What is Digg?239 Comments
- Jacob3d, on 12/04/2007, -20/+130I can't believe I haven't heard someone use this as a defense yet to keep religion out of our schools, brilliant!
- ApokalypseNow, on 12/04/2007, -19/+118Oh, I've used it, more or less, with the following phrase:
Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church. - thcobbs, on 12/04/2007, -14/+93In one instance, attendance is required.... In another instance, attendance is voluntary.
guess which is which - KillerSiafu, on 12/04/2007, -21/+80Can we also teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory?
- CaptainWeasel, on 12/04/2007, -6/+31My pastor actually did this once. I was the only one who was glad about it. :D
- mattwear, on 12/04/2007, -8/+25In many religious private schools evolution is taught along side creation; not with the same rigor as it is in public school, but public school doesn't address creationism at all (at least not the one I attended). I'm not saying they should, but it is interesting that the religious private school would teach both sides.
- noahhoward, on 12/04/2007, -3/+19Christians pay for public schools so the next generation can have a good education, people with out children pay the same taxes, the reason you pay is so that, hopefully, the next generation will be smart enough to care for you and carry on a legacy, not so you can decide the curriculum.
- Phyltre, on 12/04/2007, -9/+24How is this a defense to keep religion out of schools? Ask most Catholic ministers about evolution and you'll be told it's real. I think religion should stay out of schools--barring history, english, and philosophy--but the image is disingenuous. It's the extremist Protestants that usually do this sort of thing, not the Catholics anymore. ...I'd also like to note that I'm pretty anti-Catholicism, so don't think I'm some sort of advocate. The parallel just isn't made well.
- ForkySpoony, on 12/04/2007, -3/+17His logic is that abstinence programs don't work and when they teach abstinence instead of safe sex they are putting kids in danger.
- wyndl, on 12/04/2007, -1/+14churches also enjoy being a protected non-for-profit entity with no property tax, which is almost the same thing as being funded by the state (economically at least). Regardless, the point of the comic is just to show 'them' how silly their arguments are for trying to put creationism in science class anyways. God belongs with all the others, in a MYTHOLOGY class.
- DROWE859, on 12/04/2007, -1/+13Well, I don't in what kind of fantasy world you can stop horny teenagers from having sex just by telling them they shouldn't.
- rollem, on 12/04/2007, -3/+15How is ID not a joke? I can't even understand the sentences you wrote. What possible mechanism could guide our evolution? Please, conceive of some way that ID could work, then gather evidence for or against.
- hydrodev, on 12/04/2007, -2/+14*Insert random default random, and default it here randomly.*
- siggyfawn, on 12/04/2007, -17/+28Can I have my click back?
- postitnote, on 12/04/2007, -0/+10Yeah, there was this flood.
- sonicEd, on 12/04/2007, -1/+10Creation is not a theory, it is a belief. And if you don't know the difference you lack knowledge.
- CircleFusion, on 12/04/2007, -6/+15When I was a kid, attendance to church was required by my parents...and I hated it.
- cw1925, on 12/04/2007, -1/+10I, for one, can attest to the noodliessness of the one and only true god. FMSbless you all!
- Xibby, on 12/04/2007, -0/+9Only one? Most primates (monkeys, apes, humans...) have two.
- aguynamedjoe36, on 12/04/2007, -0/+9the gospel of thomas is a gnostic text. it's validity is trivial, and there were very few (if any) other early generation copies in existence as opposed to the rest of the gospels which have 1000's of texts dating back before the 3rd century.
- noahhoward, on 12/04/2007, -3/+12Exactly, so while you could skip evolution lectures in church, you wouldn't be allowed to skip religious lectures in school.
- jwkep, on 12/04/2007, -4/+13wow, I think I just got stupider by reading that....
- Hammerheart, on 12/04/2007, -1/+9The trouble arises from abstinence only programs working almost as often as gravity causing things to repel each other.
- aguynamedjoe36, on 12/04/2007, -3/+11the reason this is not a valid argument is that schools are state funded and churches are not. so it isn't the church's responsibility to teach both sides when parishoners are coming to that church because they already believe what it teaches.
if all scientific theories had to be given equal time at the pulpit, we would lose the separation of church and state, the same thing that is trying to be avoided by keeping prayer / intelligent design out of schools. - Nougat, on 12/04/2007, -5/+12Why not? It's "only a theory."
- CCB0x45, on 12/04/2007, -4/+11Almost right... except there is no scientific evidence for intelligent design. so... actually wrong.
- 80hd, on 12/04/2007, -0/+7Exactly. This cartoon is trying to communicate the hypocrisy of teaching ideas outside their boundaries. Should churches put a good faith effort into promoting theories not defined in their bible? The same answer goes for whether schools should give time to teaching beliefs not supported by a continuous stream of physical evidence.
- aguynamedjoe36, on 12/04/2007, -0/+7oh and by the way, the quote given is so ambiguous that it is highly unlikely it is prophesying the reaction of humans in the face of evolution (a theory which wasn't even defined until the late 1800's). the writer could have meant something entirely different. saying it is anachronism is a stretch in this instance.
- JonnyTrombone, on 12/04/2007, -3/+9OR they could use the Lemon v. Kurtzman SCOTUS decision- which basically says "keep religion out of schools."
Caveat: if they taught history well, people would know about the Lemon Test. - MarkJaquith, on 12/04/2007, -0/+6My first thought, too. Why not choose a church that believes the whole "six literal days" "the earth is only 6,000 years old" nonsense? Putting it in a Catholic church is stupid. The Catholic church has no problem with evolution or an earth that is billions of years old.
- antidense, on 12/04/2007, -0/+6I think you (and many many others) misunderstand that evolution is something to believe in. People shouldn't "believe" in evolution anymore than they should "believe" in gravity. Like Gravity, Evolution is a framework for understanding observable and testable evidence. Most importantly, scientific theories are not judged by their believability or attractiveness, but by their usefulness and consistently. And despite it's holes and shortcomings here and there, it explains the evidence we have quite well, and helps us to combat diseases and feed our ever increasing population.
The biggest misinterpretation is that evolution somehow teaches us that we should be antisocial and selfish. On the contrary, some of the most successful creatures on this Earth, from insects to humans are the most social and collaborative. Vampire bats share food with those that they know will return the favor and ground squirrels risk their own lives by calling out and warning their relatives to predators. Cooperation is the cornerstone of the evolution of intelligent creatures. - smhill, on 12/04/2007, -1/+7That is a just a dumb statement. Your conclusion is deeply flawed.
The government is not trying to "keep religion out of places". The lawsuits are brought about by people, and upheld by the courts that religious mythologies should endorsed or taught by the government. There is a world of difference between the two. Teaching religious fairy tales as "truth" in public schools is wrong and directly PROHIBITED by our Bill of Rights. Conversely wearing a cross, star, FSM, whatever is PROTECTED by the Bill of Rights.
The same articles that prevent government backing religion, protects our individual freedom of expression. - noahhoward, on 12/04/2007, -12/+18Psst, hey, missing the point of the joke, ID fundies want evolution in schools under the guise of "teaching both sides" ask one of them how they feel about teaching evolution in church and you'll get the joke.
- sonicEd, on 12/04/2007, -0/+6Seriously, you are an idiot.
- rollem, on 12/04/2007, -0/+6Well, there is a great deal of learning that can and does go on in churches. It's definitely not science, but I think it should be consider scholarship.
- whyufail, on 12/04/2007, -2/+8Thousands of years ago some creative writer wrote a book that he managed to get a bunch of people to actually believe in. Christianity is the old school Scientology.
- CircleFusion, on 12/04/2007, -0/+5It is obviously not the church's responsibility to teach both sides. I think that is what the comic is pointing toward. The church has a purpose and public schools have a different purpose. To make public schools adjust to incorporate some of the role of the church (teaching based on faith) for the sake of fairness just begs the question, "why not adjust the church's role as well to incorporate some scientific study?" I don't think the church wants that form of overlap. This sheds light on the point that it really isn't about fairness or giving balance to differing thoughts at all.
- noahhoward, on 12/04/2007, -1/+6It may do but I think people are taking the comic too seriously, it's a comic, a lighthearted stab at an amusing idea.
- sonicEd, on 12/04/2007, -0/+5Actually you have it backwards. ID is based on Creationism, and it is not a theory (it can't be tested). Oh, and there is exactly zero evidence for it.
- noahhoward, on 12/04/2007, -0/+5There is no problem, it's a joke, learn to laugh at jokes.
- cranium, on 12/04/2007, -1/+6If the government FORCEs you to attend school, that's why you have to keep your stupid ***** creationism out.
- cgm1985, on 12/04/2007, -1/+6Are you saying teaching evolution in science class is biased, or just that having priests teach evolution is silly? Or both?
- inactive, on 12/04/2007, -2/+7I almost agree with you except for the fact that so many churches are tax exempt.
- empraptor, on 12/04/2007, -3/+8I suppose I should have a say in what kind of material to use to make roads since I'm paying for that too. I think bricks look cool. All roads should be built out of bricks.
- guichetroo, on 12/04/2007, -1/+6RAmen
- ohcyrus, on 12/04/2007, -1/+6Although I agree many denominations acknowledge evolution. When you poll religious Americans the majority don't believe in evolution.
- CircleFusion, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5Ok, let's go down this path. If Evolutionists started giving money to churches, would it be okay for them to start asking the church to cover scientific theory? Probably not.
Also, creationism and evolution are not necessarily compatible because in order to make them compatible (which some religious people try to do) one has to ignore much of the evidence used in evolutionary theory. Scientific theories are based upon scientific study, which continuously searches for answers and uncovers evidence. That makes them incompatible with something that is based on faith. You don't have to take many steps before you find conflicts between the theory of evolution and creationism. When scientific evidence shows a fossil that is 1,000,000 years old, that immediately conflicts with the timeline of creationism. They are incompatible concepts starting from the methods used to support each. Evolutionary theory is dynamic and constantly evolving and uncovering new information. The only things that change about creationism are the varying interpretations of an old book. - Cloned, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4RAmen.
- cranium, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5That's complete *****. The ID textbook (Pandas & People) was a creationist textbook where they merely substituted "designer" for "creator". There's no difference.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 233 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is