that a little bit happened cause Noah couldn't fit two of EVERYTHING on the ark, and just brought a sampling and what we have now evolved from that? Or did I dream it?


right most will concede micro-evolution.
it's the big picture, evolution of new species, they can't believe because it would take hundreds of millions of years and the earth only a few thousand years old.
 
2013-09-27 01:19:43 PM  
For those interested in the legal cray-cray, Plaintiff filing from the COPE website.
 
2013-09-27 01:20:50 PM  

NutWrench: vudukungfu: qorkfiend: but is there an accepted standard for the courts?

Put your left hand on the bible and raise your right hand.
You you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god?

Yes

GTFO.

Suppose the Bible they hand you to swear on is upside-down. Or backward. Or both! And you swear to tell the truth on an upside-down backward Bible. Would that count? Suppose the Bible they hand you is an old Bible and half the pages are missing. Suppose all they have is a Chinese Bible-in an American court. Or a braille Bible, and you're not blind! Suppose they hand you an upside-down backward Chinese braille Bible with half the pages missing. At what point does all of this stuff just break down and become just a lot of stupid shiat that somebody made up? - George Carlin


In a similar vein:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYchB7Kxuvs">http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=sYchB7Kxuvs
 
2013-09-27 01:20:53 PM  
The Wizard of Oz was just another name for Jesus after all...
 
2013-09-27 01:21:10 PM  

Nurglitch: FloydA: Nurglitch: What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?

What if they each religious beliefs in church, and science in science classes?

Evolution happens.  Evolution has happened.  Evolution will continue to happen as long as there are organisms that reproduce.  If the creationists can't deal with that simple fact, that's their problem.

Well, we think it happens, and it kinda looks like it happened, and it's a really good, useful explanation for things happening, but calling it a 'fact' is kind of antithetical to the point of science.



Not really.  In the sciences, the word "fact" refers to something that we have observed.  We have observed evolution happening, so it is a fact.  There is no sense of the term "fact" that does not pertain to evolution.  Evolution is as much a "fact" as anything in the sciences can ever be.

You might argue that natural selection, drift, mutation, recombination, and migration are not "facts," and I'd be willing to accept  that argument.

Put it this way; the theory of universal gravitation explains why we see things falling down.  Things falling down are facts.  The theory explains why it happens.

The theory of evolution by means of natural selection explains why populations of organisms evolve the way that they do.  The evolution of gene pools is an observation that the theory attempts to explain.

Nobody teaches the theory as fact, because it's not.  A theory is an explanation of facts.  We do teach the facts as facts, because they are.  One generation's gene pool does not contain the same relative abundances of variant alleles as the next generation - this is a fact, and that is what "evolution" is.

What the creationists want is for us to teach something that is patently and obviously false as though it was equally reasonable as real things.  This is not a good idea.
 
2013-09-27 01:21:18 PM  
This is stupid. But it seems you let the teacher teach science, and then sometime during the year the teachers says "Also, Christians believe God created the universe and all living creatures. There is no proof of this. A pastor and the church of your choice can expand upon these ideas. Now, onto ionic bonding."
 
2013-09-27 01:22:32 PM  
peakwatch.typepad.com

Pants full of macaroni!!: they-tried-to-teach-my-baby-science.jpg

/for some reason i am no longer able to post pictures - when i click the icon, it greys the screen but does not pop up the box


here you go...
 
2013-09-27 01:24:11 PM  

unexplained bacon: [peakwatch.typepad.com image 313x400]

Pants full of macaroni!!: they-tried-to-teach-my-baby-science.jpg

/for some reason i am no longer able to post pictures - when i click the icon, it greys the screen but does not pop up the box

here you go...


You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.  Cheers.
 
2013-09-27 01:25:38 PM  
Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).
 
2013-09-27 01:26:55 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: they-tried-to-teach-my-baby-science.jpg

/for some reason i am no longer able to post pictures - when i click the icon, it greys the screen but does not pop up the box


I thought it was just me.
 
2013-09-27 01:28:48 PM  

EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).



Exactly: The more facts we learn, the more data we collect, the more our theories get refined, or replaced.
 
2013-09-27 01:29:11 PM  

R.A.Danny: The world needs ditch diggers too.


The State of Kansas appears to be poised to be the world's supplier of ditchdiggers. I suppose it beats importing them from Mexico.
 
2013-09-27 01:30:53 PM  
God bless their poor, dear sweet hearts, but they try so very hard...
 
2013-09-27 01:31:09 PM  
haolegirl:

I thought they kinda sorta believed in evolution, that a little bit happened cause Noah couldn't fit two of EVERYTHING on the ark, and just brought a sampling and what we have now evolved from that? Or did I dream it?


Not all of them, but some creationists make that claim.  What's amazing about it is that, in order for the claim to make even a tiny bit of sense, they have to propose that evolution can happen a whole hell of a lot faster than even the most extreme PunkEek fan would propose, AND that nobody noticed at the time that a pair of generic deer gave birth to white tails, mule deer, elk, moose, red deer, and caribou all in one litter,  AND that this process of hyper-evolution stopped as soon as we started looking.
They make that argument in an effort to preserve the ark story.

Other creationists just sort of bypass the ark story and assume that God crammed the animals into that small space by magic, or the ark was bigger than it is described, as though it was a Tardis or something.
 
2013-09-27 01:32:14 PM  

EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).


They're testable and repeatable. Sometimes the test gets better and what was once promoted to theory gets washed away based on new evidence. Sometimes it is just new discovery that better explains a process.

That's the thing, though. Testable and repeatable. Wilingness to change accepted theories based on new evidence; these are how we get science. Religion just 'is' because they believe it. Of the two choices here, one is more "true" than the other.
 
2013-09-27 01:33:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.

And also really non-self-aware: FTFA:

"The statement went on to say that "teaching the materialistic/atheistic ideas to primary school children whose minds are susceptible to blindly accepting them as true" is unconstitutional and dangerous, and therefore the new science standards must be stopped. "

And yet apparently teaching primary school children about religion is not dangerous at all.


That is just amazing beyond words.
 
2013-09-27 01:34:34 PM  

NeverDrunk23: Religion and people like this turn people off from religion.


Yup.

Funny picture time:

i457.photobucket.com

i457.photobucket.com


Anecdote time:  I was driving back from a job site in Northern California yesterday, and was flipping through the radio stations when I heard a preacher say "Take one of these tracts, wrap a rubber band around it a few times like it's a roll of money, and toss it to the homeless.  That's one more soul saved"

//North California is weirder than Southern California
 
2013-09-27 01:35:04 PM  

busy chillin': This is stupid. But it seems you let the teacher teach science, and then sometime during the year the teachers says "Also, Christians believe God created the universe and all living creatures. There is no proof of this. A pastor and the church of your choice can expand upon these ideas. Now, onto ionic bonding."


No.  Never give them a millimeter.  There is no reason to poison education with their nonsense.
 
2013-09-27 01:35:27 PM  

dr_blasto: EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).

They're testable and repeatable. Sometimes the test gets better and what was once promoted to theory gets washed away based on new evidence. Sometimes it is just new discovery that better explains a process.

That's the thing, though. Testable and repeatable. Wilingness to change accepted theories based on new evidence; these are how we get science. Religion just 'is' because they believe it. Of the two choices here, one is more "true" than the other.


You mean to tell me that whole walking on water thing is not repeatable?
 
2013-09-27 01:35:44 PM  

FloydA: Other creationists just sort of bypass the ark story and assume that God crammed the animals into that small space by magic, or the ark was bigger than it is described, as though it was a Tardis or something.


The five-and-a-half-minute Lido deck!
 
2013-09-27 01:36:38 PM  

FloydA: Nurglitch: FloydA: Nurglitch: What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?

What if they each religious beliefs in church, and science in science classes?

Evolution happens.  Evolution has happened.  Evolution will continue to happen as long as there are organisms that reproduce.  If the creationists can't deal with that simple fact, that's their problem.

Well, we think it happens, and it kinda looks like it happened, and it's a really good, useful explanation for things happening, but calling it a 'fact' is kind of antithetical to the point of science.


Not really.  In the sciences, the word "fact" refers to something that we have observed.  We have observed evolution happening, so it is a fact.  There is no sense of the term "fact" that does not pertain to evolution.  Evolution is as much a "fact" as anything in the sciences can ever be.

You might argue that natural selection, drift, mutation, recombination, and migration are not "facts," and I'd be willing to accept  that argument.

Put it this way; the theory of universal gravitation explains why we see things falling down.  Things falling down are facts.  The theory explains why it happens.

The theory of evolution by means of natural selection explains why populations of organisms evolve the way that they do.  The evolution of gene pools is an observation that the theory attempts to explain.

Nobody teaches the theory as fact, because it's not.  A theory is an explanation of facts.  We do teach the facts as facts, because they are.  One generation's gene pool does not contain the same relative abundances of variant alleles as the next generation - this is a fact, and that is what "evolution" is.

What the creationists want is for us to teach something that is patently and obviously false as though it was equally reasonable as real things.  This is not a good idea.


See, what you're not getting is that scientists and lay-people use the term "fact" differently, and that some people take the notion of fact as Fact, as in something universal and absolute. In other words, literally, you're talking about different things using the same words and although it looks like you're having a conversation (hence the appearance of disagreement), you're actually not talking about the same thing at all.

Secondly, if it was "patently and obviously false" then there wouldn't be a disagreement, because it would be patent and obvious that your theory isn't in conflict with their myth. Something science communicators (and most 'experts') often fail to do is to assess their audience, and adapt their language appropriately to make things clear to their audiences as well as to themselves.

What creationists want is their myths promulgated by the state, which I believe is illegal by your country's constitution.
 
2013-09-27 01:36:39 PM  

EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).


Depends on what people intend when they say "true".

Science is about creating models which best describe reality. Some aspect of the model might turn out to be flawed (indeed, this is almost a certainty), but that does not preclude the general conclusions of the model from being what the average person would consider "fact" or "true".

Newtonian physics is a flawed model that can still generate conclusions we would consider to be factual/true.
 
2013-09-27 01:36:45 PM  

Nurglitch: What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?


But that's what science does now.

Science doesn't claim to know "The Truth."  Observations are either true or falsified, and the theories developed from observations and experiments are only claimed to be the best explanation that we have so far.

Scientists believe that by assiduously applying the scientific method we can develop a more predictive understanding of the universe.  Ultimate truth is the purview of religion, not science.
 
2013-09-27 01:36:59 PM  

Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.


From another thread (but more on-topic here):

img.fark.net
 
2013-09-27 01:38:45 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-27 01:39:02 PM  

dletter: Speaker2Animals: Brad Dachus of Pacific Justice complained that is a violation of a child's rights to teach them that Creationism isn't the truth.

Which f*cking religion are you talking about, moran? I went to a Catholic high school and learned about evolution in freshman biology, and was taught the creation story in Genesis was allegory.

Evangelicals.... Catholics are practically athiests compared to them.


And hell, it's not like Jews take a literal interpretation of the Old Testament.
 
2013-09-27 01:40:16 PM  

vudukungfu: We need to start treating Christians just like their ululating wacko babby raping worshiper counterparts that squat in the desert.
They are 100% the same kind of ignorant philistine schizospiritual terrorists andthey havenothing to offer society or civilizationexcept for patented fear and prejudice.
There is no place for them on this earth but an insaneasylum.
And whenarmed, they are a clear and present danger to all around.
Period.


I disagree, there are also work camps.
 
2013-09-27 01:40:35 PM  
I wish I had a response for this.
 
2013-09-27 01:40:52 PM  
Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?
 
2013-09-27 01:42:01 PM  

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?


they live Kansas
 
2013-09-27 01:42:11 PM  
"How can I help from believing what is in my own heart? Two plus two are five."
"Sometimes, Winston, sometimes they are four. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
 
2013-09-27 01:42:26 PM  

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?


They don't worship a Pagan Moon God?  *ducks*
 
2013-09-27 01:43:16 PM  

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?


They are white, duh
 
2013-09-27 01:44:32 PM  

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?


because they worship the right god, duh.  ;)

/snark
 
2013-09-27 01:45:01 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.

From another thread (but more on-topic here):

[img.fark.net image 819x416]


I've got a one-eyed serpent she can have a conversation with.
 
2013-09-27 01:46:56 PM  
"The group maintained that questions like "Where do we come from?" can only be answered honestly by religious dogma."

So, you're going to honestly answer questions using only dogma, which is itself based on a set of un-provable assumptions.

/morans
 
2013-09-27 01:49:41 PM  

EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).


The bold is blatantly false.  Theories are explanations of facts, they are not just "stronger facts."
 
2013-09-27 01:51:53 PM  

R.A.Danny: The world needs ditch diggers too.


At least my kids will have less competition out there in the real world.
 
2013-09-27 01:52:20 PM  
Scopes Trial part 2: Scientific Denial Boogaloo
 
2013-09-27 01:54:49 PM  

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?


In fairness they are only like the early Taliban.  They need a few more years to really get the party started.
 
2013-09-27 01:54:54 PM  

aaronx: And most of them will continue to home-school their kids anyway. Or send them to private Christian schools.

Oh, and starve the public schools of funding too. Forgot about that one.

How Jesus-y of them.


Donate billions to lobby for lower educational standards, deduct from your taxes and cut school funding.

Wonder aloud why kids are poorly-educated.
 
2013-09-27 01:55:29 PM  

FloydA: haolegirl:

I thought they kinda sorta believed in evolution, that a little bit happened cause Noah couldn't fit two of EVERYTHING on the ark, and just brought a sampling and what we have now evolved from that? Or did I dream it?


Not all of them, but some creationists make that claim.  What's amazing about it is that, in order for the claim to make even a tiny bit of sense, they have to propose that evolution can happen a whole hell of a lot faster than even the most extreme PunkEek fan would propose, AND that nobody noticed at the time that a pair of generic deer gave birth to white tails, mule deer, elk, moose, red deer, and caribou all in one litter,  AND that this process of hyper-evolution stopped as soon as we started looking.
They make that argument in an effort to preserve the ark story.

Other creationists just sort of bypass the ark story and assume that God crammed the animals into that small space by magic, or the ark was bigger than it is described, as though it was a Tardis or something.


So which "flavor" are they wanting taught in PUBLIC schools? Or do we let the wackos fight it out amongst themselves, and get back to us with the winner. Also, will there be a way to opt out of the science classes for people of other/no religion?
 
2013-09-27 01:55:55 PM  

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?


Not logically.
 
2013-09-27 01:57:07 PM  
Proudly ignorant ideologues... I do have to thank these folks for making me the happily areligious person I am today.

Teach your dogma in church, assholes... Where it belongs.
 
2013-09-27 01:57:36 PM  

meat0918: Anecdote time: I was driving back from a job site in Northern California yesterday, and was flipping through the radio stations when I heard a preacher say "Take one of these tracts, wrap a rubber band around it a few times like it's a roll of money, and toss it to the homeless. That's one more soul saved"


If I saw someone toss a chick tract to a homeless guy, I'd have to assume that's at least two souls saved for Satan - the homeless guy who's going to hate Christianity for the rest of his life, and the Christian who thinks that counts as 'charity'.
 
2013-09-27 01:57:57 PM  

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?


Different magic sky wizard.
 
2013-09-27 01:58:20 PM  

bborchar: R.A.Danny: The world needs ditch diggers too.

At least my kids will have less competition out there in the real world.


My kids will be glad to hire your kid.

:)
 
2013-09-27 01:58:54 PM  
This question was already dealt with 45 years ago in Epperson v Arkansas.  A state cannot ban the teaching of evolution simply because it conflicts with one religion's creation myth.

"The state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them."
 
2013-09-27 01:59:44 PM  
I drove thru Kansas yesterday coming back from Colorado, it was terrifying. Stupid, stupid people and stupid billboards all the way down i70. Turned north at Salina and felt a great sense of relief when i crossed the Welcome to Nebraska sign. The derp is strong in parts of Nebraska, but nothing compared to the lifeless blank eyes of most of the brainwashed masses there in Kansas.
 
2013-09-27 01:59:52 PM  

Nurglitch: See, what you're not getting is that scientists and lay-people use the term "fact" differently, and that some people take the notion of fact as Fact, as in something universal and absolute. In other words, literally, you're talking about different things using the same words and although it looks like you're having a conversation (hence the appearance of disagreement), you're actually not talking about the same thing at all.



No, I get that.  The thing is, there is an observed "fact" of evolution in exactly that sense.  There is also a "theory of evolution" that explains the observed "fact of evolution."  It is perhaps unfortunate that the same term - "evolution" - is used to refer to both, but there's little I can do about that.

The "fact of evolution" is that offspring are different from their parents, and that the relative frequencies of variant alleles in the gene pool of a population change from one generation to the next.  That is as much a "fact" as anything in science can ever be.  It is as much a fact as the claim that brick houses are made of bricks.  It's something that, with the right equipment and instruction in how to use it, anyone can observe.

The "theory of evolution" is that natural selection, mutation, recombination, genetic drift, and a few other processes are the causes of the observed fact.  The theory cannot be "proven," since theories are ideas about cause and effect relationships, and as such are not physical "things" that can be observed.

The fact remains a fact however.


Secondly, if it was "patently and obviously false" then there wouldn't be a disagreement, because it would be patent and obvious that your theory isn't in conflict with their myth.


Creationism is patently and obviously false to anyone who actually looks at it with unbiased, objective eyes.  The fact that some people are delusional, brainwashed, or just to plain dumb to realize that they are wrong does not make their beliefs any less false.  Anyone who interprets Genesis as a literal, accurate, historical account is either delusional, dishonest, ignorant, or stupid.

(People who interpret genesis metaphorically don't tend to have any problems accepting evolution.  They are not creationists.)


Something science communicators (and most 'experts') often fail to do is to assess their audience, and adapt their language appropriately to make things clear to their audiences as well as to themselves.


Yes, this is a challenge.  It's one that I have to consider when I'm actually doing work, rather than just messing around on Fark.


What creationists want is their myths promulgated by the state, which I believe is illegal by your country's constitution.


That's correct.  Ultimately, what they want is a theocracy, in which their personal interpretations of scripture carry the force of law and it is illegal to believe anything else.  The repeated attempts to push their religion into the science classrooms are simply one battle in their culture war.  The fact that they lose the battle every time doesn't seem to dissuade them; they sincerely believe they can do the same thing they did before, the same way, and still expect a different outcome.
 
2013-09-27 02:00:44 PM  
So the argument is that schools should not "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

By that logic, anything that contradicts any religious dogma (Christian or otherwise) should be removed from the Kansas science standards. The only acceptable material would be that which does not contradict any religion at all and agrees with empirical observation. I imagine the intersection on that Venn diagram is pretty small...
 
2013-09-27 02:00:46 PM  

mrshowrules: boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?

In fairness they are only like the early Taliban.  They need a few more years to really get the party started.


So much this.

/lets not give them a few more years
 
2013-09-27 02:00:50 PM  

Klom Dark: I drove thru Kansas yesterday coming back from Colorado, it was terrifying. Stupid, stupid people and stupid billboards all the way down i70. Turned north at Salina and felt a great sense of relief when i crossed the Welcome to Nebraska sign. The derp is strong in parts of Nebraska, but nothing compared to the lifeless blank eyes of most of the brainwashed masses there in Kansas.


If you can make it to Lawrence, you are fine.
 
2013-09-27 02:01:01 PM  

give me doughnuts: vudukungfu: Schools are like polling places. And religion is like a penis. It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it.It is NOT OK to wave it around in public.


...or to ram it down childrens' throats.


LMAO.  +100 to this.
 
2013-09-27 02:02:14 PM  
How strong is your faith if science creates a hostile environment? More importantly, how great is your God if you are incapable of using the brain he gave you?
 
2013-09-27 02:04:30 PM  
"The suit alleges that the new (science) standards will 'promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiff'"

I think I see your problem..
 
2013-09-27 02:06:15 PM  

Klom Dark: I drove thru Kansas yesterday coming back from Colorado, it was terrifying. Stupid, stupid people and stupid billboards all the way down i70. Turned north at Salina and felt a great sense of relief when i crossed the Welcome to Nebraska sign. The derp is strong in parts of Nebraska, but nothing compared to the lifeless blank eyes of most of the brainwashed masses there in Kansas.


I'll never understand the logic behind those billboards.  Do they actually think they're changing anyone's minds?  Wouldn't that money be better spent helping the hungry, the poor, the sick?
 
2013-09-27 02:07:21 PM  

Lord_Baull: How strong is your faith if science creates a hostile environment? More importantly, how great is your God if you are incapable of using the brain he gave you?


These people don't have faith. They have terrified, terrorized obsession. Blind faith is the weakest sort, and while it sounds challenging to believe in something against what is observed, that's only because to do so is farking stupid. True faith is faith that can still stand in the face of changing knowledge, and if your faith can't work in line with that knowledge or adapt to be of allegorical and spiritual value while working with that knowledge, it's not faith. It's delusion.
 
2013-09-27 02:09:31 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.

And also really non-self-aware: FTFA:

"The statement went on to say that "teaching the materialistic/atheistic ideas to primary school children whose minds are susceptible to blindly accepting them as true" is unconstitutional and dangerous, and therefore the new science standards must be stopped. "

And yet apparently teaching primary school children about religion is not dangerous at all.


Is there any chance of me getting this huge serving of double standards with a side of pasta?
 
2013-09-27 02:09:52 PM  
"It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.
 
2013-09-27 02:10:14 PM  
Faith groups are up in arms that their beliefs are not being given more credence in science classes.


Man, these people are never gonna go away, are they? The only hope is that their offspring are exposed to enough logic to counteract their parents' backwardass worldview.
 
2013-09-27 02:10:41 PM  
Wow.  Even for creationists this is one of the most retarded lawsuits ever attempted.  I guess the whole tactic of "Creationism is a legitimate SCIENCE!" hasn't worked out too well and now they are just coming right out and calling it religion.  And therefore must be taught to all students because....something.

Freedom of religion - I don't think you understand what that really means.
 
2013-09-27 02:11:55 PM  
Satanic Hamster: I'll never understand the logic behind those billboards.  Do they actually think they're changing anyone's minds?  Wouldn't that money be better spent helping the hungry, the poor, the sick?

No - they are not ads for becoming religious - they are self-perpetuating reminders that the reader IS religious. They are meant to illicit a "yes, that is right" response only.
 
2013-09-27 02:11:57 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Klom Dark: I drove thru Kansas yesterday coming back from Colorado, it was terrifying. Stupid, stupid people and stupid billboards all the way down i70. Turned north at Salina and felt a great sense of relief when i crossed the Welcome to Nebraska sign. The derp is strong in parts of Nebraska, but nothing compared to the lifeless blank eyes of most of the brainwashed masses there in Kansas.

I'll never understand the logic behind those billboards.  Do they actually think they're changing anyone's minds?  Wouldn't that money be better spent helping the hungry, the poor, the sick?


See: History of the World Part I, the Roman Senate.
 
2013-09-27 02:12:45 PM  
the new standards will "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

CORE said that the science standards would "will have the effect of causing Kansas public schools to establish and endorse a non-theistic religious worldview,"


Arguing that science and religion are incompatible isn't going to win you any arguments. I hope you enjoy getting your suits tossed into the dustbin of history.
 
2013-09-27 02:12:49 PM  
haolegirl:

So which "flavor" are they wanting taught in PUBLIC schools? Or do we let the wackos fight it out amongst themselves, and get back to us with the winner.

Each one of them sincerely believes that when they "make America a Christian country," it will be their own flavor of Christianity that is holding the reins.  They haven't thought that far ahead, to be honest.  If they had actually bothered to really think about the question, they would realize that the biggest religion in the US is the Catholic Church, with nearly five times as many members as the second largest church (SBC).  (In fact, there are nearly as many Catholics in the US as there are all other Christian denominations combined.) And the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution.

If they actually stopped to think logically about it, the creationists would work very hard to maintain the separation of church and state, because if any church takes over the state, it's not going to be theirs.   (Of course if they actually had any skill at thinking logically, they would not be creationists.)

 Also, will there be a way to opt out of the science classes for people of other/no religion?

The creationists are trying to force their religion into science classrooms because they can't force non-believers to attend church. They want their religion to be mandatory, so no, they would not allow any sort of "opt out."
 
2013-09-27 02:14:00 PM  

Lord_Baull: How strong is your faith if science creates a hostile environment? More importantly, how great is your God if you are incapable of using the brain he gave you?


In the New Creationist and Prosperity Gospel translation Jesus clearly states "Whoever has eyes to see, or ears to hear - amputate those organs.  They're just there for Satan to fark with you."
 
2013-09-27 02:14:35 PM  
And, in the evangelical sanctioned history class...

i.imgbox.com
 
2013-09-27 02:15:30 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Wow.  Even for creationists this is one of the most retarded lawsuits ever attempted.  I guess the whole tactic of "Creationism is a legitimate SCIENCE!" hasn't worked out too well and now they are just coming right out and calling it religion.  And therefore must be taught to all students because....something.

Freedom of religion - I don't think you understand what that really means.


actually it seems like their new tactic is to claim science is a religion.
 
2013-09-27 02:15:31 PM  
Welcome to Brownbackistan, infidels!
 
2013-09-27 02:15:42 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: TwistedIvory: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Next up: renaming Liberal

That town has always confused me. It's my mother's hometown and I've been there more times than I can count (I grew up in eastern KS). I remember at a young age asking my mom, "But WHY is it called 'Liberal?'"

Having been there myself, I'm going to guess "comic relief"


Was there recently, both parents and both sets of grandparents are from there--and it's changed a lot.  I think the name has something to do with all the free water the town provided in the early 20th century when you could take deranged citizens  (like these people) out back and shoot them.  Good times.
 
2013-09-27 02:16:00 PM  

SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.


Auditioning for the role of Bevets, are we?
 
2013-09-27 02:16:58 PM  

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?



Not as many schoolgirls shot in the head, yet.
 
2013-09-27 02:16:59 PM  
"(I)t's an egregious violation of the rights of Americans to subject students - as young as five - to an authoritative figure such as a teacher who essentially tells them that their faith is wrong," he said.

Oh fark off, shiat for brains. My kid is in 5th grade right now and hasn't learned one thing about evolution or the age of the earth yet.  For goodness sakes, they don't even start teaching science as a formal subject until 3rd or 4th grade and they're learning things like the parts of a cell and 'ecosystem', herbivores vs. carnivores and shiat like that.
 
2013-09-27 02:17:31 PM  
Oh look, elchip's bored again. Cookie Clicker is a better way to taste time than SkinnyHead.
 
2013-09-27 02:18:19 PM  
it's friday, drank most of my lunch - will wax poetic

what is frightening is also this - at some point, most children have the chance to travel - you parents know this.  Senior trip, national sports, etc.  one here was to Washington, another to Mexico - ours went.
these kids may never get that, even if they are enrolled because at some point travel leads to exposure and apparently that is bad - anti-science won't mesh well with a trip to the national air and space museum. how will you explain disney world in florida without science? okay - "magic kingdom" - bad example. still...

as posted above? an insular religious group that denies science and then, perhaps, avoids travel, IS a cult of sorts.

sigh
 
2013-09-27 02:18:31 PM  

EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).


STFU and GTFO. When we want your opinion on stiffened phalluses, we'll call you.
 
2013-09-27 02:18:36 PM  
The judge should invite each plantiff to discard their man-made cell phones, walk home, and not go to a hospital if their family ever becomes ill.
 
2013-09-27 02:20:59 PM  
chicken farkin sod farmers.
 
2013-09-27 02:21:08 PM  

EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).


Cf. Asimov essay.

Further, "science" and "scientific facts" are slightly different things. The term "Science" variously refers to a philosophical discipline, some anthropological practices, or the body of information resulting - "scientific facts" being only the last.

mgshamster: Theories are explanations of facts, they are not just "stronger facts."


That, too. Ob:

img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.
 
2013-09-27 02:21:33 PM  

monoski: dr_blasto: EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).

They're testable and repeatable. Sometimes the test gets better and what was once promoted to theory gets washed away based on new evidence. Sometimes it is just new discovery that better explains a process.

That's the thing, though. Testable and repeatable. Wilingness to change accepted theories based on new evidence; these are how we get science. Religion just 'is' because they believe it. Of the two choices here, one is more "true" than the other.

You mean to tell me that whole walking on water thing is not repeatable?


Of course it is repeatable. I get to do it every winter.
 
2013-09-27 02:22:46 PM  

give me doughnuts: vudukungfu: Schools are like polling places. And religion is like a penis. It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it.It is NOT OK to wave it around in public.

...or to ram it down childrens' throats.


Hey now, let's not be hasty.
 
2013-09-27 02:24:20 PM  

harleyquinnical: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.

And also really non-self-aware: FTFA:

"The statement went on to say that "teaching the materialistic/atheistic ideas to primary school children whose minds are susceptible to blindly accepting them as true" is unconstitutional and dangerous, and therefore the new science standards must be stopped. "

And yet apparently teaching primary school children about religion is not dangerous at all.

Is there any chance of me getting this huge serving of double standards with a side of pasta?


Of course, it's also paired with the White Whine.
 
2013-09-27 02:27:05 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.

Auditioning for the role of Bevets, are we?


I wonder what point is he trying to prove by quoting a political activist that has been dead for over 200 years.
 
2013-09-27 02:27:30 PM  

SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.


Social validation involves resisting the message by bringing to mind important others who share one's original attitude (Festinger, 1950, 1954, 1957; Festinger, Gerard, Hymovitch, Kelley, & Raven, 1952). Source derogation involves insulting the source, dismissing his or her expertise or trustworthiness, or otherwise rejecting his or her validity (Buller, 1986; Festinger, 1957; Festinger & Maccoby, 1964; Wright, 1975). Social validation and source derogation are responses that do not require message scrutiny, although both are likely to be coded as unfavorable thoughts in the general cognitive response approach. - (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5)


parasol: No - they are not ads for becoming religious - they are self-perpetuating reminders that the reader IS religious. They are meant to illicit a "yes, that is right" response only.


Attitude bolstering, in contrast, involves support arguing- that is, generating thoughts that are consistent with and supportive of one's original attitude without directly refuting message arguments (Abelson, 1959; Cameron & Jacks, 1999; Festinger, 1957; McGuire, 1964; Sherman & Gorkin, 1980). - ibid


Pants full of macaroni!!: Auditioning for the role of Bevets, are we?


There's some slight stylistic differences; they're actually contemporaries.
 
2013-09-27 02:27:35 PM  

clownyclownzomby: MaudlinMutantMollusk: TwistedIvory: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Next up: renaming Liberal

That town has always confused me. It's my mother's hometown and I've been there more times than I can count (I grew up in eastern KS). I remember at a young age asking my mom, "But WHY is it called 'Liberal?'"

Having been there myself, I'm going to guess "comic relief"

Was there recently, both parents and both sets of grandparents are from there--and it's changed a lot.  I think the name has something to do with all the free water the town provided in the early 20th century when you could take deranged citizens  (like these people) out back and shoot them.  Good times.


I've heard that Kansas actually used to be pretty liberal, back before it was all large corporate-owned farms.
 
2013-09-27 02:28:08 PM  
Another group, the Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE, Inc.) filed suit on Sep. 26 demanding that the new curricula not be instituted

Adding this to my too long list of groups who name themselves one thing to entice rubes and practice the exact opposite.

It's a long list, rivaling the LOPAGOPATA. (can't recall the exact acronym).
 
2013-09-27 02:28:28 PM  
Tell ya What Kansas.


We are going to have a contest.

Several in Fact.

Contest 1: Build a house
You may only use one of the following: Science, or Faith.

Contest 2: Grow Crops resistant to drought.
You may only use one of the following: Science, or Faith.

Contest 3: Build an Airplane
You may only use one of the following: Science. or Faith.

Contest 4: You have all been given skin cancer. You must treat and cure it.
You may only use on of the following: Science, or Faith.
 
2013-09-27 02:29:40 PM  
I'd like a repeatable experiment where food for two of every animal (48000 lbs of food and 4000 gallons of water just for two elephants) fit on a boat 300 cubits long. Then we can do an experiment where 2 koalas and pandas carry enough eucalyptus and bamboo for a 3000 mile journey to the ark and back.
 
2013-09-27 02:30:22 PM  

AxiomJackson: Pants full of macaroni!!: SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.

Auditioning for the role of Bevets, are we?

I wonder what point is he trying to prove by quoting a political activist that has been dead for over 200 years.


To be fair, these creationists could probably learn alot from a comedian.
 
2013-09-27 02:30:59 PM  
www.creationism.org

www.creationism.org

such wit simply could not have evolved from apes
 
2013-09-27 02:31:12 PM  

AxiomJackson: Pants full of macaroni!!: SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.

Auditioning for the role of Bevets, are we?

I wonder what point is he trying to prove by quoting a political activist that has been dead for over 200 years.



It's more eloquent than saying "I got nothing."
 
2013-09-27 02:32:03 PM  

dickfreckle: Another group, the Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE, Inc.) filed suit on Sep. 26 demanding that the new curricula not be instituted

Adding this to my too long list of groups who name themselves one thing to entice rubes and practice the exact opposite.

It's a long list, rivaling the LOPAGOPATA. (can't recall the exact acronym).


It's the LOPCATGOPATA

List of People Conspiring Against the GOP; and Therefore, America. :)

I'd like to see your list, if you please.
 
2013-09-27 02:32:44 PM  
Oh shiat, I forgot about this gem of a webcomic:

www.answersingenesis.org
 
2013-09-27 02:32:47 PM  

super_grass: Luckily for them, the hard core post-modernists are also starting to reject empiricism because of "privilege" and "social constructs".

Looks like all derp converges at the top.


Rather, it collects in pools at the far edges.
 
2013-09-27 02:33:27 PM  
scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-09-27 02:36:08 PM  

super_grass: Oh shiat, I forgot about this gem of a webcomic:

[www.answersingenesis.org image 291x324]


upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

Amazing how science can blow holes in even simplistic crap like that.
 
2013-09-27 02:36:44 PM  

super_grass: Oh shiat, I forgot about this gem of a webcomic:

[www.answersingenesis.org image 291x324]


upload.wikimedia.org

umm...

artist must have gone to school in Kansas
 
2013-09-27 02:37:20 PM  

Bloody William: super_grass: Oh shiat, I forgot about this gem of a webcomic:

[www.answersingenesis.org image 291x324]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 474x231]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 270x202]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x377]

Amazing how science can blow holes in even simplistic crap like that.


lol dammit!
 
2013-09-27 02:37:34 PM  
I fully agree. The wormhole aliens are Gods.
 
2013-09-27 02:38:06 PM  
Ask them to name one, only ONE, invention based on intelligent design!
We should do like the Romans. They were smart....
 
2013-09-27 02:38:50 PM  

mgshamster: I've heard that Kansas actually used to be pretty liberal, back before it was all large corporate-owned farms.


My impression is more "populist" than "liberal", but that's a subtle nuance.
 
2013-09-27 02:39:30 PM  

FloydA: Nurglitch: What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?

What if they each religious beliefs in church, and science in science classes?

Evolution happens.  Evolution has happened.  Evolution will continue to happen as long as there are organisms that reproduce.  If the creationists can't deal with that simple fact, that's their problem.


No, I am pretty sure they are making it your problem. Luckily they haven't spread and infected most other countries so we can just look on and laugh at you lot.

/maybe a bit nervously, because it is not as if there aren't plenty of stupid people everywhere else, but over here they mostly get drunk, listen to One Direction or whatever, and read lots of celebrity gossip, rather than getting involved in the school curriculum, etc.
 
2013-09-27 02:39:39 PM  

whidbey: I fully agree. The wormhole aliens are Gods.


The farked up thing is that in the limited cosmology of Star Trek, the wormhole aliens really were the patron gods of Bajor, looking after its interests in a very disjointed and non-linear way.
 
2013-09-27 02:42:25 PM  
controversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.com
 
2013-09-27 02:43:48 PM  

FloydA: haolegirl:

So which "flavor" are they wanting taught in PUBLIC schools? Or do we let the wackos fight it out amongst themselves, and get back to us with the winner.

Each one of them sincerely believes that when they "make America a Christian country," it will be their own flavor of Christianity that is holding the reins.  They haven't thought that far ahead, to be honest.  If they had actually bothered to really think about the question, they would realize that the biggest religion in the US is the Catholic Church, with nearly five times as many members as the second largest church (SBC).  (In fact, there are nearly as many Catholics in the US as there are all other Christian denominations combined.) And the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution.

If they actually stopped to think logically about it, the creationists would work very hard to maintain the separation of church and state, because if any church takes over the state, it's not going to be theirs.   (Of course if they actually had any skill at thinking logically, they would not be creationists.)

 Also, will there be a way to opt out of the science classes for people of other/no religion?

The creationists are trying to force their religion into science classrooms because they can't force non-believers to attend church. They want their religion to be mandatory, so no, they would not allow any sort of "opt out."


Thank goodness I don't live there then, I wouldn't want my pic on Fark as "homeschool mom" with big teeth n all!
 
2013-09-27 02:45:09 PM  

SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.



I can cherry-pick quotes too.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason


The opinions I have advanced ... are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues - and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now - and so help me God.

Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason
 
2013-09-27 02:45:38 PM  

Bloody William: whidbey: I fully agree. The wormhole aliens are Gods.

The farked up thing is that in the limited cosmology of Star Trek, the wormhole aliens really were the patron gods of Bajor, looking after its interests in a very disjointed and non-linear way.


Meanwhile the Koch Bros consult the KostaMojen*


*yes I had to actually Google how to spell that
 
2013-09-27 02:46:01 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Klom Dark: I drove thru Kansas yesterday coming back from Colorado, it was terrifying. Stupid, stupid people and stupid billboards all the way down i70. Turned north at Salina and felt a great sense of relief when i crossed the Welcome to Nebraska sign. The derp is strong in parts of Nebraska, but nothing compared to the lifeless blank eyes of most of the brainwashed masses there in Kansas.

I'll never understand the logic behind those billboards.  Do they actually think they're changing anyone's minds?  Wouldn't that money be better spent helping the hungry, the poor, the sick?


 I agree, but apparently useful idiots get some sort of self-satisfaction by paying for them. I fully agree with you that it would be way better spent helping the hungry, poor, sick. I don't get it.

And who is behind these black billboards in Nebraska that say ignorant shiat like "You can run, but you can't hide from me - God". What possible use are they? Just guilt-tripping the gullible or???
 
2013-09-27 02:49:37 PM  

unexplained bacon: [www.creationism.org image 720x375]

[www.creationism.org image 720x375]

such wit simply could not have evolved from apes


"Man" Tracks has been debunked for years - only the most intellectually dishonest creationists still use this argument:  http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm

/ just saying...
 
2013-09-27 02:50:43 PM  

Klom Dark: And who is behind these black billboards in Nebraska that say ignorant shiat like "You can run, but you can't hide from me - God". What possible use are they? Just guilt-tripping the gullible or???


Fear-tripping the authoritarian followers into conformity would seem more likely to be accurate.
 
2013-09-27 02:51:49 PM  
All I can say is that is weak faith that is afraid of being tested. Or puny god.
 
2013-09-27 02:52:12 PM  

vudukungfu: We need to start treating Christians just like their ululating wacko babby raping worshiper counterparts that squat in the desert.
They are 100% the same kind of ignorant philistine schizospiritual terrorists andthey havenothing to offer society or civilizationexcept for patented fear and prejudice.
There is no place for them on this earth but an insaneasylum.
And whenarmed, they are a clear and present danger to all around.
Period.


You know, there are many millions of Christians in this country who don't force their views on others and don't agree with this kind of education nonsense. They just go about their business and go to church on Sunday's. They have plenty to offer society, not due to their faith, but due to the fact that they are human beings that have lives that are not solely about their faith. I'm an atheist, but I think it is very important to make a clear distinction between the people that do things like these groups from TFA and many millions of others who don't do anything to bother anyone. Just outright calling anyone who 'believes' a whacko isn't helping.
 
2013-09-27 02:52:32 PM  

R.A.Danny: bborchar: R.A.Danny: The world needs ditch diggers too.

At least my kids will have less competition out there in the real world.

My kids will be glad to hire your kid.

:)


Meant that in the way of "I actually want to educate my children in science, math, history and language, and if the other idiots don't want to do that with their children, then that will free up plenty of jobs that would otherwise go to other well-educated kids".  Now as I read what I originally wrote, I see that it can be taken either way.  My fault.

/my kids will still learn from qualified professionals
//and I don't care if they learn something I disagree with
///I only care that my kids learn to think for themselves
 
2013-09-27 02:54:14 PM  

Klom Dark: Satanic_Hamster: Klom Dark: I drove thru Kansas yesterday coming back from Colorado, it was terrifying. Stupid, stupid people and stupid billboards all the way down i70. Turned north at Salina and felt a great sense of relief when i crossed the Welcome to Nebraska sign. The derp is strong in parts of Nebraska, but nothing compared to the lifeless blank eyes of most of the brainwashed masses there in Kansas.

I'll never understand the logic behind those billboards.  Do they actually think they're changing anyone's minds?  Wouldn't that money be better spent helping the hungry, the poor, the sick?

 I agree, but apparently useful idiots get some sort of self-satisfaction by paying for them. I fully agree with you that it would be way better spent helping the hungry, poor, sick. I don't get it.

And who is behind these black billboards in Nebraska that say ignorant shiat like "You can run, but you can't hide from me - God". What possible use are they? Just guilt-tripping the gullible or???


They let the rest of us know we can safely dismiss them as morons, so..there's that.
 
2013-09-27 02:55:49 PM  

Elzar: unexplained bacon: [www.creationism.org image 720x375]

[www.creationism.org image 720x375]

such wit simply could not have evolved from apes

"Man" Tracks has been debunked for years - only the most intellectually dishonest creationists still use this argument:  http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm

/ just saying...


probably by people with fancy diplomas

TRICKSTERS!

lets see em refudicate THIS!


www.creationism.org
 
2013-09-27 03:00:25 PM  

qorkfiend: They've lost the battle to raise religion up to the level of science, so now they're trying to drag science down to the level of religion. Fascinating.


That's a very concise way of summarizing the situation. Well done.
 
2013-09-27 03:06:19 PM  

AxiomJackson: Pants full of macaroni!!: SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.

Auditioning for the role of Bevets, are we?

I wonder what point is he trying to prove by quoting a political activist that has been dead for over 200 years.


Just pointing out that his views support the position asserted in this lawsuit. Paine believed that science should be taught in schools theologically.  He saw the effort to teach science as a form of materialism as an effort to promote atheism in schools:

"The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal."  ~ Thomas Paine.
 
2013-09-27 03:09:31 PM  

FloydA: Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.

[i105.photobucket.com image 533x640]

If you want to teach kids about your personal religious beliefs, do it in church. That way, everyone who wants to hear about your god can do so, and everyone who wants to hear about some other god can go to some other church.

I assure you, you don't want to require me to teach your kids about your creation myths; you would not like the results.  Let your priests and ministers do their jobs and let me do mine.


I'd rather that "if" it had to be taught, that someone like you has to teach it rather than a true believer.
 
2013-09-27 03:13:11 PM  

unexplained bacon: Elzar: unexplained bacon: [www.creationism.org image 720x375]

[www.creationism.org image 720x375]

such wit simply could not have evolved from apes

"Man" Tracks has been debunked for years - only the most intellectually dishonest creationists still use this argument:  http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm

/ just saying...

probably by people with fancy diplomas

TRICKSTERS!

lets see em refudicate THIS!


[www.creationism.org image 504x720]


There were seven of every clean and two of every unclean.

They can't even get their own apologetics right!
 
2013-09-27 03:13:27 PM  

vudukungfu: Schools are like polling places. And religion is like a penis. It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it.It is NOT OK to wave it around in public.


Don't judge me.
 
2013-09-27 03:17:11 PM  

FloydA: haolegirl:

I thought they kinda sorta believed in evolution, that a little bit happened cause Noah couldn't fit two of EVERYTHING on the ark, and just brought a sampling and what we have now evolved from that? Or did I dream it?


Not all of them, but some creationists make that claim.  What's amazing about it is that, in order for the claim to make even a tiny bit of sense, they have to propose that evolution can happen a whole hell of a lot faster than even the most extreme PunkEek fan would propose, AND that nobody noticed at the time that a pair of generic deer gave birth to white tails, mule deer, elk, moose, red deer, and caribou all in one litter,  AND that this process of hyper-evolution stopped as soon as we started looking.
They make that argument in an effort to preserve the ark story.

Other creationists just sort of bypass the ark story and assume that God crammed the animals into that small space by magic, or the ark was bigger than it is described, as though it was a Tardis or something.


Meat plants. That's my favorite "no, the ark is totally true!" argument. In short, the animals on the Ark didn't prey on each other because, prior to the flood, they were all herbivores. Post-flood scarcity led to the dietary change of what we now call carnivores. Because pre-flood, there were plants made of meat, and that's what lions and bears ate, and that's why they have predatory teeth and claws where other animals are designed to eat plants.

I'd have laughed myself to death over that except it was the honest assertion of my friend's mom. (My friend, thankfully, is smart enough to think that's bugfark insane. But he's one of 7 kids in a rural PA homeschooled family, and everything you can possibly imagine about them is true) Instead I brought up the genetic bottleneck in cheetahs, which would have happened to every animal in the flood, and her response was that God fixed them all afterward. Letting that one slide, I asked her why the cheetahs didn't get fixed along with all the others then.

Bless her heart, she actually used wit. "Because cheetahs never prosper."

/and none of that is a pre-written joke from somewhere
//that legit happened
///slashies evolved in threes
 
2013-09-27 03:20:17 PM  

meat0918: unexplained bacon: Elzar: unexplained bacon: [www.creationism.org image 720x375]

[www.creationism.org image 720x375]

such wit simply could not have evolved from apes

"Man" Tracks has been debunked for years - only the most intellectually dishonest creationists still use this argument:  http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm

/ just saying...

probably by people with fancy diplomas

TRICKSTERS!

lets see em refudicate THIS!


[www.creationism.org image 504x720]

There were seven of every clean and two of every unclean.

They can't even get their own apologetics right!


I browsed around a creationism site to grab those pics...the stupid was...INTENSE.
So yeah, let's pump that shiat into our kids heads and call it science...or math or waffles, who cares once you've gone that farkin' crazy.

/really unbelievable, these folks should be brushed aside as lunatics.
 
2013-09-27 03:25:39 PM  

unexplained bacon: Elzar: unexplained bacon: [www.creationism.org image 720x375]

[www.creationism.org image 720x375]

such wit simply could not have evolved from apes

"Man" Tracks has been debunked for years - only the most intellectually dishonest creationists still use this argument:  http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm

/ just saying...

probably by people with fancy diplomas

TRICKSTERS!

lets see em refudicate THIS!


[www.creationism.org image 504x720]


I must reassess my position. If "modern engineering" and "several [unidentified] studies" have confirmed the viability of the Ark, then every argument against a worldwide flood is null and void.
 
2013-09-27 03:27:25 PM  

Hugh2d2: Scopes Trial part 2: Scientific Denial Boogaloo


yeh, seriously... this shiat aint constitutional.
 
2013-09-27 03:29:35 PM  

mgshamster: EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).

The bold is blatantly false.  Theories are explanations of facts, they are not just "stronger facts."


I would suggest you google scientific fact...
 
2013-09-27 03:35:14 PM  

Dimensio: unexplained bacon: Elzar: unexplained bacon: [www.creationism.org image 720x375]

[www.creationism.org image 720x375]

such wit simply could not have evolved from apes

"Man" Tracks has been debunked for years - only the most intellectually dishonest creationists still use this argument:  http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm

/ just saying...

probably by people with fancy diplomas

TRICKSTERS!

lets see em refudicate THIS!


[www.creationism.org image 504x720]

I must reassess my position. If "modern engineering" and "several [unidentified] studies" have confirmed the viability of the Ark, then every argument against a worldwide flood is null and void.


yep you can't argue with science
 
2013-09-27 03:36:00 PM  

SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.


BEVETS!!!!
 
2013-09-27 03:36:02 PM  

EWreckedSean: mgshamster: EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).

The bold is blatantly false.  Theories are explanations of facts, they are not just "stronger facts."

I would suggest you google scientific fact...


Double down, that's the ticket...
 
2013-09-27 03:36:56 PM  

Graffito: Nurglitch: What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?

But that's what science does now.

Science doesn't claim to know "The Truth."  Observations are either true or falsified, and the theories developed from observations and experiments are only claimed to be the best explanation that we have so far.

Scientists believe that by assiduously applying the scientific method we can develop a more predictive understanding of the universe.  Ultimate truth is the purview of religion, not science.


Yes, that's my point: Too many people think that when scientists talk about 'facts' and so on, that these scientists are talking about facts the way that people used to, as absolutes. It's as much about inculcating habits of non-definitive speech as it is about structures of knowledge, and the philosophies of science.
 
2013-09-27 03:39:55 PM  

EWreckedSean: mgshamster: EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).

The bold is blatantly false.  Theories are explanations of facts, they are not just "stronger facts."

I would suggest you google scientific fact...



mgshamster is right.  A theory is not a fact and never can be.  A theory is (minimally) a set of postulates that are logically consistent and are intended to explain the cause and effect relationships between observations.  Since theories are ideas, they cannot be directly observed or measured, so they do not fit the definition of "facts" as it is usually understood.


You are correct that scientific theories are believable, and we can generally be pretty confident that they are correct, but they are neither a "superior" nor an "inferior" kind of knowledge than facts are.  Facts are the "stuff" that we want to explain, and theories are the explanations that we use to make sense of the stuff.
 
2013-09-27 03:42:19 PM  

FloydA: EWreckedSean: mgshamster: EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).

The bold is blatantly false.  Theories are explanations of facts, they are not just "stronger facts."

I would suggest you google scientific fact...


mgshamster is right.  A theory is not a fact and never can be.  A theory is (minimally) a set of postulates that are logically consistent and are intended to explain the cause and effect relationships between observations.  Since theories are ideas, they cannot be directly observed or measured, so they do not fit the definition of "facts" as it is usually understood.


You are correct that scientific theories are believable, and we can generally be pretty confident that they are correct, but they are neither a "superior" nor an "inferior" kind of knowledge than facts are.  Facts are the "stuff" that we want to explain, and theories are the explanations that we use to make sense of the stuff.


You are confusing a theory with a scientific theory. They are not interchangeable.

Here, just wikipedia, but it is sourced if you want to dig further:

scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been   Scientists create scientific theories from
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative
 
2013-09-27 03:42:34 PM  

SkinnyHead: AxiomJackson: Pants full of macaroni!!: SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.

Auditioning for the role of Bevets, are we?

I wonder what point is he trying to prove by quoting a political activist that has been dead for over 200 years.

Just pointing out that his views support the position asserted in this lawsuit. Paine believed that science should be taught in schools theologically.  He saw the effort to teach science as a form of materialism as an effort to promote atheism in schools:

"The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal."  ~ Thomas Paine.


Did Thomas Paine try to force those views on the schools via lawsuit? No?  STFU.
 
2013-09-27 03:42:42 PM  

FloydA: Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.

[i105.photobucket.com image 533x640]

If you want to teach kids about your personal religious beliefs, do it in church. That way, everyone who wants to hear about your god can do so, and everyone who wants to hear about some other god can go to some other church.

I assure you, you don't want to require me to teach your kids about your creation myths; you would not like the results.  Let your priests and ministers do their jobs and let me do mine.


"You use big words hurt my brain.  Brain not like big words.  Small words like 'magic man did it' good.   Easy, and not need think or study.  You contr...  cont...  say magic man not do it.  If you right, me wrong.  Me not wrong, because wrong feel bad and scary.  So you wrong.  Magic man say so."

This sums up every single discussion I have ever had with highly religious folk regarding evolution.  With the exception of one Jesuit priest I talked to, who was utterly brilliant, and immediately admitted that "God" is not a scientific proof, and that theology answered an entirely different set of needs in human beings.  He taught science in the local catholic school, if I remember right.
 
2013-09-27 03:43:32 PM  

unexplained bacon: meat0918: unexplained bacon: Elzar: unexplained bacon: [www.creationism.org image 720x375]

[www.creationism.org image 720x375]

such wit simply could not have evolved from apes

"Man" Tracks has been debunked for years - only the most intellectually dishonest creationists still use this argument:  http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm

/ just saying...

probably by people with fancy diplomas

TRICKSTERS!

lets see em refudicate THIS!


[www.creationism.org image 504x720]

There were seven of every clean and two of every unclean.

They can't even get their own apologetics right!

I browsed around a creationism site to grab those pics...the stupid was...INTENSE.
So yeah, let's pump that shiat into our kids heads and call it science...or math or waffles, who cares once you've gone that farkin' crazy.

/really unbelievable, these folks should be brushed aside as lunatics.


Mmm, waffles.
 
2013-09-27 03:44:08 PM  
Me, Moog, say teaching fancy alphabet writing make hostile environment for traditional cavemen family faith in pictographs. How is babby formed?  Thank you, Fox, for keeping me infromed.
 
2013-09-27 03:46:26 PM  

EWreckedSean: FloydA: EWreckedSean: mgshamster: EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).

The bold is blatantly false.  Theories are explanations of facts, they are not just "stronger facts."

I would suggest you google scientific fact...


mgshamster is right.  A theory is not a fact and never can be.  A theory is (minimally) a set of postulates that are logically consistent and are intended to explain the cause and effect relationships between observations.  Since theories are ideas, they cannot be directly observed or measured, so they do not fit the definition of "facts" as it is usually understood.


You are correct that scientific theories are believable, and we can generally be pretty confident that they are correct, but they are neither a "superior" nor an "inferior" kind of knowledge than facts are.  Facts are the "stuff" that we want to explain, and theories are the explanations that we use to make sense of the stuff.

You are confusing a theory with a scientific theory. They are not interchangeable.


You are confusing theory (scientific or otherwise) with facts. Evolution occurs, that is a fact. WHY evolution occurs is the subject of various theories.
 
2013-09-27 03:48:53 PM  

TheWhoppah: Me, Moog, say teaching fancy alphabet writing make hostile environment for traditional cavemen family faith in pictographs. How is babby formed?  Thank you, Fox, for keeping me infromed.


Oh please. That was only funny for about 100 posts or so even in that original thread. Let's not try to resurrect it.

/supposed to be all caps too
 
2013-09-27 03:51:26 PM  
orthodox christians do not support this type of activity; it is important to use science as the discovery tool that it is.
 
2013-09-27 03:52:39 PM  
ME GO TOO FAR!
 
2013-09-27 03:54:24 PM  

theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: AxiomJackson: Pants full of macaroni!!: SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.

Auditioning for the role of Bevets, are we?

I wonder what point is he trying to prove by quoting a political activist that has been dead for over 200 years.

Just pointing out that his views support the position asserted in this lawsuit. Paine believed that science should be taught in schools theologically.  He saw the effort to teach science as a form of materialism as an effort to promote atheism in schools:

"The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal."  ~ Thomas Paine.

Did Thomas Paine try to force those views on the schools via lawsuit? No?  STFU.


I also don't think Paine would have gone along with Christian creationism being taught in the first place.

Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange believe that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]
 
2013-09-27 03:55:43 PM  

theknuckler_33: TheWhoppah: Me, Moog, say teaching fancy alphabet writing make hostile environment for traditional cavemen family faith in pictographs. How is babby formed?  Thank you, Fox, for keeping me infromed.

Oh please. That was only funny for about 100 posts or so even in that original thread. Let's not try to resurrect it.

/supposed to be all caps too


Yo Dawg, its Friday Friday fun fun fun.  Chill out and pour yourself a vodak and tonic.  You can have cheezburger.

/IANAL
//YMMV
 
2013-09-27 03:58:12 PM  
EWreckedSean:
You are confusing a theory with a scientific theory. They are not interchangeable.


I am talking about scientific theories because no other type of theory has any business being taught in a science classroom. I do not care about any other kinds of "theory" in this context; they are simply irrelevant.
 
2013-09-27 04:00:30 PM  

TheWhoppah: theknuckler_33: TheWhoppah: Me, Moog, say teaching fancy alphabet writing make hostile environment for traditional cavemen family faith in pictographs. How is babby formed?  Thank you, Fox, for keeping me infromed.

Oh please. That was only funny for about 100 posts or so even in that original thread. Let's not try to resurrect it.

/supposed to be all caps too

Yo Dawg, its Friday Friday fun fun fun.  Chill out and pour yourself a vodak and tonic.  You can have cheezburger.

/IANAL
//YMMV


Way ahead of you, buddy. That was not intended to come off the way I guess it did.

/who you callin' buddy, pal?
 
2013-09-27 04:05:41 PM  

SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.


Paine was a Deist, which was a fairly reasonable understanding of reality given the information available at that time.  You, however, are a disingenuous jackass.  Paine was not supporting the teachings of Christianity, per se, and if you read (ahahahahah!) The Age of Reason, you would see it spelled out quite clearly many times over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism  is a nice jumping off point for you.  You should check it out.

Yeah, yeah, SkinnyHead is a troll.  I figured it was worth the time to reply anyways.  Someone else might actually learn from his mistakes.
 
2013-09-27 04:06:14 PM  

theknuckler_33: TheWhoppah: theknuckler_33: TheWhoppah: Me, Moog, say teaching fancy alphabet writing make hostile environment for traditional cavemen family faith in pictographs. How is babby formed?  Thank you, Fox, for keeping me infromed.

Oh please. That was only funny for about 100 posts or so even in that original thread. Let's not try to resurrect it.

/supposed to be all caps too

Yo Dawg, its Friday Friday fun fun fun.  Chill out and pour yourself a vodak and tonic.  You can have cheezburger.

/IANAL
//YMMV

Way ahead of you, buddy. That was not intended to come off the way I guess it did.

/who you callin' buddy, pal?



Relax, guy!
 
2013-09-27 04:11:15 PM  

give me doughnuts: theknuckler_33: who you callin' buddy, pal?

Relax, guy!


Right back atcha, chief!
 
2013-09-27 04:15:28 PM  

theknuckler_33: give me doughnuts: theknuckler_33: who you callin' buddy, pal?

Relax, guy!

Right back atcha, chief!



I'm not your 'chief', friend.
 
2013-09-27 04:18:28 PM  

give me doughnuts: theknuckler_33: give me doughnuts: theknuckler_33: who you callin' buddy, pal?

Relax, guy!

Right back atcha, chief!

I'm not your 'chief', friend.


I ain't your friend, asshole!
 
2013-09-27 04:21:03 PM  

super_grass: harleyquinnical: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.

And also really non-self-aware: FTFA:

"The statement went on to say that "teaching the materialistic/atheistic ideas to primary school children whose minds are susceptible to blindly accepting them as true" is unconstitutional and dangerous, and therefore the new science standards must be stopped. "

And yet apparently teaching primary school children about religion is not dangerous at all.

Is there any chance of me getting this huge serving of double standards with a side of pasta?

Of course, it's also paired with the White Whine.


The whine will not be served until the pastafarians weigh in on this, filing a lawsuit of their own in the name of satire with the same reasons listed.
 
2013-09-27 04:29:18 PM  

Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.


Yes, but as more and more states follow them, it gives my nieces a better chance of getting into more prestigious schools, getting better jobs, earning more money and helping poor Uncle Kierzan when I'm a drooling veggie.

Besides, someone has to wipe my bum and change the sheets when I poo the bed. I think Kansans fit that bill perfectly!
 
2013-09-27 04:38:03 PM  

FloydA: EWreckedSean:
You are confusing a theory with a scientific theory. They are not interchangeable.


I am talking about scientific theories because no other type of theory has any business being taught in a science classroom. I do not care about any other kinds of "theory" in this context; they are simply irrelevant.


I think what he is trying to claim is that a "theory" is an explanation of facts, and a "scientific theory" is a fact.

Blatantly wrong, even by his own wiki quote, but that's the most I can make sense of what he's trying to say.

/I am thoroughly amused by the use of wiki to try to show that two practicing scientists are wrong.
 
2013-09-27 04:40:28 PM  
It scares me that there is even a miniscule portion of the country, much less a sizable one, that has absolutely zero problem with ingraining ignorance and stupidity into the minds of children.  I went to private Catholic school from kindergarten through 12th grade, and I was never taught anything religiously oriented in science class.  I know the plural of anecdote is not data, and there might be other people here for whom that is not true, but the whole point of science or Biology class is to learn about science, not religion.  I mean, it says it right there in the name of the class.
 
2013-09-27 04:41:01 PM  

rinosaurus: I also don't think Paine would have gone along with Christian creationism being taught in the first place.


No, but Paine would have supported the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.  And he certainly would not approve of efforts to prohibit students from learning about Intelligent Design in schools.  He and Jefferson would insist that students should at least have the opportunity to learn of the controversy and of the differing views, so that they should be permitted to think and decide for themselves.  Most reasonable people think so too.
 
2013-09-27 04:41:03 PM  

unexplained bacon: Elzar: unexplained bacon: [www.creationism.org image 720x375]

[www.creationism.org image 720x375]

such wit simply could not have evolved from apes

"Man" Tracks has been debunked for years - only the most intellectually dishonest creationists still use this argument:  http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm

/ just saying...

probably by people with fancy diplomas

TRICKSTERS!

lets see em refudicate THIS!

[www.creationism.org image 504x720]



It is impossible to build a wooden ship with a 450 ft long keel.  It would simply break apart under its own weight.  Before we get to sea-worthiness, however, we need to talk about construction challenges and time management using iron-age tools.  A keel that size, out in the elements, will begin rotting the day you lay it.  By the time you had completed it several months later and were ready to start the hull you would discover the end you laid first is rotted beyond use.
 
2013-09-27 04:50:57 PM  

Coco LaFemme: It scares me that there is even a miniscule portion of the country, much less a sizable one, that has absolutely zero problem with ingraining ignorance and stupidity into the minds of children.  I went to private Catholic school from kindergarten through 12th grade, and I was never taught anything religiously oriented in science class.  I know the plural of anecdote is not data, and there might be other people here for whom that is not true, but the whole point of science or Biology class is to learn about science, not religion.  I mean, it says it right there in the name of the class.


All of us who went through Catholic school learned science without a religious slant. I'm sure the same is true of Lutherans, Methodists and other longstanding heretical churches.
 
2013-09-27 04:51:13 PM  
Tell you what.  All of the folks who think scientific theories are fallible and can often be wrong, perform this experiment.

Hold a bowling ball directly over your foot.  Now gravity is a theory, and its method of propagation is not directly known.  The theory could be wrong, if you just disbelieve hard enough!

OK, have that firmly in your mind?  OK, now let go.

Report your results.  Refine your theory for the next iteration of your experiment.
 
2013-09-27 04:53:26 PM  

praxcelis: Tell you what.  All of the folks who think scientific theories are fallible and can often be wrong, perform this experiment.

Hold a bowling ball directly over your foot.  Now gravity is a theory, and its method of propagation is not directly known.  The theory could be wrong, if you just disbelieve hard enough!

OK, have that firmly in your mind?  OK, now let go.

Report your results.  Refine your theory for the next iteration of your experiment.


I thought gravity was a law.
 
2013-09-27 04:55:58 PM  

SkinnyHead: rinosaurus: I also don't think Paine would have gone along with Christian creationism being taught in the first place.

No, but Paine would have supported the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.  And he certainly would not approve of efforts to prohibit students from learning about Intelligent Design in schools.  He and Jefferson would insist that students should at least have the opportunity to learn of the controversy and of the differing views, so that they should be permitted to think and decide for themselves.  Most reasonable people think so too.


If Paine somehow lived through the intervening two hundred years, had no access to any current information, you might be correct.  I like to think otherwise, but neither your theory nor mine are provable in any way, much like Intelligent Design.  However... Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.  It is worth noting that students are not prohibited from learning about Intelligent Design in school, provided it is part of a larger study, such as world religions.  Intelligent Design is not included in science classes because it is NOT SCIENCE.  This is not controversy except in the minds of ignorant people.  Intelligent Design is not testable or falsifiable.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/why-intel li gent-design-is-not.html   Read on!
 
2013-09-27 04:58:40 PM  

simplicimus: praxcelis: Tell you what.  All of the folks who think scientific theories are fallible and can often be wrong, perform this experiment.

Hold a bowling ball directly over your foot.  Now gravity is a theory, and its method of propagation is not directly known.  The theory could be wrong, if you just disbelieve hard enough!

OK, have that firmly in your mind?  OK, now let go.

Report your results.  Refine your theory for the next iteration of your experiment.

I thought gravity was a law.


As I understand it, the effects of gravity have, in all observed cases thus far, all behaved according to a mathematical principle known as the inverse-square law.  It's one of those things that is entirely empirical observation, and the actual mechanism of what attracts masses toward one another has not been discovered, only theorized.  I will, however, cast my lot with empirical observation.  Anyone who thinks that empiricism is not science is welcome to perform the above experiment and report any different results.
 
2013-09-27 05:16:09 PM  
beliefs are not being given more credence in science classes

Good.
 
2013-09-27 05:35:46 PM  

unexplained bacon: [www.creationism.org image 720x375]

[www.creationism.org image 720x375]

such wit simply could not have evolved from apes


I'm always amazed how they claim to disprove something they clearly know nothing about.
 
2013-09-27 05:43:17 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: The suit alleges that the new standards will "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

On the contrary, teaching based on the science will not promote any religious beliefs at all.  Teaching creationism, on the other hand, would favor one religious view over others, as different religions have different creation stories.

Science class should be based on science.  If you want to teach creation stories, do it in Sunday School, or push for a comparative religions class where students can learn the history and beliefs of multiple faiths and how they've shaped society.


I support this, add a comparative religion course that they can take instead of science class and put an asterisk on their diploma that says that they took religion instead of science.  Watch them cease to be able to attend college outside of Bob Jones.  If parents want to sabotage their children, let them.  Turn science into some kind of renegade Footloose thing.
 
2013-09-27 05:43:39 PM  

TwistedIvory: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Next up: renaming Liberal

That town has always confused me. It's my mother's hometown and I've been there more times than I can count (I grew up in eastern KS). I remember at a young age asking my mom, "But WHY is it called 'Liberal?'"


From Wikipedia:
Early settler S. S. Rogers built the first house in what would become Liberal in 1872. Rogers became famous in the region for giving water to weary travelers. Reportedly, Liberal gained its name from the common response to his acts of kindness, "That's very liberal of you."

As for changing the name, that would also require changing the name of the town's famous baseball team, the Liberal Bee Jays.
 
2013-09-27 06:27:45 PM  
Humans were so intelligently designed, we needed Ben Franklin to invent the spectacles, wisdom teeth need to be removed from most people's mouths, and the appendix serves no function whatsoever.
 
2013-09-27 06:29:14 PM  

AxiomJackson: Pants full of macaroni!!: SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.

Auditioning for the role of Bevets, are we?

I wonder what point is he trying to prove by quoting a political activist that has been dead for over 200 years.


And who wasn't a Christian.


I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.


I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.
 
2013-09-27 06:35:57 PM  

TwistedIvory: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Next up: renaming Liberal

That town has always confused me. It's my mother's hometown and I've been there more times than I can count (I grew up in eastern KS). I remember at a young age asking my mom, "But WHY is it called 'Liberal?'"


Well, if you must know...

What is now the town of Liberal used to be just a tiny little stop on the Santa Fe Trail. There was a woman who lived there who became well-known because she liberally gave away water from her well to thirsty travelers. So, it became known as Liberal.
 
2013-09-27 07:38:08 PM  

Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of itConservatives.


A key part of editing is reducing wordiness and replacing long strings of text with more concise phrases, or better yet, a single word.
 
2013-09-27 08:00:16 PM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: TwistedIvory: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Next up: renaming Liberal

That town has always confused me. It's my mother's hometown and I've been there more times than I can count (I grew up in eastern KS). I remember at a young age asking my mom, "But WHY is it called 'Liberal?'"

Well, if you must know...

What is now the town of Liberal used to be just a tiny little stop on the Santa Fe Trail. There was a woman who lived there who became well-known because she liberally gave away water from her well to thirsty travelers. So, it became known as Liberal.


That was the story I heard. "that's mighty liberal of you," etc.
 
2013-09-27 08:07:45 PM  

The Bananadragon: FloydA: haolegirl:

I thought they kinda sorta believed in evolution, that a little bit happened cause Noah couldn't fit two of EVERYTHING on the ark, and just brought a sampling and what we have now evolved from that? Or did I dream it?

I'd have laughed myself to death over that except it was the honest assertion of my friend's mom. (My friend, thankfully, is smart enough to think that's bugfark insane. But he's one of 7 kids in a rural PA homeschooled family, and everything you can possibly imagine about them is true) Instead I brought up the genetic bottleneck in cheetahs, which would have happened to every animal in the flood, and her response was that God fixed them all afterward. Letting that one slide, I asked her why the cheetahs didn't ge ...


This is very common in creationist contortions - at some stage they realize their attempt to reconcile Genesis with facts, has a huge hole somewhere.

Rather than saying "Oh my story must be wrong", they go "My story must be true, but I need a miracle to paper over this huge crack.Now who can do miracles? God must have done this!"

Thousands, not billions : challenging an icon of evolution : questioning the age of the Earth by  Don DeYoung.

This guy is a Discovery Institute shill. The book explains that radio carbon dating is wrong bc what happened was, God magically brought the half-lives of all the planet's minerals into alignment in the year of Noah's Flood. Well yes, I know that would have generated a lot of heat from the radioactive decay. In fact I calculate that it would make the surface of the Earth hotter than the surface of the Sun, which would have boiled off the seas and vitrified the top half-mile of the planet. Ok this is a big problem for my theory. But my theory must be right, so I need a miracle. God does miracles. God must have magically wicked all that heat off into space. Taa dah!
 
2013-09-27 08:21:51 PM  
I don't understand the desire for flat out denying science. I went to a private school and we learned science. Evolution, chemistry, geology, physics, and anatomy (insert Catholic molestation joke here). It was in religion class that we got the standard "Yeah, it's all true. God did it, see how awesome he is?" speech.

As a Deist, I find the scientific method the most concise and effective way to unlock the magnificence of a creator. Clearly he/she/it/they put this entire universe here to explore and study, because we wouldn't have developed a need to reason if we weren't supposed to do it.

I don't care if it's Zeus or Vishnu or the Apache moon god up there, but I like to think that I'm not the apex of evolution.
 
2013-09-27 08:28:26 PM  

mjjt: The Bananadragon: FloydA: haolegirl:

I thought they kinda sorta believed in evolution, that a little bit happened cause Noah couldn't fit two of EVERYTHING on the ark, and just brought a sampling and what we have now evolved from that? Or did I dream it?

I'd have laughed myself to death over that except it was the honest assertion of my friend's mom. (My friend, thankfully, is smart enough to think that's bugfark insane. But he's one of 7 kids in a rural PA homeschooled family, and everything you can possibly imagine about them is true) Instead I brought up the genetic bottleneck in cheetahs, which would have happened to every animal in the flood, and her response was that God fixed them all afterward. Letting that one slide, I asked her why the cheetahs didn't ge ...

This is very common in creationist contortions - at some stage they realize their attempt to reconcile Genesis with facts, has a huge hole somewhere.

Rather than saying "Oh my story must be wrong", they go "My story must be true, but I need a miracle to paper over this huge crack.Now who can do miracles? God must have done this!"


Ah yes, the old ad hoc/post hoc 1-2 combo.  A favorite of mine.
 
2013-09-27 10:15:30 PM  

FloydA: Evolution is as much a "fact" as anything in the sciences can ever be.


Ok, I'm as anti-creationism as anyone else, but incorrect statements like yours don't help the problem. Evolution is a theory (as in, "The Theory of Evolution") and theory is only the penultimate step in the scientific method. I don't know about everyone else, but the scientific method was covered pretty thoroughly in my junior high school science classes.
 
2013-09-27 10:18:11 PM  

praxcelis: simplicimus: praxcelis: Tell you what.  All of the folks who think scientific theories are fallible and can often be wrong, perform this experiment.

Hold a bowling ball directly over your foot.  Now gravity is a theory, and its method of propagation is not directly known.  The theory could be wrong, if you just disbelieve hard enough!

OK, have that firmly in your mind?  OK, now let go.

Report your results.  Refine your theory for the next iteration of your experiment.

I thought gravity was a law.

As I understand it, the effects of gravity have, in all observed cases thus far, all behaved according to a mathematical principle known as the inverse-square law.  It's one of those things that is entirely empirical observation, and the actual mechanism of what attracts masses toward one another has not been discovered, only theorized.  I will, however, cast my lot with empirical observation.  Anyone who thinks that empiricism is not science is welcome to perform the above experiment and report any different results.


In practice (looking at what scientists actually  do, as opposed to what they say they do), a scientific "law" is simply a special kind of theory that can be expressed in mathematical shorthand.

For example, Newton proposed the "law" that F=ma.  He proposed the theory that "the net force acting on the object,  m is the mass of the object and  a is the acceleration of the object."  "F=ma" is a law (a mathematical equation) that summarizes the theory about the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration.

Some theories are easily expressed in mathematical shorthand - Newton's second law is an example.  Einstein's relativity equation E=MC^2 is another example.  If we can express a theory in that most convenient way, we often call it a "law."

Using programming, IT, and/or cryptography terms, If you can "compress" the idea into an equation, you can call it a "law."

Some theories are not compressible. There is no way to squash plate tectonics, natural selection, or the idea that germs cause disease into mathematical shorthand.  That doesn't mean that those theories are "less true" than the maximally compressed ones, only that they have to be expressed in a different language in order to be fully understood.

"Laws" are neither more nor less believable than any other kind of theory.  All "laws" are theories, but not all theories are laws.  The difference between a "law" and any other kind of theory is solely the way that they are expressed.  If you can summarize all of the important parts of the idea in mathematical shorthand, you can call it a "law."  If the idea doesn't lend itself to that kind of compression for transmission, then it's not a "law," but it is no less believable for that.

(And don't get me started on the difference between theories and "empirical generalizations," or we'll be here all night! ;-)

Hope that helps.
 
2013-09-27 10:23:28 PM  

SkinnyHead: rinosaurus: I also don't think Paine would have gone along with Christian creationism being taught in the first place.

No, but Paine would have supported the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.  And he certainly would not approve of efforts to prohibit students from learning about Intelligent Design in schools.  He and Jefferson would insist that students should at least have the opportunity to learn of the controversy and of the differing views, so that they should be permitted to think and decide for themselves.  Most reasonable people think so too.


Problem 1: "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory. Insisting it is a theory doesn't mean anything, it clearly does not fit any form of accepted criteria for science in any way, shape, or form. There is no debating this and if you try you are wrong, without any question whatsoever. No, your "GED in law" (LOL, whatever that is) doesn't qualify you to debate this.

Problem 2: You're presuming that a man noted for his ability to think would discard the vast evidence before him and so arrive at the same conclusion as the ignoramuses that are backing this action, or that attempt to defend it, because he is so hung up on the need to cling to the belief system defined by the semi-literate musings of bronze age mystics.

Problem 3: You claim a controversy that doesn't exist. This so-called controversy exists in the deranged minds of pathological liars and charlatans. It does not exist in the minds of anyone that has the ability to form coherent thought and apply reason and logic to a problem.

Keep working it dude, eventually you'll get your own entry for dumbfark in the Urban Dictionary like Bevets did.
 
2013-09-27 10:31:34 PM  

ImpendingCynic: FloydA: Evolution is as much a "fact" as anything in the sciences can ever be.

Ok, I'm as anti-creationism as anyone else, but incorrect statements like yours don't help the problem. Evolution is a theory (as in, "The Theory of Evolution") and theory is only the penultimate step in the scientific method. I don't know about everyone else, but the scientific method was covered pretty thoroughly in my junior high school science classes.



Are you absolutely, completely identical in DNA to both of your parents?  If not, the gene pool of your population has evolved in a measurable, observable, detectable way, and that makes evolution as much a "fact" as anything in the sciences can ever be.

The theory of evolution is a collection of ideas that is intended to explain the fact that gene pools are evolving.  If you want to argue that evolution is not a "fact," you will have to give me evidence that you, personally, are genetically and phenotypically identical to both of your parents.

(I am actually very interested in the philosophy of science, especially as it pertains to evolution, and it might be just personal hubris, but I rather suspect that I have a little bit more insight into the subject than is generally taught in junior high science classes.  I may be wrong, and perhaps you're the person who can demonstrate that.  If so, I look forward to learning whatever you can teach me.)
 
2013-09-27 10:41:32 PM  

unexplained bacon: boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?

they live Kansas

To be fair, some areas of western Kansas does look like some areas of Afghanistan.
 
2013-09-27 10:46:23 PM  
bnw4.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-27 11:25:16 PM  
Article: "...give equal weight to the Christian creation myth."

Ok - Then I want equal weight given to the Celtic, Inuit, and Salish creation myths as well as the Norse creation myth. (Ok, I give preference to my own ancestors and where I live.)  They have exactly as much validity as the Christian belief.
 
2013-09-28 12:53:57 AM  

Flappyhead: unexplained bacon: [www.creationism.org image 720x375]

[www.creationism.org image 720x375]

such wit simply could not have evolved from apes

I'm always amazed how they claim to disprove something they clearly know nothing about.


Dunning-Kruger.
 
2013-09-28 02:20:25 AM  

theknuckler_33: vudukungfu: We need to start treating Christians just like their ululating wacko babby raping worshiper counterparts that squat in the desert.
They are 100% the same kind of ignorant philistine schizospiritual terrorists andthey havenothing to offer society or civilizationexcept for patented fear and prejudice.
There is no place for them on this earth but an insaneasylum.
And whenarmed, they are a clear and present danger to all around.
Period.

You know, there are many millions of Christians in this country who don't force their views on others and don't agree with this kind of education nonsense. They just go about their business and go to church on Sunday's. They have plenty to offer society, not due to their faith, but due to the fact that they are human beings that have lives that are not solely about their faith. I'm an atheist, but I think it is very important to make a clear distinction between the people that do things like these groups from TFA and many millions of others who don't do anything to bother anyone. Just outright calling anyone who 'believes' a whacko isn't helping.


Except that all those millions of Christians who go about their business also vote for Ted Cruz and Michele Bachman and Jim Demint. fark 'em.
 
2013-09-28 04:01:58 AM  

FloydA: haolegirl:

I thought they kinda sorta believed in evolution, that a little bit happened cause Noah couldn't fit two of EVERYTHING on the ark, and just brought a sampling and what we have now evolved from that? Or did I dream it?


Not all of them, but some creationists make that claim.  What's amazing about it is that, in order for the claim to make even a tiny bit of sense, they have to propose that evolution can happen a whole hell of a lot faster than even the most extreme PunkEek fan would propose, AND that nobody noticed at the time that a pair of generic deer gave birth to white tails, mule deer, elk, moose, red deer, and caribou all in one litter,  AND that this process of hyper-evolution stopped as soon as we started looking.
They make that argument in an effort to preserve the ark story.

Other creationists just sort of bypass the ark story and assume that God crammed the animals into that small space by magic, or the ark was bigger than it is described, as though it was a Tardis or something.


The thing is that most Jewish Sects and at least Catholism treats it as just a story. Every mythology has a flood story as every society has had a giant flood that wiped out a lot of them. The Colorado and Duluth Floods would be seen as great world ending floods if it wasn't for mass media.
 
2013-09-28 10:06:18 AM  
My god, I have to leave here soon before I cannot escape. Kansas is a pit of banality from which there is no ladder.
 
2013-09-28 12:11:53 PM  
thatboyoverthere:

The thing is that most Jewish Sects and at least Catholism treats it as just a story. Every mythology has a flood story as every society has had a giant flood that wiped out a lot of them. The Colorado and Duluth Floods would be seen as great world ending floods if it wasn't for mass media.

You're right; the overwhelming majority of religious people agree that Genesis is best understood metaphorically as a story about the relationship between a "chosen people" and their god.  Creationists are biblical "literalists" (or rather, they claim to be) who interpret Genesis as an accurate historical account.  Anyone who looks at it objectively realizes that this is completely crazy, but creationists are not typically very rational.

Of course some societies do not have any flood stories.  As far as I know, there is no account of a global flood in Japanese mythology, for instance (anyone with more knowledge of Japanese mythology, please feel free to correct me).
 
2013-09-28 01:56:11 PM  
Humans, half a chromosome away from the chimpanzee, and it shows.
 
2013-09-28 05:47:00 PM  

Nurglitch: What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?


Because anybody with half a brain doesn't need to be explicitly told that about science. And if the science teacher is worth their salt, they will explain this to students who don't already know that science is a collection of theories and laws that are based on the best available knowledge and are supported by empirical observations.
 
Displayed 247 of 247 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report