digg

Join DiggAbout

Science Teacher Fired for Not Teaching Creationism watch!

youtube.com — Chris Comer, a Science Teacher in Texas was Expelled for not teaching Intelligent Design in her science class. It's a scary day indeed when our science teachers get fired for recognizing that creationism is not science.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • therowe, on 04/15/2008, -58/+575freaking outrageous...creationists are completely insane
    • rentmitchum, on 04/15/2008, -37/+182My entire family are creationists. They hate me for arguing it, because my sister is just as smart as I am, she has chosen to believe it, and I can tell she knows it makes no sense. My parents seem pretty stupid, but there's no excuse for my sister. Is it ok to tell your nephews that what they're being taught isn't true, at least so they try to find out for themselves? They're gonna end up as mixed up as I was at about 15. I'll just slip them some info when they hit about age 12 or so.. I don't want them to end up christfags.
      • Spuy767, on 04/15/2008, -71/+26Seriously dude, christfags? When you stoop to childish insults and name calling, you cease to be above the ridiculous fray which christains constantly find themselves tangled in.
        • damndirtyaliens, on 04/15/2008, -19/+18Haha, christfags. I'll have to remember that one.
        • rentmitchum, on 04/15/2008, -10/+29No see I don't have to feel bad because I don't impose some book's morals upon myself. I said it in jest mainly though, adding fag after things is a habit.. whinefag.
          • MalenfantX, on 04/15/2008, -13/+6It's pretty severely retarded habit.
          • ThndrShk2k, on 04/15/2008, -13/+4More like a retardedfag habit.
        • Raptor007, on 04/15/2008, -5/+26It's just 4chan terminology. You, for example, would be a newfag.
        • pintomp3, on 04/15/2008, -7/+35i agree, that kind of language is uncalled for. there is no need to insult gay people.
        • Alegoo92, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5I wouldn't bury this guy. I was offended by the word fag in it and it is exactly what he said- childish.
      • Vic333, on 04/15/2008, -7/+39I wouldn't wait until they are too old. The machine will get to them by that point. At the same time, be discreet. Show them some science facts that will get raise their level of critical thinking. It will eventually lead them to evolution.
        • chromerium, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2The soylent green machine?
        • lougoose, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Yeah...don't just tell them evolution is right. Get them to think and reason. Then, once you tell em, they'll think it makes a lot more sense.
      • Nichiren, on 04/15/2008, -6/+78You're not alone. I was raised in a hardcore born again Christian family. I started questioning the faith when I asked my grandmother "So what happens to everyone else?".
        "Well they all go to hell."
        "B-but some of my friends are Catholics."
        "That's why you try to save them by converting them!"
        Mind you I was 8. I'm glad I know better now. This personal anecdote may seem pretty extreme to the average person but then again, I personally believe that the average person really just thinks it's all BS too and that they're just following what their families have been doing for generations for the sake of it. It's the truly religious that muck it up for everyone else.
        • DarkJesus, on 04/15/2008, -7/+40Read that as "a hardcore porn Christian family".
          • CeeJayDK, on 04/15/2008, -1/+25The best kind.
          • BabyWookie, on 04/15/2008, -0/+13The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Smut. Seriously though, fundie girls make the best porn stars.
          • insllvn, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3@BabyWookie, oh yeah, their tears sustain me...

            /because hell is where the party is AT
          • lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7If heaven is filled with those people, thats incentive enough to stay the hell out. Imagine an eternity with Christians. Not good.
          • jwiesenborn, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3*****, people. be careful! rule 34
        • BoneheadFarker, on 04/15/2008, -3/+21By paying lip-service to religion, you give the religious power and encourage them to dictate to everyone else how to live. By out-right denoucing religion, the religious cannot hold power over how anyone lives except for themselves...which is how it should be...
          • LeeSoong, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4TEXAS - turning into another "coat hanger health care" state ?

            Well, that makes it easier for recruiters to sort through University applicants,
            Grant proposals, and resumes - just check the address and high school, and
            throw out any candidate coming from a '' mythology > reality '' state.

            Thank Texas for saving recruiters' time, and supplying the marketplace with more retail sales clerks,
            too bad if they wanted to get a professional career - they couldn't believe in it anyway...
        • rentmitchum, on 04/15/2008, -1/+27I realized it was a bunch of ***** when my dog died. It was the catalyst for major changes in my way of thinking. When questioning people on whether or not my dog went to heaven, they said that was stupid and heaven is for people. This angered me, as I valued my dog above most of the other kids I had met. The gears turned after that for the rest of my childhood and life.
        • spencabt, on 04/15/2008, -1/+19I am convinced that fully 50% of fundamentalist religious people don't actually believe in their religion. It's an acceptance thing; they don't want to be ostracized.
          • TheKillDoctor, on 04/15/2008, -0/+15It's also intellectual laziness. It's much easier and a whole lot less work to just bash science and evolution. When they get older they realize they're wrong but it's to much trouble to crack open a book and catch up with everyone else with their education.
        • StarlessKnight, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4I don't think your anecdote is extreme, at all, when factoring in certain, fundamentalist elements of Christianity. It's an accepted belief: save people, or they'll burn in hell. Period. There's no "might burn," or "lower level of Heaven." Believe or suffer for eternity in the hell fires until the end of time and the resurrection of New Jerusalem where all damned souls will be cast into a lake of fiery annihilation (or second death, or eternal torment with a view from Jerusalem so people can feel happy?).
        • chromerium, on 04/16/2008, -0/+11Its basically what Richard Dawkins is saying when he says that religion is a 'viral meme' that has been subjected to darwinian evolution. Only the religions that are good at attracting new members (infecting people) and good at stopping members from leaving (antibiotic resistant) through intimidation and the threat of being ostracized, survive.
      • ClevelandBrown, on 04/15/2008, -20/+32dugg for 'christfags'
      • maisis00, on 04/15/2008, -30/+5BAH! This continues to be one of the most ridiculous arguments of the last 100 years. The concepts of evolution and intelligent design ARE NOT so mutually exclusive that they could not be taught together and co-exist. If you think of Intelligent Deign as the high-level story and evolution as the under lying nuts and bolts of how the story was pieced together at a detailed level I think you get a pretty fairly accurate and representative picture. However having said this, I believe that since science focuses more on details, some aspects of evolution have a higher priority to be taught in a science class room where as intelligent design belongs in a class on World Religions. Although in Texas we have already established that religion can play no formal part in the public school system. Intelligent design is not science, it is the attempt by more rationally minded religious individuals to reconcile their coveted and often cited words found in the book of Genesis with the possibility that maybe there is more out there. (IMHO)
        • g30ph, on 04/15/2008, -4/+16You contradict yourself. If Intelligent Design is the attempt of more rationally minded religious people to reconcile the bible with physical observations of the world, then it is religious thinking and should be kept out of schools based on separation of church and state.

          Further more I don't see how religious people should be considered rational thinking people. If they were rational they would cease trying to reconcile mythology with reality. Mythology came from the desire for answers and the lack of understanding. Now that mythology has become tradition and culture which people consider to be part of their identity. Some people can just cut it away like hair on their head, and some people refuse to ever get a hair cut.
          • maisis00, on 04/15/2008, -13/+2I am not so much trying to contradict myself as I am attempting to walk a balancing act between to volatile groups of believers, one in science and the other in religion. It’s called politicking or what is sometimes referred to as being tactful. You cannot tear down several millenniums worth of philosophy and religion by calling out its followers and believers as fools. And there are plenty of far leaning nut jobs on both sides of the religious and scientific isles. Good lord, don't even get me started on the mythological, fictional, hogwash that gets weaved by some of those theoretical scientist and then get clung to by their cult like academic followers for years before finally being disproved by another theory. When radicals on either side lash out at the perceived foolishness of the other it only makes the slighted cling to their faith or science even stronger. My point is these people who are claiming intelligent design know there is more but they cannot yet relinquish the hold that their faith has on them and in my opinion they should not have too. However, they should not necessarily stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and hum a very loud tune to block out the possibilities of science brings to the table.
          • BoneheadFarker, on 04/15/2008, -1/+12@maisis00

            I have a slight problem with calling scientists "believers". By definition, science "believes" nothing and requires evidence and repeatable tests before ideas are generally accepted. Generally accepted ideas are not beliefs. Generally accepted ideas can be disgarded if a new idea becomes generally accepted in its place. Belief's, by definition, cannot be disgarded or changed. Do not equate scientists as just being people who believe in something other then religion...
          • joshblufs, on 04/15/2008, -0/+10They are not only sticking their fingers in their ears they are trying to jam their chubby digits in the ears of every child in the union! Buried for being a lame apologist for a radical anti science mob.
        • emjaymj, on 04/15/2008, -1/+17You're right that they're not mutually exclusive, but there is currently no scientific basis for intelligent design, and as such, intelligent design does no qualify as science,
          • maisis00, on 04/15/2008, -4/+2I agree it's not science. As I said, ".... intelligent design belongs in a class on World Religions."
          • ArmandoM, on 04/15/2008, -0/+10Therefore this teacher should never have been fired not not teaching the concepts together as you suggested we should be able to, since the class was a SCIENCE class...not "World Religions".
        • jaznova, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5It's simple. Religious folk kept finding their attempts to teach religion in science class thwarted. And that begat Intelligent Design
        • chromerium, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2The point is that, if you're going to use science to explain something then you need to adhere to it's principles. One of the major principles is Occam's Razor, which when you apply it to the 'nuts and bolts' of intelligent design, you realise that it would all work just as well without any designer, and in fact god is unnecessary in the equation at all. Occam's Razor cuts away the unlikely and unnecessary, and leaves us with Evolution.
      • Naidel, on 04/15/2008, -11/+24Dugg for "christfags" +1
        • turbod33, on 04/16/2008, -6/+2Really? That's the reason you dugg something. Ripping on people's religion and people's sexual orientation. Great job!
      • vfreak2, on 04/15/2008, -14/+9Intelligence has nothing to do with faith. I hope you still love your family despite differences such as these. I am slightly alarmed at the way you describe them.
        • 4d669, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3If that were true some people would have faith in a flat earth.
        • joshblufs, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1This is just the first decent page to pop up in my search but it does show that there is evidence that Intelligence and faith do have a relationship. That being that as measured intelligence goes up religious belief goes down.

          http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%2 ...
      • sooter8, on 04/15/2008, -14/+4Wow - making fun of Christians and gays all in one word! I believe you deserve some type of intolerance award.
        • damndirtyaliens, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7I don't really see that making fun of people really hurts anyone. They're just words! Besides, none of us is above a swift pie-in-the-face, right? The world would be a real boring place if making fun of people wasn't allowed. South Park said it best: Once you start exempting people from mockery, you begin to make shaky distinctions between what is okay to make fun of and what isn't. Either it's all okay or none of it is.

          So lighten up!
          • screensnot, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1We can learn a lot from the manatees.
      • BloodInsomnia, on 04/15/2008, -23/+3Well, since evolution isn't a theory on creation I think we have a problem Vic333. I think you should read your books some more before you continue to preach on Evolution, since you obviously do not understand it. Science does have some facts but yet again a lot of it is still "theory" so don't raise the awareness of your pawns too high or they might see that science bows to the value of a dollar.
        • evilangela, on 04/15/2008, -1/+20Yep, evolution is a theory. So is gravity.
        • GGoldberry, on 04/15/2008, -0/+18" In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."
          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat0 ...
          Please please PLEASE learn what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is.
        • BloodInsomnia, on 04/16/2008, -10/+0And those facts that the scientific theory's are based on are sometimes still, whats it called, in process? of being proved 100% true or not, and still so they have percentages like 74% certain. Just like good ol global warming and how every scientist is jumping on board that train for a bit of spare change. I could give a ***** about who believes in what, but swaying little kids to believe in something you hardly know about seems a bit radical, a neocon hippie perhaps... mmm a new elitist breed.
          • chromerium, on 04/16/2008, -0/+10Nothing in science is proven 100% true. Thats the point. Science is built upon observation and testing the theories against observation.

            The science around nuclear energy and weapons is all theory. General Relativity and E=Mc^2 is a theory. They're approximations, very very accurate ones, but a simplification of how things work.

            The fact that it's a theory doesn't stop nuclear bombs from working any more than the fact that Evolution, as an approximation, is still good enough to explain how life evolves on this planet.

            God need not apply.
          • joshblufs, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2I'll stop digging you down when you show me 100% proof of god or if your up to it maybe you could point us all to the one true religion. Maybe.... you could point out how this kids "swaying" of other children is worse than the "swaying" the rest of his family is doing. Pretty please with sugar on top tell me how his parents know more about the origin of life than he does.

            FYI empirical evidence of god or the correctness of any religious faith is 0% because it does not exist.
          • BloodInsomnia, on 04/16/2008, -2/+0digg me down, I'm not a socialist, i don't need support from Internet buddies. I expressed my opinion and you yuppie Internet morons cant handle it. You Evolutionists and liberal Internet yups are some of the biggest hypocrites I have ever stumbled across. And for your proof? I haven't the slightest idea since i do not believe in God but i have the respect for the religion and even evolution. I'm just thinking that instead of brainwashing someone into thinking like you. You need to let them figure it out on their own. "you don't believes in the Evolutionz?! Bash and brainwash, suffocate everyone who doesn't believe!!" I swear you asshats are just as bad Co$
          • joshblufs, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1please point out where i said brainwash? please point out where "i can't handle it". I said its ok for this kid to talk to his cousins about his perspective on the origins of life. Sorry to hear that qualifies as bashing and brainwashing in your ?conservative? world. I have respect for religion, that does not mean i will not speak my mind. ( i know you hate that) also thanks for not responding to my central point makes it easier to write you off as a troll.
        • lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2so, Bloodinsomnia, you don't believe in gravity, or mathematics, for that matter? thats fine. your ideas obviously hold allot of merit. for those who tried to hit GGoldberrys' link,
          Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that typically incorporates many confirmed obserations, laws, and successfully verified hypotheses.
          • BloodInsomnia, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0Learn to spell 'a lot' and I'll talk with you.
        • acetv, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2@ lamiaconfitor

          Actually, 'theorems' in mathematics are proved 100%. That's why they call them "proofs".
      • ilikemonkeys1, on 04/16/2008, -7/+1See why does creationism sound crazy? Coming from a creationist point of view, evolution seems just outrageous. How can a single random even have "evolved" us to the place we are today. Everything is just so complex that a random even would have been so utterly close to impossible have happened. Having an intelligent being of infinite creativity create everything seems more plausible (and historically provable) than having some theory that is impossible to recreate happen and still be taught as science and fact.
        • TheShad0w, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Because you're looking at the final result. If you take this complexity and break it down into smaller steps that occurred over millions of years you can see that just like when we build a plane or a car or a computer its many small simple pieces that fit together to make the complex parts. I think that this is something that creationists miss. They look at the final result and try to comprehend how all this came together. The facts are that it didn't. There were millions of trial and errors. Millions of species have died or vanished cause their changes weren't the right ones.
        • joshblufs, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Evolution is NOT!!!!!! RANDOM!!!!!!
      • jasonmanley, on 04/16/2008, -5/+0I agree
        I dedicated my life to Christ in my 30's. i don't know exactly 'how' God did it, but I believe that he is the reason that we are all here. I personally cannot see how evolution works. I've tried my best to research and listen to all the arguments etc but the idea that we could 'evolve' into where and what we are today just doesn't work for me.
        But at the same time I understand that others have not had the revelation or experience of God that I have and hence to them my beliefs are ridiculous.
        • Ovalteen, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Evolution is just the notion that species with desirable characteristics and mutations survive, and all the rest die. It's that simple. If you want a present-day example that you can witness occurring, think of antibiotic resistant drugs. Germs that were lucky enough to possess certain antibiotic resistant qualities have survived, germs that did not have perished. We are left with germs that have evolved a certain level of antibiotic resistance. In this instance the catalyst for evolution for man, but there are many other natural examples if you think about it.
          Also, I don't see why your beliefs and evolution are incompatible (no disrepect intended to your beliefs). I've always thought that Christianity could rationalise evolution by believing that God was responsible for the big bang (creating the conditions that lead to that event), and left further development to evolution. Thus, God is still the reason why "we are all here", just in a more indirect manner. The whole "Garden of Eden" thing could be viewed as a simpler metaphor.
          Anyway, your beliefs are your beliefs, and you're quite welcome to them. I didn't dig you down either.
          • jasonmanley, on 04/16/2008, -2/+0Fair enough. But to be clear, I do not have a problem with evolution as a concpet. For example, I believe that a personality can eveolve,and idea can evolve etc. But evolution as an explanation for human existence is the issue. These bacteria that you mention. I understand that they have adapted to survive, but I just cannot see how they could evolve into fish, then frogs, then lizards, up to monkeys and eventually humans. Especially given the 4.5 billion year timespan that we are said to have been on the earth.
        • joshblufs, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Plenty of religious people have no problem reconciling the two points of view. I'm agnostic but hear me out. God used evolution to create....... I'm gonna leave it at that.

          P.S. don't take this the wrong way but there are plausible scientific explanations for intense religious experiences. Might be worth looking at them from another point of view some day.
          • jasonmanley, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0I will not take it the wrong way, I respect your line of thinkng, and I too have struggled with this concept. If you will allow me to share just a few points with you it would be appreciated:
            1] History
            There is historical evidence in the form of letters and historical writings dated from AD 100+ that shows that there was a christian faith and practice taking palce at that time (it is not a recently invented distortion). many of these writings refer to presbyters (apostles) who were the witnesses to the things that were being taught, as well as christians who gather to sing and pray to their christ. And there is (suggestive/circumstancial?) evidence that these apostles, after being given the opportunity to recant or be tortured to death, were martyred for what they claim they saw. Not a single one of them, after being seperated, interrogated and tortured, recanted - not 1. They willingly died. This is not in the Bible. (except James)
            This alone compels me to look into it and see if there is anything to this.

            2] Personal Experience (I have had many such incidents but let me just mention 2)
            a] I went to bed one night, I prayed that I could be woken at 6am so that i could pray (yes it sounds silly - "can we have a celestial wake up call for room 30" :) )
            Anyway ....
            I was asleep, the next thing I felt this "whack:, "thud", whatever it was hit me in the side, my whole body was tingling and I was hyperventilating because something in the dark had knocked into me. I am not lying to you - believe this if you will - say that I am crazy - or whatever - but I am telling it to you as I experienced it. something hit me on the side. I jumped up, my body was tingling with a kind of electricity and I could pinpoint the location of the strike as I held it.
            I looked at the clock and it was exactly 6am.

            b) A friend of mine's daughter was born with a hole in her heart. I prayed for her, they went to the doctor the next day and it was gone. The doctor could not explain it, it had vanished. The timing of this occurence with the prayer is very interesting.

            And if you had time I would tell you about my experience of speaking in tongues - yes people who do it look weird - I too believe that - but when it happened to me it was an unstoppable explosion of words.

            Anyway I hope that you receive these words in the honesty with which they are offered and not as an argumentative zealot trying to spout the party line. I'm not a party line tower. i was asked to leave my one church for causing problems. I will search, argue and ask if necessary. I have arrived at this point on my own (and of course - I believe - with the help and love of Christ) but not any man or institution.
          • joshblufs, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1History is full of these stories and they are certainly not unique to christianity. I can't see any substantial difference between them and those of judaism, islam, greek and roman mythology, egyptian mythology et cetera.
            personal experience is highly subjective. I have woken up at the right time despite my alarm clock not going off, there are many plausible explanations for it. The effects of prayer have not demonstrated any ability to effect human health in any reputable scientific study. If you spend enough time praying for things eventually you will find some that come true.
            Speaking in tongues and similar practices have been powerful experiences for many religious adherents, I find it similar to many powerful musical experiences. I understand how it is interpreted in a religious way especially when it is experienced in a religious context.
            I don't doubt your belief but I can't say I agree with the validity of the conclusions you've reached. Good luck with your search for truth but I'm afraid I will be looking for a different path. One I can reconcile with my experience of the world .
        • diggimator, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2I'll try to accept the fact that it is possible for people to believe in religion while you can try to accept the physical evidence of the theory of evolution, which is your own body and all other living beings in this world. Even Pope John Paul II accepted evolution, so I know it is possible.
    • Esstee, on 04/15/2008, -18/+9Well for starters we have very little information on this matter and so it's pretty hard to decipher exactly what this teacher was asked to do.
      I am curious as to what they asked her to teach which she refused to begin with.
    • tjhawkin, on 04/15/2008, -46/+7how about this. you're insane!
    • JointVenture, on 04/15/2008, -25/+7See if you know who the "HE" in this quote,

      He was asked,
      What would he tell his daughters if they asked if God created the world in six days?


      “I’m trying to remember if we had this conversation,’’ Obama said. “What I said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and the six days in the Bible may not be days as we understand it. They may not be 24-hour days."


      Wait for it.........................OBAMA.
      • 5seconds, on 04/15/2008, -2/+37Wait for what? Your quote had 'Obama said...' right in there.
      • mistergraves, on 04/15/2008, -20/+0the bible says that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to God. it also said during the creation that "the earth was without form and void" meaning he might have already created it and something went wrong. God wouldn't create a "void" earth. so the earth is 6000 years old argument can be argued against. but God still created the earth so either way..
        • BoneheadFarker, on 04/15/2008, -2/+14"but God still created the earth so either way.."

          Prove it.
        • worldchanger, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7The problems with the compromise position of "days being periods of years, rather than 24-hour days" are two-fold:

          [1] nowhere else in the Bible is that Hebrew word used to mean anything other than a 24-hour day.

          [2] theologically, sickness and death didn't enter the world until sin did, which was AFTER man was created on the sixth day. in other words, until that sixth day, nothing died. if the days were anything significantly more than a 24-hour time period, you'd have a lot of really really old animals by the time the sixth period of thousands/millions/billions of year rolls around.
        • jaymzdean, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7Have you filled out a police report since your brain was stolen and replaced with a paper bag full of *****?
        • nominalgeek, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5It's like arguing over English literature or Star Wars Vs Star Trek. It's just a story, it's a creation myth.
        • rhapsodisiac, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2"...he might have already created it and something went wrong..."
          Are you suggesting that your god made a mistake?
      • WhoismP, on 04/15/2008, -5/+0You act like Obama created that idea. "Creationists" have been saying that FOREVER (the smart ones, anyway). Biblical scholars all concur that a day described in the sense of God, is not a typical human day. Thousands or millions of years could have passed between "days". Stop acting like Obama is the best thing since Darwin, because he's just saying what creationists have been saying for years.

        Even as a creationist, firing her was way too extreme. All she has to say is one sentence: "There is of course the opposing theory that the universe was created through the intelligent design of a supreme being". Public education has to take all feelings into consideration, no matter how much you disagree,
        • malex, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5Well, even with a generous interpretation of Genesis, it states that the Earth had trees and flowering plants before the Sun was ignited...

          But in any case, it's not relevant. Sen. Obama has clearly stated that he believes in God and that he accepts Darwinian evolution. Those are not incompatible positions. JointVenture is trying to manufacture a controversy where none exists.
          • JointVenture, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1All Im saying to all the people on here who say creationists are stupid ***** is that Obama is a creationist. He believes God CREATED the earth.
          • malex, on 04/15/2008, -0/+8A Creationist is someone who believes that all biological species were created in their current form, 6000 years ago, by the magical will of God, and that the evolutionary processes described by Darwin are the lies of Satan. So yes, they are stupid *****. But not everyone who believes in God is one. And obviously Obama isn't either. Do you get the distinction?
          • sjmulder, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1malex, that is not entirely true. The 'current form' and '6000 years' ideas are not shared by al creationists.
          • malex, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6But a denial of evolutionary theory is. So there's that.
          • joshblufs, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creation ...

            creationism
            Main Entry:
            cre·a·tion·ism
            Pronunciation:
            -shə-ˌni-zəm
            Function:
            noun
            Date:
            1880

            : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b
          • lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Ha! still funny!
        • g30ph, on 04/15/2008, -0/+10What if I argue that it was in fact Q, member of the Q Continuum, who created the world, and it only took him 6 minutes! That's my "theory." I'm calling it a "theory" so you must teach it. And from now on the word "theory" means anything I can imagine!
          • nominalgeek, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Thats actually a good point! You can't debate that on their terms.
        • Naidel, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7WhoismP -- Intelligent design (i.e. religion) has no place in science class. It's not science; it's not another valid scientific theory.

          Read up on what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is, and why he was created.
      • MalenfantX, on 04/15/2008, -2/+4I worked out it was Obama by the presence of his name in the paragraph you quoted.

        Sounds like he's a modern rationalizing religious person, rather than the kind that denies any reality that conflicts with their wacky beliefs.
      • GhostyBoy, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5This is a negative point for Obama. Either he believes in fairy tales, or he is smart enough to know better and just faking it to get votes.

        None of the other candidates are better, and no athiest will ever be elected as long as the idiots outnumber intelligent people (always and forever), but this still isn't a good place to win points for your guy.
    • l3itchplease, on 04/15/2008, -8/+57what creationist dont seem to grasp is the idea that the bible isnt a history book. even to catholics, the bible is a book of faith, not a book of fact. im catholic and believe in evolution. its not that big a deal to me, but this video is ridiculous
      • nominalgeek, on 04/15/2008, -1/+27Facts don't matter to these people. History doesn't matter to them. You try to win this is facts, you will lose.
      • dmallymally, on 04/15/2008, -28/+2Where is the Bible not historically accurate?
        • nominalgeek, on 04/15/2008, -0/+20How old is the planet earth? (give me the correct answer and we'll continue this discussion)
          • se1zure, on 04/15/2008, -16/+1Not even science can give a definitive answer to that question, actually.
          • sephiroth965, on 04/15/2008, -0/+11About 4.6 billion years.
          • redstorm986, on 04/15/2008, -0/+10se1zure I think we can agree that its not a few thousand years old.
          • nominalgeek, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5Yeah, that was the point. Science is a processes not divine word written down during man's more privative years.

            @se1zure
            You damn know why I choose that question to ask...
        • mossblaser, on 04/15/2008, -5/+9Page one, Genisis
        • lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5(Eh hem) ... all of it.
    • IdevInull, on 04/15/2008, -37/+6Well if she doesn't like creationists all she has to do is eat them...she looks like she has eaten everything else.
      • forgiste, on 04/15/2008, -1/+11shut up. you're not funny
        • IdevInull, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2But you are assuredly fat...fatty!
      • lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1did that even make sense to you? Really?
    • Witchbaby, on 04/15/2008, -5/+3Well said.
    • mistergraves, on 04/15/2008, -20/+2instead of disagreeing with someones opinion you call them insane?

      you expect them to perceive you as intellegent?
      • nominalgeek, on 04/15/2008, -1/+14You're acting as if you can actually engage in intelligent debate with the creationists. You can't debate something that you can't disprove. You must be smoking some strong strong cheeba.
        • Nevarius, on 04/15/2008, -0/+8I agree. You cant debate people that use the "god did it" answer to everything. Their whole premise to their argument is solidly based on something that cant be proven nor disproved so any rational debate fails.
      • forgiste, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7There isn't an opinion here! It's simply fact that evolution occurred and is still occurring! I mean just look at it.. man.. How do you have an opinion on something like this? We have proof that evolution happened and took a long long time and we have no proof that what the bible claims is even remotely correct.
        • nominalgeek, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6You can't be logical with the illogical.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Appendix! Tonsils! Gills! um... all sorts of stuff. look around
    • siszam, on 04/15/2008, -39/+5Thinking a random big bang created everything is crazy and sad.
      • nominalgeek, on 04/15/2008, -2/+28Just because you don't understand those big bad words, doesn't mean you must fall back to a big invisible man in the sky. And then trash the progress of mankind's understanding of the world and universe .
      • DarkSamus, on 04/15/2008, -4/+7so crazy is just might work!!
      • forgiste, on 04/15/2008, -2/+9who ever said that? The big bang was a temporary explanation until they found a better explanation. You see, scientists don't pretend to know everything like creationists do. Now we have evidence that it probably wasn't a big bang, but rather that our universe is one of many and came from the collapse of another one.
      • g30ph, on 04/15/2008, -1/+18The observable evidence that the universe is in fact expanding in every direction from a single point in space and can be measured as having began just over 13 billion years ago and continuing even now is hardly evidence of a big bang.

        The big bang didn't actually "create" everything. It "released" all matter into space.

        We probably will never know how or why everything came to be. But I do understand that in the past people attributed all things they couldn't understand to be work of god. In our present people are still trying to do that. They don't understand hurricanes, so god is punishing us for gay people. They don't understand muslim terrorists, so god is punishing us again for gay people.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6Just because it makes you sad to think that you may not be immortal, does not mean it is incorrect. believing in something does not make it true.
      • sg1fan, on 04/16/2008, -4/+2Repeat after me: Big Bang *THEORY*

        Just like bible *Story*
        • lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1No, the bible isn't a theory. it doesn't stand up to such rigorous standards. Nor shall it ever, so says the prophet Lamiaconfitor!
      • cheezintern, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3your comment is crazy and sad
    • Brainmodder, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5Did somebody mention Expelled?
    • vfreak2, on 04/15/2008, -25/+3With regards to the origins of life, Evolution and Big Bang are scientific theories, not laws. So why should Intelligent Design, just because it has a religion associated with it, be regarded as NOT science? "Scientifically speaking", it's no more simplistic than the big bang theory. Think before you bury me, for crying out loud!
      • daggah, on 04/15/2008, -1/+22You are ignorant of science and the scientific method. Please, do some reading and thinking before continuing to post.
      • spencabt, on 04/15/2008, -0/+17I'm not going to bury you, but I will say that you need to understand what the difference between science and Intelligent Design is before you write something like that. You should also DEFINITELY understand what it means to be a "scientific theory". The argument "it's just a theory" holds no water.
      • MalenfantX, on 04/15/2008, -0/+11Shouldn't you think before posting? You're connected to a global computer network, and still don't understand what a scientific theory is.
        hint: Theories do not get promoted to laws.
        Also, pretending your imaginary friend did something provides no real answers.
      • Totalchaos02, on 04/15/2008, -0/+9Theory != Hypothesis
        Law != Fact

        It does not get any higher then theory really, law is not the final goal. Hypothesis are ideas about something, Theory is backed by evidence, Law describe aspects of said theories. Creationism/ID are HYPOTHESIS because they are not backed by evidence!
      • caramba420, on 04/15/2008, -0/+19I will do you the courtesy of an uninsulting explanation. The fact that it has religion associated with it IS what makes it unscientific.
        Religion is rooted in the concept of faith. Although you may not see something firsthand, you believe it nonetheless. Faith does not make room for compromise. If you see data that contradicts what you believe in, you must discard the data.
        Science is the methodology of arriving at theories. You start with data, then using NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT DATA formulate a logical hypothesis. Your hypothesis should be able to make extrapolations or interpolations of further data, which can then be tested for accuracy. If your predictions reflect reality, then you have a theory. If they don't, YOU MUST RETHINK OR ABANDON YOUR HYPOTHESIS.

        That last part is the primary incongruence between faith and science. Science forces you to abandon your ideas in light of evidence to the contrary. Faith, on the other hand, is the idea that what you believe in is fundamentally right, and that if evidence exists to the contrary, you are interpreting it wrong. These ideas are mutually exclusive.
        That is why creationism does not belong in a SCIENCE classroom. Because all of the theories that are presented are really playing second fiddle to the fundamental method of scientific inquiry. The Scientific Method is a indispensable tool, and the teaching of religious concepts in a science class undermines it.
        Sure, Intellegent Design could be called theory. But, scientific theories are by definition open to scrutiny and ID is a theory that is not accepted among 99.9% of PhD's in Physics and Biology. As such, it should not be taught as a theory that has equal scientific standing.
        But if you decide to play the religious discrimination card, then you are acknowledging that is FAITH BASED, and not open to scrutiny. But, anything not open to scrutiny should not be taught in a science class to begin with, as it immediately precludes the Scientific Method. As such, it would be more appropriate to be taught in a social sciences class.
        You can't have your cake and eat it, too...
      • sooter8, on 04/15/2008, -5/+2Is it entirely too much to ask for radical Christians to accept that science is real and evolution happens? Is it entirely to much to ask for non-believers to accept that you can't get something from nothing and that before the big bang there was...nothing? Science can work with religion, religion can work with science. Why keep discrediting each other when it's unnecessary.
      • eatasandwich, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3ARG!...why does the "evolution is just a theory" argumant ALWAYS appear in these threads? It was an argument that was put completely to rest the very first time I read it. Talk about talking to a brick wall. Did your god forget to give you ears and brains?

        Even if evolution could be argued against in an articulate, reasonable way, what in the name of great big globules of sanity makes creationism a better "theory" than evolution? Hmmm?

        HMMMMMMM?

        HAA...UUU...UMMMMMMM?

        "I think that people don't breathe air, but a magic elf lives inside their brains and harvests oxygen which it uses to manufacture jam"
        "Oh really?...what makes you think that?"
        "I've never seen air, and when I get punched red stuff dribbles out of my nose"
        "Good grief you're right!...hooray for reasoning!....help me carve a window in my skull for my little pixie friend to look out of!"
        • chromerium, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Yeah you're right. Its like playing chess with someone who doesn't know the rules. They'll keep using the pawn to jump peices and the make the king move more than one square at a time.

          Seeing as it's pointless to try and convince them using logic, maybe we should use illogic.
    • thegreatgazoo, on 04/15/2008, -11/+4That's true. Personally, I kind of view things in a hybrid mode. Yes, the Earth is very old. Yes, there is evolution. No, I'm not a thumper.

      But where'd all this stuff come from? And how did all of the magical constants (like G) where if they were wrong the universe would either collapse or expand out too fast and be too cold to support anything (like us). So perhaps there was/is a helping hand in the process. If so, they have an interesting sense of humor.
      • Ozymandias42, on 04/15/2008, -0/+12Saying that G must have been chosen by an intelligent hand becasue otherwise we would not exist is very much like a puddle of water believing in a divine hand because the hole it fills has exactly the same shape.
        • thegreatgazoo, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0I'm not saying it was. But the fact the G, phi, e, and about 20 other constants that have to be within about 0.001% of where they are seems to be a bit too much of a coincidence. Besides, the water analogy doesn't hold water. We understand puddles. We are still barely in the infancy of understanding what the heck gravity is.

          I don't know where they came from. But I certainly don't know where a universe worth of 'stuff' came from. So far they have sourced it to an enormous amont of energy in the space of less than an atom a sub nano-second before the big bang. Where the flip did that come from? Nobody knows, and science isn't even looking into it seriously, because it is a science and philosphical dead end.

          Perhaps this is the 14,494th attempt at the universe? Ie it blows up, collapses, re-blows up (for some reason? What's the trigger?) lives for 2 nanoseconds to a trillion years, and resets itself. As of right now there is no way to prove it, or even investigate it beyond trying to reverse the analysis of the galaxies. But even in that situation, all the stuff around you had to come from somewhere.

          Besides, having studied quantum mechanics briefly, I'm convinced that physics people have to be looking at it the wrong way (kind of like the earth centered universe and the wacky formulas they had to explain it).

          What the answer is I don't know, but someone a lot smarter than me will figure it out some day.

          What the answer is, I don't know. Might be the Judeo Christian God, might be Xenu. Whatever the answer, it is enough to make your head hurt thinking about it. It certainly isn't worth hating someone because they want to give kudos the the wrong creator. But lets say for discussion sake that there was a God, and he came down to Moses. What would have happened if God tried to give him string theory? Poor Moses' head would have blown up.

          You can also analyze the situation statistically. If you run the caluclations of all of the requiments for life, and it lands in the 500th standard devation, it didn't happen by accident.

          In the end, I suspect that eventually science and religion will merge. Not anytime soon. But it would basically be some sort of neo-paganism.

          I'm rambling, but I guess my final thought is that the people who are 100% science (there can't possibly any intelligent design to all of this) are just as closed minded as the 100% religion (earth is 6000 years old) people.
          • chromerium, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Your argument is completely fallacious.

            Just because we don't have a theory to explain everything, doesn't mean we should turn to faith to fill those gaps.

            If we keep ascribing everything in the unknown to god, as you've done, science and religion will always be at odds - science is about knowing the unknown, about shining the light of reason into the dark places of our own ignorance. If god can only exist in that ignorance, then he has very few places to hide.

            I submit, sir, that your brief study of Quantum Mechanics was a few minutes reading the wikipedia entry. If you actually studied it, as a scientist, you would know that what you are saying is inconsistent with reality.
          • Cerebral, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I'm not saying that we should turn to faith to fill in those gaps. Is what I'm saying is that if you are going to tell people where we come from then you must present ALL (at least popular) theories as you would do in any scientific study. Would you not say that there are different theories on quarks or time travel? If you were teaching them would you only explain ONE?
            All I am saying is that if you don't want to mention religion (no matter which kind) when trying to explain where people came from (because again there is no hard concrete proof... circumstantial evidence, yes... proof, no) then simply do not explain it at all.
            I agree that there are a lot of things about the Bible that I do not understand/agree with because it just doesn't add up to the facts we have however since we cannot prove nor disprove that God does/doesn't exist then it is technically a theory.
            I don't see what is so wrong with that.
        • chromerium, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Dugg for Douglas Adams quote.
      • djlosch, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3as ozy points out, it's just a matter of figuring out the "constants" of your surroundings. in the collapse/expanse problem, there has to be an answer to the formula. seeing as math and relativity are human inventions on top of empirical systems, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the constant itself is special. why should that number be any more special than plancks, or avagadros, or even the concept of i.
        • FerricOxide, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0e^(i*pi) = -1
          'nuff said. /smartassism
      • malex, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5If we accept that there are an infinite number of possible universes, then the main reason that our G constant is perfect is because in all the other ones, we aren't there to ask why.

        Anyway, science's job isn't to ask "why" things are the way they are in the universe, it only asks "how". "Why" belongs to the philosophers. Both fields of thought can learn from and inform each other, but there's a reason they're separated by half the Dewey Decimal System.
      • stupidStan, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3What a ridiculous argument: "I don't know where X came from, so it must be God"
        How mindless is that thought process? How many things did we not know before that we attributed to God that are now proven otherwise? What about the INFINITE other just as plausible explanations like 'an elephant pooped it out'? I don't understand how intelligent people just hit the off switch on reason when 'the big lie upstairs' is mentioned.
        • chromerium, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Yes, apparently God lives in the cracks of what we don't understand. And as we discover and understand things more completely, He scurries off like the divine rodent he is, to hide in other cracks of ignorance.
      • utahcanuck, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0We used to ask how natural selection could be such a constant force in the development of life on Earth. Now we understand that despite the biological diversity out there, natural selection is actually a very very simple principle that can easily explain the development of many different species in different environments. There is no reason to think that we won't discover why universal constants operate the way they do. And remember, we used to think that only God had the power to make something as complex as a human. I don't see why we should think that only God has the power to make something as complex as the universe as we know it...
    • Cerebral, on 04/15/2008, -12/+3My issue is that in a scholarly environment, you are teaching something that has no CONCRETE proof. There is science to show that evolution happened however there are things that are missing. I think that if you are going to teach where we came from then you should NOT say that we came from apes that evolved ONLY. You SHOULD teach all "popular" or "socially accepted" theories of where we came from. Then you show that evolution has evidence of such things happening even though there are pieces missing and questions still unanswered.
      The truth is that nobody knows why we are here or how we got here (even the apes that evolved). So why you would NOT show that there are other things that people believe in as to where we come from and how we got here then I think you are doing an injustice. Even if it means that you should explain the flying spaghetti monster and Scientology, you should still do it until one has been proven beyond any/all doubt (which will never happen).
      Either that or just take "human" evolution out of the equation and only teach evolution as something that animals do and not include man.
      • atheistamok, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7I disagree. Evolution has ample scientific reasoning backing it, but religions can only attest to faith. Making faith-based arguments in a scientific setting is bad science, and this is the worst kind of example we can be setting for students.
      • StarlessKnight, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3"Either that or just take "human" evolution out of the equation and only teach evolution as something that animals do and not include man." -- No. So, what? God let evolution make the animals, but God personally molded Adam and Eve from dust? Why would God do such a thing? If He used evolution to make one, why not the other? Is it outside of his ability? He is God, isn't he?

        As to the bulk of your idea: No. Our school system has enough problems in regards to how much time is available to cover the various subjects of science. Including every possible, but untested or unfounded idea about how Humans may have developed would be a waste of time, resources, and effort. Mention key ideas proposed that scientists recognize as possible supplementary ideas or replacement ideas, encourage students to investigate these ideas, sure. Go ahead. They need to be taught to be curious any way. Propping them up as established thought before they have enough evidence for the scientific, peer-reviewed community accepts them, though? The amount of time an idea receives in a science class should be related to the amount of corroboration or promise that idea has.
        • drgreengenes, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Scientific theories are not decided by what is "popular" or "socially accepted." They are established through years and years of research and evidence.

          "My issue is that in a scholarly environment, you are teaching something that has no CONCRETE proof. There is science to show that evolution happened however there are things that are missing."

          There is nothing in science that is concrete proof. Science teaches that there is never a definite answer, but only the best explanation for what is observed through research and testing.
          Also, humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes have evolved from a common ancestor. There is ample enough evidence of this from the fossil record and genetics. There is no reason to leave humans out when talking about evolution just because it makes people uneasy. There is nothing wrong with people believing God created everything but keep it to yourself it does not belong in a science class.
    • chessiemeow, on 04/15/2008, -1/+12First of all, she wan't fired for not teaching creationism, but for sending a memo. Second its ILLEGAL to fire someone for not teaching creationism. "However, the Supreme Court in 1987 (Epperson v Arkansas) struck down laws that would require "equal time" for evolution and creation science by noting that even if the word "science" was used, creation science really was religion in disguise, and therefore it is illegal to teach it."

      Get your facts straight folks, then get outraged.

      http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9256_can ...
      • lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3the video does not ignore that fact. she mentions that at the beginning of the video. I'm not arguing with you, this is more specific, but it does not change anything.
    • tikidrummer928, on 04/16/2008, -2/+6sadly creationism isn't science. it should be in a social studies class. not a science class.
    • themastersb, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6Just think. Without the Christfags and the Dark Ages we would be 500 years technologically more advanced. Which may be a good thing, but as long as we're on a course of self destruction it seems like a bad thing.
      • mrinsanity, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3we are on the way to destruction? What you say!?
      • chromerium, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3I dunno, I think our red-hot-pincer-on-the-nipples technology has advanced in leaps in bounds due to the Spanish Inquisition (and nobody, ever, ever, expects them), and all of that advanced tech is being used right now by the US Government, so its not a COMPLETELY lost period in time.
      • cheezintern, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Not to completely disagree, but I think there were a few more variables as to why the 'dark ages' occurred.
    • electrofreak2k7, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0I'm not surprised... but it is definitely upsetting to think that they actually did that...

      I hope she fights it to the end (til she gets her job back). The internet could maybe....cough... help let the school district know that this wont be tolerated.
    • marijun, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1teach facts and scientific theory at school, and keep the religion in church imo.
      if christian creationism must be included in schools, then it might be a good idea to cover all the bases and go over all the other popular religions' ideas as well. owait, we don't want our children thinking the universe is but a puff from vishnu's mouth. that would be unrealistic. owait...
  • xxTazxx, on 04/15/2008, -37/+10Bob.
  • Mizumi, on 04/15/2008, -26/+138welcome to the toliet America
    • mudpuddle, on 04/15/2008, -1/+12Do you mean:
      Welcome to the toilet, America!
      Or
      Welcome to the "Toilet America"!

      Either way, you can count me out of that trip.
    • skyshock1, on 04/15/2008, -1/+12The Toilet?!? Christianity's not the toilet!

      I don't know about you, but I believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

      Why shouldn't that be taught alongside covalent electron bonds and photosynthesis reactions? Makes perfect sense to me.
      • drato, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Because covalent electron bonds would most likely be taught in a chemistry class / nuclear physics class.
    • heystoopid, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I see a play on Tulia , how obtuse !
    • terrix, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1Given that America has primarily believed in creationism for the majority of its history, its illogical to presume that its somehow now worse then it was because of that.

      Plenty of teachers and scientists have been fired for not personally believing in evolution (without God's involvement). So whose the hypocrite?
  • Amorn, on 04/15/2008, -20/+63This is madness, buddy
  • catpockets, on 04/15/2008, -22/+178WWFSMD?
    • Spuy767, on 04/15/2008, -5/+50It would extend its noodly appendage and forgive an unbeliever. FSM is a kind supreme being, not a malevolent hateful supreme being.
      • dmallymally, on 04/15/2008, -15/+3Oh you mean like Allah?
        • VonBargenJL, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4i think you're getting buried because you didn't differentiate Allah from his followers...
          I'll let the rest of the world plug in the descriptive words they choose to apply
      • FerricOxide, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1What's all this talk about Finite State Machines?!
    • Naidel, on 04/15/2008, -0/+19Had your current digg count not already been the answer to life, the universe and everything I would've dugg you.
    • mystdragon333, on 04/15/2008, -0/+14RAmen brother!
    • eOgas, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6RAmen!
    • bryceman111, on 04/16/2008, -6/+1I don't care what religion/non-religion you are a part of, the "flying spaghetti monster" is the MOST retarded thing I have ever heard of.
      • Naidel, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Burn the blasphemer!!!

        .. No wait, that's something christfags did, not Pastafarians. And that dude called FSM the "MOST retarded thing" he's "ever heard of". What a moron.
      • changyang1230, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1@bryceman111

        Sounding retarded to the rational person is *the whole point* behind the whole concept of Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you could tell FSM is a retarded thing, then it takes only one small step further to apply it on many of the deeply rooted belief in our society.
  • catachip, on 04/15/2008, -37/+133Buried for being anything related to Ben Stein's anti-science propaganda campaign. The movie has gotten too much press as it is.
    • UnWeave, on 04/15/2008, -2/+23You should digg it so people know that this kind of utter ***** is going on. The more people know the harder it will be to discreetly get away with.
    • cawpin, on 04/15/2008, -5/+19"Ben Stein's anti-science propaganda campaign"

      What?
      • BoneheadFarker, on 04/15/2008, -3/+38Yup.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intellig ...

        Appearently being a university professor, lawyer, actor, and former Nixon speech-writer does not necessarily mean you are smart enough to realize that ID is not science...
        • forgiste, on 04/15/2008, -9/+1He's a Jew, first and foremost. Jews believe in creation.
        • epmc, on 04/15/2008, -6/+10Somehow I don't think you speak for all Jews, especially since many Jews are atheists.
          • sephiroth965, on 04/15/2008, -5/+6...?
          • purzzzell, on 04/15/2008, -3/+4I'm with sephiroth on this one..

            ??????
          • theshizzler, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5I think what he meant was that many Jews are Secular Jews... its more of a cultural thing than a religious thing.
          • Ozymandias42, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7Judaism is interesting in that the definition of a Jew is recursive. A Jew is someone whose mother was a Jew. Nothing a Jew believes or does makes him not a Jew anymore, including adopting atheism. However, Judaism's standard beliefs do include a belief in a God.
        • Railz, on 04/15/2008, -9/+4I'm a Jew and I think Creationism is as logically as Vista.
        • feoren, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3Followers of Judaism believe in creation. If you believe the Torah is a bunch of bull, then you are not a follower of Judaism.
          Many ethically Jewish people are atheists. The problem here is the two definitions of Jewish, one as a culture/race and the other as a religion.
      • bimtott, on 04/15/2008, -2/+22Yeah, it almost fooled me into wanting to see it. I thought he was being ironic in the clips from the preview, because I then saw Richard Dawkins and thought "oh cool! A documentary about us athiests"

        Then I read the synopsis. Then I decided that Ben Stein is a dumb *****.
      • LongShlong, on 04/15/2008, -7/+1Isn't Ben Stein a big flaming Jew? (pun not really intended)...
    • catachip, on 04/15/2008, -2/+5The video is responding to the "Expelled" movie by Ben Stein. Even responding to the ridiculous claims made in that movie just adds validity to their assertion that there is some real "debate" in the scientific community over evolution.
    • ahawks, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4Being called out on lies is not the same as publicity.

      These people are lying and manipulating politics and public opinion, and they need to be stopped.

      How's that saying go?
      "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
      -Edmund Burke
    • XZanatos, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3The Scientific American review states that this 'documentary' is going to have an opening day with 1000, YES ONE THOUSAND, theaters. More than any other documentary in US documentary history. More than, Bowling For Columbine, more than An Inconvenient Truth, etc. We can't just try to ignore this. Its allready too big and public to be ignored, we have to utterly humiliate and shame them for this atrocity.
    • Ymeg, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2You would not expose a propaganda film?
      • lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2I would! I would! lets rick roll them. find theater openings, buy tickets and sing untill we are arrested. seriously! I'm not joking. Shout me if you are in.
    • nebion, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1The problem is that you can't beat propaganda by ignoring it, you have to fight it every step of the way.

      Lets give Expelled a lot of publicity...in the form of informed criticism.
    • biotch, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Ironically your comment is what alerted me to the existence of his campaign.
    • haterofps3, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2So if we ignore the movie it will go away? let me know how that works out for you.
  • TomK88, on 04/15/2008, -32/+12Not even in the Bible Belt either...pathetic.
    • MoofTheStoof, on 04/15/2008, -1/+20You don't think Texas is part of the bible belt?
      • pintomp3, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3bury, forsakenmantra beat me to it below.
    • Spuy767, on 04/15/2008, -1/+8Do you know where the bible belt is? I'll give you a hint.
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2 ...
    • talonstriker, on 04/15/2008, -2/+16In his defense, he's a Canadian.
      Atleast he knows something of US geography--something that many Americans don't know
      • g30ph, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7Well maybe if there wasn't a shortage of maps in the Us or america, we would know where the iraq was at.
        • sampanc, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3like..such as.. because poor people need maps for like..such as...like...
          /Miss Teen USA S.C
    • TomK88, on 04/15/2008, -1/+11My mistake. I thought the Bible Belt ended before Texas.
    • Forsakenmantra, on 04/15/2008, -1/+16Texas is hte Bible Belt's huge belt buckle.
      • adent1066, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7And home to Dubya...
        • Hypermarkalan, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6Dammit. No, it's not. Stop repeating that nonsense because it makes all the other Texans look bad by proxy, and we don't need any more help in that dept. The presidential movie set is in Crawford, but that's not the same thing as being his home.
    • sampanc, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Give'em a break, didn't u see the Maple Leaf in his display pic?
  • CodeSamurai, on 04/15/2008, -179/+23Just throwing this out there, but I think a lot of people get "creationism" confused with "Christian Theology". This is simply not the case. Creationism is the study of how WORLD religions and faiths explain why and how we are here. I see no reason it can't be taught as an academic study next to evolutionism/non-intelligent design. It's up to us to make up our minds right?
    • sk8king, on 04/15/2008, -9/+220But it is not science...teach it under another subject. Don't fire the science teacher for not teaching religion.
      • CodeSamurai, on 04/15/2008, -4/+17I completely agree with that. It's not worth firing someone over. Academic religious studies course maybe? I'd be interested.
      • Esstee, on 04/15/2008, -16/+3Well that depends on the details of the situations. We seem to be missing the most important part of the puzzle here. The nature of the content she refused to teach. And so I remain a little skeptical about the story as a whole.
        • ace429k, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7i remain a lil skeptic of your face!
    • eyepatch100, on 04/15/2008, -8/+60Because evolution is an area of scientific inquiry, based on scientific evidence. Creationism is based on testimony (hearsay and conjecture), and is theological in origin. Science should be taught in a science class, and theology in sunday school.
      • jgtg32a, on 04/15/2008, -2/+12Or religion class
        • UNCCEJ1010, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7Yeah, religious studies classes can be damn interesting.
          • jgtg32a, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Actually, it can be expecially if your religion teacher says most of your other religion teachers were just wrong. That class was more of a history class of Christianity and why we believe what we believe the reasons and rational behind it all. Absolutely fantastic much better than "God says so"
    • Kakemonster, on 04/15/2008, -6/+33Cause she is teaching SCIENCE!
    • CodeSamurai, on 04/15/2008, -42/+4The study of religion is actually science. Doesn't what a culture believes affect how they live/where they live/what they eat/way of life? Don't we study those things? Sure, teach them in another type of class, but don't ignore them altogether. It still affects other things.
      • Kakemonster, on 04/15/2008, -1/+17Social science?
      • catachip, on 04/15/2008, -1/+19"Science" class in high school and university refer to the study of "natural science" not "social science". The study of religion is not natural science, just as the study of world history is not a natural science. They are both social sciences. The study of world religions is certainly an important part of anyone's education - they have too much of an influence on world culture and politics to ignore them or be ignorant about them. However, their place is not in a natural science classroom. Here, the discussion is of the advancement of knowledge through experimentation and research using the scientific method.
        • CodeSamurai, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1Indeed. Don't think I'm in favor of firing her for not teaching it. I agree with you that it doesn't really have a place in natural science. I'd still like to hear the entirety of the story first...I feel like we're missing something
      • talonstriker, on 04/15/2008, -1/+8Take it to a sociology class.
      • mickstephenson, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7Social science isn't the same as Biology, Physics and Chemistry idiot.
      • CJMac, on 04/15/2008, -1/+10Creationism isn't a study of religion. Its something that people are try to pull it off as a "scientific" (I died a little saying that) theory for the world as we know it. There is nothing wrong with teaching children in a religion class about it, but it should *never* be brought up in a science class as an alternate scientific theory to evolution.
      • g30ph, on 04/15/2008, -0/+11If you were studying aerodynamics, would it be appropriate to teach in that same class for side by side comparison, how Superman flies? No? Why not? Because one of them is fictional?
      • jackalsclaw, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4No. No religion in science class. No creationism. If you want to study religion its a social science and should not be in the context of a natural science class.
      • Myonosken, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1They are covered in RE, Sociology and Geography.
      • bchloe82, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1I think you might be wasting your time and breath trying to make people stop acting like the newest fundamentalists on the block, brandishing their swords in defence of Darwin's THEORY on "Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Wonder why it isn't called that,.. as the original cover clearly adds "or" indicating it an alternate title.
    • mr.gates, on 04/15/2008, -6/+46Creationism is magic not science we might as well teach Astrology. It is laughable and I'm disappointed that there is any humans who take it seriously within modern society.
      • ventralnet, on 04/15/2008, -1/+12bravo
      • UNCCEJ1010, on 04/15/2008, -1/+12Teach physics and magic and let the kids decide!
        • flip2trip, on 04/15/2008, -9/+1magic is illusion, which is what evolutionists believe.
          • mr.gates, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7There is a real universe out there where unicorns, magic and creationism are fairy tales. Grow up.
      • sephiroth965, on 04/15/2008, -0/+12We should be teaching alchemy as an alternative to chemistry!
    • donjacko, on 04/15/2008, -2/+10i would be hesitant to even call it a philosophy, never mind science
    • spiritditch, on 04/15/2008, -6/+16You're retarded.
      • flip2trip, on 04/15/2008, -6/+4Oh bravo! Obviously a well thought out response! /s
        • mr.gates, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3Idiotic ideas don't deserve 'well thought out responses' What spiritditch said is no less then what you would think or say if someone said they believed in fairys, just you are blinded by something that has been drilled into you since childhood. I suffered the same thing but I became an adult and shed that miserable fear of science and progress you should do the same.
    • DeePsix501, on 04/15/2008, -19/+2Actually, I wouldn't mind if my courses taught all the different approaches to our existence. I think it's a good thing.
    • pyro789x, on 04/15/2008, -3/+13I accidentally dugg you, so decrease your digg count by two please.
      • flip2trip, on 04/15/2008, -16/+4Yeah that's what's important isn't it? ooh, ooh, I want to be popular, please digg me.
        • TheLastFreeMan, on 04/15/2008, -9/+2STFU that's why you have 0 diggs right now..
    • rodelero2, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1not really.
    • foofighter828, on 04/15/2008, -0/+12We don't let halocaust deniers or moon landing conspiracy theorists have their say in history class. Science teachers have an obligation to teach science, not controversy.
    • bowens44, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3You're wrong. That is not what creationism is.
    • tehbored, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Sure, teach them. In a social studies class.
    • BetterOffEd, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1My mind's made up.
    • fullphaser, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4A.) You do understand creationism is teaching the idea that a God created the universe (already slanted towards monotheism)
      B.) You do understand that those of us who haven't had our brains driveled in religion see your story in much the same way we see the EarthMother of the tribes in North America, as nothing more than myth
      C.) Creationism belongs in a mythology class at best (not even social science, as that is legitimate study)
      D.) As others have said, you are retarded
    • LondonV, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2we have this thing called separation of church and state, maybe you didn't hear
    • fluffythekitten, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1You're doing it wrong - that's Theology.
  • rentmitchum, on 04/15/2008, -17/+54God dammit!
  • Rodman930, on 04/15/2008, -60/+12What next? Fire philosophy teachers for not teaching that Atheism is a religion?
    • jcounterman, on 04/15/2008, -5/+36Well yeah; if they claim that, they're incompetent.
    • 032483, on 04/15/2008, -4/+18I'm confused...Are you trying to say that Atheism is a religion? And if so, on what are you basing that ridiculous hypothesis?
      • Corvidae, on 04/15/2008, -4/+1I don't think he's calling Atheism a religion. If I remember right there were some clergical types a while back trying to say Atheism was a religion as a way to make it into something they could attack.
      • ChoiceMad, on 04/15/2008, -17/+1Faith is blind to any particular belief system. "I BELIEVE this evidence is factual" is not different than "I BELIEVE this hear-say from this book". Your faith in your perception of Existence is not necessarily the same as another person's faith in their perception of Existence. Some people believe Existence is logical while others believe it is illogical. Faith is simply a perception of what YOU BELIEVE to be fact. Once again, the definition of faith should not be tied to any particular belief or type of belief.
        • fritzek, on 04/15/2008, -1/+10If you trust science, it doesn't mean you are a believer. It means that you are using your brain.
        • ChoiceMad, on 04/15/2008, -10/+3fritzek "If you trust science"
          Trusting something means you believe it is true. There's one of those words again that too many people associate only with organized religion--'believe'. By saying that you trust science (and inherently that you believe that the evidence it produces is true), you are saying you have faith in your perception of your evidence. The concept and definitions of words like faith and belief should be deeply reconsidered before they are ignored. By saying you 'have faith' in something (such as your production of evidence) does not mean that your perception is not irrelevant... perceptions are easily altered--much history of psychological behavior and/or conditioning proves this is accurate.
          • fritzek, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1You can't observe the world by any other means, than your perceptions. It makes much more sense to believe in evidence, than in something, that someone's mind made up with no respect to reality. Yes, I trust science, because everything I've learned on my MSc makes sense and is highly proven by evidence. There are still some questions, but the explanations and answers are still called theories, until its completely proven. Religion gives you just answer(and no evidence) and says its correct without any doubt. I dont see your point.
          • ChoiceMad, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1My response to digitalpencil below:

            digitalpencil: "my point was to nullify the position that religious faith is not the same as scientific faith"
            me: My point was to state that they are. Chocolate milk and strawberry milk---still milk. Different context, same medium to the believed perception.

            Regardless of what makes more sense to believe, the fact that the concept of belief (or a system of belief) is directly associated with faith is what I am saying all perceptions require. i.e. for our perceptions to be true to us, they require that we have faith in said perceptions.

            As foofighter828 said (insincerely) below: "Let's not rob words of their intended meaning."--this is exactly my point.
        • neuro420, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4psychological conditioning, such as religious dogma?
          • ChoiceMad, on 04/15/2008, -9/+1I can see by your attempt at wit that you are obviously confused. I will just come out with it--personally, I think that a choice to believe in any deity or deities equals a choice to remain ignorant of Existence and to not think for oneself. That said, I also submit an assumption that you have missed some points:
            religion = a system of belief (not necessarily organized or widely followed)
            belief = a faith in self perceptions
            faith = a perception of truth
        • digitalpencil, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4OED defines faith as 1) complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one's faith in politicians.
          2) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
          Therefore a system of religious belief: the Christian 'faith'
          A strongly held belief or theory: the 'faith' that life will expand until it fills the universe.

          You can't argue about definitions of faith being altered to suit one's own needs as semantics are largely variable and entirely contingent upon context.
          At the end of the day, words are inert, they're just symbols. The only meaning they have is one prescribed to them & this is far from absolute.
          All of this however, is largely academic. Common faith-based doctrines argue that everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom which, is impossible since an infinite regression is impossible. By this stance, nothing can be proved or unproved, as nothing is absolute & therefore religion is no-more based in faith than anything else.
          It's an age-old argument that generally reads: "You can't prove you love someone, therefore how can you disprove the existence of God." The difference between the two however, is that people don't need to prove that they experience subjective states of mind. The faithful are claiming that God exists independently of our beliefs concerning him. In other words, that He exists in objective reality and that you stand in relation to Him such that His existence is itself the reason for your belief. This is a claim that demands empirical corroboration though. If I were asking you to prove that you believed in God and that you believed that all life was created of Him, your analogy would hold water, because I would be asking you to present proof of your state of mind. However, science is not asking you to prove that. It is asking you to back up your claim that God exists and that we were created by him in the same way you or I exist in objective reality. In much the same way that you would surely demand proof if I claimed that Superman existed, I have a right to expect proof from you when you claim God exists.
          • ChoiceMad, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1Definitions of words are indeed variable and contingent upon context. I also agree that words are inert. Yes, what is being discussed regarding that is academic. My general perceptions of the concepts in question (faith, belief, religion) are, as I've said before, MY perceived beliefs and are not necessarily the same perceptions as others'. However, I again make this claim: perception of proof is just that--perception--regardless of the number of parties involved.

            For a person (or group) to believe that their perception is accurate is equal to them having faith in said perception. e.g. "I believe that what I am witnessing (with my EXTREMELY limited 5 senses which are all very easily manipulated, btw) is what I believe to be true". This understanding of the very concept of 'faith' holds for any and all perceptions.

            I personally believe that there are perfectly good reasons that it is much easier to disprove that a deity exists than it is to prove one does exist (because there is none), but whether a deity exists or not is not the topic which attracted me. I just wish for people to not completely dismiss co