# Dear Texas: Sit down, we need to have a chat



## pink freud (Jun 27, 2012)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf
Home :: Texas GOP Convention

Page 12: "We oppose the teaching of... critical thinking skills"

WTF, secede already


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jun 27, 2012)

Weak minds, strong backs, just smart enough to do what you tell them: Just the way that Texas likes em.


----------



## canuck brian (Jun 27, 2012)

Normally I would just say I'm not surprised, but there was a couple of things in there that I was actually pretty surprised to see. 

Internet Access - We support a free and open internet -- free from intrusion, censorship, or control by government or private entities. Due to the inherent benefit of anonymity, the anonymity of users is not to be compromised for any reason, unless consented by the user; or by court order. We also oppose any mandates by the government to collect and retain records of our internet activity.

I find the one about not teaching any forms of sexual education aside from abstinence to anyone until marriage to be ridiculous. Pretty sure that hormonal teenagers are going to poke. After reading thru all of it, it kinda looks like the RPoT wants to bring 'Murica back to the 50's. The lines about recinding no-fault divorce are pretty gold.


----------



## Blind Theory (Jun 27, 2012)

I read the education part of it. Pretty awesome shit if you're crazy, I suppose. They don't want to approve of critical thinking education because they think it will undermine any religious or moral beliefs set in place by parents. 

Then they want to teach intelligent design in the science classroom as a legitimate scientific theory and try to hide it by saying "We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind." 

At this point I don't really care what they believe. Trying to pass off a religious idea as scientific theory and then making it seem like they are the good guys who are compromising by teaching this stuff is sickening. Texas is one of the most conservative states out there and if anyone reverts back to the cave I bet it'll be them. And if not them, they won't be far behind.


----------



## MFB (Jun 27, 2012)

PROS : 


> Controversial Theories &#8211; We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.





> We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more
> authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas.



CONS: 


> We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of political correctness that nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups


----------



## ElRay (Jun 27, 2012)

_*{Original post snipped because I fired-off something quickly, and as much as quote-mining "critical thinking" is wrong, there's so much wrong is that whole document nit-picking that one point is pointless.}*_

Ray


----------



## Necris (Jun 27, 2012)

> Family Values &#8213; We support the affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian family values and oppose the continued assault on those values.



Support of the government affirming religious values? Read the First Amendment a few more times.



> Protection of Womens Health - Because of the personal and social pain caused by abortions, we call for the protection of both women and their unborn children from pressure for unwanted abortions.


The existence of abortion clinics in no way pressures women to have abortions, there are no protocols in place in any state that give Doctors or healthcare providers the right to pressure a woman into an unwanted abortion.



> Abortion Clinics - We propose legislation that holds abortion clinics to the same health regulations as other medical facilities and that subjects clinics to the same malpractice liabilities. We oppose any public funding for Planned Parenthood or other organizations/facilities that provide, advocate or promote abortions.


They already are liable in cases of malpractice and are held to the the same standards as other medical facilities. Find me one that isn't if you're going to assert that they aren't.



> UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child &#8213; We unequivocally oppose the United States Senates ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.


Disturbing.



> Bilingual Education  We encourage non-English speaking students to transition to English within three years.


So that is the extent of language education you support? Teaching English to non-english speakers but not teaching a foreign language to English speakers?



> Controversial Theories  We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.


This is a sneaky way of positioning themselves to legally teach creationism in schools. If you are going to teach outright non-scientific ideas in science class you're defeating the purpose of the class. Not to mention no-one has ever been discriminated against for not believing in something like evolution unless you want to redefine discrimination to include the mere act of questioning the basis for someones belief.


----------



## Blind Theory (Jun 27, 2012)

MFB said:


> stuff



You listed your first pro as "Controversial Theories  We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

How, if I may ask, is that a positive thing? Trying to sneak non-science based religious theory into a classroom is not a positive thing. If you want to teach these things, offer a religious studies elective but don't try and force it into the core curriculum. Neil deGrasse Tyson hit the nail on the head when he said there was no tradition of scientists knocking down the doors of Sunday schools to tell them what to teach.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 27, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> You listed your first pro as "Controversial Theories  We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."
> 
> How, if I may ask, is that a positive thing? Trying to sneak non-science based religious theory into a classroom is not a positive thing. If you want to teach these things, offer a religious studies elective but don't try and force it into the core curriculum. Neil deGrasse Tyson hit the nail on the head when he said there was no tradition of scientists knocking down the doors of Sunday schools to tell them what to teach.



I'm guessing he just didn't recognize the code-words. If taken literally that _is_ what should happen (and is actually what science is all about). But we all know better.

Another thing that bugs me, and has for years, is the fucking flag worship. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't teach anything. Pure lip-service.


----------



## MFB (Jun 27, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> How, if I may ask, is that a positive thing? Trying to sneak non-science based religious theory into a classroom is not a positive thing.



What pink said is true, I mis-interpretted that as teaching evolution and ALL theories vs. just creationism which is what it really means. I should've thought about it given it being from Texas and all but I was blinded by hope that they might, just MIGHT be changing their ways.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 27, 2012)

pink freud said:


> http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf
> Home :: Texas GOP Convention
> 
> Page 12: "We oppose the teaching of... critical thinking skills"
> ...


So my entire state should secede from the country because of a bunch of idealistic conservative douche bags?

Nah.

What are you guys getting all pissed off about? It's a platform pamphlet, not the law..


----------



## MFB (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> So my entire state should secede from the country because of a bunch of idealistic conservative douche bags who are teaching those same ideals to younger kids without showing them the other side of the argument as well thus making it appear as if it were the only truth? And then having those same kids go off and grow up to repeat the cycle and maybe help spread it to other states?
> 
> Maybe.



That's the larger picture here


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jun 27, 2012)

Modern far-right conservatism:

Equal parts hilarious and terrifying.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 27, 2012)

Maybe you should come here and see what it's actually like?

We're all riding horses, and have oil derricks in our back yards. Everyone gets a free 10 gallon hat.


So what you're saying is that if you don't agree with how a person teaches and raises their child, and if that child grows up to become someone who believes in something drastically differing from your own experiences and teachings, then they're completely wrong?

Because that's what you're saying.


There is nothing wrong with being whatever passes as a political stance these days. It's just differing ideals and actions to solve the same problems. People just want to vilify everything they can to make themselves, and their own understandings the "right" way.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> So my entire state should secede from the country because of a bunch of idealistic conservative douche bags?
> 
> Nah.
> 
> What are you guys getting all pissed off about? It's a platform pamphlet, not the law..



For some reason Texas has more influence over national education than they should. Texas textbooks seem to end up being national textbooks.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 27, 2012)

Because of our population density, we order more books than probably any other state, so they tend to send it out our versions to other states as a "default" but I think there are other versions of text books for other states.

There's nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school. If you don't agree with it, then be a parent and educate your kids. 

Personally I don't think religion should be taught to kids until they're 10 or older, so that they can decide for themselves, instead of being raised into something.

But that's just me, I'm not going to go around bitching and complaining about "indoctrination of the youth". It's not my place to tell a parent what to do and what not to do with their kids.

Parents need to step up and interact with their own damn kids, and teach them right from wrong, and let the children decide for themselves what they should believe.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> There's nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school.



Teaching creationism in public schools violates the establishment clause. That means there is something wrong with it.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 27, 2012)

pink freud said:


> Teaching creationism in public schools violates the establishment clause. That means there is something wrong with it.


Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How so? 
1) There is no established national religion as done by Congress.
2) The US Government has no say so in what goes into a text book.

Also, if you'd like to take a gander at this article (be careful it's written by someone in Texas!) 
Texas Textbooks' National Influence Is a Myth &mdash; State Board of Education | The Texas Tribune

Books are tailor made for the area that is being taught. We have no honest say so what goes into books anymore. Though I'm sure there are states in the South that use a similar version of our books, it fits with the sympathies and ideologies of the bible belt.


Have you seen the section on Creationism in a science book? You realize it's not even 3 paragraphs long? It's there as an acknowledgement that there are people who believe it, and then it goes right into the Theory of Evolution.

Also: Please, neg me so much that I go into red. If having a different opinion because I live with in this state and actually see what's going on is too much for your opinions, then it's well worth it.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jun 27, 2012)

The reason there's so little discussion of Creationism in a science textbook is because Creationism is not scientific, nor is it even a scientific theory. Therefore, there's very little to discuss from a scientific perspective.

Are we really going so far back to "Inherit The Wind" and the "Monkey Trials" of the 20s?


----------



## Rick (Jun 27, 2012)

Don't judge all of us Texans.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> How so?
> 1) There is no established national religion as done by Congress.
> ...



Teaching Creationism is something entirely different than passingly mentioning that some people believe it.

Teaching Creationism in public schools violates the establishment clause because Congress ends up endorsing religion through funding the schools through the Department of Education.

Creationism shouldn't even be mentioned in a science textbook. There is nothing scientific about Creationism, thus it is entirely irrelevant to the subject. It makes as much sense as having three paragraphs about the life of Beethoven at the beginning of a Calculus textbook.

Lastly, I haven't negged you at all. Out of curiosity I took a look at your profile and indeed _somebody_ did but it was not me.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jun 27, 2012)

Peripherally related:


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 27, 2012)

It's not being "taught" in school. 

A Teacher gets to the section on Evolution, "Today, we're going to talk about evolution, If not one will be offended, we'll skip over the Creationism section since I know most of you know about it already."

There might be one question on a test about it, and that's it. It's not actually "taught" or harped on, or anything else like that. Teachers wouldn't be able to get away with that shit because of how quickly the ACLU would pounce on it.

Guys, seriously, think for a minute, just because it's in the text book doesn't mean it's going to be drilled into these kids' brains. Parents teach their kids about religion and creationism from an early age. 

If a teacher gets a question about it, they have to do their best to answer it with out offending anyone.

Would it be better if it were removed? Of course, but for now, the Texas editions, and other books created for other states and districts that are similar to it, will keep Creationism in it. 

If you're in an area where it's not as prevalent of an issue, it probably won't be in that state's version.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 27, 2012)

pink freud said:


> Lastly, I haven't negged you at all. Out of curiosity I took a look at your profile and indeed _somebody_ did but it was not me.


It was a general statement to anyone. Forgive me for not making that more apparent to you.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> It was a general statement to anyone. Forgive me for not making that more apparent to you.



No worries. Reasoned opinion shouldn't be suppressed.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 27, 2012)

I watched a great documentary exposing the fight of rational teachers in the US fighting the creationist establishment (Bush Government at that time). Big money funds the creationist agenda globally (Africa, for example, is also under sustained neoimperialism from the evangelicals). It's all business, control and power at the end of the day.

I couldn't find the documentary, although it was a favourite. It covered the legal fight to protect legitimate modern teaching, which resulted in the best possible outcome for the progressives being teaching both equally  , as I recall.

There's a lot of stuff on the net and around this site discussing the hardships of rational thinking teachers in 'Murica, despite the constitutions protections from a religious coupe-de-tet. 

It's all about protecting charitable foundations, of which churches qualify, such as the "church" of scientology  .

After all, if God was all powerful and all knowing, why didn't he release the 10 commandments on CD-Rom?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KiCEJoX9kE

I went to school in London, England and despite studying the old and new testament I don't recall hearing about creationism until the internet and Dawkins.

@Sicarius
I enjoyed reading your posts, it's all cool.  Free 10 gallon hats, you say? 

 

I'm on my way to the airport as soon as I've typed this! 

Pick me out a nice Stetson!


----------



## Necris (Jun 27, 2012)

pink freud said:


> Creationism shouldn't even be mentioned in a science textbook. There is nothing scientific about Creationism, thus it is entirely irrelevant to the subject. It makes as much sense as having three paragraphs about the life of Beethoven at the beginning of a Calculus textbook.


If I were to lobby for years and years and raise massive amounts of money to get a section of a medical textbook to go over the fact that some people believe that meditating on their chakras can heal various ailments I would be mocked relentlessly by all sides of the media yet it has exactly as much relevance to current medical science as creationism has to the current scientific understanding of the origins of life. When Christian creationists (there are and have been many on Texas's board of Education) lobby to have their unfounded beliefs put into textbooks as fact this it is perfectly acceptable and even seen as respectable. Just because they have the political pull to get their bullshit put into a textbook doesn't make it any more valid to include in a textbook. 

Moreover the idea of putting creationism into textbooks was only shot down in a unanimous 14-0 vote by the Texas Board of Education in July of last year, it was first proposed in 2008.

If someone really can't wrap their head around why Creationism has no place in a Science textbook and much less an actual Science classroom then they only need to know this. One of the key parts of the Scientific method is testability and further refinement of the hypothesis after the results are analyzed: Creationism is by definition untestable therefore it is not a valid scientific hypothesis, merely an assertion.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 27, 2012)

How many of you bitching about this actually had a section on Creationism in their high school biology books?

Because if you didn't then it's not any of your fucking concern what goes into a text book that isn't used in your area.


I am an Atheist, I don't believe in creationism, but I'm not so fucking thick and ignorant to ignore that others have a different understanding and belief as to how the earth was created. 

It's not a matter of if it is or isn't a scientific theory, it is placed in the text books to appease those that share that belief, to acknowledge them.

This thread was created to make fun of and humiliate the Texas Conservative party's Platform for 2012, not to bitch and complain about creationism in schools.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> There's nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school. If you don't agree with it, then be a parent and educate your kids.




If I opened a school and made sure that the children were taught that the earth was created by a giant dragon that poops out planets, is there anything wrong with that?

If I also teach them that grass is the earth's hair, the dinosaurs still live in remote places, marbles are nutritious, and cars have feelings, would there be anything wrong with that?

How about if we teach them that 2+2=9? Any problem with that?

Im pretty sure the point of the educational system is to inform children with facts, rather than lead them to believe speculation and nonsense so that they can carry on just like their parents or whatever.


----------



## Razzy (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> There's nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school. If you don't agree with it, then be a parent and educate your kids.
> .



This is where I feel the need to jump in.

There is EVERYTHING WRONG with teaching creationism in schools, because there's literally NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to back it up.


----------



## Necris (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> How many of you bitching about this actually had a section on Creationism in their high school biology books?
> 
> Because if you didn't then it's not any of your fucking concern what goes into a text book that isn't used in your area.
> 
> ...



It is very much my concern because pushing these completely unfounded beliefs has an impact much wider than you may want to believe. It does matter that they hold no water as a scientific hypothesis (they don't even come close to being a theory in scientific terms) because that means they have absolutely no grounds upon which to be put into a Science textbook.
The school board of Texas has absolutely no obligation to so much as acknowledge every batshit insane belief that someone may hold, much less appease them by including it in their textbooks and thus making them appear to be equally valid. By putting in distractions such as this into their textbooks they are hindering the teachers abilities to do their jobs, namely their job to create a scientifically literate group of citizens.


----------



## Blind Theory (Jun 27, 2012)

I'll halfway agree with Sicarius. I was not taught creationism in my high school science classes. When it got to that point I think a half assed attempt at seeing who wanted to learn it was made and we moved on. 

However, I strongly feel that even that is too much effort put forth for teaching creationism. It is not something that is scientifically backed. It is not something that can or will ever be scientifically backed. It is not science. It is religion. Science is not religion. Religion is not science. Keep religion out of science. That is what the whole argument is. Besides, there are plenty of options out there to solve this. Like I mentioned earlier, offer a religious studies elective at high schools. That way if you WANT to learn about creationism and religion, you can. I also imagine that most people who argue for it to be taught in the science room learned it from their parents or through a church. So...uh, why don't you just keep it that way? It is where the idea came from, it is where it has been taught until recent, it is where it needs to stay. 

This isn't about violating any law as far as I'm concerned. It is about ignorance trying to breed ignorance through means of forced education, more specifically, trying to teach a pseudo-science or pseudo-anything as truth. After all, you don't take an astronomy class and have the teacher shout praises about horoscopes and their scientific basis and how everyone should read them and adore them. This should be no different.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 27, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> If I opened a school and made sure that the children were taught that the earth was created by a giant dragon that poops out planets, is there anything wrong with that?
> 
> If I also teach them that grass is the earth's hair, the dinosaurs still live in remote places, marbles are nutritious, and cars have feelings, would there be anything wrong with that?
> 
> ...


Just stop, there's no need for your douchery.



Razzy said:


> This is where I feel the need to jump in.
> 
> There is EVERYTHING WRONG with teaching creationism in schools, because there's literally NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to back it up.





Necris said:


> It is very much my concern because pushing these completely unfounded beliefs have an impact much wider than you may want to believe. It does matter that they hold no water as a scientific hypothesis (they don't even come close to being a theory in scientific terms) because that means they have absolutely no grounds upon which to be put into a Science textbook.
> The school board of Texas has absolutely no obligation to so much as acknowledge every batshit insane belief that someone may hold, much less appease them by including it in their textbooks and thus making them appear to be equally valid. By putting in distractions such as this into their textbooks they are hindering the teachers abilities to do their jobs, namely their job to create a scientifically literate group of citizens.



So, I'm going to take it that no one here (save for Razzy, maybe) had a biology class that actually had a text book that had creationism in it. 

If you had, you'd understand that a good teacher would acknowledge that people feel that is how it was created, and then move on to the rest of the chapter. If there are teachers that are harping and full on teaching that Creationism is the only way, then they are very very few. 

1) Creationism is taught to children from the day they're born in some areas of this country. By their families, churches, etc. Some people hold this extremely close to their hearts and believe it 100%.
2) If you were to take it out of all biology text books, you risk backlash from every single conservative, and christian group that works out of this country. 

What you guys are failing to understand that this one thing has been so contested and fought over for decades and decades, that there's no appeasing both sides.

You all are obviously vehemently against it, and I understand why, but we cannot ignore what someone believes (especially when our country is ran by people who share the same beliefs.)

What you're doing, saying it needs to be taken out, is giving them the fire they need and want by trying to discriminate Christians by ignoring what they believe and keeping it from being taught to children in school.

The world needs less quick on the draw Atheists and Liberals who bitch and moan and every little thing and call the ACLU about some one trying to say a prayer in a school.

We need to actually work together, and find out how to solve issues instead of bickering like children.

If you don't like what's being taught in schools, explain to your kids why you think it's wrong, and why it's important they make their own decision on the matter.


----------



## Blind Theory (Jun 27, 2012)

I agree with the latter part of your post, Sicarius. It would help greatly is some compromise could be made. Yet again I feel the need to share this idea. If you want to teach creationism then offer a religious studies type course that one can opt to take if they choose to. It comes down to the fact that creationism is not...well, fact. It isn't fiction either. It is not something anyone can prove or disprove and therein lies the problem. I think offering an elective that covers it in detail and covers other religious ideologies would be a good idea. Make sure the tone of the classroom is that of everything being credible instead of, "We have this class because you little fucktards wanna believe in a flying spaghetti monster" and I feel a compromise would be met and all would be well. 

Plus, the way I see it, the Christians have NO right to act like they are the victim every time someone says they don't agree with it. Science has no morals. It doesn't care what right or wrong is. It is there to expose facts and uncover truths. That is it. If anything, I feel that the scientific community should be far more outraged than they are that every time they want to separate hard learned and worked out concepts from something like creationism they are vilified. And in the end, it will all come down to the religious aspect. I guarantee the vast majority of the scientific community would be happy to come to a compromise like an elective class. I don't believe, however, that the religious groups would be willing to come to a compromise. From my experience (keyword being MY), Christians are an all or nothing kind of people.


----------



## Necris (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> So, I'm going to take it that no one here (save for Razzy, maybe) had a biology class that actually had a text book that had creationism in it.
> 
> If you had, you'd understand that a good teacher would acknowledge that people feel that is how it was created, and then move on to the rest of the chapter. If there are teachers that are harping and full on teaching that Creationism is the only way, then they are very very few.
> 
> ...


I actually did have creationism brought up when I was in high school, it was thoroughly mocked but the entire class was wasted on it, it was brought up again in history class when we went over the beliefs of world religions, a much more valid topic for it to be brought up in.
An extremely closely and dearly held belief that is incorrect is no more valid than any other, they do not deserve special treatment on any level.
The crux of your argument seems to be that removing it will be seen as discrimination by Christians but here's a fun fact you don't seem to be aware of, not all Christians are Creationists and you are doing them a disservice by implying they are, Creationists are a fringe group and plenty of devout Christians think they're just as batshit as I do. Creationists just happen to be very activist and fairly well funded. Also I don't remember any massive backlash when it was struck down in 2011 so the fear of backlash is unfounded.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 27, 2012)

I'm not using "douchery", I'm making a point. This is a discussion forum and I'm discussing. There are many creation stories that could be taught in schools, but why in school? They can learn about that stuff elsewhere. The problem that I have is not that people are teaching these things to their children (actually, I do have a problem with that, but it's not as much of my concern), it's that these things are being taught in schools. That is my point. They may not be preaching it in schools, but what is the point in mentioning it? What value is there in doing so?

In my opinion, one way to solve problems, like you mentioned, is to not teach creationism is schools. That way we're not instilling such baseless speculation in the minds of developing human beings, and there's less chance of it being an issue in the future. You can call it dense, but I think I can very easily make a strong case for the detrimental nature of religion throughout history, if you needed me to explain my position.


----------



## Razzy (Jun 27, 2012)

Necris said:


> I actually did have creationism brought up when I was in high school, it was thoroughly mocked but the entire class was wasted on it, it was brought up again in history class when we went over the beliefs of world religions, a much more valid topic for it to be brought up in.
> An extremely closely and dearly held belief that is incorrect is no more valid than any other, they do not deserve special treatment on any level.
> The crux of your argument seems to be that removing it will be seen as discrimination by Christians but here's a fun fact you don't seem to be aware of, not all Christians are Creationists and you are doing them a disservice by implying they are, Creationists are a fringe group and plenty of devout Christians think they're just as batshit as I do. Creationists just happen to be very activist and fairly well funded. Also I don't remember any massive backlash when it was struck down in 2011 so the fear of backlash is unfounded.




To add to this, creationism is not science, will almost certainly never be science, and as such, it has no place even being mentioned in a science text book. I don't care who that offends, feelings have no basis in fact and what should be taught as fact.


----------



## Edika (Jun 27, 2012)

I am sure generalizing that all Texans are like that is not only unfair but unfounded at the least. These people are craaaazy though and the scary thing is that there is a portion of the population in your country (or any country) that support these ideas without second thought or, as their program states successfully, without critical thinking.

I never understood the constant mentioning of god and christianity by the rhetoric of the conservative in the USA, advocating charity and denying welfare and redistribution of wealth, speaking about christian values and having a complete disregard of nature and environment, equating abortion with murder while enforcing the death penalty and screaming for punishment and not reform and so on. They are opposing opinions in the same ideological concept.

Also I don't want to take sides in the whole debate of evolution and creationism as I don't see that you guys actually disagree on the principle, just the existence of the creationism theory. As a student that has lived through an educational environment intertwined with religion in almost all of it's aspects I must comment that whether students will be indoctrinated by a religious concept depends on the family environment, the insistence of the teachers and the mental stability of the student. Only families that were really religious had their children followed in their footsteps in these kind of beliefs and some of them even rebelled on the ideas during puberty. On the flip side children from more relaxed families have become religious fundamentalists but these cases are very rare and have to due with problems on the children's psych.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 27, 2012)

Edika said:


> I am sure generalizing that all Texans are like that is not only unfair but unfounded at the least. These people are craaaazy though and the scary thing is that there is a portion of the population in your country (or any country) that support these ideas without second thought or, as their program states successfully, without critical thinking.



I'm not saying that all Texans are troglodytes. But this kind of is a big deal. Texas is one of the most populated states in our country, and the GOP is effectively half our entire elected government. A pebble falling into the corner of the pond still affects the whole pond, and all that...


----------



## Edika (Jun 27, 2012)

pink freud said:


> I'm not saying that all Texans are troglodytes. But this kind of is a big deal. Texas is one of the most populated states in our country, and the GOP is effectively half our entire elected government. A pebble falling into the corner of the pond still affects the whole pond, and all that...



Yes I agree. Retrograde ideas tend to linger and corrupt logic and in times of weakness they gain ground. People that would in normal times be more moderate and understanding are ready to "take up arms" and defend their ideas. Their reasoning and point of view is undoubted (by them) and if approached with hostility will defend it more rigorously (cognitive dissonance effect).

Discussions with people like these require clear mind and absolute calm. They are not "evil" or what you might want to call them but mostly misguided. They need to be given enough information to make the mental work to be able to at least function as more progressive members of society without necessarily opposing all of their ideals.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 27, 2012)

Necris said:


> I actually did have creationism brought up when I was in high school, it was thoroughly mocked but the entire class was wasted on it, it was brought up again in history class when we went over the beliefs of world religions, a much more valid topic for it to be brought up in.
> An extremely closely and dearly held belief that is incorrect is no more valid than any other, they do not deserve special treatment on any level.
> The crux of your argument seems to be that removing it will be seen as discrimination by Christians but here's a fun fact you don't seem to be aware of, not all Christians are Creationists and you are doing them a disservice by implying they are, Creationists are a fringe group and plenty of devout Christians think they're just as batshit as I do. Creationists just happen to be very activist and fairly well funded. Also I don't remember any massive backlash when it was struck down in 2011 so the fear of backlash is unfounded.



It's not your place to say what is and isn't valid of anyone else's beliefs. 

All I'm saying is that it's there for those people that believe it.

It's not actually fucking hurting anyone or turning them into zealots. But no, lets all act like it "might".


----------



## flint757 (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> It's not being "taught" in school.
> 
> A Teacher gets to the section on Evolution, "Today, we're going to talk about evolution, If not one will be offended, we'll skip over the Creationism section since I know most of you know about it already."
> 
> ...





Sicarius said:


> How many of you bitching about this actually had a section on Creationism in their high school biology books?
> 
> Because if you didn't then it's not any of your fucking concern what goes into a text book that isn't used in your area.
> 
> ...



Totally agree it was in one of my textbooks in high school and was like 10 sentences. Teacher even discussed it almost mockingly. The only religious related thing that occurred was that students are allowed to opt out of learning about evolution and big bang theory. I'm an athiest and believe in the big bang theory, but while there are things that support said theory it is in fact just a theory which means it hasn't been proven either. In fact a religious person could argue in favor of the idea that they are one in the same. in any case this is not my point, my point is that even here nobody really takes it seriously. I agree that if we make small issues into big ones all the time it is much harder to tackle issues that really matter. As an example prayer in school. You don't have to participate and it was never (in my generation) religion specific so who cares. Yet people blew it so out of proportion the athiest community looked rather silly.



Edika said:


> I am sure generalizing that all Texans are like that is not only unfair but unfounded at the least. These people are craaaazy though and the scary thing is that there is a portion of the population in your country (or any country) that support these ideas without second thought or, as their program states successfully, without critical thinking.



We are indeed not all crazy.


----------



## Necris (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> It's not your place to say what is and isn't valid of anyone else's beliefs.
> .


Generally you would be right, but the topic of creationism is one of those times where it absolutely is my place to say their belief is invalid since a multitude of actual legitimate evidence found through scientific research points to every facet of their belief, however sincerely held, being outright incorrect. 
Just because they believe it isn't justification for it to be taught as a legitimate alternative viewpoint to an accepted and scientifically valid theory. 

Why are we pandering specifically to the creationist fringe, why is their completely unfounded belief the one that gets special treatment? We aren't teaching Alchemy as a legitimate alternative to Chemistry. Why aren't alternative viewpoints on creation from other religions also getting their own paragraphs, the Christian God creating the entire planet in 6 days is more valid than Bumba vomiting forth the sun,moon, earth, plants and animals and finally humanity?


----------



## poopyalligator (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> It's not your place to say what is and isn't valid of anyone else's beliefs.
> 
> All I'm saying is that it's there for those people that believe it.
> 
> It's not actually fucking hurting anyone or turning them into zealots. But no, lets all act like it "might".



I don't like the idea of teaching something that has no given FACTS to a group of people just because a lot of people believe in it. You are teaching a belief that has no real foundation instead of something that has proof, and is a fact. You also say that it isn't Chris' place to say that it isn't valid, well then whom has the power to say what is valid? The Texas local government? There are a little over 20 Major religions in this world who all have different variations of creationism. Does that mean we should pander to every single one of them in class so nobody feels left out? Just because there is a large portion of America who believes in something that has no factual merit, it doesn't mean that we have to pander to them in our public schools. I think if you believe that, you can go to Sunday school, and church to get that kind of knowledge, if that is what you believe in. You go to school to get facts, not some unfounded truths that a group of people believe in.


----------



## Sephiroth952 (Jun 27, 2012)

Science should remain being taught in SCIENCE class. Religious topics should only be only be in History classes and Theology classes.


----------



## Blind Theory (Jun 27, 2012)

Sicarius, we aren't arguing that you can't believe something over something else or wish to have your opinion voiced in a major way. What we are saying is that education should be about FACTUAL stuff. The fact that Necris brought up about not teaching other ways of creationism is true as well. It just goes to show how overwhelming a voice Christianity has. And they use that voice to their advantage. Look at our government, if you don't believe the right thing your ass isn't getting elected. And that is the whole problem here. Because Christians have such a large presence and are so vocal it is hard to explain things like this. People like me who don't care to believe anything that has to do with religion aren't fighting against this because we don't agree with someones belief. People like me fight against this because it is wrong. Imagine, just imagine the outrage that would be seen if all the prominent scientists in the world barged into churches and screamed, "STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING! JESUS IS A LIE AND YOU ALL NEED TO KNOW HOW THE WORLD REALLY BEGAN AND WORKS!" It wouldn't go down well at all. So I don't see why the inverse of that should be acceptable. Religion is not science. So keep it the fuck out of science.


----------



## mr_rainmaker (Jun 27, 2012)

its like waiting for a trainwreck....
IBTL
(in before the lock)


----------



## makeitreign (Jun 27, 2012)

Some believe that creationism should be taught, some don't. You guys are just contesting beliefs.
This argument isn't going to end until one side is completely eradicated.

Get along.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 27, 2012)

Y'all have already answered your own question in a way though. Religious folk outweigh atheists and in the US Christians are the overall prominent belief. The beginning of the universe is at this time not provable without a doubt so considering what the majority believe that is the way things are going to lean. 

Me personally I believe in the theory that the universe contracts and expands cyclically. I'd say the fact that the majority (99%) of science text isn't religiously founded to be huge considering how many do believe in creationism. if it all got replaced with creationism then i think you'd have something to complain about, but as it stands this issue really isn't that big of a deal. This is probably one of the few places where almost everyone is an atheist or some other faith not christian based so of course you feel differently. How passionately you feel against 10 sentences is how they feel about several chapters and while current science and observations is definitely more in line with things like evolution and the big bang theory it is a theory because it isn't necessarily 100% correct so is it really hard to see why the other side pushes as hard as they do when they (being a lot of the US) have been taught/told something else. Your saying science is left for fact, but as far as they are concerned what they know is fact.

tldr

stop sweating the small stuff


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 27, 2012)

makeitreign said:


> Some believe that creationism should be taught, some don't. You guys are just contesting beliefs.
> This argument isn't going to end until one side is completely eradicated.
> 
> Get along.



If it were a 50/50 scenario, fair enough, but it's not.


----------



## makeitreign (Jun 27, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> If it were a 50/50 scenario, fair enough, but it's not.



I fail to see how that would make things any different.


----------



## Blind Theory (Jun 28, 2012)

makeitreign said:


> I fail to see how that would make things any different.



Then it wouldn't be the majority using their superior numbers to sway and influence every aspect of life from education to the laws we have to follow. It would be an even game and each side would have an equally loud voice as well as an equally strong force to help. When Christianity dominates the United States over and religious belief or lack thereof then you should expect there is going to be a bias towards the majority.


----------



## makeitreign (Jun 28, 2012)

Good point.

But, if the evolutionists were the overwhelming majority, then they would be using their superior numbers and political clout to abolish something that many believe to be their rights.

It goes either way.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. I totally believe that religion shouldn't be taught in science class. That defeats the purpose. I'm just providing a counter-argument and a somewhat rational example of a Texan.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 28, 2012)

^^^Yeah i only chimed in because of the stereotyping that slowly began to occur. The thing people need to realize is the minority can't rule the majority (anymore than the reverse) even when they are right and shouldn't waste the effort on something so silly. I'm not exaggerating when 5 to no minutes got spent on it when I was in school and it was a small paragraph. There are some things that really aren't worth the effort. I guarantee if you raise your kids as atheist they will be laughing when they read it anyways so who cares. It isn't even pandering really its just picking your battles and anyone with kids will understand how that is.

In any case if you aren't taught that at home it is highly unlikely that a teacher will convince you otherwise. I've had very few teachers who had strong enough personalities that influenced me and it seems fewer and fewer thanks to very poor state and national funding.


----------



## makeitreign (Jun 28, 2012)

^^ Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Randyrhoads123 (Jun 28, 2012)

It's not the amount of time that is spent on it. It's the principle behind the idea. Creationism shouldn't be in science textbooks or classrooms in the first place because it IS NOT science. It shouldn't even be _considered_ as an equal idea because it isn't, despite what a vocal minority of idiots may believe to be true.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 28, 2012)

First, all texans are not troglodytes that hunts down every free-thinking individual, jew, or cucumber within the state with a shotgun. I know plenty of texans that are very nice, intelligent people.

That said, we can't have creation in a *science* book because it is not fucking science! I would in that case demand a mention of intelligent falling in the gravity section of physics, otherwise you are oppressing my beliefs as an evangelical pastafarian. Creation myths then, which one do you choose to mention? If one only mentions the christian one, then even I as a foreigner can see that it violates the establishment clause, you'd also end up with a book 200 pages thick if you were to mention every possible creation myth.

It has been mentioned here before that there has been "controversies" in other subjects as well. Should we teach the controversy in chemistry and therefore teach alchemy? Since this is just a matter of "opinion", there are people who swear that the sun revolvs around the earth (many muslims for example), should this be taught as an alternative "theory" in astronomy? 
Should astrology be seen as a valid alternative to astronomy too?
Hell, why not go ahead an teach phrenology in the social sciences class? The explanations there are just as simple as they are in creationism (goddunnit), "you're poor? Not the fault of society, feel these bumps on your head right there?.."

This boils down to people liking the post-modern worldview. But I have news for those people, there are things such as absolute *facts*. That animals evolve is a fact, it is an observable fact in the fossil records. What we call theories of evolution are explanation as to why and how they evolve. No one disputes the fact that things tend to fall downwards, the theory of gravity describes how and why things fall (which is heresy, everyone knows that intelligent falling is the real deal). 
This is not a difference in opinion, a difference in opinion is a difference between two equally valid sides (as in politics for example), this is one side sticking with the facts and the other side closing their eyes to the facts and screaming that they are being oppressed.

Hmmmm, if only there were a class dealing specifically with religious myths, where the teacher could teach it all without having to think about what is scientific......


Their rationale for not wanting to sign the bill for children's rights is as far as I can see that it forbidds the execution of minors, and that it mandates certain anti-poverty measures (which I understand extreme conservatives are usually not a fan of) to reduce children living in empoverished homes. I second Necris in that this is maybe what disturbed me the most, they are effectively giving a big middle finger to children in Texas. It also empowers my belief that the christian right wing are very concerned about being pro-life when the "life" in question is in the uterus, but could not give a damn when the child is out. 

This possibly touches on what irks me the most about modern conservatism. They can tout all they want about "personal responsibility", but the playing field is not fucking leveled for everyone. Some people have the worst luck being born under terrible economical and social conditions, some are born smart and talented, while some are anything but. Life is not fair, but it could be a lot better if morons could understand that some people are in far greater need than a standard "pull up yourself by your bootstraps" can satisfy. 
I would love to see these conservatives talking to a person born with AIDS, or someone who stepped on a land-mine. Honestly I'd slap that smug smile of their face with the blown-off stumps I before called arms if I hear either "personal responsibility" or "bootstraps".


*EDIT* I read even more now and saw the stance on pornography... Even if we disregard the argument about free speech (apparently only select people can haz free speech), I say.. Good luck... The internet is roughly 80% pr0n, 15% pictures of cats, and 5% everything else. So good luck, they'll need it. And if they succeed, good on yer for killing the internet (probably a liberal conspiracy from the start eh?).


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Jun 28, 2012)

pink freud said:


> Page 12: "We oppose the teaching of... critical thinking skills"



You do realize HOTS is a program for a specific subset of children and not Bloom's Taxonomy, right?


----------



## pink freud (Jun 28, 2012)

ThePhilosopher said:


> You do realize HOTS is a program for a specific subset of children and not Bloom's Taxonomy, right?



That is not what the document language is saying.

They listed critical thinking as a separate item in a list.

"X, Y and Z"


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Jun 28, 2012)

Critical-thinking programs/OBE programs not critical-thinking itself. OBE in the USA looks like NCLB. Granted these are just words written about education by people who probably haven't been in a classroom as anything other than a student or parent. If I didn't teach critical thinking I wouldn't have a job.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 28, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> Everyone gets a free 10 gallon hat.



Yup, moving to Texas.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 29, 2012)

I'll buy yours personally, Xaios.

<3


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 29, 2012)

Odd that some vented on Sicarius, who offered a thorough explanation and middle way. One man can't change the system all on his own, that's why it's a democracy. 

I've been following the Republican nomination campaign the last few months. Ron Paul excluded who I have high hopes for, I think they've done enough damage to themselves already to not have worry about this thread.

I think the balanced way, as Sicarius clearly outlined, allows children to get on with the important business of being children, without getting involved with the meddling of the confused world adults have made for them.

My first post here covered the power structure of the US political system and it's intertwining with religious organisations for various reasons. Other systems are much the same, although the US central banking system and it's history as a haven for victims of religious persecution make it more practical in America (Mennonites, anyone? I heard their boxing club closed down....*sigh*  ).

_Is Religious teaching thorough enough?_

Interesting that Christians believe in the Jewish Creator, yet pray to an Egyptian deity, Amen Ra, whilst the expatriated/repatriated Jews named the state of Israel after Isis, Amen Ra and Elohim (of the Tetragrammaton).


Promotion of the "prophesy" in the book of revelations (an evangelical favourite) seems consistant in current world events. This "prophesy" outlines the following if complete: A deity would manifest in physical form, so the possibility would exist that he might be killed by dark forces, causing the deity's soul fragments in humans to return to the Creator, ending reality as we know it. (<<< see, that didn't take long to explain, did it?)

Entertaining stuff.  What happened in ancient Egypt, the legacy of which has shaped the world, should be in absolute accurate detail in the school textbooks, right?

Especially with current events as they are... (too much complexity in the region for me to type here)

My recollection of Egyptian studies in school was a deliberately vague, obscure, mysterious and brief subject.







If any of that was new or interesting to you, would you have liked someone explain it for you during time in school?

_Is science obscured from the public domain?_

I wouldn't be so trusting of science either, as some view points have shown. It's suppression is rather simple. One legal method is the Department of Defence can acquire by compulsory purchase any discovery they desire, in the interests of national security. 
Eisenhower discussed suppression of science, medicine and technology in detail during his farewell address on January 17, 1961, known for it's reference to his fears of a growing "military industrial complex".


On a different note;
Many things which have enriched all our lives have origins in Texas, so lets keep it civil.



^ 

@Jakke
I noticed you mentioned the post modern world view and that you have an interest in religion. Perhaps it would do you good to research theologians which take the perspective that technology may explain some religious events, described in the original language texts from the perspective of an uninitiated person.

@Obama's latest news
Y'all getting your health insurance provider picked out, in time for 2014? Who bought shares in medicaid providers this week? Some are up as much as 10% after the announcement. _A victory for ...*some*... people of America_.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jun 29, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> Maybe you should come here and see what it's actually like?
> 
> We're all riding horses, and have oil derricks in our back yards. Everyone gets a free 10 gallon hat.
> 
> ...



I completely disagree. There is something seriously wrong with a state that publicly states it does not respect critical thinking skills, while charging students with misdemeanors and heavy fines for disobedience in public schools, potentially rendering them incapable to attend college. The state treats citizens like prisoners, and in my opinion it's the second worse behind Arizona in sheer ridiculousness and stupidity.

Let us also keep in mind that Texas is home to one of the largest companies developing and writing our high school text books. 

Terrifying, I know.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 29, 2012)

Here's how it should work gentlemen:


Biology ----> goes into bio textbooks 

Religious stuff -----> Religious studies books!



Pretty simple....


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 29, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> I completely disagree. There is something seriously wrong with a state that publicly states it does not respect critical thinking skills, while charging students with misdemeanors and heavy fines for disobedience in public schools, potentially rendering them incapable to attend college. The state treats citizens like prisoners, and in my opinion it's the second worse behind Arizona in sheer ridiculousness and stupidity.
> 
> Let us also keep in mind that Texas is home to one of the largest companies developing and writing our high school text books.
> 
> Terrifying, I know.





The _state_ hasn't said anything of the sort.

this has come from a pamphlet outlining the platform the Conservative Party is running on for 2012.

As has also been pointed out, text books are written and edited to suite the needs and sympathies of the state and district they are going to.

It's no longer the case that Texas picks the version the rest of the country uses.

Please, before you make more wrong assertions read the whole thread.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jun 29, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> The _state_ hasn't said anything of the sort.
> 
> this has come from a pamphlet outlining the platform the Conservative Party is running on for 2012.
> 
> ...



Oh thank god.

It's still appalling that they chose these words based on what they think will work in the 2012 campaigns.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 29, 2012)

You're surprised by anything the conservative party does or says?

That's kind of shocking.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 29, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> I completely disagree. There is something seriously wrong with a state that publicly states it does not respect critical thinking skills, while charging students with misdemeanors and heavy fines for disobedience in public schools, potentially rendering them incapable to attend college. The state treats citizens like prisoners, and in my opinion it's the second worse behind Arizona in sheer ridiculousness and stupidity.
> 
> Let us also keep in mind that Texas is home to one of the largest companies developing and writing our high school text books.
> 
> Terrifying, I know.



I came out of a Texas school just fine with plenty of skill and got into a University. And while we are on the topic most schools have a majority of in state students attend their college and University of Texas is in the top 10 for electrical engineering. University of Houston is in top 5 for business so if most schools have in state students and these schools have top tier programs why is that all of a sudden because of a pamphlet we are all idiots. However, I do agree with you that our state government could certainly be better, the hands off approach doesn't really work as well as they think it does.

There is a lot of ignorance occurring in this thread that is semi-offensive.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 29, 2012)

Texas #1


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jun 29, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I came out of a Texas school just fine with plenty of skill and got into a University. And while we are on the topic most schools have a majority of in state students attend their college and University of Texas is in the top 10 for electrical engineering. University of Houston is in top 5 for business so if most schools have in state students and these schools have top tier programs why is that all of a sudden because of a pamphlet we are all idiots. However, I do agree with you that our state government could certainly be better, the hands off approach doesn't really work as well as they think it does.
> 
> There is a lot of ignorance occurring in this thread that is semi-offensive.



I am honestly glad I'm being corrected about this. My Aunt worked in the Fort Worth school system her entire career.

The information I have is based off of this:


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 30, 2012)

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna call bullshit, I'm sure it's happened, but they're not doing it to raise money and get rich off of it..

Campus police forces rose in the past 2 decades? I wonder what nationally scaring, catastrophic events could have happened in that time? It couldn't possibly be to protect the students and faculty from something happening, they're there to "fine and arrest" kids.

The Young Turks is probably my most hated youtube channel next to Nutnfancy.

Also, Bros, I am not a conservative, at all.


----------



## makeitreign (Jun 30, 2012)

That video is so ridiculous.


----------



## Necris (Jun 30, 2012)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> O
> 
> _Is Religious teaching thorough enough?_
> 
> ...


Here's a fun way to evaluate "prophecy". If I said I was going to predict the lottery numbers but didn't tell you my prediction until after the actual numbers were read you wouldn't as a logical human being think for a moment that I had actually predicted the lottery numbers. 
Isn't it funny how this is _almost_ exactly how prophecies are "confirmed", that not until after an event is the "prophecy" made apparent?
I say _almost _because the prophecies of the past are far more ambiguous in their wording than a lottery prediction, they don't give the exact details (the numbers 21,35,6,15,4,13), at best they allude to generalities (the total amount of numbers is around 6) and are thus applicable to nearly any occurrence at any point in history.
People of the modern world have bought into this bullshit notion that people in the past were more "spiritually aware" (a complete nonsense term) and thus more receptive to "deeper insights" into reality.

Many Christians and Muslims love to say their holy books have predicted a multitude of scientific discoveries and take out of context quotes as "proof" yet when put back into context the "prophecies" reflect a flawed understanding of reality consistent with knowledge at the time, and no scientific discovery has ever been predicted, much less made using verses from the Bible or Qur'an as the sole guiding force.


----------



## Razzy (Jun 30, 2012)

Necris said:


> no scientific discovery has ever been predicted, much less made using verses from the Bible or Qur'an as any sort of guiding force.



Fixed that for you.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Jun 30, 2012)

Randyrhoads123 said:


> It's not the amount of time that is spent on it. It's the principle behind the idea. Creationism shouldn't be in science textbooks or classrooms in the first place because it IS NOT science. It shouldn't even be _considered_ as an equal idea because it isn't, despite what a vocal minority of idiots may believe to be true.





Sephiroth952 said:


> Science should remain being taught in SCIENCE class. Religious topics should only be only be in History classes and Theology classes.


^This. It's not that I oppose "teaching" creationism - I think children should be made aware of religious theories, not just creationism, but it has no place in a science class. I don't care if it's 3 or 300 paragraphs, mentioning creationism in science is silly. It's been said numerous times and it's all that there is to be said.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 30, 2012)

Because in a Biology book containing 500+ pages of science, its really hurt and completely discredited by a snippet of 15 sentences about creationism?

I don't care if it's there or isn't there. It's an appeasement to the fundamentalist religious believers. It's not that big of a deal. I'm an open-minded, accepting youngish person.

Think of it this way, if not for religion would scientists be pushed so hard to find the true answers to the wonders of the world? There are many scientists that are religious people, and study science to see how their God makes these things happen. Even today, what are we desperately trying to find in the LHC? The "God" particle that started it all.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 30, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> Even today, what are we desperately trying to find in the LHC? The "God" particle that started it all.



No, the Higgs boson did not start it all. Why they want to find the boson is because it is needed to be verified to prove that the standard model of physics is correct.

The "God-particle"


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 30, 2012)

either way, the rest of my statement is correct.


----------



## Randyrhoads123 (Jun 30, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> Because in a Biology book containing 500+ pages of science, its really hurt and completely discredited by a snippet of 15 sentences about creationism?
> 
> I don't care if it's there or isn't there. It's an appeasement to the fundamentalist religious believers. It's not that big of a deal. I'm an open-minded, accepting youngish person.
> 
> Think of it this way, if not for religion would scientists be pushed so hard to find the true answers to the wonders of the world? There are many scientists that are religious people, and study science to see how their God makes these things happen. Even today, what are we desperately trying to find in the LHC? The "God" particle that started it all.



I don't understand how you can somehow _not_ think that this is a bad policy. Appeasement in this case is ridiculous. Creationism is not science and yes, it would discredit a legitimate science textbook to include it as an equal theory. It's a purely religious idea with no empirical evidence to support it. It's as simple as that. There is a difference between being open-minded and including something entirely made-up that only supports one religious viewpoint, in a science textbook. That is downright silly.

It does not matter what scientists are motivated by, as they are still bound by reality and observable truths. The "God" particle, originally named the "God damned" particle, is something that gives mass to the universe. It doesn't prove or disprove god, that's just a media hyped name. It's also completely irrelevant to this issue.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 30, 2012)

Anyone else want to cry about my misuse of the Higgs-Boson?


I think we need a thread title change since no one seems to care about what this thread was actually started about.


----------



## Necris (Jun 30, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> Anyone else want to cry about my misuse of the Higgs-Boson?


Those fact things are a bitch aren't they?


----------



## flint757 (Jun 30, 2012)

To be honest the last few pages have been fairly irrelevant to the original thread topic, since before this pamphlet was made our textbooks have had that teeny tiny paragraph that y'all are getting so ridiculously flustered over. But by all means keep on complaining.

To the person who neg repped me, and included a nice insult in there as well, you are so very mature and clearly I'm not at your amazing level of quality.


----------



## Necris (Jun 30, 2012)

> Unprocessed Foods &#8213; We support the availability of natural, unprocessed foods, including, but not limited to, the right to access raw milk.


As long as you're going to hold those unprocessed foods to the same health standards as unprocessed foods knock yourself out.


> Immunizations &#8213; All adult citizens should have the legal right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves or their minor children without penalty for refusing a vaccine. We oppose any effort by any authority to mandate such vaccines or any medical database that would contain personal records of citizens without their consent.


 Again fine, but if your unvaccinated kid gets sick by your actions you have put other children at risk and that is where your personal freedoms end. If your unvaccinated kid contracts a virus he could have been vaccinated against and infects other children you should be held legally liable for any negative outcomes.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 30, 2012)

Necris said:


> Those fact things are a bitch aren't they?



I have no problem with being corrected about my misuse of the Higgs-Boson particle. Thanks for setting me straight on that. 

However, if you feel I was lying instead of just incorrect, I would feel incredibly offended.



Necris said:


> Again fine, but if your unvaccinated kid gets sick by your actions you have put other children at risk and that is where your personal freedoms end. If your unvaccinated kid contracts a virus he could have been vaccinated against and infects other children you should be held legally liable for any negative outcomes.


I'm going to use the Flu Shot as an example:

How in the hell are you going to prove in court that one kid gave another child the flu during flu season?

I choose not to get the Flu shot every year because it's never worked for me; I've always gotten it no matter what. Are you going to sue me if your kid happens to get it during flu season?


----------



## Jakke (Jun 30, 2012)

Not vaccinating your children is not about personal choice though, you clearly show that you are a panicky layman who are prepared to risk other people for your "freedom of choice". There are those that can't be vaccinated (people allergic to eggs for example), they are dependent on a good herd immunity, so they are effectively saying that they don't care about these people.

So, what Necris said.

Wonder if one can hold Jenny McCarthy (the McCarthyism of the new century) responsible for what her bullshit may have caused other people


As for raw milk, it's fucking stupid, but being stupid is not a crime. If someone wants to gamble with raw milk, let them.


----------



## Rick (Jun 30, 2012)

What can really been taken from this thread is there are morons everywhere (yes, even in the state that I love). No government in this country anywhere is perfect and no state has completely perfect citizens. There will always be different sides to every issue and each side has to deal with it. Again, this is just a platform, not laws in Texas and you have the right to agree or disagree with the platform on each side.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 30, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Not vaccinating your children is not about personal choice though, you clearly show that you are a panicky layman who are prepared to risk other people for your "freedom of choice". There are those that can't be vaccinated (people allergic to eggs for example), they are dependent on a good herd immunity, so they are effectively saying that they don't care about these people.
> 
> So, what Necris said.
> 
> ...


The McCartyism of the new century?

So we're accusing people of what? and doing what to them exactly?

Because as I remember McCarthyism from my Texas Public Education High School, McCarthyism was a Communist witch hunt which resulted in several wrongful accusations of people being communist just by association.


----------



## Randyrhoads123 (Jun 30, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> I'm going to use the Flu Shot as an example:
> 
> How in the hell are you going to prove in court that one kid gave another child the flu during flu season?
> 
> I choose not to get the Flu shot *every year* because it's never worked for me; I've always gotten it no matter what. Are you going to sue me if your kid happens to get it during flu season?



 Do you think that you not getting a flu shot, then getting the flu, might possibly be correlated? Also, it'd be pretty simple to see which kid gave which the flu, as it'd most likely be the one who had the flu and didn't get a flu shot.


----------



## Randyrhoads123 (Jun 30, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> The McCartyism of the new century?
> 
> So we're accusing people of what? and doing what to them exactly?
> 
> Because as I remember McCarthyism from my Texas Public Education High School, McCarthyism was a Communist witch hunt which resulted in several wrongful accusations of people being communist just by association.



She stated that vaccines caused autism which made people panic because they are scared sheep. Scientists have had to come out and debunk the claim time and time again, and yet, morons in the GOP most notably Palin and Bachmann both claimed that it still caused autism. He's using it as an analogy for mass hysteria.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 30, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> The McCartyism of the new century?
> 
> So we're accusing people of what? and doing what to them exactly?
> 
> Because as I remember McCarthyism from my Texas Public Education High School, McCarthyism was a Communist witch hunt which resulted in several wrongful accusations of people being communist just by association.



Jenny McCarthy is a anti-vaxer (and lives together with Jim Carrey), she is against vaccinations, and most of all, people listen to her. It has been called the new McCarthyism because what she is doing is inspiring an extremely dangerous group movement, and because her last name is McCarthy.


*EDIT*:d my Mr Rhoads

A good primer on the anti-vax movement is P&T Bullshit! about vaccinations, McCarthy figures briefly as well.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 30, 2012)

Randyrhoads123 said:


> Do you think that you not getting a flu shot, then getting the flu, might possibly be correlated? Also, it'd be pretty simple to see which kid gave which the flu, as it'd most likely be the one who had the flu and didn't get a flu shot.





Sicarius said:


> I choose not to get the Flu shot every year *because it's never worked for me; I've always gotten it no matter what*. Are you going to sue me if your kid happens to get it during flu season?


Reading sure is hard, shouldn't expect much from a Brony, though.

During Flu Season, when it's at it's most active, the virus can be anywhere, you can get it from anyone, because it takes it a few days to incubate and start up in your system before it gets full on. 

You can't just go about accusing parents who've chosen not to have the vaccine given to their children, if the virus was contracted by interacting with something that a teacher, or any other person last used if they were the original carrier of it.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jun 30, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> It's not your place to say what is and isn't valid of anyone else's beliefs.
> 
> All I'm saying is that it's there for those people that believe it.
> 
> It's not actually fucking hurting anyone or turning them into zealots. But no, lets all act like it "might".



Ok, so I'm late to this party. It's as simple as this: Science class does not teach 'beliefs' - it teaches facts. That's it. Done. Some people might choose to not believe the science, but that does not mean that the evolving theories that explain just about everything and that have given rise to the technological age we live in aren't correct and provable to the height of our knowledge at any given moment.

Thus; Creationism, no matter how loved or believed in by how many people, has absolutely no place in a classroom teaching fact. It really is that simple. It's not about 'appeasing beliefs' or 'not pissing people off' or 'everyone's opinions are valid', because in a science classroom, they are not.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 30, 2012)

That's fine, as someone looking in from very afar, you have your opinion, like most everyone in this thread that does not, in fact, live in Texas.

They don't understand the reasoning behind the decisions of the ISDs that choose to have this in their versions. 

You guys didn't get raised in this area, so you guys are just, "My opinion on the matter is far more valid than anyone who has actually been raised in the area that we're actually talking about."

It's funny, because even though you're all so worked up over it, it's not going to change.


----------



## Necris (Jun 30, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> That's fine, as someone looking in from very afar, you have your opinion, like most everyone in this thread that does not, in fact, live in Texas.
> 
> They don't understand the reasoning behind the decisions of the ISDs that choose to have this in their versions.
> 
> ...


Your standpoint of "you can't question the Texas Education System's decisions unless you live in Texas" would be a valid (or at the very least less fatuous) one if the Texas education system was drastically and fundamentally different from others around the country.
And it's not going to change? 
Victory for evolution in Texas | NCSE


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jun 30, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> That's fine, as someone looking in from very afar, you have your opinion, like most everyone in this thread that does not, in fact, live in Texas.
> 
> They don't understand the reasoning behind the decisions of the ISDs that choose to have this in their versions.
> 
> ...



Dude, you're the one taking it upon yourself to single handedly protect Texas from any and all attacks from this forum.

Clearly we have reasons for not wanting to live there, and you're obviously in favor of your home state like most people would be.

I'd also like to point out that LBJ, one of our greatest presidents in my opinion, was from Texas.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jul 1, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> That's fine, as someone looking in from very afar, you have your opinion, like most everyone in this thread that does not, in fact, live in Texas.
> 
> They don't understand the reasoning behind the decisions of the ISDs that choose to have this in their versions.
> 
> ...



The reasons we have these beliefs is that, from a common sense and teaching point of view, teaching creationism (a non-scientific idea based on speculation, religion and pseudo-scientific explanations to cover up the gaping holes in Christian dogma) in a classroom teaching observable fact based on provable (to the best of ones abilities resulting in a conclusive theory), evolving hypotheses is both morally and subjectively wrong irrespective of the state, territory or country it is in, whether it be in Iraq, Russia, Australia, China or as in this case Texas, it's wrong and regardlessof whether changes occur, the idea of doing it is still going to be wrong.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 1, 2012)

What he means by people not living here complaining about it is you just literally don't realize that nobody cares here and it such an insignificant thing in the first place to complain about (similar to 10 commandment in front of court houses, prayer in school, etc.). Worrying about shit like this is is exactly why an atheist will probably never be president. It is hard to not notice how some just want to obliterate religion out of everything no matter how insignificant it is (some things with historical value even). While I feel separation on a grand scale and maybe even the disappearance of religion would be a good thing in many cases, it isn't going anywhere and nobody on here is being the least bit pragmatic.

Now, what I can say that goes along with the "What I hate about Texas" theme occurring here is that I hate Rick Perry, I think vaccines shouldn't be optional (for public health reasons), and I do think our schools are heavily underfunded. Rural areas don't get the best and urban schools in big cities don't either. Suburban Texas IMO though is doing just fine in the education department (locally funded by richer families). I'm not a fan of how heavily republican this state is to the point where hardly any democrats run in most places and I don't like that my vote rarely matters here since I'm not along the same political spectrum (for either party really, but Democrats don't win too often either). Texas needs some work, but until we get rid of the notion that no deficit is a good idea it never will. Most state programs suck and in Texas they make it incredibly difficult to get any help from the state if someone ever needed it (probably intentional to some degree). 

I haven't read the pamphlet and I probably won't simply because it has no value; they are not laws currently in affect and chances are most or all of the things in it will not come to pass in the long run. I do, however, wish that the republican party in general would step off the extreme campaign ideologies and gain some sanity back.


----------



## maxrossell (Jul 1, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> *Because in a Biology book containing 500+ pages of science, its really hurt and completely discredited by a snippet of 15 sentences about creationism?*
> 
> I don't care if it's there or isn't there. It's an appeasement to the fundamentalist religious believers. It's not that big of a deal. I'm an open-minded, accepting youngish person.
> 
> Think of it this way, if not for religion would scientists be pushed so hard to find the true answers to the wonders of the world? There are many scientists that are religious people, and study science to see how their God makes these things happen. Even today, what are we desperately trying to find in the LHC? The "God" particle that started it all.



I'd like to just weigh in here and say yes, absolutely yes, a Biology book that gives a single iota of page space to a belief (not a theory) that we KNOW is scientifically incorrect instantly loses all _credibility_ and _integrity_.

Science isn't about humouring people's bizarre superstitions for the sake of social inclusiveness and avoiding ideological conflict. Science is about looking dispassionately at what is there and trying to figure out why. Since that's not where creationism comes from, it has no place in science. Suggesting that it does, just to appease people, is to completely abandon integrity. And if we're not going to insist on integrity in our education system, we might as well just give up and tell kids that the universe was made by the Ninja Turtles because _that's about as educationally valuable to them as telling them God made it._


----------



## Daemoniac (Jul 1, 2012)

^ Exactly what I was getting at dude.


----------



## The Reverend (Jul 1, 2012)

Am I living in a different Texas than you guys? Before I moved to Austin for school, I lived in Tomball, a suburb of Houston, for you out-of-state (and in some cases, out-of-country) folk. Ignorance runs rampant in this state, literally dyed in the wool, and I was disturbed to have to look and printed ignorance in Biology. We covered it again in World History, but in that context, it's okay, simply because it's necessary in understanding, well, history. To be clear, I perfectly understand *why* it's in the books: it appeases the powers that be here. But why does that make it *okay*? 

Furthermore, this state could do to actually spend time developing the critical thinking skills of its citizens. There's no problem with having conservative values politically, or being religious. There is, however, a problem when you have no idea why in the fuck you're conservative/religious other than, "Well, someone somewhere along the line told me it was right/true." Dangerous things arise from that, historically speaking. I'm not trying to grease the slippery slope, either. The average Texan, to be blunt and honest, is not a well-informed person. At best, it's Fox News and Rush Limbaugh on 740 KTRH, at worst, it's just hearsay. It's disturbing hearing my brother talk with his construction buddies about how Obama killed his mother to hide the truth about his birth certificate. And there's a lot more examples of that, albeit less extreme. 

I feel like Texas has a lot of potential that's just been buried underneath this ridiculous 'Texan Pride' that in our modern times is unwarranted. Make this state a place to be proud of or get the fuck out, that's what I say.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 1, 2012)

I'm late to the party, but Superintendent Chalmers pretty much sums up my feelings on having Creationism or religion of any form being taught in school:






Religion is something that should be taught by your parents only. If I wanted someone else to do my job for me, I'd ship the kids to bible camp. I send them to school to get an education, and develop logical, critical thinking, and problem solving skills. If I need them to learn more about Jesus, I'll have 'em talk to the Pastor.
Do I believe in Creationism? Yes. Do I believe in Evolution? Yes. I don't see them as being mutually exclusive from one another. Who's to say that God didn't create the first microbes, and then let things take their course from there? 

But that is all irrelevant because I would want my kids to hear what the scientific communities' take is on it. That's what I pay taxes for, and that's what getting them up and ready at 6am every morning would be for.


----------



## Jakke (Jul 1, 2012)

^And that is the resonable christian approach

Thumbs up for Chalmers


----------



## flint757 (Jul 2, 2012)

Here is the problem "most" of you are facing. To say it isn't true (creationism that is) is to say for the most part that Christianity is just completely wrong which is something most of y'all have said and believe. (as do I mind you, I'm not in the slightest bit religious) This is not something most people across the globe believe however since most of the world is in fact religious. Many do not see it as just historically relevant, but relevant to their life and very existence. I do agree with ghst though that if you are religious it would be far more rational to believe that the big bang theory and evolution go hand in hand with religion.

As for reverend you aren't wrong (I know plenty of morons), but don't throw a blanket over this state I know just as many sane, intelligent people as I do ignorant. As for the problems with people, education, crime, etc. That is a problem most urban cities (LA, New York) and southern states (Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and yes Texas) all share. There is nothing unique about our situation here. For the most part I hate and love this state. I enjoy the state as it is because it is my home and finding work/home that is affordable isn't difficult if you have a skill set that is usable here. I do hate what our school system has become here especially since Bush passed the "No Child Left Behind" act which simply makes it easier for dumb fucks across the US to graduate. Leveling the playing field just makes it harder for people with real talent to excel IMO. I do agree Texas Pride is a ridiculous concept and that most people are just sheep following the herd, but this isn't the only state with that attitude otherwise Fox wouldn't be doing so well.

As for that video about security on campus to make money or whatever that is utter bullshit. The bad schools in terms of violence NEED extra security and if I'm certain in bad areas of other states have just as much.

I can respect the opinions though from those who have physically observed the good, the bad and the ugly.

As for the creationism thing once again that is rather off topic since before this pamphlet existed our textbooks have had them. It is a worthy topic on its own, but is not all that relevant here all things considered.


----------



## Nonservium (Jul 3, 2012)

As a Texan I am deeply disappointed in our leadership and my neighbors on a nearly daily basis.

Religious beliefs have their place, that place is not biology. History and cultural classes, knock yourself out, but science? No.

To oppose critical thinking skills is just baffling to me. I realize that power corrupts but to openly support the creation of mindless idiots is disgusting no matter how you dress it up. 

Most parents aren't fit to teach their kids anything beyond the basics like tying a shoe and wiping your own ass. Parental authority is laughable in the light of just how many idiots there are in this state. Look around you next time you're at Wal-Mart, fellow Texans, imagine all these people being the sole educational provider for their chidlren. That thought is fucking terrifying to me.

Like it or not, there is a large majority in this state of ignorant, backwards, close-minded, mentally incompetant simpletons who'd prefer nothing but for things to stay the same in all directions forever. Most will never leave their social circle and will never be exposed to cultures differing from their own. New ideas aren't something they readily accept on any front. 

I spent 22 years living with these cretins out west and I can tell you with 100% certainty that there are more of them than us. "Us" being rational, forward thinking, socially responsible down to earth people who can do things like simple math, reading and comprehension. I cannot say that I know an equal amount of sane, intelligent people here and it's not from lack of trying. I can see how you got that impression from living in a large city as things mix better here. Leave that city and you're headed back in time and definitely closer to special ed.


----------



## Cynic (Jul 3, 2012)

Nonservium said:


> Most parents aren't fit to teach their kids anything beyond the basics like tying a shoe and wiping your own ass.



Most teachers at my high school weren't really qualified to teach either, to be quite honest. One day, the woman who "taught" us Geometry told us about palindromes in a way that sounded like a grown person speaking with an infant. Fucking around, I told her, "Hey, did you know that 'TacoCat' is a palindrome?" It took her a good five minutes writing it on the chalkboard before turning around and responding with "You're right! It is!" I shit you not.

Not sure how that really added anything to this discussion, but I just wanted to share my experience.


----------



## Powermetalbass (Jul 6, 2012)

In reponse to the OP's call for Cecession. I believe that is not an option in the states anymore. Also pretty sure most of the South East (Former CSA/Currently the Bible Belt) is going along with this.

Amurica - Land of the free and home of the Whopper?


----------



## Rick (Jul 6, 2012)

Cynic said:


> Most teachers at my high school weren't really qualified to teach either, to be quite honest. One day, the woman who "taught" us Geometry told us about palindromes in a way that sounded like a grown person speaking with an infant. Fucking around, I told her, "Hey, did you know that 'TacoCat' is a palindrome?" It took her a good five minutes writing it on the chalkboard before turning around and responding with "You're right! It is!" I shit you not.


----------



## Zugster (Jul 8, 2012)




----------



## flint757 (Jul 8, 2012)

I'd like to point out that most Texans do in fact live in cities. We don't all ride horses and a lot of us don't even have an accent (or wear 10 gallon hats ). In fact people form the north east have a WAY stronger accent. I think the average population for a rural town is somewhere around 2500 so not many when you consider that rural towns are spread out between a lot of nothing. In fact if you drive across Texas you'll hit major cities and every like 50 miles or so a small town with a whole lot of nothing in the middle. (I'm sure my numbers aren't exact) 

Religion itself is losing members on a daily basis, but like all things there is a transition that occurs and for those on one side they don't want it to happen and those on the other want it to happen faster. (neither will succeed)

Not sure how this adds to the discussion, but it just seems like the rest of the world needed a "sit down we need to chat"


----------



## pink freud (Jul 8, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I'd like to point out that most Texans do in fact live in cities. We don't all ride horses and a lot of us don't even have an accent (or wear 10 gallon hats ). In fact people form the north east have a WAY stronger accent. I think the average population for a rural town is somewhere around 2500 so not many when you consider that rural towns are spread out between a lot of nothing. In fact if you drive across Texas you'll hit major cities and every like 50 miles or so a small town with a whole lot of nothing in the middle. (I'm sure my numbers aren't exact)
> 
> Religion itself is losing members on a daily basis, but like all things there is a transition that occurs and for those on one side they don't want it to happen and those on the other want it to happen faster. (neither will succeed)
> 
> Not sure how this adds to the discussion, but it just seems like the rest of the world needed a "sit down we need to chat"



I think the overriding point is that, sure, Texas may have some cosmopolitan centers, but it is essentially a given that Texas goes red every four years, and in essence will be supporting the GOP platform. That's the thing about voting for people, you support them through that effort.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 8, 2012)

Yeah tis true we are mostly red which is why I've been trying as hard as any one citizen can to get the popular vote for Senator, governor, president, etc. in place. It may not make a difference in the long run (or short run), but it least I can go to sleep at night knowing that when I vote Dem or 3rd party that once all the votes in my county or state are gathered my vote did not go to the person I DID NOT vote for. Why we don't use popular vote for ALL elections is ridiculous to me. Given today's technology (and more informed voters than when it was first initiated albeit many are still uninformed) that we still use the electoral college system is just as ridiculous. It isn't like they keep things bias free or anything in fact I'd say the opposite occurs.


----------



## Cynic (Jul 8, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I'd like to point out that most Texans do in fact live in cities. We don't all ride horses and a lot of us don't even have an accent (or wear 10 gallon hats ). In fact people form the north east have a WAY stronger accent. I think the average population for a rural town is somewhere around 2500 so not many when you consider that rural towns are spread out between a lot of nothing. In fact if you drive across Texas you'll hit major cities and every like 50 miles or so a small town with a whole lot of nothing in the middle. (I'm sure my numbers aren't exact)
> 
> Religion itself is losing members on a daily basis, but like all things there is a transition that occurs and for those on one side they don't want it to happen and those on the other want it to happen faster. (neither will succeed)
> 
> Not sure how this adds to the discussion, but it just seems like the rest of the world needed a "sit down we need to chat"



I can confirm that Northeast Texas does in fact have some twangin' going on. I'm fortunate enough to not have one, though.  :3

Anyways, Texas isn't like how some of you make it out to be. Sure, there are some places close to what you describe, but that isn't Texas as a whole.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 8, 2012)

Cynic said:


> I can confirm that Northeast Texas does in fact have some twangin' going on. I'm fortunate enough to not have one, though.  :3
> 
> Anyways, Texas isn't like how some of you make it out to be. Sure, there are some places close to what you describe, but that isn't Texas as a whole.



I meant northeast like Brooklyn accent, but yes there are areas in the north and west Texas with heavy accent. I apparently I have a dry/general American accent which I guess means I don't have one at all (I'm sure the Brits would disagree however) For some reason the smaller the community the more of a southern draw people have (in the south that is). Such a bizarre thing IMO.

I visited South Carolina and you want to talk Southern Draw, oh my god they talked so slow it was beyond ridiculous.


----------



## Nonservium (Jul 10, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I visited South Carolina and you want to talk Southern Draw, oh my god they talked so slow it was beyond ridiculous.



I worked with a lady from SC and I couldn't stand talking to her. It was 100% slow motion conversation. Drove me completely nuts to even have to listen to her.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 10, 2012)

Cynic said:


> I can confirm that Northeast Texas does in fact have some twangin' going on. I'm fortunate enough to not have one, though.  :3
> 
> Anyways, Texas isn't like how some of you make it out to be. Sure, there are some places close to what you describe, but that isn't Texas as a whole.



Of course not. No state is represented by the crazies that just happen to have their voices heard the loudest. The difference is that these days those voices are the ones legislating and deciding the course of our future. 

It's happening everywhere. I could make a thread about my home state of Michigan throwing a woman out of the house floor for saying the word Vagina in a debate about women's rights. In my own counties' town hall, four policemen were called in response to a group of women having a differing opinion on the counties' interpretation of the Citizens United ruling.

This kind of behavior and influence in ignorance needs to be spotlighted and ridiculed wherever it is, no matter how minuscule it seems. That's how you fight this; not by defending your state as a whole.


----------



## DslDwg (Jul 10, 2012)

You guys realize that this document is written by a group of about thirty Texas Republicans and does not represent the beliefs part and parcel of all Texans. 

I consider myself conservative but am not a registered Rebulican. I do agree with some of the concepts outlined in this document and others I do not. I'm guessing that's how most Americans are on most hot policitcal topics. 

Conservative does not always go hand in hand with evangelical and the idea that all Texans are just some bible thumping wack jobs is a little narrow minded.


----------



## Rick (Jul 10, 2012)

DslDwg said:


> You guys realize that this document is written by a group of about thirty Texas Republicans and does not represent the beliefs part and parcel of all Texans.
> 
> I consider myself conservative but am not a registered Rebulican. I do agree with some of the concepts outlined in this document and others I do not. I'm guessing that's how most Americans are on most hot policitcal topics.
> 
> Conservative does not always go hand in hand with evangelical and the idea that all Texans are just some bible thumping wack jobs is a little narrow minded.



Geoff, you clearly forgot that we all have horses and all wear 10 gallon hats.


----------



## pentecost (Jul 10, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I meant northeast like Brooklyn accent, but yes there are areas in the north and west Texas with heavy accent. I apparently I have a dry/general American accent which I guess means I don't have one at all (I'm sure the Brits would disagree however) For some reason the smaller the community the more of a southern draw people have (in the south that is). Such a bizarre thing IMO.
> 
> I visited South Carolina and you want to talk Southern Draw, oh my god they talked so slow it was beyond ridiculous.



the drawl isn't uniquely southern, i've heard it from central illinois to northern iowa. in those areas, however, it's purely unique to the rural and/or socioeconomically depressed. southern crosses, meth, anti-obama stickers, and welfare checks... tough knot of whatthefuck to chew on, especially with such poor dental hygeine.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 10, 2012)

So are we saying that the drawl is mental retardation


----------



## Necris (Jul 10, 2012)

All of you Texans are Hank Hill in my eyes.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 11, 2012)

NO!!!!!! 



























I'm Bobby


----------



## Sicarius (Jul 11, 2012)

Can I be the french horn guy that lived in the Mega-lo-mart?


----------



## Nonservium (Jul 11, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I'm Bobby



GOT'DAMNIT BOY PULL YA PANTS UP!


----------



## Rick (Jul 11, 2012)

I'm definitely Boomhauer.


----------



## synrgy (Jul 11, 2012)

Cynic said:


> Fucking around, I told her, "Hey, did you know that 'TacoCat' is a palindrome?" It took her a good five minutes writing it on the chalkboard before turning around and responding with "You're right! It is!" I shit you not.



I'll bet you could have given her an aneurysm if you'd hit her with "Satan oscillate my metallic sonatas". I would have paid a small fee just to see the smoke come out of her ears.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 11, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I'll bet you could have given her an aneurysm if you'd hit her with "Satan oscillate my metallic sonatas". I would have paid a small fee just to see the smoke come out of her ears.




I'll take a guess and say she wouldn't have bothered just because he mentioned Satan. Texans hate satan.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 11, 2012)

"The power of christ repels you"


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 11, 2012)

Even as a Christian I feel it is wrong and fundamentally flawed to teach creationism in school in any capacity other than something along the lines of a religious elective. I see it as completely asinine to teach it in a science class. Faith and the scientific method are often at complete odds with one another. Sciences deal with what CAN be seen and faith deals with what CANNOT be seen. There is so much material available on creationism available that teaching it in classrooms is pointless.

Another thing I take issue with:
If teachers are basically skipping over it and editing their lesson plans to exclude it, then what the hell was the point of even having it in the books to begin with? That seems like a huge waste of educational tax dollars and of time and stress on everybody involved.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 11, 2012)

Tons of shit in a textbook get skipped or glanced over. Usually we stay on track until state testing gets close then they drilled lessons that would help us do good for a month or so inevitably leading to shorter lesson plans. Teachers hated it, but state requires a specific curriculum.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 11, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> I'll take a guess and say she wouldn't have bothered just because he mentioned Satan. Texans hate satan.



Not true. My ex moved there.


----------



## Necris (Jul 12, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> I'm going to use the Flu Shot as an example:
> 
> How in the hell are you going to prove in court that one kid gave another child the flu during flu season?
> 
> I choose not to get the Flu shot every year because it's never worked for me; I've always gotten it no matter what. Are you going to sue me if your kid happens to get it during flu season?


I thought I had replied to this, I guess I didn't hit submit.  
Anyway, in the case of something like the flu you would be right, it's common enough that it would be incredibly difficult and a complete waste of time to try to prove that one child was definitively the source of an outbreak.
However when we have an outbreak of Whooping Cough (there currently is one in New Jersey), the Mumps, the Measles or any other number of diseases it's very different. Those are far more rare occurrences than the flu and as such much easier to trace a source and prove. Finding the first kid who got the flu? Difficult. Finding the first kid who came down with the Measles? Not so difficult.

I will grant that the vaccines don't work for everyone and that some people are outright unable to get them due to allergies, however if you are not allergic to the vaccine and get it and it doesn't work you are no longer directly responsible if you end up contracting and spreading the sickness, you got the vaccine, it failed. If, however, you are able to get the vaccine and refuse it you carry the entirety of the blame if you subsequently contract and spread the virus.

I also want to point out that while you didn't mention this I do not see religious reasons as a viable argument in support of not vaccinating children. Nothing fails as profoundly as prayer, waving a piece of paper is potentially a better defense against illness than praying that you or your child won't get sick and the fact that a parent would put their own children and the children of others at risk solely to adhere to their religious dogma is nothing short of sheer lunacy in my eyes.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 6, 2012)

Neg Rep:


> A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." The religious crap you keep justifying is mythology



You should have signed your rep since it wasn't a silly insult or PM"D me so I don't have to respond to the whole damn community.



> Y'all have already answered your own question in a way though. Religious folk outweigh atheists and in the US Christians are the overall prominent belief. The beginning of the universe is at this time not provable *without a doubt* so considering what the majority believe that is the way things are going to lean.
> 
> Me personally I believe in the theory that the universe contracts and expands cyclically. I'd say the fact that the majority (99%) of science text isn't religiously founded to be huge considering how many do believe in creationism. if it all got replaced with creationism then i think you'd have something to complain about, but as it stands this issue really isn't that big of a deal. This is probably one of the few places where almost everyone is an atheist or some other faith not christian based so of course you feel differently. How passionately you feel against 10 sentences is how they feel about several chapters and while current science and observations is definitely more in line with things like evolution and the big bang theory it is a theory because *it isn't necessarily 100% correct* so is it really hard to see why the other side pushes as hard as they do when they (being a lot of the US) have been taught/told something else. Your saying science is left for fact, but as far as they are concerned what they know is fact.
> 
> ...



Out of all of that this. *Don't sweat the small stuff* was the only message I have been perpetuating. I am not trying to push mythology on anyone as you put it as I couldn't give a shit less. It is an overall small matter and my point was that there is no singularly agreed on theory as a whole for the beginning of the universe. (several variations and ever evolving as it should be) The comment about scientific theories was just unnecessary. I said not 100% correct and without a doubt (as in not a full 100%, even 99.99% isn't 100% and leaves room for error). Has creationism been disproven sufficiently? I'd say so. Do I think it should be excluded? Yes I do actually, however it is not a big enough concern to go waving around in protest about it. It is not the smart move either as Atheists don't garner a whole lot of respect as a whole from any religion (which if you include them all is a lot of people) My main point is that baby steps and more tactical moves like athiest politicians allowed to be open and honest without repercussions (like losing elections over it) is where the main focus should be, but why would a religious person ever vote for someone if they thought their main and only goal was to tear down religion (even if that is an irrational thing to assume which given some people's opinions isn't all that far fetched honestly).

The rest of my post was to point out that most of y'all haven't considered the other side (not in logic or emotion, but just train of thought). Their perspective isn't rational, but if people push to hard the other side pushes back even more. I mean look how radical the republican party has become in just 4-8 years. I guess I'd equate my attitude and comments that clearly bug some of you is similar to the kiss in at Chick-Fil-A, it accomplishes nothing and turns the issue into something petty, taking away its credibility. I'd bargain most of y'all aren't marching in the streets over this and I'd also bargain that the majority of states/people do not have to deal with this problem in the first place.

I honestly don't have a dog in this race. I'm not religious by any measure, not spiritual, do not believe in creationism, take scientific theories for the most part as fact, proponent of the big bang theory and some of it's variations and a strong educational lover. All that being said politics aren't that simple (wish it were).


----------



## MFB (Sep 6, 2012)

If we're not sweating the small stuff, why respond to a neg rep from over a month ago?


----------



## flint757 (Sep 6, 2012)

Reading comprehension my friend, it was given to me yesterday and I felt it needed to be addressed that I'm aware of how scientific theories work. 

Then, given the responses towards other members as well, it has become increasingly clear that a lot of the Athiest's on this forum are quite militant. The problem with that approach is it doesn't make any friends. The comment towards not sweating the small stuff (while quite applicable to every measure of ones life) is more important in politics than anywhere else IMO. People wanting to tear down statues, rip signs out of the ground, change the pledge, money, etc. are sweating the small stuff and just because of the religious references trying to tear down history. It makes the group as a whole look petty, dangerous and to the religious immoral (even though it lacks relevance, many for whatever reason already see it that way). That in itself is a separate matter, but I'd bargain those whining in this thread are in the same category of people. When you focus on the petty, nobody listens or takes you seriously when it counts.

Appreciate the real effort to respond to my post.


----------



## MstrH (Sep 11, 2012)

All true Texans know that the only way to get America back "on the right track" is to get rid of Obama, then stop his crazy war against religion. Have faith, stop this "scientific" nonsense.

Then establish a traditional American theocracy just like our founding fathers intended in the Declaration of Constitution of Rights.

I mean, just look how good our oil buddies in Saudi Arabia are doing. They got lots of oil and money and stuff. And as everyone knows, its a gift from god when up from the ground comes a bubblin' crude, oil that is, black gold, Texas tea.....


----------



## flint757 (Sep 11, 2012)

MstrH said:


> All true Texans know that the only way to get America back "on the right track" is to get rid of Obama, then stop his crazy war against religion. Have faith, stop this "scientific" nonsense.
> 
> Then establish a traditional American theocracy just like our founding fathers intended in the Declaration of Constitution of Rights.
> 
> I mean, just look how good our oil buddies in Saudi Arabia are doing. They got lots of oil and money and stuff. And as everyone knows, its a gift from god when up from the ground comes a bubblin' crude, oil that is, black gold, Texas tea.....



I think the scary part is I know some people who are like that, the only difference is everyone thinks they are crazy too. (well most people) 

I personally hate the political atmosphere of Texas, but it will get better, it won't be too long before Texas is a swing state. By the time that happens I will hopefully be long gone.

Semi-off topic:

My uncle, a brilliant man and very gifted, was complaining about the standards on vehicles to be implemented over the next decade under Obama's plan. It basically says that fuel standards have to be doubled in the next 12 years. To me that is a very long time and a good thing as price of oil is only going to go up (if only because of inflation) so raising the standards or even eliminating gas all together would be a good thing. In his mind it would cripple the US auto industry and it is a regulation and therefore inherently bad. Now IMO if GM and Ford can't make their cars better in that time frame they don't deserve to exist. After all if your car gets 4x better gas mileage and the price of gas doubles you still come out ahead. Right now I'm unfortunately driving a vehicle that gets 12MPG and the standard will be around 50-70 I think, that is an improvement and an option we should have as consumers. I think they are worried that it will affect trucks though, which is an understandable, but unnecessary concern I think.

I work with my uncle and pops sometimes at their fabrication shop so I hear all kinds of stuff that is typical among blue collar workers. I just grin and bear it.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 11, 2012)

flint757 said:


> ... it has become increasingly clear that a lot of the Athiest's on this forum are quite militant ...


Not really. They just have a strong intolerance for mis-information, irrationality, hypocrisy and theists that are so wrapped-up in their religious indoctrination that they can't see that they are mis-informed, irrational and hypocritical.

There really isn't a problem until the theists and apologists start whining that they're being oppressed when the reality is that they're not being allowed to shove their views down other people's throats, or allowed to just spew their nonsense and mis-information without comment.

Ray


----------



## flint757 (Sep 11, 2012)

Justify it however you will. There are actual definitions of atheism and outwardly trying to remove all things religious in a public environment, no matter how logical or right it may be, is still militant atheism or "new atheism" (according to wiki) and blurred sometimes into anti-theism. I agree on a personal level with these train of thoughts, but note that some of the "crusades" people go on trivializes and demonizes the group as a whole.

As for what the article directly addresses it is a silly issue if only because most teachers skip it and nonbelievers/believers aren't going to be swayed one way or the other over this. And unless something has changed this is in high school text books (by then you have a fairly firm idea of what you believe). I'm by no means an apologist sir either, I just think there are more important battles to be fought for atheism than this. I do think it should be removed from the text books, but it isn't worth (mine or anyone else's) 110% effort.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 11, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Outwardly trying to remove all things religious in a public environment, no matter how logical or right it may be, is still militant atheism or "new atheism"



It's more like secularism, and it is not affiliated with atheism. An atheist is a secularist by definition, but most moderate christians can be described as secularists as well.
"New atheism", by the way, is a bullshit word made up by the faithful to create an enemy and to keep atheists quiet:
"Well, I have nothing against atheists, I love atheists and bless their socks every evening. I only dislike those intolerant "*new* atheists". You're not a "*new* atheist" (and thus implied to be intolerant if the answer is affirmative), are you?"

It's negative rebranding, it's the oldest goddamm trick in the book of marketing.

Kind of like:




^SAVE YOURSELVES, IT'S THE BOOGIEMAN!



ElRay said:


> They just have a strong intolerance for mis-information, irrationality, hypocrisy and theists that are so wrapped-up in their religious indoctrination that they can't see that they are mis-informed, irrational and hypocritical.



It's a double standard really. A theist is excused when challenging other beliefs or unbelief, but an atheist is supposed to be quiet, because otherwise that's intolerance and oppression.

Most atheists are not very active outside of the internet, I have yet to be approached by an atheist in the street asking if I have rejected Jesus Christ yet. The internet is one big argument usually, and theology is a logical part of that. Naturally both sides are going to be present, both theist and atheist.


----------



## Necris (Sep 11, 2012)

While occasionally Athiest groups just want to piss in the cereal of the religious, many times the escalation to legitimate legal action to get religious icons or advertisements removed (or just to sue people) comes only after the group faces distinct difficulties getting their own displays put up; like in Arkansas where the Government run Central Arkansas Transit Authority changed their policies regarding Religious themed billboards on the fly to block an Athiest billboard which said "Are you Good without God? Millions Are." from being put up; they're currently being sued because other religious billboards are still being approved.

This also happened in Fort Worth, Texas; albeit with bus advertisements rather than Billboards, where they at least had the common sense to block all religious ads (which is a victory in itself) after Christian groups decided to follow the buses around every day in cars emblazoned with their own advertisements stating "I won't Ride a Bus with Athiest advertising on it!" in response.

And it's not as though "creationism in science textbooks" is the only issue going on in Texas with regard to Religion it's just another on a reasonable pile., although Evolution is certainly a sore spot for your state that battle against jackassery has been going on since at least the late 70s.

Some other issues (some of which have to do with creationism):
Your state constitution which states:


> No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, *provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being*.


The distribution of bibles within a public school system (PDF Link): http://www.aclutx.org/download/22/
That fact that your teachers can be suspended for being _suspected_ of being athiests: It must be tough to be an atheist in Texas &#8211; Pharyngula

In 2009 a Texas Science Curriculum director was fired for stating her opposition to creationism and the tactics creationists use to get their beliefs taught, she appealed and her firing was later upheld; unfortunately the article on it is no longer up (a google seach will bring you here, where the article is quoted).

Biblical based curriculums: Bible Curriculum Dispute Heats Up in Texas Town - WSJ.com

That this even has to happen: Court rules against creationism degree - San Antonio Express-News

I personally don't see how fighting against the possibility of a pseudoscience which has risen to some vague prominence in this country based entirely on profound misunderstandings of evolutionary concepts, willful ignorance and the all consuming need some Christians have to jettison everything that doesn't agree with the biblical account of creation from their mind being given even the slightest inkling of credibility by being put in print in a Science textbook to stand alongside legitimate scientific theories which actually have been supported by _real _evidence and stood up to rigorous scientific testing just because a majority group in this country will support it's inclusion whether or not they personally believe it is "sweating the small stuff", but that's just me.

Facts aren't a democracy, and I'm fine being seen as Militant for believing that.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 11, 2012)

Necris said:


> Facts aren't a democracy, and I'm fine being seen as Militant for believing that.



Amen to that brutha.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 11, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Justify it however you will. There are actual definitions of atheism and outwardly trying to remove all things religious in a public environment, no matter how logical or right it may be, is still militant atheism or "new atheism" (according to wiki) and blurred sometimes into anti-theism.


True, but so what? That's not what's happening here. What's happening here is a bunch of folks that are so blinded by their religion, and their apologists that also buy into the religious tripe, that refuse to see that they are wrong.

Also, 99% of the time that an atheist is trying keep religion "out of it", it's because the Theists and Apologists (T&A's) are jamming their beliefs down everybody's throats. The T&A's feel they're being persecuted, or that their forcing their religion on everybody is "logical", but the reality is that they're not being persecuted and that they are so self-absorbed and self-serving that they don't see how hypocritical and rude they're being. Disagreeing with T&A's ignorant and/or irrational public statements is not being militant. Refusing to roll-over, play dead and ignore T&A's badgering and insistence that their hypocritical, ignorant, reality-defying nonsense be adhered to is not being Militant.

Yes, people that disagree with Creationism get irritated. It's because ignorant (either willfully ignorant, or merely mis-informed) people, or people that know better, but still try to deceive the masses, keep trying to pass-off Creationism as valid Science. Picture a four-year-old child that keeps insisting that worms on the sidewalk cause rain. And keeps insisting that no matter how many times you explain that their supposition is wrong. And keeps telling other kids that worms on the sidewalk cause rain. And keeps telling adults that worms on the sidewalk cause rain. And demands that you tell everybody that worms on the sidewalk cause rain. And gets upset, screams and yells, pouts and insults everybody that disagrees with and/or tries to educate the child. That's what the Creationists are like. They are wrong, but they're so arrogant in their ignorance that they refuse to even conceive that they might be wrong and attack anybody that dares to disagree with them. Creationists are called "names that question their intelligence and/or knowledge" because they behave like the ignorant, arrogant, self-absorbed, rude child that insists that worms on the sidewalk cause rain.

Also note that I said "people that disagree with Creationism". I didn't say atheists. The fact that anybody who lumps all anti-Creationists with all atheists is proof that the person is too blinded by religion to think straight. There are a lot of theists that understand the science behind the formation of the universe (The Big-Bang Theory), the formation stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies (Astrophysics), the beginning of life (Abiogenesis) and the Evolution of species and recognize that Creationists' attempts to lump these four separate areas under the label "Evolution" and then refute them with ignorance is pure foolishness.

I'll make one more attempt to lay it out for you T&A's that believe Creation should be taught in schools:
A Scientific Theory is supported by a body of evidence. It is not a hypothesis, conjecture, supposition, etc. The T&A's that use "It's just a theory" to place Creationism on equal footing with Evolution are ignorant and/or deceptive. This cannot be argued. It's basic facts and definitions.
Evolution has a large body of evidence supporting it. This cannot be argued. It's a basic fact.
Creation and Intelligent Design have ZERO evidence supporting them. This cannot be argued. It's a basic fact.
Intelligent Design is internally flawed. Either some creator(s) had to create the creator(s) that created us, all the way back to the initial creator(s) that arose on their own (thus refuting the initial premise) or the initial creator(s) fall into the same omnipotent invisible buddy that Creationism proposes. This cannot be argued. It's basic logic.
Arguments in favor of Creationism all rely on the logical fallacy of "The False Dichotomy". For you T&A'er that don't understand basic logic and rhetoric, that's falsely claiming that if not A, then your only choice is B. This is the same as claiming that if you're not eating vanilla ice cream, you're eating chocolate. We all know there's more than just two flavors of ice cream. This cannot be argued. It's basic logic.
Arguments against Evolution predominately fall into one (or more) of seven categories:
"Strawman Arguments" -- The mischaracterizing your opponents argument and then refuting the mischaracterization instead of the actual argument.
"False linking" -- This is the tying together of two or more unrelated items and claiming that refuting one refutes them all.
"Appeal to authority/popularity" -- The claim that since a person deemed to be in a position of authority, or the teeming masses say something, it's true.
"Argument from Personal Incredulity"/"Appeal to the Supernatural" -- The claim that since a person doesn't understand it, therefore it must be false or done by magic
"Ad hominem Attacks" -- Basically insults directed at the person stating the facts instead of addressing the facts themselves.
"Non sequitur" -- The statement of one or more pieces of information that may or may not be true and then drawing a conclusion that is totally unsupported by the statements.
"Cherry Picking" -- Picking specific pieces of data, or subsets of data (often out of context) that appear to support your position
This cannot be argued. It's basic logic.
All arguments against Evolution rely on mis-information. Either flat-out falsehoods, or factual data taken out of context. This cannot be argued. It's basic facts.

T&A's may try to minimize the importance of fighting religious nonsense in schools, but it is very important. School is a place where facts and critical thinking is supposed to be taught. Would you want school kids taught that the Tooth Fairy, the Easer Bunny, the Slenderman, chanting into a mirror/watching a video tape will release a supernatural being that will kill you and that the Earth is a Disc resting on the backs of four huge elephants which are in turn standing on the back of an enormous turtle, named The Great A'Tuin, which is rocketing in a straight line through space, all on equal footing with reality? Would you want the kids that point-out the irrationality of these claims told to shut-up because you might offend somebody, and in far-too-many cases punished? Do you really want the ignorant, I-beleive-this-so-reality-be-damned kids that would come out of this system voting and running our country (politically & economically), treating our illnesses, building our buildings, planes, cars, etc. in the future? You may think this is nonsense, but teaching the fantasies above is the same thing as allowing religious nonsense to be taught in schools. Also, if you think the previous examples are unacceptable, but religious indoctrination is OK, then you are an apologist. There's no argument to this.

Following on this, the whine that "problems with Evolution aren't taught" is absurd. Just because the Creationist T&A'ers are ignorant that observations that do not seem to be explained by Evolution (the scarce few that there are) are being taught, doesn't mean that Evolution is being taught in an excessively favorable light. Again, we come back to ignorance and self-adsorbtion. The T&A'ers feel that because their lack of understanding, their mis-information, their false dichotomy, their strawman arguments, their false linking, etc. isn't taught, that kids are being indoctrinated. The reality is that good, strong science is being used to refute their anti-reality indoctrination.

That said, I do believe that Creationism should be addressed (NOT taught, but addressed) in science class. Teachers should spend the 20 - 30 minutes it should take to explain:
Creationism is 100% unscientific
Intelegent Design is internally flawed
There is ZERO evidence for Creationism or Intelegent Design
The folks that try to use Creationism to refute "The Big Bang Theory", Astrophysics, Abiogenesis and Evolution, all lumped under the label "Evolution" are either willfully ignorant, severely mis-informed or intentionally deceptive
Arguments against Evolution are loaded with mis-information and logical fallacies
Walk through the major Creationist rants and show how:
The arguments have nothing to do with Evolution
The arguments are factually incorrect
The arguments are based on logical fallacies

Quotes from people have no bearing on scientific facts and observations
Just because somebody has a degree does not make them an expert and exempt them from the basic laws of logic and does not make their unsupported statements true
Be careful what you wish for, you might actually get it. In addition, any kid that wants to be disruptive, rude, abusive, pout, storm out of class, etc. gets detention (or suspension, if the actions warrant that level of punishment) and a zero for that unit.

Remember, T&A's have their free speech, but that doesn't mean that they're entitled to spew their ignorant, mis-informed and often hypocritical nonsense unanswered. Also, refusing to let a T&A'er's ignorant, mis-informed and often hypocritical nonsense go unanswered is not being Militant, especially when a T&A'er wants to use the government to spread/enforce their ignorant, mis-informed and often hypocritical nonsense.

Ray


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 11, 2012)

pink freud said:


> WTF, secede already


----------



## Necris (Sep 11, 2012)

An Index to Creationist Claims

An index of creationist claims with refutations of each of the claims with references to sources as well as well links to studies or books for further reading on the subjects.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 11, 2012)

I don't even know why we're debating the validity of creationism. It exists only to oppose real science...


----------



## flint757 (Sep 12, 2012)

ElRay said:


> Not really. They just have a strong intolerance for mis-information, irrationality, hypocrisy and theists that are so wrapped-up in their religious indoctrination that they can't see that they are mis-informed, irrational and hypocritical.
> 
> There really isn't a problem until the theists and apologists start whining that they're being oppressed when the reality is that they're not being allowed to shove their views down other people's throats, or allowed to just spew their nonsense and mis-information without comment.
> 
> Ray



Based on some rather obvious context clues I'm guessing you left me some neg rep, much appreciated  always nice to see how people can have a conversation "AND" disagree without it getting thrown into a petty name calling, oh wait .



Jakke said:


> It's more like secularism, and it is not affiliated with atheism. An atheist is a secularist by definition, but most moderate christians can be described as secularists as well.
> "New atheism", by the way, is a bullshit word made up by the faithful to create an enemy and to keep atheists quiet:
> "Well, I have nothing against atheists, I love atheists and bless their socks every evening. I only dislike those intolerant "*new* atheists". You're not a "*new* atheist" (and thus implied to be intolerant if the answer is affirmative), are you?"



Well I have no idea the origin of said word, I was looking up militant atheism and nothing came up, but under athiesm in wiki the term "new athiesm" was used instead and directly correlated to my point. While I agree I'm throwing up a fairly large umbrella, I've seen it all before. We can agree to disagree on the science book issue, if you feel like "saving the world" from this egregious misconduct go for it. My issue is it rarely ends there, the vocal athiests typically want to rid the world of all notions of religion and I only disagree with this for 2 reasons: some things do have historical context and it does in fact make us look like the boogeyman as you so aptly put it. 

I just feel like we need to fix the voting problem when it comes to athiesm as that is probably THE most important issue athiests face. My mom, as an example, I brought up what Necris said about an athiest not being able to run for office in Texas (she is religious) and she said, "that is a good thing and that even if the law didn't exist they wouldn't win, we are a christian nation." Now that pissed me off, but I held my cool because it's my mom, but this is a far bigger problem. We shouldn't have to prove ourselves, but at the same time, given the environment we live in, we apparently have no choice. Even if you rid the Christians of the views that athiests are immoral beings (unlikely) if we sit there and try and remove all things related to faith we are not going to get anywhere very fast as this country is majority rule and ATM we are not the majority. I'm excluding my position on the science text books from the previous statement as it is clear we (as in all involved in this discussion) disagree and I don't feel like being called an ignorant, irrational, hypocrite (how? I don't know as I have not been hypocritical, I'm knowledgeable on the subject and it is the opposing opinions who think I'm irrational clearly someone enjoys political debates )



Jakke said:


> It's a double standard really. A theist is excused when challenging other beliefs or unbelief, but an atheist is supposed to be quiet, because otherwise that's intolerance and oppression.
> 
> Most atheists are not very active outside of the internet, I have yet to be approached by an atheist in the street asking if I have rejected Jesus Christ yet. The internet is one big argument usually, and theology is a logical part of that. Naturally both sides are going to be present, both theist and atheist.



I don't disagree that it is unfair athiests do seem to get the short end of the stick and are supposed to "be quiet" otherwise they are trampling someones rights. I agree that this is ridiculous. However, I don't run into too many christians who try and shove their ideas down my throat either. I don't think athiests should be quiet, but I also don't think they should be their loudest only when trying to do things like remove statues or symbols and the like as it not only seems like a silly thing to get ruffled over, but leaves a bad impression (my concern are the "moderates" more than anyone else). By all means debate, tell people they are wrong, show them that morality is not tied to religion. I'm all for that, but I'd be just as upset if christians (or any faith) tried doing the same things that the most vocal athiests have done/tried doing (see not a hypocrite ).

I guess I'll tackle the creationism issue. I think creationism is stupid, waste of paper, tax dollars, and biased. These are all good reasons for it to be removed so if you feel empowered to do something about it go for it. IMO it is pointless and the "good" that would come from it is minimal. All it does is null some "bad" it does not create any good. From a utilitarian stand point all it does is piss people off and since the damage is small (I've given reasons for this already) and the good from removing it is null I truly don't see how it is worth the effort. Again plenty of good reasons for it's removal as it has no business in a science textbook, but I personally don't see any reason for the actual effort IMO. 

As for some of my past commentary, which got me neg rep earlier, my point was merely that no idea is complete so it isn't hard to believe that some people in fact don't believe it. Now, them following theories that are entirely sketchy is poor judgement on their part, but my point was it isn't all that hard to conceive why some people don't believe them. I'm also aware that this discussion goes much further than Christians and Athiests, the generalization (done by everyone for the most part) is simply to simplify the discussion, nothing more. Yes, most Christians don't believe in creationism and secularism goes beyond Athiests, but that creates a scope too large for a solid discussion as I don't have time to write in a politically correct manner. I have a job and am an electrical engineering major so my time is limited.



Necris said:


> While occasionally Athiest groups just want to piss in the cereal of the religious, many times the escalation to legitimate legal action to get religious icons or advertisements removed (or just to sue people) comes only after the group faces distinct difficulties getting their own displays put up; like in Arkansas where the Government run Central Arkansas Transit Authority changed their policies regarding Religious themed billboards on the fly to block an Athiest billboard which said "Are you Good without God? Millions Are." from being put up; they're currently being sued because other religious billboards are still being approved.
> 
> This also happened in Fort Worth, Texas; albeit with bus advertisements rather than Billboards, where they at least had the common sense to block all religious ads (which is a victory in itself) after Christian groups decided to follow the buses around every day in cars emblazoned with their own advertisements stating "I won't Ride a Bus with Athiest advertising on it!" in response.



And that is wrong on all counts, censorship shouldn't happen to anybody. And I don't disagree that Christians do the same BS (look at the Chick-Fil-A day), but to pretend like that is the ONLY time athiests try and remove things is a tad naive.



Necris said:


> And it's not as though "creationism in science textbooks" is the only issue going on in Texas with regard to Religion it's just another on a reasonable pile., although Evolution is certainly a sore spot for your state that battle against jackassery has been going on since at least the late 70s.
> 
> Some other issues (some of which have to do with creationism):
> Your state constitution which states:
> ...



And these things should definitely be addressed. All the things you have posted above (and I'm sure there is more too) need to be remedied. I don't consider fighting oppression to be militant as that would be silly. These things need resolution and confrontation is the only way to achieve this. My issue is when people (no matter the group) outwardly try and stop/ get rid of something when it holds no real significance. The issues listed above (and to some clearly creationism as well, which is fine as I said before agree to disagree) need to be handled and they have significant consequences.



Necris said:


> I personally don't see how fighting against the possibility of a pseudoscience which has risen to some vague prominence in this country based entirely on profound misunderstandings of evolutionary concepts, willful ignorance and the all consuming need some Christians have to jettison everything that doesn't agree with the biblical account of creation from their mind being given even the slightest inkling of credibility by being put in print in a Science textbook to stand alongside legitimate scientific theories which actually have been supported by _real _evidence and stood up to rigorous scientific testing just because a majority group in this country will support it's inclusion whether or not they personally believe it is "sweating the small stuff", but that's just me.
> 
> Facts aren't a democracy, and I'm fine being seen as Militant for believing that.



Indeed facts aren't a democracy and I don't disagree with anything in this paragraph. I think creationism is stupid, I have said this before. My ONLY point is it isn't worth picketing over and I've given some reason above.



ElRay said:


> True, but so what? That's not what's happening here. What's happening here is a bunch of folks that are so blinded by their religion, and their apologists that also buy into the religious tripe, that refuse to see that they are wrong.



Not once did I say I disagree with you nor do I think you are wrong. In terms of creationism as an issue refer to my opinion above.



ElRay said:


> Also, 99% of the time that an atheist is trying keep religion "out of it", it's because the Theists and Apologists (T&A's) are jamming their beliefs down everybody's throats. The T&A's feel they're being persecuted, or that their forcing their religion on everybody is "logical", but the reality is that they're not being persecuted and that they are so self-absorbed and self-serving that they don't see how hypocritical and rude they're being. Disagreeing with T&A's ignorant and/or irrational public statements is not being militant. Refusing to roll-over, play dead and ignore T&A's badgering and insistence that their hypocritical, ignorant, reality-defying nonsense be adhered to is not being Militant.



First of all to include apologists in your derogatory rant is illogical as an apologist of either camp is unlikely to be forcing anything down anyone's throat. Keep beating that dead horse though, I think I saw it move a little. 



ElRay said:


> Yes, people that disagree with Creationism get irritated. It's because ignorant (either willfully ignorant, or merely mis-informed) people, or *people that know better, but still try to deceive the masses*, keep trying to pass-off Creationism as valid Science.



I'll agree with your fist part, but that second part is rather ridiculous. If someone believes creationism to be false I doubt they are trying to deceive the masses. I can only assume, given the repetitious nature of what you are saying, that you are accusing apologists of trying to deceive the masses. You sound like an anti-FOX news, just spewing BS from the other side of the fence.



ElRay said:


> Picture a four-year-old child that keeps insisting that worms on the sidewalk cause rain. And keeps insisting that no matter how many times you explain that their supposition is wrong. And keeps telling other kids that worms on the sidewalk cause rain. And keeps telling adults that worms on the sidewalk cause rain. And demands that you tell everybody that worms on the sidewalk cause rain. And gets upset, screams and yells, pouts and *insults everybody that disagrees* with and/or tries to educate the child. That's what the Creationists are like. They are wrong, but they're so arrogant in their ignorance that they refuse to even conceive that they might be wrong and attack anybody that dares to disagree with them. Creationists are called "names that question their intelligence and/or knowledge" because they behave like the ignorant, arrogant, self-absorbed, rude child that insists that worms on the sidewalk cause rain.



I too think creationism is stupid and not once have I claimed otherwise so not sure why you (and a couple others) keep insisting otherwise. I will point out that the bold section is what some of y'all have been doing to me via a couple posts and rep. Very childish, no? It sucks having a discussion when both parties don't completely agree isn't it.  Where would the world be today...



ElRay said:


> Also note that I said *"people that disagree with Creationism".* I didn't say atheists.



Unless I missed a post, no you didn't. Please correct me though if I'm wrong here (with proof obviously).



ElRay said:


> The fact that anybody who lumps all anti-Creationists with all atheists is proof that the person is too blinded by religion to think straight. There are a lot of theists that understand the science behind the formation of the universe (The Big-Bang Theory), the formation stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies (Astrophysics), the beginning of life (Abiogenesis) and the Evolution of species and recognize that Creationists' attempts to lump these four separate areas under the label "Evolution" and then refute them with ignorance is pure foolishness.



I never lumped anyone. I did not point out every subset simply because it would not add to the conversation and I assumed that those reading would be able to deduce that obviously the conversation is about those directly in question. 

To further assume that I'm ignorant and blinded by religion (when I'm not religious ) is not only silly, but incredibly naive. I'd bargain to guess that you've been so blinded by your hate for religion and support of atheism that you are making condescending, blanket statements about people you don't even know. 




ElRay said:


> I'll make one more attempt to lay it out for you T&A's that believe Creation should be taught in schools:
> A Scientific Theory is supported by a body of evidence. It is not a hypothesis, conjecture, supposition, etc. The T&A's that use "It's just a theory" to place Creationism on equal footing with Evolution are ignorant and/or deceptive. This cannot be argued. It's basic facts and definitions.
> Evolution has a large body of evidence supporting it. This cannot be argued. It's a basic fact.
> Creation and Intelligent Design have ZERO evidence supporting them. This cannot be argued. It's a basic fact.
> ...



Don't disagree with most of this as like I have already said I don't believe in creationism and my posts even prior to this have made that very clear. Perhaps it isn't directed at me, but could have fooled me given your commentary. Again, lumping "apologists" in with theists (whether a religious apologist or atheist apologist) is rather silly. Being an apologist does not mean you are as fanatical as someone who is a radical religious person (the type of person you're really describing, you've committed your own fallacy lumping people together IMO).



ElRay said:


> T&A's may try to minimize the importance of fighting religious nonsense in schools, but it is very important. *School is a place where facts and critical thinking is supposed to be taught.*



Couldn't agree more with the bold statement. I'm not trying to minimize anything as if you feel like picketing, go for it. You clearly have the passionate drive to do so. It is your opinion that it is important, I disagree and the part most of y'all are missing is that this is a normal part of a discussion (disagreement). From a utilitarian perspective I feel that it does more harm than good as there is little effect from it being there. Should it be there? No. Is it a stupid theory? Yes. Do people who do/don't believe in it change their perspective by the inclusion/exclusion of it? Probably not. Do most teachers who have it in their textbook bother teaching it? No. So the "good" that comes from its removal is the pat on the back you feel from doing something that is logically right. In the mean time you have now created a new enemy which makes accomplishing the more important athiest issues even harder to accomplish. 

This is the only thing I have been saying. Clearly some of y'all think more good will come of it than I do and some of y'all feel it is worth the risks involved (there are always risk involved) and that is your opinion. Until something happens we will never know who was right.



ElRay said:


> Would you want school kids taught that the Tooth Fairy, the Easer Bunny, the Slenderman, chanting into a mirror/watching a video tape will release a supernatural being that will kill you and that the Earth is a Disc resting on the backs of four huge elephants which are in turn standing on the back of an enormous turtle, named The Great A'Tuin, which is rocketing in a straight line through space, all on equal footing with reality?



Slippery slope much...



ElRay said:


> Would you want the kids that point-out the irrationality of these claims told to shut-up because you might offend somebody, and in far-too-many cases punished?



Of course not and, as far as children, doesn't happen. If it does I'm certain they are outliers. As far as adults I have already stated it is wrong for politicians or citizens or teachers to get in trouble, demoted or whatever for their beliefs or disbeliefs. This issue IMO actually supersedes the issue we are currently discussing. 



ElRay said:


> Do you really want the ignorant, I-beleive-this-so-reality-be-damned kids that would come out of this system voting and running our country (politically & economically), treating our illnesses, building our buildings, planes, cars, etc. in the future? You may think this is nonsense, but teaching the fantasies above is the same thing as allowing religious nonsense to be taught in schools. Also, if you think the previous examples are unacceptable, but religious indoctrination is OK, then you are an apologist. There's no argument to this.



Okay,now you really are just exaggerating as most people do not believe in creationism and even if they did for most people (just like religion actually) it does not affect their ability to do their job. As far as politics, irrelevant to what is taught you are religious (if you in fact are that is) so you will vote with the group that is more supportive of your beliefs. That won't change until religions start losing more members. It isn't a matter of this being nonsense, but it not being an overall positive move, there is a difference (one you keep missing). 

I do not think religious "nonsense" should be taught in school and I don't think religious indoctrination is okay so by your logic I'm not an apologist. Glad we cleared that up. 

Now, I do not think indoctrination is as big of problem as some make it out to be. Not all religious people are successful at indoctrining their children otherwise I, as an example, would be a christian and not an athiest. I personally think it is a choice the individual should make and should be without the influence of others. Then, at least, it would be their decision even if in yours (and possible many) eyes they are wrong. I don't, however, think teaching creationism (or rather the lack of teaching, despite its inclusion in the text book) will "indoctrine" anybody. your axe-to-grind has to do with religion in general as far as I can tell, I take it you have been burned in the past.



ElRay said:


> Following on this, the whine that "problems with Evolution aren't taught" is absurd. Just because the Creationist T&A'ers are ignorant that observations that do not seem to be explained by Evolution (the scarce few that there are) are being taught, doesn't mean that Evolution is being taught in an excessively favorable light.



No one here has made that claim. However, I will add that all facts about anything should be taught if the subject in question is to be taught at all. The exclusion of facts is not okay. In the same sense all of the things wrong with with creationism should be taught as well if the subject is going to be taught at all. IMO this would do more good than the outright removal actually as it would point out how unscientific the theory is. 



ElRay said:


> Again, we come back to ignorance and self-adsorbtion. The T&A'ers feel that because their lack of understanding, their mis-information, their false dichotomy, their strawman arguments, their false linking, etc. isn't taught, that kids are being indoctrinated. The reality is that good, strong science is being used to refute their anti-reality indoctrination.



Again the inclusion of apologists in your blanket statement is quite ridiculous.

In fact the inclusion of all theists for most of your post is ridiculous as well.

This also holds no relevance to me or my posts.



ElRay said:


> That said, I do believe that Creationism should be addressed (NOT taught, but addressed) in science class. Teachers should spend the 20 - 30 minutes it should take to explain:
> Creationism is 100% unscientific
> Intelegent Design is internally flawed
> There is ZERO evidence for Creationism or Intelegent Design
> ...



Couldn't agree more and said that just before actually. They should teach the good, the bad and the ugly. Having a scientist or teacher refute something intellectually will do more to enlighten people who do not understand than the outright removal ever will.



ElRay said:


> Be careful what you wish for, you might actually get it. In addition, any kid that wants to be disruptive, rude, abusive, pout, storm out of class, etc. gets detention (or suspension, if the actions warrant that level of punishment) and a zero for that unit.



You do not know me or what I think and I did not say I wish for anything. 

I actually agree with you so the sarcasm and condescension are unwarranted. 



ElRay said:


> Remember, T&A's have their free speech, but that doesn't mean that they're entitled to spew their ignorant, mis-informed and often hypocritical nonsense unanswered. Also, refusing to let a T&A'er's ignorant, mis-informed and often hypocritical nonsense go unanswered is not being Militant, especially when a T&A'er wants to use the government to spread/enforce their ignorant, mis-informed and often hypocritical nonsense.
> 
> Ray



Could you use 4 words more often. 

I agree everyone has free speech, right to protest, etc. and anyone who truly feels this is detrimental policy SHOULD in fact do something about it. I personally don't think it is nearly as big of a deal and that the rub has more cons than pros. 

When I said militant I was not referring to those trying to rid creationism from text books, but the general attitude I have observed in this thread and towards other members (not to mention your general attitude towards religion). Debating with someone and pointing out facts someone may be unaware of isn't militant behavior and neither is standing up for something you believe to be right. I'll agree with that. 

However, based solely on attitude here (I could be off base) ,it seems some of y'all want religious people to be silent, not talk to anyone about what they believe, the removal of all things with historical context just because of the religious subtext, etc. which is no better than what you are accusing religious people of doing to you.



> and hopefully when I explain this reason to God he is not all-knowing.
> 
> I have to laugh at the common sense part of atheists excuses. The overwhelming majority of all those who ever lived know the universe was designed--yet somehow these miniscule amount of fools imagine they are somehow diamonds of genius in the rough when the fact is they are just abnormal . In psychology, its not the abnormal who are spouting out the common sense.
> 
> ...



The Causes of Atheism

This is the attitudes we should be fighting, but we have to do it intelligently and tactfully. While yes we shouldn't have to pussyfoot around, the fact is we do, otherwise people turn a deaf ear. No matter how many insults or neg rep get thrown my way I WILL NOT waiver on that belief.



> However, my second reaction is this: Atheists need to pick their fights. Freethinkers, rationalists, agnostics, atheists, non-theists, secular humanists -- whatever you want to call us -- are looked upon as a bunch of angry, elitist people who will stop at nothing to squash religion trample on sacred memorials like crosses on highways and the WTC cross, which do "no harm" to anyone and are meant to honor the dead. No matter how right we are, ethically, in suing to prevent the cross from being included, we aren't doing ourselves any favors.
> 
> By some metrics, atheists are more hated than gays and Muslims in America today, and being so publicly combative in a controversial situation like this does us a disservice. We won't earn any rights or respect with this fight, but we will fire up Christians. Christians will get defensive, and it will be harder to curry favor and/or (de)convert them in the future. This sort of thing strengthens faith and kindles hatred and resentment, but it does nothing to positively affect the long-term rights or public perception of atheists.



I think this sums up my thoughts on this quite well. I recommend reading the entire article as it isn't very long. I'd post the whole thing, but this post is getting quite lengthy as is. 

Atheist Apologist: The World Trade Center Cross -- Learn to Pick Your Fights


----------



## ElRay (Sep 14, 2012)

We're basically coming from the same direction, just a couple of points:


"Apologist" might mean different things to us. I'm using it to encapsulate all the folks that claim not to be Christian, but then insist that religious-based "stuff" (whether is be teaching Creationism as science, banning same-sex marriages, supporting religious activities at school, punishing students for not putting-up with forced religion, supporting the firing of teachers, banning clubs, clothing, speeches, books, music, etc. that might be viewed as anti-christian, demeaning atheists in general, etc.) "just makes sense" but can't give you one rational reason to support their position and, more often than not, give you plenty of religious reasons.
Unfortunately, in the U.S., the majority (78%) do believe in some form of "God did it" creation mythology. The largest group (46%) believe ""God created all life on Earth as is". The second largest group (32%) believe "God created all life on Earth through a process that seems indistinguishable from evolution." and (based on my interaction with this latter group) many have no problem with Christian, and only Christian, creation mythology being taught as science. Even if only 1/8 of this group supports the teaching of Creationism in schools, you've got a flat-out majority of folks that support Creationism taught as science.
Regarding the "slippery slope" comment; you missed the point. The point was that anybody who feels that Christian creation mythology has just as much validity as Discworld Astrophysics and the "Tooth Fairy Theory of Dental Maturation and Introduction to Elementary Economic Exchange", yet has no problem with Creationism being taught as science, has *earned* being lumped with Apologists. Choosing to take no action is still a choice.
Regarding "people that disagree with Creationism", it's in the previous paragraph in my post. 
Regarding -rep, I used to sign my neg rep until one too many hissy-fits were thrown. I think I left two bits of -rep: One to a "You're not from Texas, so STFU" attack and one for a whine about -rep post (in another thread). Also, I think that seeing the Apologist -rep was my "inspiration" the T&A reference.

Tripe and misinformation have no place being taught in schools. Whether its "The Coriolis effect causes the water to go down the drain clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere.", "Italy didn't back Columbus because they thought the world was flat." or "Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb.", it shouldn't be taught in school; however, caving into creationists has serious effects outside of school and leads to bigger problems down the road.

Ray


----------



## Sicarius (Sep 14, 2012)

I was going to post something about how the child description could be applied, exceptionally well, to a lot of the people that were against Creationism in school.

I'm against it, I just don't give enough of a shit to be angry about it. If it's there or not, great, I have more important things to worry about in my life than a bunch of kids (not actually) being taught about creationism.


----------



## GXPO (Sep 14, 2012)

I don't think most reasonable people would have an issue with creationism being discussed openly within the context of a balanced and fairly administered religious education class. The issue has surely always been with the idea of creationism having any place within science?

Regarding some of the comments regarding atheists, new/militant etc. I had a friend who was very reasonable in terms of his Christian beliefs, he wasn't there to force them on anyone but he also would never downplay his love for and/or involvement in religion. He was attending university and decided to go along to a "Christians in X/Y/Z" meeting which are quite common in the UK, where people certainly seem more hostile to the idea of fully embracing religion to the point that it would become a daily issue. When he arrived at the meeting one of the first points on the agenda was the fact that an atheist group had started meeting locally and what could possibly be done. Now this Atheist group weren't particularly menacing or militant, they just wanted to get together and make a little noise, roughly the same "little bit of noise" most small Christian groups would make in the UK. The thing that got me about the whole situation was the point that they believed the Atheist group shouldn't have to meet, they believed this (my reasonable friend) believed this to the point of confusion!

Now at first I thought he couldn't be serious, I tried explaining to him that when you are brought up with what some consider to be absolute saturation of opinion, which can be the realism of a religious upbringing, the tendency is to want to do something about it. When you see every day how ingrained religion is into our moral perceptions, would you not want to be party to some like-minded folk. he just didn't get it, he felt that no one should have to meet "to talk about something which they don't believe in". I could half see his point before I realised what we were discussing. 

The point I'm making is that those of faith really believe that those without faith are the fly in the ointment unless we're being quiet about it. I just don't think we should have to "put up or shut up". If what you see borders on lunacy you don't have a choice but to at least say something about it. 

All this, "you don't even go to school, why do you care?" talk is bull shit. We shouldn't even entertain the idea, not because we're closed minded or arrogant, but because it just doesn't fit.


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples (Sep 14, 2012)

This thread slowly evolved from people writing a few sentences to writing a few books to make their argument.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Sep 14, 2012)

MrPepperoniNipples said:


> This thread slowly evolved from people writing a few sentences to writing a few books to make their argument.



That's a good thing.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 14, 2012)

As long as my nephew's textbooks say "2 * 2 = 13," but the teachers don't stress it or even make note of it, I'll be fine. 

WHAT THE FUCK.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 14, 2012)

ElRay said:


> We're basically coming from the same direction, just a couple of points:



We basically only disagree on the severity and approach. 



ElRay said:


> [*]"Apologist" might mean different things to us. I'm using it to encapsulate all the folks that claim not to be Christian, but then insist that religious-based "stuff" (whether is be teaching Creationism as science, banning same-sex marriages, supporting religious activities at school, punishing students for not putting-up with forced religion, supporting the firing of teachers, banning clubs, clothing, speeches, books, music, etc. that might be viewed as anti-christian, demeaning atheists in general, etc.) "just makes sense" but can't give you one rational reason to support their position and, more often than not, give you plenty of religious reasons.



Why would someone claiming not to be religious then only defend religion? I have never met someone like this. I have met people who respect other peoples belief, but that is not what you are describing at all. What you are describing is someone pretending not to be religious in the hopes of converting (a wolf in sheep's clothing) or at least that is what it sounds like. I mean the literal definition in its simplest terms is basically someone who plays devils advocate in controversial situations. While I suppose we can fit what you described into said definition it is not a particular type of person I have ever seen before either.

So yes I guess we do have a different definition there. To me even the definition itself is way too vague. Personally I believe in looking at things from all sides and picking your battles and even by your own definition I don't think I apply, but whatever. 



ElRay said:


> [*]Unfortunately, in the U.S., the majority (78%) do believe in some form of "God did it" creation mythology. The largest group (46%) believe ""God created all life on Earth as is". The second largest group (32%) believe "God created all life on Earth through a process that seems indistinguishable from evolution." and (based on my interaction with this latter group) many have no problem with Christian, and only Christian, creation mythology being taught as science. Even if only 1/8 of this group supports the teaching of Creationism in schools, you've got a flat-out majority of folks that support Creationism taught as science.



Why would those people who believe in evolution be for (as in pro, not indifferent) the teaching of creationism exclusively. By your numbers it'd be more logical to say that 54% do not believe in creationism. Not questioning your experiences, but that seems rather odd. 



ElRay said:


> [*]Regarding the "slippery slope" comment; you missed the point. The point was that anybody who feels that Christian creation mythology has just as much validity as Discworld Astrophysics and the "Tooth Fairy Theory of Dental Maturation and Introduction to Elementary Economic Exchange", yet has no problem with Creationism being taught as science, has *earned* being lumped with Apologists. Choosing to take no action is still a choice.



Well that would be true if they were making that argument I guess. If they think it is valid, all of it, and are for the teaching of creationism, wouldn't they be just straight up Christian's who believe in said mythology? Calling them apologists just makes it more confusing.

Indeed no action is a choice, but that does not immediately place someone in a category either. People _should_ be selective with their decisions. That is how we deem things as more or less important and don't make rash decisions based solely on ideology. After all you don't want to end up like a religious fundamentalist either, doing thing just because of your beliefs (or lack there of).



ElRay said:


> [*]Regarding "people that disagree with Creationism", it's in the previous paragraph in my post.



I haven't checked, but I'll take your word for it.  In any case the arguments before and after did draw those lines we were discussing and in your last post as well. I suppose I could be reading too much into it though.



ElRay said:


> [*]Regarding -rep, I used to sign my neg rep until one too many hissy-fits were thrown. I think I left two bits of -rep: One to a "You're not from Texas, so STFU" attack and one for a whine about -rep post (in another thread). Also, I think that seeing the Apologist -rep was my "inspiration" the T&A reference.



 It's whatever. I don't honestly care, I assume you are saying you didn't rep me and I'll take your word for it. I wasn't upset about the rep itself, but the opinions and the lack of drive for discussion by those who did neg rep me. I mean the whole point of this section is to discuss and share differing POV's.



ElRay said:


> Tripe and misinformation have no place being taught in schools. Whether its "The Coriolis effect causes the water to go down the drain clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere.", "Italy didn't back Columbus because they thought the world was flat." or "Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb.", it shouldn't be taught in school; however, caving into creationists has serious effects outside of school and leads to bigger problems down the road.
> 
> Ray



I've only heard teachers talk about the Coriolis jokingly (involving toilets that is), but had no idea about Edison, good to know even though slightly disappointing. 

Agreed misinformation shouldn't be taught in school and that includes creationism, but that was never my argument and again we disagree on the severity of the situation overall. 

If I were to guess you run into more passionate religious people than I do as my experience is greatly different from yours. Same with school, I'm sure some schools take it very seriously and some students are dumb enough to believe it. That has not been my experience and am therefore of the belief that they are the outliers. It goes back to what I said earlier if you (or anyone else) think the consequences are bad enough to justify the consequences of said action then go for it. I personally do not think the weight is strong enough and should wait (on a scale of importance) until we make stronger cases for far more important issues facing Athiests as a whole.It's like Richard Dawkin's said we have a lot of closet atheists that just need to come out of the closet. There is obviously something a lot bigger in play if people so adamantly hide it. Just one of the many things that need to be addressed. In fact if people, who have proven their morality and/or are successful, presented themselves as Athiests, after years of people not knowing, I think that would be the best step towards a more tolerant future for Athiests.



GXPO said:


> I don't think most reasonable people would have an issue with creationism being discussed openly within the context of a balanced and fairly administered religious education class. The issue has surely always been with the idea of creationism having any place within science?



That is the argument basically and I don't disagree. I don't see why Creationists wouldn't want a separate class for it considering they don't hold a lot of "faith" in science anyhow. I definitely wouldn't mind hearing the logic from a true supporter, it would be enlightening I think.



GXPO said:


> Regarding some of the comments regarding atheists, new/militant etc. I had a friend who was very reasonable in terms of his Christian beliefs, he wasn't there to force them on anyone but he also would never downplay his love for and/or involvement in religion. He was attending university and decided to go along to a "Christians in X/Y/Z" meeting which are quite common in the UK, where people certainly seem more hostile to the idea of fully embracing religion to the point that it would become a daily issue. When he arrived at the meeting one of the first points on the agenda was the fact that an atheist group had started meeting locally and what could possibly be done. Now this Atheist group weren't particularly menacing or militant, they just wanted to get together and make a little noise, roughly the same "little bit of noise" most small Christian groups would make in the UK. The thing that got me about the whole situation was the point that they believed the Atheist group shouldn't have to meet, they believed this (my reasonable friend) believed this to the point of confusion!
> 
> Now at first I thought he couldn't be serious, I tried explaining to him that when you are brought up with what some consider to be absolute saturation of opinion, which can be the realism of a religious upbringing, the tendency is to want to do something about it. When you see every day how ingrained religion is into our moral perceptions, would you not want to be party to some like-minded folk. he just didn't get it, he felt that no one should have to meet "to talk about something which they don't believe in". I could half see his point before I realised what we were discussing.



That is intriguing and it does seem to be the mindset of people with fairly strong religious values. It isn't illogical though as trying to get rid of the competition, so to speak, isn't exactly uncommon in any subject matter.

Not sure why he wouldn't get wanting to hang out with like minded people though as that is exactly what he was doing with the Christian group.

Some people don't see when they are being hypocrites. 



GXPO said:


> The point I'm making is that those of faith really believe that those without faith are the fly in the ointment unless we're being quiet about it. I just don't think we should have to "put up or shut up". If what you see borders on lunacy you don't have a choice but to at least say something about it.
> 
> All this, "you don't even go to school, why do you care?" talk is bull shit. We shouldn't even entertain the idea, not because we're closed minded or arrogant, but because it just doesn't fit.



Agreed everyone has the right to express their opinion and should if they feel strongly about it. That being said don't be surprised when it is returned from someone you probably disagree with as well. 

The school references is from the standpoint that it isn't "really" taught and thus not as big of a deal as many were making it out to be. If you are looking at it from an ideological standpoint or a purism standpoint then yes it is a big deal no matter the circumstances (and again feel free to act), but from a real world POV it isn't as pronounced or revered as it seems to be perceived from the outside in. I know nothing about creationism and I came from a Texas school.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 14, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> As long as my nephew's textbooks say "2 * 2 = 13," but the teachers don't stress it or even make note of it, I'll be fine.
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK.



It happens, I have a lot more errors in my chem and math books than I do in any other. 

Oh wait you were being sarcastic....

If a parallelapiped threatened to shank me over it I'd think twice.


----------

