# Miss USA contestants on the teaching of evolution in schools



## CrushingAnvil (Jun 21, 2011)

Haley Herold thinks Creationism is a credited theory? 

So I don't think this thread is going to be a "OMG GOING TO BE BANNED IN THREE MINUTES" - I thought this video was very telling.

I know they're models/pageant contestants but it's a little ironic when someone says Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools when they think it has multiple meanings which vary from culture to culture  "That's religion, honey bun" or even worse, they don't actually know what it is. I think the question was planted and the fact that one of them said 'teach the controversy' is very fishy since that's pretty much a creationist/ID motto


----------



## AySay (Jun 21, 2011)

3/4 are stupid cunts. 1/8 of them are are trying to be "diplomatic" but are still stupid cunts, 1/8=

I don't even understand. WTF kind of school has a science course that doesn't include the at least something on the origin of species? They talk about "evolution" like it's this weird, strange thing.

Also wtf is this "both sides" bullshit? Fact vs Fiction?

 at creation being an accredited theory...

Oh America...


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Jun 21, 2011)

AySay said:


> 3/4 are stupid cunts. 1/8 of them are are trying to be "diplomatic", 1/8=
> 
> I don't even understand. WTF kind of school has a science course that doesn't include the at least something on the origin of species? They talk about "evolution" like it's this weird, strange thing.
> 
> ...



Basically what you have here is people who think the word 'theory' doesn't constitute fact. Evolution is like a puzzle you know is of a big fucking dinosaur eating a priest, but you can't find the pieces at that time - so you can't show your friends the awesome jigsaw puzzle you did....yet. Evolution has been observed in hundreds of different instances. I don't mean to start a debate but even if 'The Theory of Evolution' isn't 100% proven...what does that make the Judeo-Christian Creation myth? 

I just don't understand why people are ignoring the American Constitution and saying a faith/belief system should be taught as a 'possible' fact when it has absolutely no evidence for it. Science, on the other hand, is not a belief system.


----------



## Ishan (Jun 21, 2011)

The flying spaghetti monster theory should be taught in school tho 
I talked with quite a few unreasonable believers about that, most of them just refuse to understand science work by theorizing something then verifying it with facts (at least trying to  ). They just believe in their theory, that's it.
I met quite a lot of scientist whom are deist for that very reason (they believe in god but he's not like that giant bearded Santa like guy from Christianism  ) as they question what's real and what's not all the time.
Nice subject if we can talk about it in a civilized way


----------



## Sephael (Jun 21, 2011)

I don't see how people think they have to be completely mutually exclusive. Take a piece of clay and try to making anything other than a snake with it and it will go through various changes until you get to your final product. If man was created in god's image then wouldn't it follow that our creation process mimics his? If this isn't taken as a possibility because he is omnipotent then why did it take it 6 days to create what he could have brought into existence all at once?

Also if we are going to teach creationism in any form in public school under the claim of freedom of religion, then equal time should be spent on the creation myths of other cultures as well, after all it is _freedom_ of religion not forced christianity.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Jun 21, 2011)

reguardless of what i believe, a miss USA contestant aint gonna change my mind, and i really dont care what they believe in, as miss Arkansas said "to each his own"


----------



## ILuvPillows (Jun 21, 2011)

Uh oh!


----------



## SenorDingDong (Jun 21, 2011)

Wow, so I take it most of these women believe that evolution is the process in which your makeup fades throughout the day...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 21, 2011)

See... I still never understand the religion v science deal... 

Disclaimer: I choose not to follow any religion bc I feel they all have great things to say (at least the ones to which I've been exposed) but the constant bickering between them makes me sick to my fucking stomach.

If God created man and all things... And man came up with science to explain the phenomena he observes here on earth, how are the two ideas mutually exclusive? This is, of course, assuming God was responsible for the creation of the universe as we know it... 

Or is that the kicker? 

Furthermore... When has anyone ever cared what the hell Miss America THINKS? Moreover, it's kind of sad she's given the title Miss America given her apparent intelligence level and we still seem to expect other countries to respect us...


----------



## Evil7 (Jun 21, 2011)

I think they heard eachothers answers... Most of them mentioned the kids should have a choice...

If Christian biblical things are taught in school, I do not think they should skip teaching about "the Spanish Inquisition" 

Id rather science Theories be taught in schools and religion theories stay at home or in Churches.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 21, 2011)

> The children are our future


Generic/bullshit/captain obvious answer...

Allowing the children to choose seems like the choice between choosing to be ignorant or not. And that choice can still be made regardless of what multitude of ideas you're presented with.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jun 21, 2011)




----------



## orb451 (Jun 21, 2011)

My advice, don't get your world history/evolution/origin of life information from a FUCKING PAGEANT CONTESTANT.

Sheesh guys, everyone is entitled to their opinion (and little else).


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 21, 2011)

^ That word opinion is dangerous around here... Watch yourself.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 21, 2011)

Angela Sparrow <3


----------



## JamesM (Jun 21, 2011)

Can I just say, Angela Byrd (Hawaii, 3:34)...


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jun 21, 2011)

Hell, they're all smangable. No internet tough guy standards here.

(SO ALONE)


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jun 21, 2011)

Evil7 said:


> If Christian biblical things are taught in school, I do not think they should skip teaching about "the Spanish Inquisition"



You should know that anything that could be negative about the Catholic Church is avoided in schools. They barely mentioned anything about the Inquisition in my AP World History class, same goes for the Crusades, and even what was mentioned didn't say much about how it was the church killing people, saying that the church was weeding out opposition with the Inquisition and that the Crusades where just the church claiming the Holy Lands where theirs, not mentioning that it was wrong. When one of my friends emailed the writer of the book and asked him about it, he said it was unimportant and was omitted. I guess it was more important for us to go over every Chinese dynasty and Sub-Saharan African tribe in excruciating detail while leaving out much of the history of Europe. This is also a man that stubbornly believes that WWII started on July 7, 1937 with the Second Sino-Japanese War, but, I digress, that's another story entirely. I can't imagine what must be taught to regular classes.

This time, though, I think it's just a product of being raised by stupid people and them just being morons themselves. I think that's why they're in a beauty pageant in the first place, because they don't have a job or schooling to realise that their is more to life then being pretty and standing there.

tl;dr-The schools are likely corrupted by religion. These girls are morons, though that should be obvious.


----------



## JamesM (Jun 21, 2011)

dragonblade629 said:


> This time, though, I think it's just a product of being raised by stupid people and them just being morons themselves. *I think that's why they're in a beauty pageant in the first place, because they don't have a job or schooling to realise that their is more to life then being pretty and standing there.
> 
> tl;dr-The schools are likely corrupted by religion. These girls are morons, though that should be obvious.*



^Watch the whole video before you make ignorant blanket statements. Some of the girls are very well spoken and clearly not without thought. Most pageant contestants DO have regular jobs and many are college educated or are in school. 

You are judging books by their covers, my friend. That is never okay. 

EDIT:
To most, "pageanting" is a hobby. No one is telling you, "there's more to life than playing your guitar and listening to music" are they? Well, if they did, you might think they sound awfully foolish. Perspective.


----------



## Dvaienat (Jun 21, 2011)

Well, all plausible theories as to how life came to be should be taught in schools, so as not to indoctrinate children with a specific mindset. They should be presented with theories and left to make their own decision. I do not find creationism plausible, but some do, so therefore it is a valid theory.

Also, if Church schools are going to teach the 'good' in Christianity, they need to also represent the bad in it, for example inquisitions in the past and irrational prejudices in the modern day. I do recognise, however, that these prejudices are the choice of human beings. People are not forced to be homophobic/sexist or hateful towards ideas and cultures which conflict with theirs.


----------



## troyguitar (Jun 21, 2011)

Massive misuse and misunderstanding of the word "theory" all over the place makes these things difficult to discuss in any meaningful way.

Evolution is "just a theory" but creation/ID/FSM/Xenu are at the bottom rung of the ladder, well below evolution, in the "completely non-testable assertions" category.

Teaching kids about the scientific method, then presenting religious assertions as equal or even remotely close in scientific validity to proven theories is insane. No wonder the world thinks we're a bunch of idiots. Having this debate at all shows that we are


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 21, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> Massive misuse and misunderstanding of the word "theory" all over the place makes these things difficult to discuss in any meaningful way.
> 
> Evolution is "just a theory" but creation/ID/FSM/Xenu are at the bottom rung of the ladder, well below evolution, in the "completely non-testable assertions" category.
> 
> Teaching kids about the scientific method, then presenting religious assertions as equal or even remotely close in scientific validity to proven theories is insane. No wonder the world thinks we're a bunch of idiots. Having this debate at all shows that we are


 
Troy... For the first time ever I COMPLETELY agree with you.


----------



## Waelstrum (Jun 21, 2011)

Not only should Americans learn about evolution, they should be taught by Tim Minchin:

Also, I don't mind if creationism or intelligent deign is taught in schools, as long as it is in religious studies (and that religious studies should be an elective, not compulsory).


----------



## noob_pwn (Jun 21, 2011)

fuck they're dumbasses


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 21, 2011)

Alyssa Campanella <3



But seriously, I'm not one of those Brits who is like 'trolololol America so dumb' but regarding the Evolution/Creationism debate, I find it utterly insane that one of the most developed countries in the world is still having this debate. Like, it has such a huge grip on American culture it's alarming. Here in the UK, we've pretty much got over religion. I mean, we're having trouble still in regards to respecting each other and political correctness, but I think the UK has pretty much pushed religion in the corner and accepted science as the main thing to be taught in schools. Religion is still taught, but collectively with other faiths so students can get a rough idea of the different cultures around.

The only reason evolution is just a theory is because it is very hard to test. You can see it in the fossil records; you can notice the change to adapt to an environment, but how do you prove a concept like that? That's why it is hard to win some people over. Evolution is a difficult subject to teach, not becase it is complicated but because it is a hard concept to get across. It needs to be taught very well. 

Creationism isn't a theory, I mean most Christians don't even believe it. It should not be taught as a way of explaining the world. Religion should be taught in schools purely on the basis of social/cultural awareness. If parents want to make their kids believe something they can do it at home.

Once America gets over this hurdle, and it is slowly but surely, then it will take a massive leap forward socially and politically. It won't be tied down so much and be able to spread it's wings and become a better country. Once again, I'm not Britain ftw or anything, I just think we're a little ahead of you guys in that department.


----------



## JamesM (Jun 21, 2011)

^I agree with you. All I have to say to that is this: look at who's running the country. No, I don't mean president.

But saying one is ahead of the other is kind of condescending, but that's traditionally British isn't it? 
(PS, I'd move to Europe in a heartbeat.)


----------



## PeteyG (Jun 21, 2011)

Fuck teaching evolution or creationism in schools, how about people first learn what a scientific theory is and that in science there is no such thing as a completely 100% demonstrable fact. Due to this nothing should ever be labelled as "just a theory", and doing so should be met with a swift and forceful flick to the testes/ovaries.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 21, 2011)

We're ahead of America purely in terms of where religion stands in our society. It has a much weaker hold on the way our country works. I don't mean we're better than America, tbh as a people I find American's far friendlier than British or Europeans.


----------



## JamesM (Jun 21, 2011)

Until you go south... Like, deep south... 

Come and get me Alabama.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 21, 2011)

Oh yeah I know not all of America is that friendly.


----------



## noob_pwn (Jun 21, 2011)

I don't understand how, in the modern world, a theory like evolution can be given the same weight as a myth like creationism. This doesn't make sense to me at all.

How that same myth can influence global politics is beyond me


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 22, 2011)

Hey guys, an American here. I attended three different elementary schools, two different middle schools, and two different high schools, all either in America or on American military bases taught by American teachers.

Quick, guess how many of them taught me about creationism.

If you answered any more then _zero_, you are woefully wrong.

On the other hand, guess how many science classes I've taken, both in the above mentioned schools and in college/uni, that espoused evolution.

ALL OF THEM.

Yes, every last one of them. It seems just as strange to me that there are people that think creationism should be taught in public schools as it does to you non-Americans, but I've _never_ gotten the impression that it was some "hurdle" that the American education system needs to get over.

Yes, I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but still. Just putting that out there.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 22, 2011)

Just a quick observation about how narrow certain points of view can be...

Ah, those wacky Puritans. They didn't leave Europe to find a place where they could worship as they wished. They already had that

The reason they left Europe was because they were fleeing religious tolerance. Too many poeple were allowed to worship as they wanted, and that situation was unacceptable. So, they left for a place where they could force everyone to worship in the way they *knew* was best.

----

Oh, one more thing: I went to Catholic elementary school. We learned about all kinds of creation stories, including ones with elephants and ones with bodies of dead gods. It was definitely one of those situations where we got the full exposure to all different ideas, and this caused some consternation when students were equipped to look at the Christian story of creation and decide if it was any more compelling than any other stories from other faiths.

We also learned the current theories of cosomology, big bang, steady state, etc. 

Our school library was well equipped. I learned about the pleasures and dangers of revenge from a thick book with a hashish addict as the central character (the unedited "Comte of Monte Cristo"), as well as the current study of DNA at the time. 

It is a poor faith which feels that the only way to gain converts is to subvert the truth. The idea that Christians would use the tools of the Deceiver to gain advantage is so horribly wrong, so insulting to the intelligence God gave us in His image. 

As soon as people decide to lie while claiming piety, they fail. 

Okay, I'm done with my rant. Sorry about that, folks!


----------



## yingmin (Jun 22, 2011)

The real question here is: why does anybody care what Miss USA contestants think about ANYTHING?


----------



## Waelstrum (Jun 22, 2011)

yingmin said:


> The real question here is: why does anybody care what Miss USA contestants think about ANYTHING?



For the same reason that people care about what the Pope, Sarah Palin, Pauline Hansen, Nick Griffin, etcetera say; because however dumb what they say is, there's always someone that takes it seriously (obviously some people in that list have significantly more influence than others).

Also, on the other side of the coin, it was nice to hear some of them subvert my expectations, and be in favour of teaching evolution. Every day another subconscious bias of mine is revealed to me, so that I may take that into account to avoid blanket statements (such as the first half of my post ).


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 22, 2011)

"I think, that like, we should totally teach stuff in schools, like theories because like, the more stuff you learn, the more stuff you like, know, you know?"


----------



## XEN (Jun 22, 2011)

I watched it muted (since I did not want my brain to melt) and went back to listen to the one I thought seemed most poised and intelligent. 
The girl from Massachusetts seemed to have a good head on her shoulders.


----------



## ElRay (Jun 22, 2011)

NatG said:


> I do not find creationism plausible, but some do, so therefore it is a valid theory.


No, that does not make it a valid theory. A plausible conjecture, OK, but not a valid *theory*:
_A scientific theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena._​The real issue is that creationism & ID have no place is education beyond a cursory review of the faults, just like Lamarkian Evolution, etc..

It's painfully simple (once you get rid of the religious crap). Creationism:
Is not testable
Has no predictive value
Has no *body of evidence supporting it*
therefore, it's not a valid theory. Likewise, "Intelligent Design":
Is internally conflicted, because the creators need to have creators, who need to have creators, ad infinitum, back to the first creator, who then must have evolved on their own (conflicting the original premise), or always existed (defaulting to Creationism)
Is not testable
Has no predictive value
Has no *body of evidence supporting it*
therefore, it's not a valid theory either.

The question isn't "Should Evolution be taught in schools?", it's "Should Creationism be taught in schools?". The answer is "Yes", in the same context that other discredited explanations (Lamarkian Evolution, pre-Heliocentrism Astronomy, pre-Bhor Atomic Models, etc.) are taught. 

Ray


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jun 22, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Hey guys, an American here. I attended three different elementary schools, two different middle schools, and two different high schools, all either in America or on American military bases taught by American teachers.
> 
> Quick, guess how many of them taught me about creationism.
> 
> ...



The problem is that they teach it badly and shortly. I've been taught evolution twice, once in eighth grade, once in sophomore biology. Both times we only had one class on it, 50 minutes, and there was a good bit of the teacher saying things along the lines of "You can believe what ever you want to believe" and "Some think differently." There's also always been that one christian douchebag that constantly stalls the class because they're stubborn and don't think it should be taught.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 22, 2011)

dragonblade629 said:


> There's also always been that one christian douchebag that constantly stalls the class because they're stubborn and don't think it should be taught.





I hate it when that happens. You're free to believe or not believe what is taught in school the same as you're free to make that choice with the things your parents teach you. And nothing restricts you from synthesizing the ideas and thinking for yourself... 

And how did we get into a debate over the definition of the word "theory" just because of a MISS AMERICA PAGEANT... Are you ppl that desperate to prove you've read a fucking science book? I was under the impression that this was posted as comic relief... We've now begun a conversation even LESS intelligent than the ppl we're laughing at...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 22, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> "I think, that like, we should totally teach stuff in schools, like theories because like, the more stuff you learn, the more stuff you like, know, you know?"



Dave...

**Bro Hug**


----------



## pink freud (Jun 22, 2011)

Evolution isn't a theory; it's a Scientific Theory.

Just because two words are spelled the same doesn't mean they have the same definition.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 22, 2011)

^ We call that a homonym...


----------



## Origin (Jun 22, 2011)

It's like they're fucking FIVE.


----------



## troyguitar (Jun 22, 2011)

yingmin said:


> The real question here is: why does anybody care what Miss USA contestants think about ANYTHING?



In theory lol Miss USA is to represent us to the world so it makes some sense to care a little.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 22, 2011)

dragonblade629 said:


> The problem is that they teach it badly and shortly. I've been taught evolution twice, once in eighth grade, once in sophomore biology. Both times we only had one class on it, 50 minutes, and there was a good bit of the teacher saying things along the lines of "You can believe what ever you want to believe" and "Some think differently." There's also always been that one christian douchebag that constantly stalls the class because they're stubborn and don't think it should be taught.


 
Sounds like you got the short end of the stick there. My classes tended to be fairly thorough, and we had at _least_ a week covering it, complete with stupid presentation projects we had to do about it. God, I hated school so much...

Yes, each class tended to have a Christian or two who scoffed and guffawed the whole time. Hell, for a while I was one of them. The fact that I no longer am could explain why many Christians don't want evolution taught in schools .


----------



## yingmin (Jun 22, 2011)

pink freud said:


> Evolution isn't a theory; it's a Scientific Theory.
> 
> Just because two words are spelled the same doesn't mean they have the same definition.



Except that they're not "spelled the same"; they are the same word. People use the word "theory" a little too loosely, but that doesn't mean that when used in the context of science, it's somehow a different word. By that logic, using the words "literally" and "ironic" in their proper context also makes them distinct words with different meanings. Obviously, that isn't the case. People just have trouble understanding the correct usage.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jun 22, 2011)

yingmin said:


> Except that they're not "spelled the same"; they are the same word. People use the word "theory" a little too loosely, but that doesn't mean that when used in the context of science, it's somehow a different word. By that logic, using the words "literally" and "ironic" in their proper context also makes them distinct words with different meanings. Obviously, that isn't the case. People just have trouble understanding the correct usage.



It has a standard and a scientific definition. People think that the standard definition is the only definition.


----------



## sunbasket (Jun 23, 2011)

You know, I feel some of these girls must just be playing the part. Some of them must be closet atheists / agnostics and just hiding it. They need the votes. We had might as well be voting for cardboard cutouts of women.

It's pretty sad watching _the beauty pageant_ thrash around in its death throes. It's becoming more and more irrelevant because we_ just don't really give a shit, this narrow definition of beauty does not apply to our generation, and we all know there's more to women than rearing children, playing the piano and staying quiet._
They should update the premise of this pageant to post feminist social norms, and allow these women to show who they really are, and love, accept and appreciate them on their merits and flaws as people and not archetypes of a gender... this is sick, squeezing the contestants through a tarnished and rusted social sieve-- we had might as well call the show _God Bless America's Top Breeding Stock_.


----------



## Razzy (Jun 23, 2011)

I think this pretty well explains what a theory is, as well as a lot of "mysteries" around the world.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jun 23, 2011)

sunbasket said:


> _and we all know there's more to women than rearing children, playing the piano and staying quiet._




Especially since men have always been better piano players! 

Women don't need drivers licenses because there's no highway from the bedroom to the kitchen right!


----------



## Waelstrum (Jun 23, 2011)

Needs more Tim Minchin


----------



## sunbasket (Jun 27, 2011)

Came across a beautiful gem from the Howard Stern show. Relates to this discussion.... it's great because he reaches a demographic that guys like Dawkins cannot.


----------



## troyguitar (Jun 27, 2011)

bahaha I don't normally like Howard's show that much but that clip is great. He's so pissed off about it, that's exactly how I feel.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jun 27, 2011)

PeteyG said:


> Fuck teaching evolution or creationism in schools, how about people first learn what a scientific theory is and that in science there is no such thing as a completely 100% demonstrable fact. Due to this nothing should ever be labelled as "just a theory", and doing so should be met with a swift and forceful flick to the testes/ovaries.



I went through 12 years of Catholic school and this is how it went. There isn't a single Creationist in that entire school system so I don't get where all of the creationist belief comes from...


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 27, 2011)

Made it to number 4 before I had to turn it off for fear of my temples exploding...

Science is just a process used to gain knowledge. Evolution is only a theory in that evolution works on such a long term timescale that controlled testing is not possible. 

However, no competing theory fits the evidence (and also can't be proven).


----------



## ElRay (Jun 28, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Evolution is only a theory in that evolution works on such a long term timescale that controlled testing is not possible.


Yes and No. In the overly-simplified anti-evolutionist view, yes; however, there are tons of parts and pieces that are "predictable & testable".


> However, no competing theory fits the evidence (and also can't be proven).


And that's the part that the Bible Thumpers don't understand.
They can't understand the concept of "Body of Evidence"
They can't understand that just because their misinterpretation of one piece of evidence doesn't fit their misinterpretation of science doesn't mean that the entire body of evidence is refuted
They can't understand that they've created a false binary and that any apparent problem with Evolution is *NOT* evidence in support of Creationism. In fact, there is not one single shred of evidence in favor of Creationism and until their omnipotent invisible buddy shows-up (or we find a set of lab notes/copyright notices encoded in DNA - for the ID flavor) there will never be

Ray


----------



## sunbasket (Jun 28, 2011)

HAHA... okay. I saw this being passed around yesterday-- it definitely takes the cake.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 28, 2011)

All right, the OP's video was good with MUTE ENABLED...

Brittany <3 near the end! 

But that 2nd video "Should math..." hard to watch hard to listen to = EQUAL!

visual troll 

View Bronowski's The Ascent of Man at your leisure! 



+1 Human ancestor equals mud and worms! 

Isn't there a thing in A me rika wot is called da cons...ti... ution which states that state and church would be kept seperate? *trying for Ms. world level grammar! *

Them founding father's were wily to covert corruption of a country from banks and foreign states, for after all, isn't the catholic overlord an italian/polish man seated in vatican city which is an independent state with one of the most interesting banking histories on the planet?

Just 1 religious example... did not their heroic prophet Joshua kick out the money lenders from the jewish temple as his first act of adolescence???  








At least the mud theory puts no one at the top of the ivory tower... *sigh*





Found this when looking for papal piccy's. Very funny rant from Dorkins (came up #1 in google when typing "Ratzinger"! ).


Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope - Richard Dawkins - The Washington Post - RichardDawkins.net


----------



## Blind Theory (Jun 29, 2011)

This sounds foolish but I think the best way to describe my views on this are illustrated by Futurama. I don't recall the episodes name but the one where Bender tries to convince the professor that robots evolve like humans and then they end up on some random planet in the midst of evolving robot organisms that the professor set in place...yeah. That is me. I think that both should be taught in schools. Simply because I believe that something had to set everything in motion. I 100% agree with evolution. It makes too much sense to not be true. But I strongly believe that something out there (God) set it all in motion and kept his hand in everything the whole way through. In my eyes if you mesh the two together it makes perfect sense. Oh well....it was Miss America, not a science fair.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 29, 2011)

sunbasket said:


> HAHA... okay. I saw this being passed around yesterday-- it definitely takes the cake.




"On phones, on houses, on... microwaves."


----------



## Murmel (Jun 29, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> In theory lol Miss USA is to represent us to the world so it makes some sense to care a little.



They obviously do a shit job representing you then, because I've never seen any of them ever, other than on American television 



sunbasket said:


> HAHA... okay. I saw this being passed around yesterday-- it definitely takes the cake.




I got to 0:12 before I spit coffee all over the table.


----------



## Murmel (Jun 29, 2011)

I think we should like, take away double posts because like, they are super annoying and like, make all the cables and stuff that give internet wider. That's why they call it bandwidth, right?


----------



## The Somberlain (Jun 29, 2011)

Well, evolution should be taught even if it is a theory since scientific thinking is much more condusive to any type of learning than bible thumping (notice, I didn't say 'religious thinking' because the discipline of theology has much more in common with the scientific process than it does with bible thumping).

As to my opinion on no bullshit truth, read these wikipedia summaries:

Arthur Schopenhauer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Michel Foucault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come to think of it, philosophy should be a requirement, since the process of discourse is one of the greatest gateways to discovery and learning.

Edit: actually, we have distinct evidence of evolution through our "unnatural selection" of farm animals, crops, and pets. Breeders choose organisms with the desired traits and breed them while leaving the organisms with the undesired traits out of the gene pool, thus causing *gasp* evolution. Now, replace the breeder with the simple idea of survival of the fittest, and voila, you have evolution!


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Jul 2, 2011)

sunbasket said:


>




I almost puked with rage and hate.
I almost puked with rage and hate.
I almost puked with rage and hate.
I almost puked with rage and hate.
I almost puked with rage and hate.
I almost puked with rage and hate.


----------



## Andromalia (Jul 2, 2011)

Evolution is a model corroborated by a lot of evidence. It doesn't make it exact or "true", as in most science, it makes it "as close to true as we can properly demonstrate for now".

Maybe new data will one day shoot evolution. The difference between religion is that scientists are actually taking lots of pain to shoot their own models to see if they stand the test.

Scientific models are models, not the exact truth. They try to come as cose as possible. Modeling the exact truth is in fact recreating the universe, so it's a bit difficult to do.

Belief is not a model, and faith isn't knowledge. There is nothing wrong having beliefs and faith in them. It is however wrong to forget that faith is...faith, with the attached "maybe I'm wrong" attitude, not knowledge. If the word is different, there is a good reason for it.

And if it's any help, we have our share of fundamentalists in Europe too, don't worry about that.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 2, 2011)

At this point, it won't be a matter of tossing evolution out as a theory, but of refining it.

A lot of fundamentalist Christian anti-intellectuals have the mistaken belief that "evolution" is the theory to be disproved. Instead, what is being refined is the mechanism behind the phenomenon of evolution. 

It's like talking about the theory which explains gravity: one can argue about the exact mechanisms, but one is already discussing the phenomenon which is supported by the evidence, and trying to figure out how that phenomenon comes about. Disproving one part of Newtonian physics won't get rid of the acceptance of gravity. 

As has been noted in this thread, fundamentalist Christians are coming at science with the mistaken idea that science is a belief construct like the assertion "The Bible is infallible and true." With that assertion, all one has to do is to find one wrong "fact" (for example, "the mustaard seed is the smallest seed," stated as an absolute), or to find a contradiction (the two Nativity stories, set quite a few years apart as judged by the rulers in question) to show that it cannot be literally correct.

Since science isn't an all-or-nothing proposition like a fundamentalist religious belief, one can disprove or refine a theory, all through the use of evidence. Inability to understand the scientific process can seem amusing to those outside that struggle, but it's really quite sad.







"Knowing how it could change the lives of canines everywhere, the dog scientists struggled diligently to understand the _Doorknob Principle._"

Well, sad, except that they want everyone else to abandon science. That's what makes them scary and dangerous.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 3, 2011)

Evolution is not a Theory. Evolution is a fact. The Origins of the Human species and the steps of Evolution needs and has different theories, but nobody with a right mind can argue against Evolution. All the data , the facts are there.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jul 4, 2011)

My favourite anti evolution argument comes from religious extremists.

There are certain passages in the old testament with unknown meanings. 

The King James edition of the bible was taken from the Geneva bible, which had footnotes for obscure hebrew terms. These were omitted in the James edition, while support for the anglican church was added, to reinforce the monarchies power structure. Nothing new here...

Many radicals from within the faith are suggesting that these mysterious passages suggest the manipulation of life on earth at a genetic level by non indigenous life forms. Recently I watched the vatican's / roman catholic church's #1 excorcist promote his views on life in the galaxy. His quote, through a translater from his italian, as I remember it;

"How can the glory of god be praised with only this one planet? Of course there is other life..."

So, a faith based proof of creation for some members of the faith, a faith based belief in gene splicing aliens from others. Strange times we live in indeed.

After all mud > worms > worms with spines > skip many millenia > monkeys > people does sound far fetched when you could just have fun with pietry dishes and get it done much quicker.

best argument for creation = faith

best anti evolution argument = if we descended from monkeys, how come bannanas aren't #1?

 = 

bow to the logic!


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 4, 2011)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> My favourite anti evolution argument comes from religious extremists.
> 
> There are certain passages in the old testament with unknown meanings.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ardez (Jul 4, 2011)

Haha  Btw, hi daemon


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 4, 2011)

Ardez said:


> Haha  Btw, hi daemon



 Helloooooow there


----------



## Stephenar19 (Jul 10, 2011)

To be honest, the fact that America is struggling with this is almost downright embarrassing.

Anyway, this may or may not be appropriate but I thought it was worth sharing:

Religion is like a penis.
It is great to have one.
It is great to be proud of it.
Just please do not whip it out in public and start waving it around,
And don't try to shove it down my throat.


----------



## AySay (Jul 10, 2011)

^


Except for the fact it's _not_ great to have and is definitely NOT something to be proud of...


----------



## sevenstringj (Jul 15, 2011)

They'd be so much hotter if they kept their ignorant mouths shut. Seriously, I don't care how hot a girl is, if she's THAT ignorant my dick goes soft. And for good reason--my sperm doesn't want to go anywhere near dumbass eggs and risk making dumbass kids.


----------



## Zorkuus (Jul 16, 2011)

NatG said:


> Well, all plausible theories as to how life came to be should be taught in schools, so as not to indoctrinate children with a specific mindset. They should be presented with theories and left to make their own decision. I do not find creationism plausible, but some do, so therefore it is a valid theory.


It's not a valid theory because it's not a theory to begin with. The word theory has a completely different meaning in science than it has when people use it in everyday language. In science a theory means an explanation (backed with evidence and facts ofc) or a conclusion of sorts, theory used in everyday language has another completely similar term: speculation or a wild guess.

A schools job is to teach facts, not opinions. Or else we'd have the alternate "theory" of mathematics thought in schools where 1+1=3 if someone decided it's plausible from their personal pov.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 16, 2011)

Yes. This bollocks about creation being a theory of any kind of comparable worth to evolution in a scientific context is down to people either not being aware, refusing to acknowledge, or not being able to grasp that a scientific theory is not the same as a philosophical theory. One pertains to demonstrable facts and one pertains to ideas.

Creation absolutely should be taught in schools along with extensive religious and philosophical education, as approached from a variety of faiths and schools of thought, but never, ever in a science classroom.


----------



## The Somberlain (Jul 20, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Yes. This bollocks about creation being a theory of any kind of comparable worth to evolution in a scientific context is down to people either not being aware, refusing to acknowledge, or not being able to grasp that a scientific theory is not the same as a philosophical theory. One pertains to demonstrable facts and one pertains to ideas.
> 
> Creation absolutely should be taught in schools along with extensive religious and philosophical education, as approached from a variety of faiths and schools of thought, but never, ever in a science classroom.



Well all science is taken from the a priori statement, "all I observe(note the difference between observation and inference) to be true is true." A single, simple a priori statement is much better than an entire book of often contradictory a priori statements (e.g. the Bible and other religious texts), yet it is not infallible. Take the example of the properties of light: light appears as a wave or particles depending on how you observe it. Now, I can't explain this as well as Richard Feynman has, so if you want to look further into it, look for his lectures on the topic, and I hope that this wasn't too confusing or diffused of an argument.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 21, 2011)

One can start arguing about philosophy and Kant, but it seems like a red herring to be sidetracked by Descartesian arguments about the nature of observation. It would seem a little disingenuous, when one is (for example) communicating via electronic devices to other presumed human beings, to bring up the idea that we assume the data from our senses to be coming from the physical world.

And, of course, there are many proven counterexamples to the simple statement "What I observe to be true is true." Any kid with a book about optical illusions learns the practical side of using the tool of science to weed out bad or mistaken observation.

That was an interesting point, though, and made me think about why I disagreed with it.


----------



## The Somberlain (Jul 21, 2011)

Explorer said:


> One can start arguing about philosophy and Kant, but it seems like a red herring to be sidetracked by Descartesian arguments about the nature of observation. It would seem a little disingenuous, when one is (for example) communicating via electronic devices to other presumed human beings, to bring up the idea that we assume the data from our senses to be coming from the physical world.
> 
> And, of course, there are many proven counterexamples to the simple statement "What I observe to be true is true." Any kid with a book about optical illusions learns the practical side of using the tool of science to weed out bad or mistaken observation.
> 
> That was an interesting point, though, and made me think about why I disagreed with it.



Well, I suppose that it was a bit of a red herring, but this discussion brings up a good point. We should be taught to take in information, ponder, and decide for ourselves what is true, and the teaching of the scientific process, as well as philosophy contributes to that. Doctrine and doctrine alone will not help education, but hinder it.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Jul 21, 2011)

Since this thread is still going:

Bottom line is, Evolution has been observed in countless instances - My pary are with you, America.

You want a transitional species?

How about any fucking genus from the family Hominidae.

Fuckin', douchers.

They just don't understand the amount of time Evolution needs to make visible changes to an organism.

"If you have to ask the question, you won't understand the answer".


----------



## bostjan (Jul 21, 2011)

I'm confused by the preface of the debate.

When people say "evolution" do they actually mean "abiogenesis" or "the origin of the human species?"

When people say "theory" do they mean "a body of scientific knowledge" or "conjecture?"

I see no reason why creation versus evolution is unlike debating "when I was born" versus "what I learned growing up." They are two different things at two different time periods.

Semantics aside, arguing that the origin of the human species should be taught one way or another in school could be important...but meanwhile, while this has been debated, the USA has fallen way behind the rest of the developed world in mathematics taught in primary and secondary schools. The problem is that knowing mathematics can help a person solve problems and build cool stuff to keep the economy strong, even track the strength of the economy, while knowing the exact origin of the species can help you look for fossils that, well, tell us where to find more fossils...so far, I don't think that animal fossils have helped any country become a superpower.


----------



## K-Roll (Jul 21, 2011)

bostjan said:


> so far, I don't think that animal fossils have helped any country become a superpower.




How about France?


----------



## ElRay (Jul 21, 2011)

bostjan said:


> When people say "evolution" do they actually mean "abiogenesis" or "the origin of the human species?"


Unfortunately, Creationists lump "Origin of the Universe", "Formation of stars and planets", "abiogenesis", "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" under "Evolution" in the "Evolution vs. Creationism" debate and one flaw in their misunderstanding (i.e. strawman arguments) of any one part refutes the entire package.


bostjan said:


> When people say "theory" do they mean "a body of scientific knowledge" or "conjecture?"


They mean "conjecture", even though there is a vast body of knowledge. The concept of "body of knowledge" is lost. They just do the same "pick a small point", "use it out of context", "refute it in my own mind" and "therefore the entire body of knowledge is refuted" irrational crap that they use with their Bibles.

The sad thing is that politicians (and people in general) use the same strawman, deconstructionist, irrational (faulty) reasoning for everything they want to justify/disagree with.

Ray


----------



## Dvaienat (Jul 21, 2011)

Zorkuus said:


> It's not a valid theory because it's not a theory to begin with. The word theory has a completely different meaning in science than it has when people use it in everyday language. In science a theory means an explanation (backed with evidence and facts ofc) or a conclusion of sorts, theory used in everyday language has another completely similar term: speculation or a wild guess.
> 
> A schools job is to teach facts, not opinions. Or else we'd have the alternate "theory" of mathematics thought in schools where 1+1=3 if someone decided it's plausible from their personal pov.


 
I'm aganist any form of religious _or_ scientific indoctrination of children - I feel it is child abuse. They should be presented with many different opinions, including creationism. Then they can choose what they want to believe. I _know_ creationism is not fact. But if the children would want to believe in it then let them.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

NatG said:


> I'm aganist any form of religious _or_ scientific indoctrination of children - I feel it is child abuse. They should be presented with many different opinions, including creationism. Then they can choose what they want to believe. I _know_ creationism is not fact. But if the children would want to believe in it then let them.



Scientific indoctrination? You shouldn't teach them what is true to the best of current scientific knowledge? Really?

And I'm all for them being presented with as many differing opinions as possible. Religious education is compulsory in all Scottish schools and I think that's great. But children absolutely should not be presented with religious ideas and scientific ones as if they're the same type of story. You can present creationism alongside Ask and Embla and Theogony, but not alongside the big bang.


----------



## Dvaienat (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Scientific indoctrination? You shouldn't teach them what is true to the best of current scientific knowledge? Really?
> 
> And I'm all for them being presented with as many differing opinions as possible. Religious education is compulsory in all Scottish schools and I think that's great. But children absolutely should not be presented with religious ideas and scientific ones as if they're the same type of story. You can present creationism alongside Ask and Embla and Theogony, but not alongside the big bang.


 
I think you slightly misunderstood me probably due to my bad explanation. By scientific indoctrination I mean indoctrination into Atheism. By all means we have to teach biology, physics, chemistry etc. We just have to present different ideas so they can make their own decision. Creationism can be presented in religious studies, not in science classes. Of course we can't mix the two as if they are compatible. 

I would prefer it if creationism and religion were abandoned completely in favour of atheism, just I want people to convert through education and knowledge not through evoloution being the only theory being presented. 

If we just presented evolution, it would be just like the Christian church long ago, crushing all theories except their own.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jul 21, 2011)

Well...everybody is born an atheist. You can't really indoctrinate people into it. 

But yeah, I don't think atheists should go around brow-beating religious people into atheism but leave religion in Church (or stuff like world religion that discusses religious stuff from a historical viewpoint) and science in schools.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 21, 2011)

I went to a nice Baptist school (even though my parents weren't Baptist...)

They taught us a lot of different world views. Of course, all were prefaced with a disclaimer that they were wrong. I do wish that I could have had better math and science classes, as opposed to learning more politics and world views, but the grass is always greener on the other side.

The older I get, the more I realize that it's a waste of time discussing politics or religion. The people who agree don't really benefit you and the ones who disagree will only change their minds based on their own experiences. Every time I'm travelling for work, some one wants to talk politics or religion. I usually just keep my mouth shut.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 21, 2011)

NatG said:


> I think you slightly misunderstood me probably due to my bad explanation. By scientific indoctrination I mean indoctrination into Atheism. By all means we have to teach biology, physics, chemistry etc. We just have to present different ideas so they can make their own decision.
> 
> If we just presented evolution, it would be just like the Christian church long ago, crushing all theories except their own.



Ah, the old "science = a type of faith" assertion! This assertion lies at the core of most fundamentalist attempts to remove science from schools. 

I don't have time right now to look for references, but most of the anti-evolution groups want to dismantle one core precept of science: Explanations for the things and processes we observe are materialistic and naturalistic. In other words, at no point does actual science allow for God, or Buddha, or elves, to suddenly make something happen. To postulate that something happens due to supernatural causes means that one can never progress past that point through investigation.

Here's an example: Why is there lightning? Because Thor creates it! 

That's it. No reason to look further, right? A god makes something happen, and that's where the story ends.

But science isn't like that. Science says, here's something. What would be the natural (as oppposed to supernatural) explanation?

It's not even that one can rule out deities in action through science. The only thing necessary for deities to be added to a particular explanation is for there to be evidence of deities. Science can't say, there is no such thing as flying reindeer. However, one has to prove there is a flying reindeer for such to be accepted by science.

If one went with a supernatural explanation for thunder and lightning, then one would never look further and learn about air mass movement, or static generation, or charges, or a host of other phenomena. 

----

It's not indoctrination. It's saying, there hasn't been evidence of this, or there is evidence for this. You can deny gravity all you want, but if you're laying on the ground and someone releases a brick over your head, the evidence is hard to deny. 

On the opposite front, the evidence for supernatural creation from any source other than "revealed knowledge" is non-existent. That's not atheism... that's just the inability to put those flying reindeer in front of observers, regardless of the faith of those observers. That's what divides "maybe, maybe not" conjecture from evidence which strikes with the force of a brick.


----------



## Zorkuus (Jul 22, 2011)

bostjan said:


> knowing the exact origin of the species can help you look for fossils that, well, tell us where to find more fossils...so far, I don't think that animal fossils have helped any country become a superpower.


The theory of evolution deals with a lot more than just fossils. For example evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. We wouldn't have good enough vaccines if we didn't know bacteria evolve. And that's one example of its practical application.



> I'm aganist any form of religious _or_ scientific indoctrination of children - I feel it is child abuse. They should be presented with many different opinions, including creationism. Then they can choose what they want to believe. I _know_ creationism is not fact. But if the children would want to believe in it then let them.


Creatonism shouldn't be taught in a science class under any circumstances. However if it's in a religious class for example then fine by me... *aslong as they teach every form of creation story under the sun *_(from ancient greek mythology to scientology)_ and not just christian creatonism. Like you said, we wouldn't want to indoctrinate children, now would we? They should have the right to choose from a variety of stories. Now how about that? You wanted fairness, and I gave it to you. See how impractical it is?


----------



## Dvaienat (Jul 22, 2011)

Zorkuus said:


> Creatonism shouldn't be taught in a science class under any circumstances. However if it's in a religious class for example then fine by me... *aslong as they teach every form of creation story under the sun *_(from ancient greek mythology to scientology)_ and not just christian creatonism. Like you said, we wouldn't want to indoctrinate children, now would we? They should have the right to choose from a variety of stories. Now how about that? You wanted fairness, and I gave it to you. See how impractical it is?


 
I never said creationism should be taught in a science class. In science they of course have to teach science and evolution. In religious studies they can present the children with different faiths _including_ Christian/Islamic/Jewish creationism, scientology and greek mythology! Having said this I'm pretty sure most modern day followers of Abrahamic religions do believe in evolution, they just believe 'god' set the ball rolling. I don't see this as being impractical at all, actually (teaching all faiths in RE). They can at least represent the major faiths, anyway, as they do.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

CrushingAnvil said:


> "If you have to ask the question, you won't understand the answer".


 
You might want to be careful with statements like this one.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

No matter what they teach in schools it's up to the individual to internalize and decide how they feel ab the subject matter. If parents are so worried about what their children are learning in school then they need to be doing a better job at home. If you leave it up to the school and your kid comes out spewing a buncha shit you don't believe in then that's your fault. Zero in = zero out. God forbid you teach your children to think for themselves. I told a friend the other day that human beings are also classified as animals and he told me "I don't believe that." He made the same choice available to ANYONE who's ever walked the globe.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

bostjan said:


> I went to a nice Baptist school (even though my parents weren't Baptist...)
> 
> They taught us a lot of different world views. Of course, all were prefaced with a disclaimer that they were wrong. I do wish that I could have had better math and science classes, as opposed to learning more politics and world views, but the grass is always greener on the other side.
> 
> The older I get, the more I realize that it's a waste of time discussing politics or religion. The people who agree don't really benefit you and the ones who disagree will only change their minds based on their own experiences. Every time I'm travelling for work, some one wants to talk politics or religion. I usually just keep my mouth shut.



"Never discuss sex, religion or politics in polite company."

I like talking about all 3.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

bostjan said:


> I'm confused by the preface of the debate.
> 
> When people say "evolution" do they actually mean "abiogenesis" or "the origin of the human species?"
> 
> ...


 
You make an excellent point. And despite the fact that we seem to be comparing apples to oranges (based on the light you just shed on the situation) I still haven't figured out why ppl who believe in God haven't connected that an omnipotent being could be responsible for the phenomenon we observe as "Evolution."


----------



## chronocide (Jul 22, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> "Never discuss sex, religion or politics in polite company."
> 
> I like talking about all 3.



I've never understood this idea at all. It's really saying "ignore your friends' bigotries, so long as they have good anecdotes to tell over a sherry".


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

^And an alarming number of ppl live this way...


----------



## Explorer (Jul 22, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> I still haven't figured out why ppl who believe in God haven't connected that an omnipotent being could be responsible for the phenomenon we observe as "Evolution."



It's not that an omnipotent being couldn't be responsible for evolution. It's that *their particular* omnipotent being didn't do it, based on the wording of their presumably-accurate revealed text. 

That's an interesting point, though, and one which I don't think I've seen made specifically.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 22, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Konfyouzd said:
> 
> 
> > I still haven't figured out why ppl who believe in God haven't connected that an omnipotent being could be responsible for the phenomenon we observe as "Evolution."
> ...




Eh? The majority of Christians (and Muslims and Jews) on the planet believe in evolution, and believe God is responsible for it. Young Earth Creationists are a tiny fraction of Christians.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

We were discussing the creationists... To my understanding they don't represent all of religion.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 22, 2011)

My mistake, read it out of context.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I've never understood this idea at all. It's really saying "ignore your friends' bigotries, so long as they have good anecdotes to tell over a sherry".



Well no, not really. It's just stating the obvious. They are 3 things that people get very easily embarassed and upset about because they have strong opinions on them. Opinions on sex, politics and religion can be very, very personal and very deep rooted. Not talking about them in certain company is just common sense.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> My mistake, read it out of context.


 
Well to be fair, I stated it rather lazily assuming it'd be implied that I was speaking on creationism based on the post to which I responded. 

You know what they say about assuming.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

bostjan said:


> I don't think that animal fossils have helped any country become a superpower.


 
Fossil FUELS on the other hand...


----------



## chronocide (Jul 22, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Well no, not really. It's just stating the obvious. They are 3 things that people get very easily embarassed and upset about because they have strong opinions on them. Opinions on sex, politics and religion can be very, very personal and very deep rooted. Not talking about them in certain company is just common sense.



The only reason to avoid talking to them though is so as to dodge having to disagree with people over volatile issues. Things you may find bigoted or offensive. So I'll stand by it's essentially a motto for those who'd just rather be ignorant of their chums contentious opinions so they can still be pals guilt free.

I think they're important things to discuss with pretty much everyone, as I like to know they people whom I associate with don't embrace ideas I find abhorrent.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> The only reason to avoid talking to them though is so as to dodge having to disagree with people over volatile issues. Things you may find bigoted or offensive. So I'll stand by it's essentially a motto for those who'd just rather be ignorant of their chums contentious opinions so they can still be pals guilt free.
> 
> I think they're important things to discuss with pretty much everyone, as I like to know they people whom I associate with don't embrace ideas I find abhorrent.



You're talking about a highly hypocritical point of view there. No tolerance for bigotry at all? Prepare to have no friends. What about your bigotry? You may not see that you have it, but none of us are without fault. Sometimes I find it hard enough to see past people's glaring selfishness, I don't need to add more to the mix to make it more difficult for myself to see the good in others.

That said, I'm very honest and open about my beliefs, I just carefully select who gets to hear them and how much detail I will go into. Sometimes I throw caution to the wind and just let rip with exactly what I think (which can be a bit much for a lot of people), but most of the time as an adult I can see fairly clearly where it is appropriate and where it is not.

Even with some of my best friends, people I have more in common with than anyone else in the World, I still avoid certain issues with as some avenues are just not worth going down.

As for figuring people out, you shouldn't need those 3 topics to do that.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 22, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> You're talking about a highly hypocritical point of view there. No tolerance for bigotry at all? Prepare to have no friends. What about your bigotry? You may not see that you have it, but none of us are without fault. Sometimes I find it hard enough to see past people's glaring selfishness, I don't need to add more to the mix to make it more difficult for myself to see the good in others.
> 
> That said, I'm very honest and open about my beliefs, I just carefully select who gets to hear them and how much detail I will go into. Sometimes I throw caution to the wind and just let rip with exactly what I think (which can be a bit much for a lot of people), but most of the time as an adult I can see fairly clearly where it is appropriate and where it is not.
> 
> ...



Not zero tolerance, but very little. I can't pick and choose my family, so they have to be tolerated, but I have no friends who I clash with significantly on political or ideological issues. I've left bands and knocked back people who've auditioned for others for those reasons and I don't book bands who I have ideological issues with. 

And of course I have beliefs which other people will find disagreeable, but that's fine, they're not my friends nor associates.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

I've found that the ppl w/ whom I end up being closest friends are the ones with whom I clash the most. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing if you can see the other person's point of view at the very least. No one said you had to walk away from the situation on the same page so long as you've both read and understand it. 

But learning when to hold your tongue is just part of growing up. 

It's not always worth it to engage ppl.


----------



## Soft Father (Jul 22, 2011)

I'm sorta used to hot chicks having dumb opinions. Still, HOLY SHIT.

Also: Fapfapfapfapfap. 

Also #2: Magic does not exist.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Not zero tolerance, but very little. I can't pick and choose my family, so they have to be tolerated, but I have no friends who I clash with significantly on political or ideological issues. I've left bands and knocked back people who've auditioned for others for those reasons and I don't book bands who I have ideological issues with.
> 
> And of course I have beliefs which other people will find disagreeable, but that's fine, they're not my friends nor associates.



Man, you sound like a real gentleman.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 22, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> I've found that the ppl w/ whom I end up being closest friends are the ones with whom I clash the most. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing if you can see the other person's point of view at the very least. No one said you had to walk away from the situation on the same page so long as you've both read and understand it.
> 
> But learning when to hold your tongue is just part of growing up.
> 
> It's not always worth it to engage ppl.




Quite.

I'm not saying everyone hold the same limits on their friends as I do, but I've no interest in associating with people whom I disagree with on fundamental issues. I've got tons of friends I struggle to keep in contact with as it is! I need all the filtering I can manage!

I'm not saying that I wont remain friends with someone if they happen to think free markets are desirable, it's the broad strokes of the things that might come up in political and religious conversations.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 22, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Man, you sound like a real gentleman.



I think so. I'm entirely polite about why I don't like people


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

I get where you're coming from, but consider this... 

Do you not think there may be some things you'll miss out on as a result of having not associated with those that disagree? Perhaps there's something to be learned even if your mind hasn't been completely changed. 

Disagreements can get heated but there's something to be learned from everything. In my opinion, associating only with those who agree with you cuts you off from plenty of things you could potentially learn.

You're free to do as you please, obviously, but it's something to consider.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jul 22, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> I get where you're coming from, but consider this...
> 
> Do you not think there may be some things you'll miss out on as a result of having not associated with those that disagree? Perhaps there's something to be learned even if your mind hasn't been completely changed.
> 
> ...


It depends on the severity of the disagreement.

If someone says that they think there's a different way we should go about economics: let's talk.

If they say Jews are greedy: Get the fuck out.

If they say black people are lazy: Get the fuck out.

Basically hateful, bigoted, ignorance, and raging stupidity I won't put up with.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 22, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> I get where you're coming from, but consider this...
> 
> Do you not think there may be some things you'll miss out on as a result of having not associated with those that disagree? Perhaps there's something to be learned even if your mind hasn't been completely changed.
> 
> ...




Oh I do. Sorry, you may be understanding me. I don't mean I point blank refuse to speak to people who disagree with me. I thoroughly enjoy that. And am exposed to many through college/university/forums/friends of friends and so on. 

Just rarely would I go out for a pint with any of them. In saying that actually, often some of the most volatile disagreements arise at gigs, Glasgow is blighted with a saddening number of NSBM fuckwits, so sometimes you're having a pint with them when they say the things that get them hit.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I think so. I'm entirely polite about why I don't like people



Now there's an idea I can get behind.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> I get where you're coming from, but consider this...
> 
> Do you not think there may be some things you'll miss out on as a result of having not associated with those that disagree? Perhaps there's something to be learned even if your mind hasn't been completely changed.
> 
> ...



1000 times this.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

to the above 3 posts

EDIT: 4* 


also... @ highlord - I see what you mean, but even ppl with opinions I consider to be ignorant sometimes show me things. They show me how to deal with those types of ppl if nothing else even if I don't do so well initially in the heat of the moment.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Jul 23, 2011)

I think the point here is:

It's amazing how this is happening. There is no empirical or demonstrable evidence to support any of the creation myths and the evidence given by 'Creation Scientists' can be easily debunked. 

It's a case of walking on egg shells. America is a nation of Christian people - People are 'trying not to offend the majority' when really that means having a debate that doesn't deserve an existence. They quote one amendment to solidify one argument when really it clashes with another amendment; Thus they are only familiar with the constitutional clauses which are convenient for them to know.

...And when it isn't that, they're completely twisting a specific amendment to suit their own means. "Freedom of Religion" means "Freedom to impose theirs upons anyone or any country they see fit.

Science isn't a religion. There are no lies or conspiracies in Science and when there is, they're quickly, swiftly and harshly debunked.

/rant


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Jul 23, 2011)

Edit:  my first double post.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 23, 2011)

CrushingAnvil said:


> I think the point here is:
> 
> It's amazing how this is happening. There is no empirical or demonstrable evidence to support any of the creation myths and the evidence given by 'Creation Scientists' can be easily debunked.
> 
> ...



Yeah, but evolution is just a "theory," like "relativity," "gravity," "electricity," or "thermodynamics." 

No one should be forced to learn those "theories" if they don't want to. I mean, when I was in high school, there were plenty of theories that that we didn't learn - like "quantum electrodynamics." Most of my classmates turned out just fine.

Now, anyone who wants to argue that evolution doesn't exist because the scientific community has a theory about it might as well not believe in the internal combustion engine (a consequence of knowledge in thermodynamics), the telephone (electricity and magnetism), the laser (quantum mechanics), or the sledgehammer (gravity). Granted, the theory of evolution is still an open one, and it really doesn't explain the very beginnings of life, as many wish it did, but we've seen tons of evidence of it happening in the fossil record, in microorganisms, and even in some animal species.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 24, 2011)

bostjan said:


> No one should be forced to learn those "theories" if they don't want to. I mean, when I was in high school, there were plenty of theories that that we didn't learn - like "quantum electrodynamics." Most of my classmates turned out just fine.



Although this point may have been made jokingly, I disagree.

Not everyone is going to go on to learn astronomy or biology, or to work in a foreign country, or even to use any math beyond addition after high school. In spite of that, every student should and does get exposed to an overview of most subjects.

Continental drift, civics, the big bang, some foreign language, physical education... and yes, the cornerstone of biology, evolution. 

To argue that one's children shouldn't be exposed to certain things (evolution, negroes, Jews, a round Earth) because it goes against a family's beliefs doesn't fly. The kids may ultimately decide that they'll reject the best theories for fit the given evidence, but hopefully they'll at least learn how to evaluate evidence. 

----

Weirdly nutty note: Did you know that there are a lot of fundamentalist Christians who are against modern astronomy?

Ya know why?

Because it "claims" the Earth is round. 

*laugh*

That's not a joke, sadly, but it is sadly funny. Geocentrism and a flat earth are beliefs held by quite a few fundamentalist Christians. 

Here's a few web pages for those who are curious:

Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity, and the Flat Earth

The following is a web cache. The site itself, which was excellent, is apparently down, and I don't know if it is permanent.

The Evolution of "Bible-Science": Young Earthers, Geocentrists, Flat Earthers

And here's a page from inside, where someone is getting worked up about the idea of aliens... due that idea being incompatible with Scripture.

The Bible and Modern Astronomy, Part 2 - Answers in Genesis


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Jul 24, 2011)

I hope Bostjan was joking...


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 24, 2011)

Why we are at it, we shouldn't explain mutation, bacteria and aspirine, since Christians get buthurt about evolution, natural diseases and the power of prayer (lack there of)?

Evolution is as much a theory as gravity. We all know they are true and exsisting. Stop giving Nutcases the chance to say anything stupid against it.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 24, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Although this point may have been made jokingly, I disagree.



It was definitely a joke, his following paragraph made it very clear.


----------



## hokum (Aug 3, 2011)

If teraching religion in US schools is banned why does the atheist get to flout his dogma? Does not make sense to me. If all theories for origins may not be discussed than they should just ban the topic. I guess that's what's annoying the Christians


----------



## Zorkuus (Aug 3, 2011)

hokum said:


> If teraching religion in US schools is banned why does the atheist get to flout his dogma?


The theory of evolution isn't a dogma, it's an established field of science. And it doesn't have anything to do with atheism, there's plenty of religious people who accept evolution.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 3, 2011)

hokum said:


> If teraching religion in US schools is banned why does the atheist get to flout his dogma? Does not make sense to me. If all theories for origins may not be discussed than they should just ban the topic. I guess that's what's annoying the Christians



Scientific theories and philosophical theories are not the same thing. Don't tarnish evolution by thinking it's a "theory" in the same fashion that any religious creation story is.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Aug 3, 2011)

Ugh. Evolution and Creationism are not equal. One is a scientific theory and the other is a completely bald assertion. We do not give equal time to Creationism simply because it isn't true. School is a place for knowledge which has a basis in empirical, observable evidence. Creationism does not. It is founded in religious belief. 

The rebadging of it as "Intelligent Design" is extremely disingenuous. It's creationism with a lab coat on. They claim to only wish to "teach the controversy", which doesn't exist in the manner which they claim. The controversy is that these people are attempting to inject religion into the school curriculum under the guise of "equal time" and other disingenuous reasons. We do not teach "Flat Earth" theory in public schools. We do not teach Reiki in public schools. We do not teach alchemy in public schools. We do not teach subluxation or innate intelligence in medical schools. These are simply ideas which have no evidence, or real theories to describe how the mechanisms could even function. 

If you want to learn that nonsense, there are plenty of small private schools with poor a curriculum what will be happy to take your money from you. Their claims are merely asserted as truth, not demonstrated as truth which science DOES. Your computer WORKS. Your watch WORKS. Satellites, lasers, mixers, speakers, electric guitars, tube amps and modern medicine are all some of the fruits of science. They weren't blinked into existence by a magical sky wizard. What has the so-called intelligent design movement actually *done* or demonstrated (other than create tons of propoganda)? Absolutely nothing.

They are simply anti-science, anti-education, and anti-secular. Basically, they are anti- everything which does not pertain to god in some way.

How 'bout we teach some of the Koran in churches? Or teach kids about the similarities between Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Zoroaster, and Jesus in Sunday School and how all those stories precede the stores of Jesus. Along with the similarities between the many creation stories across human history. How about we teach of the plagiarism within the bible itself. Let's also teach kids how Muhammed duped the Babylonians into believing *his* god, Allah, was the very same deity they worshipped (along with the 364 or so other gods they worshipped). Who conveniently has the same name, Allah.

No? Then keep your fucking dogma out of schools. Personal beliefs belong in church. Actual knowledge belongs in schools.

an aside: Abiogenesis and Evolution are two completely different things. One tackles the question of how life became so diverse, the other attempts to answer how inorganic matter could become organic and create the basic molecules for life. Different things. Apples and oranges.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Aug 3, 2011)

hokum said:


> If teraching religion in US schools is banned why does the *atheist get to flout his dogma*? Does not make sense to me. If all theories for origins may not be discussed than they should just ban the topic. I guess that's what's annoying the Christians


Well: atheists don't have dogma.

*dog·ma* 

&#8194;  

&#8194;/&#712;d&#596;g




m&#601;, &#712;d&#594;g-/ 

 Show Spelled[dawg-muh, dog-] 

 Show IPA
 noun, plural -mas, -ma·ta 

&#8194;/-m&#601;



t&#601;/ 

 Show Spelled[-muh-tuh] 

 Show IPA. 1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church. 

 2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.

3.  prescribed doctrine: political dogma.

4. a settled or established  opinion, belief, or principle.


Not discussing (or promoting one particular) religion, is NOT the same as denying existence in a higher power. No matter how hard some people want to pretend that it does: It doesn't. And if so, then any thought you ever think that doesn't praise your lord at the end, every sentence you say that doesn't have the name of your savior in it, every conversation you have that isn't based in religion, is the same as you denouncing your beliefs. Do you understand what I mean now?
 




Trying to keep schools teaching, and churchs preaching is what logical, intelligent people do: not just atheists.


----------



## Miek (Aug 3, 2011)

hokum said:


> If teraching religion in US schools is banned why does the atheist get to flout his dogma? Does not make sense to me. If all theories for origins may not be discussed than they should just ban the topic. I guess that's what's annoying the Christians



It would be a very fine thing to teach many religions' creations stories in schools! However, they do not belong in the science classroom, but perhaps instead in the history classroom.

The issue of course, is that those that take umbrage to the fact that Christian creationism is not taught in schools is the fact that, well, they only care about the Christian creation story. It isn't about fairness towards religion or any nonsense like that, it's about making Christianity the One True Religion(tm).

I could tell you why I think people are interested in pushing such an agenda, but that is far beyond the scope of my reply and is another subject entirely.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 3, 2011)

hokum said:


> If teraching religion in US schools is banned why does the atheist get to flout his dogma? Does not make sense to me. If all theories for origins may not be discussed than they should just ban the topic. I guess that's what's annoying the Christians



I mentioned before the paradigm through which many Christians view everything, assuming that their particular dogmatic approach is employed by everyone. This viewpoint is why they don't understand science, evolution specifically in this example. 

It's sad that you don't understand the difference. It could be that you're not even interested in *wanting* to understand the difference, but if you are, I'm sure there are websites which have online courses in such.

I highly recommend the Khan Academy, which although not accredited has resources for learning for all those who are motivated to learn. 

Khan Academy

There are some great videos about understanding logical statements, as well as the basics of evolution and natural selection, which have had better and more powerful explicative power in biology than any religion's dogma or texts. You'll probably even learn what "theory" means in science, which can only help.

Whether you decide to learn and to be able to test what you learn, or to just stick with what you believe without ever wanting to test it the way you can test science, good luck!


----------



## Guitarman700 (Aug 3, 2011)

hokum said:


> If teraching religion in US schools is banned why does the atheist get to flout his dogma? Does not make sense to me. If all theories for origins may not be discussed than they should just ban the topic. I guess that's what's annoying the Christians




People like you make me laugh so hard. I would suggest educating yourself before commenting about issues like this. Although, going by your post history, you don't really seem open to any non-biblical viewpoints.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Aug 3, 2011)

Holy fuck! =P


----------



## Guitarman700 (Aug 3, 2011)

Honestly, I have to put up with people like this on a daily basis, and I'm often threatened with death, sometimes multiple times per day, simply because I'm an Atheist and involved in non secular aid work. I'm getting really fucking sick of it.
Is that REALLY what your religion is about?


----------



## Watty (Aug 3, 2011)

To be serious and succinct, I think creationism should be taught in schools. We'd have more people realizing the sheer stupidity of it away from the prying eyes of their parents that originally closed that door for their children before they even knew what a door was.

"And now students, we will speak of how the magical man in the heavens snapped his fingers in slow motion over the course of six days of indeterminate length and created all that you perceive as well as that which you will never hope to understand without His infinite....uh, grace."

If that (or something akin to it) isn't a recipe for converting those who loosely hold to the popularized religious view for the sake of holding the popularized religious view, I don't know what is.

Side Note: For those biblical scholars, whether they be Atheist or No, I recently took a Theology course at my university and was pleasantly surprised at a lot of fallacies that the prof touched on in the "good" book. The most interesting of which was the "invention of the concept" of the soul. He said something along the lines of a large group of religious folk misunderstanding a speech made by (forget his name) in which the separation of flesh and consciousness was touched on. Furthermore, that it was pretty much just an early Greek concept that eventually developed into what so many people refer to as the soul today.

Anyone care to speak to this, whether they can verify, illuminate, or otherwise...? *Shoots self in foot for not taking more notes about the names of the parties involved*


----------



## Guitarman700 (Aug 3, 2011)

Creationism is nothing more than fundies spinning dogma in a frantic attempt to make themselves relevant in an age of reason.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Aug 3, 2011)

I feel for you Guitarman! The way religious people get their way with everything because everything offends them is bullshit. You can't question their beliefs, but they will thoughtlessly shit all over everyone else's and force everyone to fold to their beliefs. The Scientific Method is not a belief, it is exactly what it states: the method in which we learn about the universe and everything within it. You can chose to not believe in gravity if you want, but that doesn't mean you can jump from a roof and fly.

Your situation, Guitarman, sounds really bad, since you are smack dab in the middle of Jesusland. Also, being physically threatened is completely fucked up, especially at work. Have you said anything to your superiors, or filed a formal complaint? The very religious get their way by whining and bullying everyone around them! Don't let shit like that fly!

At my jorb, there is a 'group' of Protestants in a certain area who wear crucifixes, jesus shirts, chaplain hats, and discuss church stuff all throughout the day and during breaks. They also love talkin' shit about the 'group' of mormons who work in administration (WTF, right?). I wore a shirt one day which depicts Jesus as a buddhist-style monk with other monks bowing before him and was asked by HR to go home and change. One of these protestants won't even look me in the eye anymore, probably because he was the asshole who said something about it. GODDAMMIT, really? 

A friend/co-worker and I once got in trouble for discussing the election back in '09, while we were outside on lunch. The dude with the chaplain hat stormed over to us and yelled "I am sick and tired of your guys' stupid liberal bullshit! Shut the fuck up!" while grasping a wooden cross hanging from his neck. He wasn't even in the army, why the fuck does he wear a chaplain's hat, anyway? *shrug*

The next week everyone at work gets a letter stating that we cannot talk about religion, politics, or anything which could cause conflict. Yet, these assholes carry on with their jesus talks and what they learned in church, and especially of how proud they are of co-workers when they christen their children! FUUUUUUUUUUUUU. Hypocrites.


----------



## Sicarius (Aug 4, 2011)

Cyanide_Anima said:


> I feel for you Guitarman! The way religious people get their way with everything because everything offends them is bullshit. You can't question their beliefs, but they will thoughtlessly shit all over everyone else's and force everyone to fold to their beliefs. The Scientific Method is not a belief, it is exactly what it states: the method in which we learn about the universe and everything within it. You can chose to not believe in gravity if you want, but that doesn't mean you can jump from a roof and fly.
> 
> Your situation, Guitarman, sounds really bad, since you are smack dab in the middle of Jesusland. Also, being physically threatened is completely fucked up, especially at work. Have you said anything to your superiors, or filed a formal complaint? The very religious get their way by whining and bullying everyone around them! Don't let shit like that fly!
> 
> ...



instead of bitching about it on the Internet, go talk to your HR Manager. Your co-workers obviously don't have a problem doing so..

While I think Creationism is silly, I'm not about to stomp my foot and foam at the mouth in anger that it's being taught. The people that care about Creationism are already taught it in church and home, so it's not like they're trying to jam it down anyone's throat... Coming from a public school in South East Texas (the state that basically determines what goes into these books) most teachers, religious or not, gloss over the Creationism section, it's not even 2 paragraphs long.

Seriously, who honestly gives a fuck that kids are taught something they have already heard from church, TV, or friend/family? 

Why don't we all turn that anger and vitriol onto the lack of Sex Education in public schools? Maybe then stupid ass teenagers would learn to keep it in their fucking pants, or at least get a condom and/or some birth control.


Seriously, as an Atheist since the age of 8, I'm more insulted by the "Fire and Brimstone"/ "Get everything religious out of sight and off government/public property" Atheists than I am the bible thumpers.


----------



## The Reverend (Aug 4, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> instead of bitching about it on the Internet, go talk to your HR Manager. Your co-workers obviously don't have a problem doing so..
> 
> While I think Creationism is silly, I'm not about to stomp my foot and foam at the mouth in anger that it's being taught. The people that care about Creationism are already taught it in church and home, so it's not like they're trying to jam it down anyone's throat... Coming from a public school in South East Texas (the state that basically determines what goes into these books) most teachers, religious or not, gloss over the Creationism section, it's not even 2 paragraphs long.
> 
> ...



First, props for reppin' Conroe. I get to go up there next week for court.

Secondly, I think the heart of the matter gets obfuscated by the Atheist vs Christian battle that is really going on. The fact is (wait for it) Creationism isn't a _fact_. It's not based on any, nor do the two paragraphs in the book admit to that.

I don't want to invoke the slippery slope argument, but at some point you have to wonder if the presentation of _personal beliefs _as fact deserves a place in a science book. Note how I say personal beliefs, meaning that if we (as enlightened individuals ) should be equally as perturbed if there was a line in the book that said "God does not exist." That's not a fact, and should not be presented as such. 

Like someone already said, and in a much more knowledgeable and eloquent way, we don't teach bullshit like alchemy, etc. because it's not a fact, and furthermore, it's not true in the sense that it works. The only religious education I received in public high school was when my World Histories class studied the five major religions. Nothing was presented as fact, and it was more of an overview of each religion's beliefs, and touched upon how they've affected the world. I would totally support a more in-depth class along those lines, where it would be either an elective or an alternative history class, but that's not what this debate is about. I think Creationists have ulterior motive, which is to teach Christianity is schools, or else they'd all be espousing a class like the one I just outlined.


----------



## Sicarius (Aug 4, 2011)

We don't teach "alchemy", we call it "chemistry" now.

The reason it's taught in schools is because for a majority of people it's not "made up".
We're a minority here, and we just have to live with that, if you have a problem with your child learning about Creationism, send a note to school with them. explaining to the teacher that you do not want your child learning about it. They can stand outside for 3 minutes and get back on with their class.

How long has Creationism been in school curriculum? Is it really a conspiracy, or is it just something else that will eventually be phased out like everything else? Like I said, it's taught in a way that just briefly talks about it, and neither is presented as fact, they're presented as theories, neither true or false.

Seriously no teacher spends more than a couple minutes. "Here's the creationist section. You all know what it is, let's move on." 

PS: Conroe sucks for court, dude.

Let's just do as this fun sticker suggests:


----------



## The Reverend (Aug 4, 2011)

My beef is mainly that in a science class, science should be taught, not philosophical or theological theories. I don't care what side of the fence someone may be on, or if it even has to do with religion at all, if it's not backed up with facts, or isn't based off what we currently understand as good science, it shouldn't be presented with fact, period. I'm more concerned with the fact that this really highlights how incredibly dumb the people in charge of education are. We trust them to make our kids smarter, and they fail us by essentially lying to kids.

Something about this irks me on a very basic level. As I pointed out, I'm not against people learning about religion in school, or even discussing it or various shared aspects of it. I'm concerned with teachers _directly or indirectly asserting that something without proof is true. _


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Aug 4, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> instead of bitching about it on the Internet, go talk to your HR Manager. Your co-workers obviously don't have a problem doing so..
> 
> While I think Creationism is silly, I'm not about to stomp my foot and foam at the mouth in anger that it's being taught. The people that care about Creationism are already taught it in church and home, so it's not like they're trying to jam it down anyone's throat... Coming from a public school in South East Texas (the state that basically determines what goes into these books) most teachers, religious or not, gloss over the Creationism section, it's not even 2 paragraphs long.
> 
> ...



I'ved talked to my HR lady. She didn't care for my side of the situation, she's very religious herself and was completely empathetic for the asshole mentioned. There is literally nothing I can do short of quitting a job I otherwise love. The company is privately owned and operated by VERY conservative people. In Washington, a place where workers basically have little rights, you can be fired for any arbitrary reason. I wasn't really complaining. I was expressing my frustrations, but mainly commenting on religious privilege. 

You may not like "hardline atheists", but I don't really like religious accommodationists. To say that it's no big deal to you is one thing, but it is a big deal. Sure, now it they may only spend a few minutes as you say (severely doubt that is the case everywhere), but that's how it starts. In your town it may be only a few minutes, but these idiots are trying to completely change the curriculum a little at a time. You don't alter a schematic by changing it all at once, you do it a little at a time to see how it works. It's there to spark interest and spread propaganda. If kids are hearing this nonsense from all angles many are going to be convinced it is true.

And alchemy isn't the same as chemistry. Alchemy has roots in magic, chemistry doesn't. lol. Creationism in the class is no conspiracy, these people talk about it mostly openly about how it should be in schools. We are not stomping our feet and pouting. That is how people with no valid arguments (IE Creationists) get attention and/or their way. Rational atheists actually have rational arguments to support their views. Creationists do not.

I don't care if our politicians and world leaders goto church, or wear crosses and funny looking hats. I don't even care if they talk about their personal feelings about god or the supernatural in their speeches as they often do. What I care about is what is true and what is not true and what we teach our kids in a public setting. I find myself taken back that most people don't. People just don't give a fuck about anything outside their own backyard.

We have sex education. The fundies are likely the ones responsible for having it removed (or never started to begin with) from your area's curriculum. Which of course, is a big problem too.


----------



## Sicarius (Aug 4, 2011)

Generally, at least for most Texas schools, in more conservative areas there isn't sex education. There's a "health class" but they only talk about STDs, and that's very brief. 

I see hardline atheists the exact same as super "fundies" as you call them. Just different ends of the same pole. 

It's biology, where things are discovered then disproven, or reinforced all the time. FOR THE MAJORITY of people in this state/ country, they completely believe that Creationism is rooted in fact. For them there is no other proof needed. Until people can be completely be convinced that Creationism is false it's going to stay where it is.

I'm not trying to accommodate any religion, I'm just stating the fact. You are in a minority. One that is so vocal, that it does more harm than good. You can not fight fire with fire. It doesn't work. 

It all boils down to this:
Don't like what they teach in school? Home school your children. Because that's going to be the only way you're going to be happy.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 4, 2011)

I may be misunderstanding, but are you essentially saying "S'not gonna change, give up"?

Now, I don't think the majority of people in the US are creationists (surely they're not, really?) but even if they were that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it is taught within a science class. It only being a couple paragraphs is irrelevant, it shouldn't be there at all - it's not a case of atheists getting their knickers in a twist, it's a case of a provably false, unscientific idea being taught, however briefly, to children within a science context.

How glad I am that young people in this country have school regulatory authorities who would laugh at anyone suggesting creationism go in a science class.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Aug 4, 2011)

Actually, I believe that Creationism should be in Science (fiction) class. God is a mighty alien from Milkiway. He created some microorganizms from scratch, and enjoys creating things. He once worked as a game designer, but ended up studying Physics, Chemistry and Biology.
God creates Adam. He looks at him and see him doing funny things. He asks him why Adam tries to put his penis in his own mouth.
Adam replies that this is fun, and he somehow feels an urge for this. God operates Adam and removes one of his Ribs, and let him do it.
But It looks so awfully funny, unconfortable and stupid. 
God says, well, I can create something with a vagina and a mouth for this guy alone. And creates Eve form the cells of his Rib.
The rest is History.


----------



## Watty (Aug 4, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Now, I don't think the majority of people in the US are creationists (surely they're not, really?)
> 
> How glad I am that young people in this country have school regulatory authorities who would laugh at anyone suggesting creationism go in a science class.


 
I can't recall who, but there was one notable Atheist who spoke for several minutes on how most people are only amiable to believe in the blief in God, and don't actually care to hold any of the conservative views to the point that most creationists would. This, however, is almost more pathetic when you think about it - the sacrifice of societal progress for the sake of maintaining the status quo? Come now people, open your eyes...

Too bad we across the pond can't follow suit. Too many butthurt folks want to believe that the separation of church and state is NOT what the county was founded on; that, and complete freedom of religion...


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Aug 4, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> Generally, at least for most Texas schools, in more conservative areas there isn't sex education. There's a "health class" but they only talk about STDs, and that's very brief.
> 
> I see hardline atheists the exact same as super "fundies" as you call them. Just different ends of the same pole.
> 
> ...



We are not fighting fire with fire. We are fighting fantasy with facts, and divisive sectarian values with inclusive secular values. What you are doing is exactly this; accommodating the religion. I'm genuinely amazed that a self-identified atheist would not care about these things. 

I'm sorry if you think being vocal and standing up to these bullies is doing more harm than good. But we are doing good, and slowly making progress. It's an uphill battle, surely. But anything worth doing isn't going to be easy. 

For the record I do think religion should be taught in schools. But in a comparative religion class, not in science class. There is nothing objective or scientific about religion. It's just people saying "This is how it is, how it was, and how it's always going to be" without ever looking for an answer in the first place. Religion gets people to stop asking important questions about the universe, and invest emotional stock in an afterlife. Something which is I'm 99.99999% sure isn't going to happen. 

For thousands of years personal belief has basically ruled the world and dictated the pace of human progress. Time for something a little more objective to step in and actually help make the world a better place, and to improve *everyone's* lives, not just believers. Which is the main function of science, to improve our lives through technology. Whether or not religion improves peoples lives is completely subjective. Science saves lives. Science can make it possible to feed an overpopulated planet. (Note: I said possible, which it is. How the distribution of food gets handled is a political problem, not scientific.) 

Belief can give one a false sense of hope, a false sense of self-worth (if you can even fathom a "sinner" even having worth because according to the bible we are essentially disposable, despicable creatures needing god to forgive us. But "he" loves you!) and basically tells you the answers to everything are contained within one fable. Science admits "Hey, we don't know everything! Not even close! and that's the point!" How can one learn anything at all when they think the already have all the answers they "need" (or were told they need)?

Edit: Throughout most of human history atheists have been told to "sit down and shut up!" We aren't going to do that anymore.


----------



## Nimgoble (Aug 4, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> While I think Creationism is silly, I'm not about to stomp my foot and foam at the mouth in anger that it's being taught. The people that care about Creationism are already taught it in church and home, so it's not like they're trying to jam it down anyone's throat...



If they're already taught it in Church and they don't want to cram it down anyone's throat, then why are they trying to force it in to public schools?



> Seriously, who honestly gives a fuck that kids are taught something they have already heard from church, TV, or friend/family?



Straw man. It's not JUST these kids that are being taught it. It's all the kids in the public school. And they're being taught that it's fact. 




> Why don't we all turn that anger and vitriol onto the lack of Sex Education in public schools? Maybe then stupid ass teenagers would learn to keep it in their fucking pants, or at least get a condom and/or some birth control.



So, it's one or the other? We can't be vocal about more than one thing? 



> Seriously, as an Atheist since the age of 8, I'm more insulted by the "Fire and Brimstone"/ "Get everything religious out of sight and off government/public property" Atheists than I am the bible thumpers.



Why?



Sicarius said:


> We don't teach "alchemy", we call it "chemistry" now.



No, we don't. They're two separate things.



> The reason it's taught in schools is because for a majority of people it's not "made up".



No, the reason it's taught in schools is because it is NOT, in fact, made up. Whether some people think it is or not.



> We're a minority here, and we just have to live with that, if you have a problem with your child learning about Creationism, send a note to school with them. explaining to the teacher that you do not want your child learning about it. They can stand outside for 3 minutes and get back on with their class.



No, we don't have to live with that.The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. As such, the minority has every right to demand protection from the tyranny of the majority under certain issues. This happens to be one of them.



> How long has Creationism been in school curriculum? Is it really a conspiracy, or is it just something else that will eventually be phased out like everything else?



Does it matter? It's there. It shouldn't be.



> Like I said, it's taught in a way that just briefly talks about it, and neither is presented as fact, they're presented as theories, neither true or false.
> Seriously no teacher spends more than a couple minutes. "Here's the creationist section. You all know what it is, let's move on."



Oh? This is the way it would be done in every school? By every teacher? Or just your limited experience?



Sicarius said:


> I see hardline atheists the exact same as super "fundies" as you call them. Just different ends of the same pole.



How so? We aren't demanding that public schools teach that there is no god, or even that the existence of one is unlikely. Wanting EVERY side's story kept out of public schools in not an atheist thing. It's a secular thing, which is not confined to atheism.



> It's biology, where things are discovered then disproven, or reinforced all the time. FOR THE MAJORITY of people in this state/ country, they completely believe that Creationism is rooted in fact. For them there is no other proof needed. Until people can be completely be convinced that Creationism is false it's going to stay where it is.



So, you identify the problem... And then you lambaste "hardline atheists" for trying to rectify said problem, claiming they're every bit as bad as the people causing the problem? 



> I'm not trying to accommodate any religion, I'm just stating the fact. You are in a minority. One that is so vocal, that it does more harm than good. You can not fight fire with fire. It doesn't work.



A minority that is growing. Rapidly. By fighting fire with fire(being vocal). 



> It all boils down to this:
> Don't like what they teach in school? Home school your children. Because that's going to be the only way you're going to be happy.



Read: "Don't like the way things are? Too bad. You can't change things."
Answer: Yes, we can. Your snide comments from the sidelines aren't helping.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 4, 2011)

watsonb2 said:


> To be serious and succinct, I think creationism should be taught in schools.


Yes. Creationism and ID should be added to the discussion of other failed attempts (Lamarkian, etc.) to explain speciation. A quick 10-15 mins is all it will take to cover the *facts* that:
Neither Creationism nor ID are valid scientific theories
ID is logically self-conflicted or defaults to Creationism
There is *NO* body of evidence that supports either concept
The main arguments for Creationism strawman arguments supporting a false binary.
The arguments for ID are either "Investigator Hubris" (i.e. "I can't figure it out, therefore it's impossible") or strawman arguments supporting a false binary

Ray


----------



## flint757 (Aug 4, 2011)

Okay, I'm about to lay down some one liners.

Creationism wasn't taught at my high school and I had a world history class. So we are making progress. I'd like to think cases like this are in the minority now and people can see the difference. If your religious and think that this will kill your faith then you weren't very strong in your religion to begin with. Isn't this life a test or something to begin with for christians. It sounds to me like they are failing.

The thing is kids are susceptible to what they are told in school. We sometimes listen to our teacher more frequently than our parents. This is why they want creationism taught because it reaffirms their position and this is why atheists want it out. Some people are on the ropes religiously and if it is taught in school it could push them away from a form of athiesm and towards christianity. Thus it is no longer a personal decision (which rarely it is). If you think about it the majority of christians are so because of their families and have no other reason. That being said I also no some people who went to christianity because there lives needed it and I'm all the more happier for them.

As far as sex ed our teacher basically said be safe if your going to and talked about STD's, but yeah Texas has a no safe sex teaching in our schools soooo needless to say we had a few pregnant chicks at my school. 

Keep trucking on it has taken 50 years and the supreme court being on our side all of those 50 years to get his far. I think we can make it all the way...


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Aug 4, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> My beef is mainly that in a science class, science should be taught, not philosophical or theological theories. I don't care what side of the fence someone may be on, or if it even has to do with religion at all, if it's not backed up with facts, or isn't based off what we currently understand as good science, it shouldn't be presented with fact, period. I'm more concerned with the fact that this really highlights how incredibly dumb the people in charge of education are. We trust them to make our kids smarter, and they fail us by essentially lying to kids.
> 
> Something about this irks me on a very basic level. As I pointed out, I'm not against people learning about religion in school, or even discussing it or various shared aspects of it. I'm concerned with teachers _directly or indirectly asserting that something without proof is true. _



I disagree. Philosophy should absolutely be taught in schools. It is the foundation of science itself. Early philosophers are the ones who gave us an understanding of logic and reason. Philosophy is directly responsible for the development of our critical thinking skills. It teaches us how to solve problems in an orderly, logical manner. Without it, we wouldn't have begun to ask questions about anything at all. We'd all still be throwing feces at each other and behaving like small children because we wouldn't know what something simple like the concept of cause and effect was.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 4, 2011)

Philosophy should be taught, yes. But not philosophical nor theological theories within science lessons.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Aug 4, 2011)

Theories need to be presented in context in order to get anything out of philosophy. Just like in college, they should be presented as problems. Like any other math problem or logic problem. Not matters of personal philosophy, but general philosophical ideas which all cultures tend to share.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 4, 2011)

I agree with that, was it a response to my post? I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me


----------



## Guitarman700 (Aug 4, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I agree with that, was it a response to my post? I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me



Don't worry, that happens a lot in here.


----------



## Watty (Aug 4, 2011)

ElRay said:


> Yes. Creationism and ID should be added to the discussion of other failed attempts (Lamarkian, etc.) to explain speciation. A quick 10-15 mins is all it will take to cover the *facts* that:
> 
> Neither Creationism nor ID are valid scientific theories
> ID is logically self-conflicted or defaults to Creationism
> ...


 
I completely agree, though you're reiterating of the reasons why proves to be much more illuminating


----------



## The Reverend (Aug 5, 2011)

Cyanide_Anima said:


> I disagree. Philosophy should absolutely be taught in schools. It is the foundation of science itself. Early philosophers are the ones who gave us an understanding of logic and reason. Philosophy is directly responsible for the development of our critical thinking skills. It teaches us how to solve problems in an orderly, logical manner. Without it, we wouldn't have begun to ask questions about anything at all. We'd all still be throwing feces at each other and behaving like small children because we wouldn't know what something simple like the concept of cause and effect was.



A closer reading of the first sentence in my quoted post says "in a science class." 

I agree with your post 100% as far as briefly covering philosophy as the foundation of science and the scientific method. As far as everything else, it belongs squarely in a philosophy class, or an appropriate analogue. Like I said, it's important for people to learn the history of religion, as it is a large part of why the world is the way it is now.


----------

