digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

North Carolina school wants to teach creationism

starnewsonline.com — "It's really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism," county school board member Jimmy Hobbs said at Tuesday's meeting. "The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists."

show profanity settings
expand all
  • pwtenny, on 09/28/2008, -5/+176This can only end in another Dover PA style lawsuit and none of these school board members will have to pay to defend the lawsuit, tax paying parents will.
    • arcangelgabriel, on 09/28/2008, -1/+28It appears The Brunswick County school board was born ignorant and has been losing ground ever since.

      - with apologies to Will Rogers.
    • Weed86, on 09/28/2008, -38/+1Bash Religion *here*
      • SisyphusFragmnt, on 09/28/2008, -4/+35***** God..
      • Dipsomaniac, on 09/28/2008, -2/+19Well, okay, if you think it's necessary; but let's face it, to any person with a semblance of rationality, religion does a sufficient job of bashing itself.
      • belebih, on 09/28/2008, -1/+13Religious idiots like these are basically spitting in the face the science that keeps them alive, their students' intelligence, taxpayers, the law, and the constitution. How can any rational person /not/ bash them?
    • pixel4e, on 09/28/2008, -3/+108"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."

      ~ Don Hirschberg
      • Graham5331, on 09/28/2008, -4/+67Atheism is a non Prophet organisation
      • Cerebron, on 09/28/2008, -14/+0Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair "style" actually.
    • seltaeb4, on 09/28/2008, -0/+20Didn't Clarence Darrow help us sort all this out about 90 years ago?
    • Taquoshi, on 09/28/2008, -19/+3The school Board members will pay, right along with everyone else in the District simply because the cost for the lawyers will be added to the District budget.

      Regardless of whether it is science or not, it is an alternative explanation of the origins of the cosmos, but nobody can discuss it because the District will be sued. Doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
      • DiggCrusher, on 09/28/2008, -2/+36It is not an alternative explanation.

        How do you think it would go over if they started teaching about the Tooth Fairy in Dental school?
      • gordonj, on 09/28/2008, -4/+32No. Creationism is not science. It should not be taught in a science classroom. End of story. Teach it in church.
      • Cavemonster, on 09/28/2008, -1/+20Oh we can discuss it all you wan. Since it isn't science why should we discuss it in science class?
      • eir574, on 09/28/2008, -1/+27"Regardless of whether it is science or not, it is an alternative explanation of the origins of the cosmos,"

        If it's not science, it shouldn't be taught in science classrooms. It could be taught in philosophy or comparative religion classes.

        I can come up with all sorts of alternative explanations for all sorts of natural phenomena. That doesn't mean they deserve to be taught as science.
      • KatelynLiz, on 09/28/2008, -13/+3@gordonj - I completely agree that it should not be taught in a science classroom. However, many public schools offer Religion and Philosophy courses that strive to inform students about all religions so that they can make more informed decisions with regards to their own faith. Creationism certainly has a home within such classrooms.

        I do not worry one bit that the addition of Creationism in the classroom will somehow negate the teaching of Evolution. Anyone who can process facts and who understands the scientific process will naturally be drawn to Evolution, but that doesn't mean they should be unaware of the alternative ideas. Awareness of competing explanations will allow these students to better defend their positions later in life.
      • bsmang, on 09/28/2008, -1/+19Why wouldn't a parent want to sue a school for trying to teach their children bizarre fairy tales as facts? Doesn't strike me as odd at all.
      • eir574, on 09/28/2008, -1/+16@Katelyn

        The problem occurs when the teachers presenting creationism and evolution do so in a way that does not give students a clear understanding of evolution. Some teachers repeat clear lies about evolutionary theory to their students and get away with it. I watched a PBS special a few years ago that showed a science teacher who officially "taught" her students evolution, but literally did so by telling her students that their grandparents aren't monkeys, and neither were Adam and Eve.
      • HonestAbe, on 09/28/2008, -1/+19You can teach creationism in our schools as soon as we can teach evolution in your churches.
      • KatelynLiz, on 09/28/2008, -7/+3@eir574

        I have friends who were taught World History starting with God's formation of the Earth. The course followed, precisely, the history presented in the Bible. Clearly, there are serious issues in how such courses are taught. However, these issues won't be resolved by refusing to teach Creationism anymore than they would be resolved by eliminating the teaching of Evolution.

        There are some very bad teachers out there, the only sure way to eliminate this issue would be to eliminate teachers. We have to have enough faith in students to see past the BS and make their own decisions and we have to at least attempt to give them all the information necessary to do so.
      • gordonj, on 09/28/2008, -1/+11@KatelynLiz
        All schools of thought are not equally valid. For an explanation of the origins of life, the universe and everything, humans could literally think up millions of ideas. The existence of an idea itself does not qualify that idea as being relevant. Neither does the number of people who adhere to an idea. It is all well and good to keep an open mind, but it is not constructive to accept all ideas without putting some consideration into their validity. Science works well because all of it's ideas are tested. The same cannot be said about creationism. Any explanation that relies on faith (i.e. belief despite the absence of evidence) cannot rival science as an explanatory system.
      • KatelynLiz, on 09/28/2008, -3/+4@gordonj -

        I agree, and I firmly believe in Evolution because of what you have just stated. It is a tested theory and there are facts which support it.

        However, I believe that other widely accepted ideas can be taught to students as long as they are done so in the proper setting (such as a course on Religion which is offered as an elective). Of course there is not enough time to educate students on every possible explanation, but we can educate them on some of the more prevalent ones. Such an education allows students to be more informed citizens who are better able decide upon and defend their own beliefs.
      • bjornski, on 09/28/2008, -1/+10How would you "test" someone after a Creationism discussion?

        Would the answers follow the King James Bible? What about for the non-Christians? Will they get into spaceships seeding the planet like in Spore? Or will it be "ghost in the sky made it all" *****?

        What would be a right answer? Would there be NO wrong answers?

        As was said above, we may as well teach about the Tooth Fairy in dental school.

        And also, as was said before, you can start teaching religion in the science room as soon as you allow scientists to come give their "alternative views" on the pulpit.
      • gordonj, on 09/28/2008, -0/+11@KatelynLiz
        I have no problem with religion being taught in schools, but it should be taught in religion/philosophy/social studies classes and shouldn't impact on a science syllabus. Preferably the religious studies would also be more than just creationism and cover a broad spectrum of world religions.
      • KatelynLiz, on 09/28/2008, -5/+0@bjornski

        Luckily for students, not all courses are taught for a test. Some courses allow students to express themselves and demonstrate real knowledge through papers and presentations. Students could, for instance, select two religions and do a brief compare/contrast assignment of the creation stories. Although, this likely wouldn't be necessary because Creationism should only be taught briefly, even in a course on Religion. It is rare for any course to "test" on every single discussion and minute detail.

        As with all papers and presentations, grades would be given based on overall quality. If the assignment in question was well researched and well presented, adhered to grammar and language rules, and was devoid of any glaring errors - it would receive a good grade.

        Unlike the Tooth Fairy, Creationism, and other non-scientific explanations for the creation of the universe, cannot be proven false simply by being a light sleeper. Because so many people do believe in alternative explanations, it is important that students are well educated about such explanations. It is only fair to them that they be allowed to make informed judgments on the subject.

        Now, religious studies, contrary to what you appear to believe, simply provide students with information about a variety of religions. These courses are not the same as a church and do not condone preaching to students. It is ridiculous to draw the comparison between an educational forum and a religious forum.
    • oldgal, on 09/28/2008, -2/+28If folks want their children to learn creationism then they should send their children to Sunday school. If it isn't being taught by their church in Sunday school, then they should take it up with their minister.
    • themastersb, on 09/29/2008, -1/+11This is one of those articles that you hope is from the Onion but when you see that it isn't you die a little on the inside.
  • jimhfisher, on 09/28/2008, -8/+366Eighty-three years later, and we are STILL having this debate. This is nonsense.
    • Zidul, on 09/28/2008, -19/+3what happened 83 years ago?
      • fluxion, on 09/28/2008, -1/+44god was just wrapping up creating the world
      • Kelden21, on 09/28/2008, -1/+19Well played flux.

        And on the 9th day, god gave us the Scopes Monkey Trial

        Look it up Zidul
    • jskistud7, on 09/28/2008, -1/+36http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Monkey_Trial
    • foooey, on 09/28/2008, -3/+45It's really just time for science to quit being congenial.

      I say let them teach about creationism in school, but teach about the facts of creationism and other lingering superstitious beliefs of the 21st century. Warn the next generation about those to cling to ancient, easily disproved mythology as being the fanatical fundamentalists they are. These are people willing to die, and/or subvert the government for the sake of their insane religious beliefs, and they truly are dangerous.

      Quit letting the intentionally ignorant get away with saying they "don't believe in evolution." Call them out as superstitious evolution deniers. "Belief" has nothing to do with cold hard science, and letting them get away with this crap just lends credibility to their zealotry.
      • rotundo, on 09/28/2008, -0/+16I agree. As an atheist I feel it is fine to teach about creationism in school. _in_context_, and not in science class.

        "Here is what some people believe. Here is what some other people believe. Here is what observation seems to indicate. You'll have to make up your own mind."

        Besides, there's nothing that will kill passion for religion faster than assigning it as homework and having tests on it ;)
      • homercles337, on 09/28/2008, -1/+2Im an atheist and i agree. So long as its taught as science (or rather *not* science).
      • quaunaut, on 09/28/2008, -1/+2Yes, because the only way to defeat stupidity, is to become stupid, am I right?
    • FUR10N, on 09/28/2008, -6/+11THIS IS SPARTA!!
    • jack12345678910, on 09/28/2008, -16/+4this is one of the primary reasons why there should be school vouchers. let parents choose whatever the ***** they want their kids to believe. and when the kids go out into the real world and try to spiel that creationism *****, everyone will just laugh at them.
      • leelooishot, on 09/28/2008, -1/+3hahah
      • neonoodle, on 09/28/2008, -0/+8jack: I'd agree with you except that America is just going to grow more divisive, and there's going to be an even bigger division between the stupid and the smart. Since it takes more effort to be intelligent than it does to be stupid, most people will opt for stupid, and America will completely shift into a religious theocracy much like Iran and the like. It's important for education to be consistent throughout the nation, and for the quality of the education to be GOOD.
    • greenroom628, on 09/29/2008, -0/+4i agree, this is ridiculous. even the catholic church says intelligent design is not a science and should not be taught next to evolution.

      http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060119_ap_v ...
  • doiveo, on 09/28/2008, -60/+13Creationism != Atheism.
    • TunaFishGangsta, on 09/28/2008, -2/+80I think he meant to say....

      Evolutionism != Atheism
    • doiveo, on 09/28/2008, -3/+36wow. oops - my bad.
      quick tip: if your girlfriend is about to go out the door and you haven't finished you comment yet. Just let it go! Don't try to slash and post.

      Thank you to everyone that caught and corrected my error.
      • arcangelgabriel, on 09/28/2008, -2/+3Twice nothing is still nothing.
      • funkyloki, on 09/28/2008, -1/+11"quick tip: if your girlfriend is about to go out the door and you haven't finished you comment yet. Just let it go! Don't try to slash and post."

        I have to ask you, since in your comment you are talking about doing two different things, and to illustrate those two activities, one saying bye to your girlfriend, and the other posting a comment, you use the words slash and post. We know what post applies to. My question is what does "slash" mean in reference to your girlfriend leaving? I just have to know if you were being literal? What, was she leaving you for good?
    • homercles337, on 09/28/2008, -1/+4Maybe not, but you cant claim to espouse religious as well as scientific philosophies at the same time. On the one hand you have a system of assimilating information in which only information that is in agreement with current dogma is sought. On the other you have a system in which only information that is in disagreement with current understanding is sought. In case you cant tell, these things are diametrically opposed. Any one individual that claims both is a hypocrite. Which system is used when faced with new information?
  • otakushark, on 09/28/2008, -11/+390The same stupid arguments from the same uneducated people. Evolution is science. Creationism is religion. Period.
    • richirwin, on 09/28/2008, -3/+65Even when creationists attempt to clothe creationism as "Intelligent Design" (and, somehow, science) you have to take the leap of faith that there is a being who lives beyond space and time who designed everything.

      Not science.

      Not for schools.
      • mcsenget, on 09/28/2008, -1/+23intelligent design is religion too

        faith, not evidence
      • Dustin00, on 09/28/2008, -0/+19All this is too complex to simply exist by chance, there had to be an Intelligent Designer.

        But, then, obviously, such a being is also too complex to spontaneously exist. Therefore, I worship the being that designed the Intelligent Designer.

        Kneel before me, before I have my god turn your puny hand-me-down god into a bunny rabbit!
      • richirwin, on 09/28/2008, -2/+5Dustin00, I actually DO believe that there was an intelligent designer. I am a believer.

        I am also a scientist.

        But I believe that evolution is a gift from God. I believe that evolution is God's way of making sure that his creations adapt to changing environments.

        I'm not sure why my fellow believers find that so hard to believe but, for me, it fits perfectly with my faith and my knowledge of science.

        Either way, I don't want my faith being taught in schools and, if it DOES get taught in schools it certainly has no place in science.
      • gllopc, on 09/28/2008, -0/+5@richirwin - I appreciate the honesty and your point-of-view; but as a scientist, why do you apply a different standard of investigation and acceptance to the question of a god, than you do to your work as a scientist? If you are just accepting that there is a god without proof, then that's fine; but the claim that you are a scientist is an argument from authority and should not be enough evidence to yourself of the existence of God.
      • richirwin, on 09/29/2008, -1/+2gllopc, I don't need scientific proof in matters of the heart - the way I feel about that is enough for me.

        It's a very personal thing and I don't feel the need to impose it on other nor am I affected by the opinions of others. Each of us has to make their own choice in this one.

        (But I believe my upbringing of "If you die and don't believe in God, you're going to burn in hell for eternity" made a strong impression on the young Mr. Irwin.)
      • monkeyvoodoo, on 09/29/2008, -0/+5>But I believe my upbringing of "If you die and don't believe in God, you're going to burn in hell for eternity" made a strong impression on the young Mr. Irwin

        Ah, indoctrination. Swell.
      • richirwin, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Perhaps it is indoctrination, but here's the thing.

        1. I am totally opposed to teaching creationism/intelligent design in schools.

        2. I have my own faith.

        3. I don't try to push my faith on anyone else.

        4. I don't have any interest in addressing anyone else's faith.

        5. I have a strong believe in the truth of science.

        So what more could you ask for?

        I'm sorry if you and I don't share the same beliefs or lack thereof.
    • fwertz, on 09/28/2008, -23/+6Of course. But students should still learn that religions do exist, not as a goal to sway their beliefs but so they understand that these things are out there as a result of war, culture, colonialism, etc. You just can't ignore it, it's part of our human history. Just because some religions may seem insanely off-the-wall doesn't discredit them or make them any less real than you or I.
      • Aliendude, on 09/28/2008, -1/+39Which is why they should be taught in religion, and when necessary, history classes. No one is talking about complete censorship of religion, but there is no place for it in biology.
      • funkyloki, on 09/28/2008, -0/+14Exactly! These same school boards and parents who want Creationism, a belief of fundamental Christianity, taught in science classes, must also accept that if we teach about one religion, we have to teach about all religions. ALL religions. That is what freedom of (and from in some cases) religion means. Thank you fwertz
      • greevar, on 09/28/2008, -0/+9Religion is a feature of culture and is not part of science taught public school. If you want children to learn about religion, they should take sociology. The public schools were meant to teach practical academic content, leave the creationism and "intelligent design" to Sunday school where it belongs.
      • makenshin, on 09/28/2008, -0/+10Agreed with above. Evolution has scientific backing and should be taught alongside science. If they can prove creationism scientifically then I would welcome it in schools. Unfortunately, creationism is a religious belief until proven otherwise, that is how science works. I highly doubt it is the only religious belief about how life came to be, so they would have to teach all of the other religions beliefs if they combined them. I guess if they want though, they can send their children to public school to learn about evolution and science so they can grow up and become scientists, thus using the science to prove creationism.

        If they want to teach creationism in schools then the parents and citizens should privately fund private schools for the children.
      • jaxcs, on 09/28/2008, -0/+5In my former high school, the bible was taught as literature, but not as a text of faith. I don't see anything wrong with that since the bible is of monumental influence to too many people throughout history and the world. To ignore Christianity is to lose a deep understanding of major works of art, literature, history, and even science. But, creationism isn't science and should not be taught as fact or theory. Creationism is firmly either a religious theory or an aspect of a religious text.
      • drgmdp, on 09/28/2008, -0/+4it's called theology
      • jaxcs, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Theology retains a religious aspect, this was really the bible as literature. The major movements, the actors and their history, the battles and their significance. No discussion of god as a deity, no prayer and for the most part no morality.
    • thereisnostate, on 09/28/2008, -4/+27and religion is irrationality..
    • DangerCollie, on 09/28/2008, -6/+30Can we please have a revolution and run these idiots out of the country? Please? I'd support formation of an independent country for them. Carve off a chunk of the southern states and give everyone 10 years to pick a side. Set up a property exchange so people on each side who want to move can find a similar property on the side they want to be on. Then, instead of electing these willfully ignorant imbeciles to positions where they contaminate our schools, we could give them a bus ticket to Jesusland and kick them the hell out.
      • Monkeywithacold, on 09/28/2008, -2/+2actually, since they are the majority, you would likely be the one kicked out.
      • rotundo, on 09/28/2008, -0/+16We already did that 200 years ago. We broke away from a needlessly and harmfully religious government and founded a new nation that was secular in nature and fully accepting of personal religion.

        Yet 200 years later, here we are, with the same idiots who failed to notably improve the world for 2000 years trying to get control back. You can't kill this stuff. It's sad.
      • cowsgonemadd3, on 09/28/2008, -5/+190+% say they believe in God(or a higher power). Atheists are the minority.
      • bjornski, on 09/28/2008, -0/+8@rotundo

        Yeah, that's why the "witch burnings" happened. Religious freedom.

        Stop believing the stuff that's spoon-fed to you. People didn't leave Britain because they were tired of being persecuted by the religious government. They came here so they could have their OWN little cult and persecute others at will and avoid paying their taxes.

        Some good and some bad came out of the founding of the colonies, but don't just blindly accept that they were founded on pragmatic viewpoints and were all based on "FREEDOM!©"
    • anononon, on 09/28/2008, -28/+1***** you, two of my friends died trying to evolution is science, creationism is religion, period. Period.




      Bury away.
      • PewPewLAZ0RS, on 09/28/2008, -2/+6That's not funny, my brother died that way.
      • pagno, on 09/29/2008, -1/+3Youre both idiots.
      • anononon, on 09/29/2008, -3/+1@pagno: It's "You're", idiot.


      • pwdrskier, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1made me chuckle but i think that got old....2 months ago maybe
    • rawg, on 09/28/2008, -1/+11The problem with some creationists is that because they never took the time to understand evolution they assume that other people, i.e. "atheists," believe in evolution based on faith when it's actually based on logic. That's why they equate creationism and evolution.

      We can't let the least educated segment of our society determine what our children learn. What's next? physics replace by miracles? medicine replaced by prayer? There's no limit to the things in modern society that these people refuse to understand.
    • aspec, on 09/29/2008, -4/+2You know... maybe it'd be better to let them do it? What entails teaching creationism? Do they have to read the Bible? Take 15 minutes of a day and say "but this is all our best theory, other people believe that a mysterious entity may have just decided that everything should be here, and so it was." Then call it a day.
    • Gemfinder, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Creationism is no more science than Shakespeare's "The Tempest" is a history of North America.
      Still looking for that charred cedar box with raven clawmarks around the lock on it...
    • pwdrskier, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1thank you gemfinder for that analogy
  • torgarman, on 09/28/2008, -9/+137Watch out! These religious folks have been known to fling their poo when they get upset.

    But seriously, where will this end? Will they want to ban all science next? Will recess conclude each day with 10 minutes of book burning?
    • temsi, on 09/28/2008, -0/+9Fling their poo?
      Doesn't that suggest they descended from apes?
      • MacEnvy, on 09/28/2008, -1/+10I think you're using the word "descended" a little loosely here. Even apes know enough not to use legislation to force others to live their preferred lifestyle.

        These people have clearly devolved to ancestral rodents.
      • gordonj, on 09/28/2008, -0/+6They are.
      • theodenking, on 09/28/2008, -0/+9We ARE apes.
      • torgarman, on 09/28/2008, -1/+5We are not descended from apes. Humans and apes had a common ancestor.
    • moat211, on 09/28/2008, -12/+4You fail to see what the article is really about. These people from NC don't want to "ban all science", they want the theory of creationism to be taught along with evolution. Although creationism shouldn't be necessarily allowed the same levity in the classroom as the theory of evolution, to suggest that it shouldn't even be mentioned is ludicrous. To do so would be to ignore the history of millions of people's views and beliefs.
      • gordonj, on 09/28/2008, -0/+14Is it ludicrous that creationism isn't mentioned in health class? How about P.E.? Geography? Maths? Physics? Why is it only ludicrous that it shouldn't be mentioned in biology class?
      • eir574, on 09/28/2008, -1/+15" To do so would be to ignore the history of millions of people's views and beliefs."

        No one's saying that it can't be discussed at all. Just not in science classrooms, because it's not science. I took classes in high school that talked about both current and past religions. I even took a history class where we looked at the interaction between science and religion and how they influenced one another. But, since creationism isn't science, there's no need to discuss it in a science classroom no matter how many people have the mistaken belief that it's a scientific theory.
      • degree, on 09/28/2008, -0/+10That would be fine for a religious studies, world history, or creation theory class (defs taught by the philosophy dept), but not in any bio class. Evolution is extremely integral to nearly all areas of biology, and to teach a "theory" with no actual scientific merit in a science class is absolutely ridiculous, as that undermines the very core values of science.
        lol, that sounded kinda science preachy, so i'll lay it down in a different manner. the goal of science as a whole is to search for "truth", and to do so without any preconcieved notions of what that truth is. so basically, you build up little bits and pieces of that truth, knowing (as truly as one can) that the truth, as defined up to now, is true. we use numbers and theories in the same way that artists use brushes and paint. science is far more awesome than school makes it out to be.
      • rotundo, on 09/28/2008, -1/+11Here's the problem with creationism in science:

        it makes NO predictions

        Science is about building theoretical models of the world that let you predict things in a useful way. Evolution does this. Creationism does not. It doesn't imply anything at all, useful or otherwise.

        They can teach about it, along with every other religion (to be fair) in a religion class.
      • KatelynLiz, on 09/28/2008, -6/+0Thank you moat211. I, like you, have been dugg down for making the same point.

        Creationism certainly does not belong in health, P.E., Geography, Math, Physics, or Biology. However, it most certainly should be taught as part of the curriculum in existing Religion and Philosophy courses (which are never required). Those people who would suggest that Religious teaching should only occur in colleges and private schools are incorrect. Students who are too young to be in college and too poor to be in private school should still be given the choice to learn more about the World's religious practices, and Creationism is a perfectly acceptable topic in such a classroom.

        Based on the article, the school board in question wants only to include Creationism in the school system. It never says that they want it to be a component in their biology courses. Religion is a perfectly acceptable subject to teach as long as it is in a comparative style class. Such classes greatly improve student understanding of other religious practices. I know this from my own experience in a rural N.C. high school where these classes made students more accepting of other religious viewpoints as well as scientific ideas.
      • bjornski, on 09/28/2008, -0/+5@KatelynLiz

        Are they too poor to go to church?

        Learn it there. Otherwise teach *ALL* religions. Not just the one favored by the local community.

        Anything else is basically state-sponsored theology. Which is *BAD*.
      • KatelynLiz, on 09/28/2008, -4/+0@ bjornski -
        I repeat: "Students who are too young to be in college and too poor to be in private school should still be given the choice to learn more about the World's religious practices..."

        The WORLD'S religious practices. By no means to I condone a course dedicated only to creationism. That's ridiculous. I feel like Creationism should be an included topic in Religion courses which exist to inform students about other religions around the globe. Often, Christianity is included in these courses to benefit non-Christian students and Christian students with limited knowledge about their own religion.

        I agree that anything else is state-sponsored theology and that would, indeed, be bad. I have not once stated that Creationism is deserving of it's own class, I have only stated that it shouldn't be eliminated completely from public schools.
      • somnambulator, on 09/28/2008, -0/+7Katelyn
        Unfortunately, the context of the word 'teach' is probably the reason you're being dugg down.
        The headline above uses the word 'teach' to imply 'teach as truth', whereas you are using the word 'teach' to mean 'explanation of concept'.
        Most people here have no issue with 'explaining the concept of creationism' as an abstract topic in a discussion about various religious beliefs.
        What we do have an issue with is the idea of creationism being taught as a literal truth.

        Creationist are in full swing at the moment, trying to rewrite the English language to mean what they want it to mean. They use the natural ambiguity of words to their advantage and their marketing budget seems endless.
        Your defense of the schools right to include creationism seems at odds with the article that clearly states that the teaching of creationism should be side by side with evolution.
      • Dimensio, on 09/29/2008, -1/+7"You fail to see what the article is really about. These people from NC don't want to "ban all science", they want the theory of creationism to be taught along with evolution."

        I am unaware of any "Creationism" theory. Please define this theory"; state the scope of observations that the theory attempts to explain, describe the known occurring physical processes that creation incorporates as a mechanism to explain the cause of observed events, use these mechanisms to derive logical predictions of what should be observed in the future, cite instances of previous logical predictions being fulfilled through observation, derive conditions that should never occur if the creation theory is correct (that is, establish a falsification criteria) and cite peer-reviewed literature showing that the explanation has attained sufficient confidence amongst scientists in relevant fields of study to be classified as "theory".
    • Taquoshi, on 09/28/2008, -13/+3These religious folks have been known to fling their poo when they get upset.

      Throwing bags of feces was done by the protesters at the Republican Presidential convention. The media reported it was done by anarchists. Are you claiming that this was done by those who believe in creation? If so, the FBI and Secret Service would like to talk to you.

      Some of the greatest pioneering minds in science were Bible and creation believing Christians like, Leonardo daVinci, Francis Bacon, Baise Pascal, Nicholas Coernicus, Isaac Newton, Samuel Morse, Gregor Mendal, Louis Pastur, Joseph Lister, John Ambrose Fleming, and George Washington Carver.

      So, are you claiming that they were against science rather than for science?

      And could you tell me when the last book burning was reported in the media along with why you believe that it was done by creationists?

      Just curious.

      • bjornski, on 09/28/2008, -1/+6Some of the other great scientific minds were Muslim.

        If you teach Christian concepts in class, you better get into the Muslim ones too.

        Otherwise, again, it becomes the state teaching (favored flavors of) theology.
      • torgarman, on 09/28/2008, -1/+4Ever hear of religious persecution? The dark ages? Burning witches as heretics? Mass book burning? This is what happened historically when religion was placed as the highest authority. That is exactly what is at stake when religion is taught as science.

        Many great minds have espoused religious beliefs publicly because the alternative was death, persecution, and torture. Over the years, historians have uncovered evidence that many of them didn't believe in the existence of god let alone the fairy tales of the bible.

        I will grant you that some great minds did believe in god. Belief in god doesn't preclude someone from contributing to science. Some scientists have believed some very kooky things. Isaac Newton spent a lot of time as an alchemist trying to turn lead into gold. He also thought it was a good idea to stab himself in the eye with a long needle to learn how the eye works. People can do strange things and still be accepted as great scientists.
      • Taquoshi, on 09/29/2008, -2/+2Ever hear of religious persecution? The dark ages? Burning witches as heretics? Mass book burning? This is what happened historically when religion was placed as the highest authority. That is exactly what is at stake when religion is taught as science.

        Yes, I've heard of religious persecution. It's going on right now in various area of the world. The Dark Ages happened hundreds of years ago, mostly before the scientis's whose names I listed were born.

        What you described is a theocracy...and you can check out Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and various other Muslim nations to find out what happens with a theocracy.

        Uh, unless I miss my guess, the Muslims in Turkey are endorsing creationism. That was recently reported in the news, the BBC, I believe ran the story. And no one said that the Muslims contributions to science would be voided. Nobody even mentioned Muslims, except you.

        I never said that creationism or religion should be placed as the HIGHEST AUTHORITY...you did. The point of the article, which everyone is getting so hysterical about, is that creationism can't even be DISCUSSED. The tone of the posts to this thread are an excellent example of the intolerance toward those who believe differently.


      • bjornski, on 09/29/2008, -1/+3No. Until you have an actual THEORY (look up the word), keep it out of science class, and in the philosophy or other department.

        It is NOT science without a theory. And Creationism IS NOT one.
    • bonhoeffer, on 09/28/2008, -10/+0The only threat to ban science comes from evolutionists who don't want evidence or arguments against their theory revealed. No one else has suggested banning anything.
      • torgarman, on 09/28/2008, -1/+5There is no conspiracy to ban creationism from science. Science deals in facts. Creationism doesn't have facts to support it. If you could find some facts to support your case, you'd be welcome in the scientific community.

        Until then, creationism should only be taught as literature or philosophy.
    • Taquoshi, on 09/29/2008, -1/+1Funny you should mention book burning. Look what turned up on Breitbart....

      Three held as Mohammed book publisher set ablaze
      Sep 27 04:47 PM US/Eastern

      http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=0809272047 ...

      Police arrested three men on Saturday in connection with a fire at the offices of the publisher of a book about the Prophet Mohammed and his child bride.

      The men, aged 22, 30 and 40, were arrested in north London under anti-terrorism legislation after the fire on Saturday morning at Gibson Square's offices. Police were also searching four addresses in east London.

      Britain's domestic Press Association news agency said some residents, whom it did not identify, reported that the incident may have involved a petrol bomb being pushed through the firm's letterbox.

      Gibson Square is responsible for the publication of "The Jewel of Medina" -- a fictional account of the Prophet's relationship with his youngest bride Aisha -- by American author Sherry Jones.

      Random House announced last month it had cancelled publication of the book in the United States because of fears of violence.

      "The Jewel of Medina" was re-released in Serbia earlier this month after being withdrawn in August under pressure from Islamic leaders.

  • toetagger, on 09/28/2008, -9/+67Brain deads.
    • snagra, on 09/28/2008, -1/+13"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"
      • DephexTwin, on 09/28/2008, -0/+8Yeah, that comment was stunningly ignorant. For *****'s sake, none of us were here 2000 years ago when Jesus was around either!
      • psevium, on 09/28/2008, -0/+8That's a wonderfully self-burning quote
      • webborocks, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2America is in some trouble with this, its happening all the time now! some of these people need a good slap.
    • MrCashyCash, on 09/28/2008, -0/+5These are the same suckers who your tax dollars will bail out.

      Think they understand their mortgages?
  • siszam, on 09/28/2008, -143/+4Good. Children have the religion of evolution shoved down their throats like it's fact. I don't want my tax dollars teaching lies. Better yet, home school your children so they have a proper education.
    • zephyear, on 09/28/2008, -6/+81you're an idiot, i bet you've never even read about evolution.
    • TheCatsPants, on 09/28/2008, -5/+92Evolution is a fact. That's why it is taught that way. It requires no faith, doesn't worship anything so it's definitely not a religion. There's no reason why you can't both accept evolution and believe in God.

      "I don't want my tax dollars teaching lies"
      You have evidence that refutes evolution?
      • lazerus9, on 09/28/2008, -89/+2And you are likewise content in your atheistic delusional dogma of Darwinism!.......You probably also embrace Darwin's notion of the use eugenics as population control.
      • Dipsomaniac, on 09/28/2008, -1/+65Ah, there it is. I was starting to think that the idiots were sleeping in today.

        Darwin never said what you claim. See, this is why creationism needs to be kept out of schools - because its supporters have to resort to lies to bolster it, rather than being able to rely on any kind of facts.
      • eir574, on 09/28/2008, -1/+53"Darwin never said what you claim."

        Even if he had, we've had 150 years to refine his theory. Origin of the Species is a good read (I've never personally read it, but my husband just did), but it is not, as some creationists would like us to believe, the beginning and end of evolutionary theory.
      • TheCatsPants, on 09/28/2008, -1/+45@lazarus9
        "You probably also embrace Darwin's notion of the use eugenics as population control."
        What an offensive thing to say.
        You also skipped the bit where I said that evolution and religion are not incompatible.
        I know you will not be able to understand this, but evolutionary theory isn't like the bible, it's not an instruction manual, it's a description of the way biology works. In 150 years not one bit of evidence has been found that can refute it. Not one. Yet. And even if such evidence is found, it doesn't mean that the genesis story is true.
      • Dweller99, on 09/28/2008, -2/+33"You probably also embrace Darwin's notion of the use eugenics as population control."

        You probably also embrace the Leviticus notion that anyone who curses their mother or father should be put to death.



        See how stupid that sounds?
      • KatelynLiz, on 09/28/2008, -1/+23@Dipsomaniac - No, not asleep. It's a Sunday, they were in Church.

        @lazerus9 - "You probably also embrace Darwin's notion of the use eugenics as population control." This statement illustrates the futility of your argument. Is is so hard for you to come up with any compelling and thought provoking ideas that you simply reduce yourself to attacks of character? You, my friend, have a future in the GOP.

        That being said, I have no problem with Creationism being taught in school. It should, however, remain in Religion and Philosophy courses. While you may not view Evolution as a fact, it is based within science and thus will be taught as a scientific theory. Creationism is based withinin Religion and Philosophy and should be taught as such.

        We should never teach only one of two concepts, students should be informed of their options so they can form intelligent opinions of their own. I have complete confidence in the science behind Evolution, and I am not threatened enough by the ideas of Creationism to say that it should not be taught.
      • scschwa, on 09/28/2008, -1/+12Please stop combining Religion and Philosophy in statements. They are not interchangable, as the latter is deduced from premises based on logical, rational thought.
      • tulikaj, on 09/28/2008, -0/+8I was taught about intelligent design in philosophy. After learning about various theories we even had to debate a randomly assigned side. In my opinion it was an excellent way to learn about the theories out there and at no point was any of it portrayed as fact or scientific belief.

        As for mixing philosophy and religion, Descartes himself used the watchmaker analogy. You can still learn about why people think a certain way without going into their religious doctrines.
      • wpyh, on 09/29/2008, -5/+2No, evolution is not a fact. It is a scientific theory. It's very good at explaining the living things we see today, but it's still a theory (i.e. not a law). It should be taught in schools as a theory, not a fact.

        Creationism is a belief. I wouldn't even call it a faith. As such, it should not even be taught in schools.
      • TheCatsPants, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1@wpyh
        A scientific theory is the highest status you can get in science. We know things evolve, we can watch it happening in a lab, and in the environment. Evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is the description of how that evolution takes place - it's a 'model' if you like, which can be used to make predictions and also describes the past. Similarly, gravity is a fact, and there are currently competing theories of gravitation that are still to be verified or discounted. Don't forget that even Newton's "Law of Gravitiation" turned out to be imprecise.
    • Dralha, on 09/28/2008, -5/+68Yes, please, homeskool your spawn, silly zealot. We will always have a need for burgerflippers.
      • KOSmurfy, on 09/28/2008, -18/+4Actually, home schoolers outperform public school students by pretty large margins in all academic areas. Your generalization is just as stupid as creationism.
      • super_spyder, on 09/28/2008, -1/+9There is lots more to school than academics, team work, responsibility, keeping a schedule, learning about interacting with others... just to name a few.
      • KOSmurfy, on 09/28/2008, -6/+3"team work, responsibility, keeping a schedule, learning about interacting with others"

        How does home schooling prevent one from getting experience in all these areas? Do you really think most home schoolers sit inside, alone all day studying? Home schoolers tend to do just as well, if not better in college than those from public school, and last time I checked, college requires team work, responsibility, keeping a schedule, and interacting with others, to name a few things.

        You're talking out of ignorance and stereotypes, just as Dralha.
      • somnambulator, on 09/29/2008, -1/+11I've known a couple of home schooled kids that played weekend soccer with my kids. They definitely were very smart, polite and responsible kids, but they were eerily creepy too. I chatted with my wife about it for ages because it was difficult to put a finger on what, exactly, was creepy about them.
        Our conclusion was that they had received all their information about the world from one source. They hadn't developed the ability to mentally sift through multiple incoming streams of data and forge their own personality from it. They had adopted the personality of their only data source, their home school parent.

        They could interact with our kids just fine, but they didn't 'make friends' at all. They were very precocious and didn't grasp the idea of teamwork, and yes, they were both individually home schooled.
        It was not the healthiest environment for them.
      • eir574, on 09/29/2008, -0/+9"They hadn't developed the ability to mentally sift through multiple incoming streams of data and forge their own personality from it. "

        I'd be willing to bet that you're right, and this is a somewhat disturbing thought. Most of us have to learn at a young age to get along with people who are very different than us and who may believe very different things than we do. I've even seen at least one Christian on digg say that she thinks there should be separate public schools for conservative Christians. That way, they wouldn't have to deal with the corrupting influence of other kids.

        A friend of mine showed me a Veggie Tales video (the series is aimed at Christian children), and it had a song on it about how people who are different than you can still be your friends. Sounds good, right? But, their examples of differences were freckles and braces. I had a good laugh over that one, but it's definitely disturbing on some levels.


      • somnambulator, on 09/29/2008, -0/+6Eir, that is very disturbing. What I find appalling is that, at some point in history, the parent, grandparent or great grandparent, made a choice about how to live their life. But they then, decided to take that choice away from the next generation by home schooling them. Over time this has narrowed the minds of successive generations.
        There will always be plenty of bias in a young persons life, from home, family and community, but to remove all outside influence is an insidious form of emotional abuse.
        Home schooling is not problematic in principle, but I think it is used too often with the ulterior motive of fundamental indoctrination instead of education.
      • KOSmurfy, on 09/29/2008, -0/+4That is a sad case, som. I've met some home schoolers who are really odd, and it's usually as you said, to do with their parents and their motives for and methods of teaching their children. However, being home schooled myself, my experience has been that they are the exception, and not the norm, and I think the statistics back this up.

        Unfortunately, the statistics don't differentiate between religious home schoolers (e.g. the ones whose parents just don't want to teach them evolution) and secular home schoolers (myself and most of my home schooled friends). I'd be curious to see what difference, if any, that makes, especially in terms of how many of them become scientists.
      • Testiculese, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2KOSurfy, Dralha's original comment wasn't bashing homeschooling, it was expressing that someone with obvious mental deficiencies keep his/her mental deficient children (through genes or learning) away from normal kids.

        (I do support homeschooling in general. Public school is a joke.)
    • sg1fan, on 09/28/2008, -2/+39There are so many things wrong with your statement siszam that it's hard to begin. There is a scientific process to forming theories and proving them out... you base your idea of truth as a collection of bed-time stories that was edited for hundreds and hundreds of years by people in power wishing more power over their subjects.
    • SuperWinner, on 09/28/2008, -3/+42Can you report people just for being incredibly stupid on digg?
      • MalenfantX, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2The problem with this is that the dumbest, least self-aware people would mark everyone smarter than them as incredibly stupid, just like factual posts currently get marked inaccurate by people who have been brainwashed by (or work for) the Republican party.

        You'd need an algorithm to find and remove the stupid people and party worshippers, but then who would there be to laugh at?
    • rootsm3, on 09/28/2008, -2/+11So home school your kids and see what happens.
    • zombies187, on 09/28/2008, -0/+14In Louisiana, we have very poor science education, yet EVERY kid knows about creationism. It hasn't helped.
    • Inohavehalos, on 09/28/2008, -0/+71/0!
    • str1fe, on 09/28/2008, -0/+24Anyone who so casually passes off evolution as a religion of lies doesn't even begin to understand evolution. Evolution isn't simply "man comes from monkeys" as so many Christians want to believe, and thinking that that's all evolution teaches is ignorant.

      I was born and raised Christian, and am now somewhere between atheist and agnostic (I don't believe in any deities, but if you can prove to me 100% that your religion is correct, I'll convert. The problem with religion is that, by definition, it's belief by faith, and therefore unable to be proven. The great thing about science, including evolution, is that there are solid undeniable facts to back it up), and people like you piss me off because you make the rest of the Christians look more ignorant than they are.
      • flip2trip, on 09/28/2008, -18/+4Why do you put such a restriction on Christianity (100%) but not on evolution?

        http://www.reasons.org/

        I would also suggest you read "The Genesis Question" by Hugh Ross. Reasons to Believe is staffed by respected scientists, who happen to be Christians. This is not young earth creationism, quite the opposite, this group takes scientific discoveries and demonstrate the harmony of the record of nature with what is taught in the Bible.

        I'm not trying to convert anyone, but if you are interested in science and are interested how it relates to the Bible, check it out.

      • eir574, on 09/28/2008, -0/+14I looked at the site, and the first article I read (http://www.reasons.org/resources/in_the_news/funct ... ) started off well, and then concluded that the fact that we're discovering functions for some portions of non-coding DNA is evidence for a god.

        What? Is this just the "order means there's a god" argument?
      • KOSmurfy, on 09/28/2008, -0/+7"it's belief by faith, and therefore unable to be proven."

        Belief by faith does not imply unprovability. That's equivalent to saying that something cannot be proven because it has not been proven. For example, you can believe a mathematical theorem is true, with no more evidence than a personal hunch. This does in no way affect whether or not said theorem can be proved.

        I agree with your first paragraph though.
      • flip2trip, on 09/29/2008, -3/+2eir---Did you expect a site for Christian Apologetics not to have God mentioned? Their not saying it proves the existence of God just that these discoveries are compatible with God. Their argument for the existence of God through science is just as valid as those that argue God's non-existence through science.
    • kabes, on 09/28/2008, -0/+20I wonder if this fanatic realizes that it's possible to both be religious and understand that evolution is a fact. There's no such thing as "believing" in evolution. It just is.

    • Mothrog, on 09/28/2008, -1/+16Moron. Religion is backed up by nothing, but science has to be backed up by evidence.
    • Roobix, on 09/28/2008, -1/+21Have you come to terms with the theory of gravity yet?
    • Skiessi, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Hi.
      I found you by going through 16 pages of better comments just to bury you some more.
      Have a nice day.
  • TunaFishGangsta, on 09/28/2008, -4/+77FIXED: "The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the scientists."

    edit: still grammatically questionable, but you get the point.
    • Dipsomaniac, on 09/28/2008, -1/+27And it's not like the creationists are going to show any sign of evolving...
    • fluxion, on 09/28/2008, -2/+21all muslims are terrorists! all proponents of the scientific method are atheists!
    • fhornplayer, on 09/28/2008, -2/+18Exactly. I'm christian and I believe that evolution is responsible for the variety of life on earth. I'm christian because I think that the ideas that Jesus preached about- tolerance, peace, love, etc., are pretty sweet, and should be the focus of evangelism. Creationists and evangelicals are focusing on all the wrong things, trying to defend the preposterous "scientific" claims the bible makes, instead of actually living like jesus.
      • Zarokima, on 09/28/2008, -0/+10More Christians should be like you.
      • rotundo, on 09/28/2008, -0/+5Amen brother. I hope you tell the creationists and evangelicals in your life (if there are any) the same thing.
      • AzureRise, on 09/28/2008, -5/+2If you agree some of the stuff in the Bible is preposterous why are you a Christian? I thought it was wrong (and hypocritical) to pick and choose what you want to and don't want to believe from the bible?
      • TunaFishGangsta, on 09/28/2008, -0/+7@AzureRise: There is a big argument in the Christian world about whether the bible should be taken literally or used as a guideline. The Catholic church, to their credit, is actually accepting scientific facts to be what they are. I suspect that the rest of the Christian world might take much longer. Look at the Amish, they haven't even adopted electricity yet. I highly doubt southern baptists, whom are responsible for putting Bush in office and are McCain's primary support in the south, will accept evolutionism in our lifetimes.
    • Phoetality, on 09/28/2008, -10/+1I'm a christian, and I'm doing a doctrate of philosophy in diabetes research.

      First off let me say that it is MOST important that we determine what we are talking about when we speak of evolution. If we are speaking of the process of natural selection, then yes, I agree with you. What I do disagree with, and this is after applying scientific logic and reasoning to both arguments, is the idea that all life on earth has arrived at its current status through millions and billions of mutations. Yes bacteria "evolve" rapidly because of their reproductive system, but when you look at higher species, such as mammals, reptiles, birds etc, positive mutations which benefit the organism *and are passed on to the next generation* are 1 in a million. Therefore, for us to arrive at the current status quo, the chances are millions upon millions upon millions to 1.

      So yes, there is a chance that it happened.

      Now ask yourself...is that really much more likely than a creator God?
      • TunaFishGangsta, on 09/28/2008, -0/+4There is legitimate scientific proof of evolutionism; yet, there is no scientific proof of creationism or God for that matter. To be fair on the subject of God, there is also no proof that God doesn't exist. We can only say for sure that creationism, as portrayed in the bible, is factually inaccurate.

        Therefor, I'm an Agnostic who believes in evolutionism. If proof of God existing were to turn up I could change my mind. However, there is nothing but stories and claims and opinions. No facts, just faith.

        I base my opinions on facts and not religious fairytales. This is true of most critical thinkers. When people believe that their faith is first and that facts come second, then they lost touch with reality as far as I'm concerned.
      • askantik, on 09/29/2008, -1/+2Evolution is not an 'ism.' Just for the record. It's just plain old evolution.
      • TunaFishGangsta, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Thanks for pointing that out.
      • TunaFishGangsta, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1I double-checked this one just to verify that I was indeed making up a word, and it looks like I wasn't.

        "Evolutionism" is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "the theory of evolution, evolutionary assumptions or principles"

        However, it still may not apply to this since being proven.
      • MalenfantX, on 09/29/2008, -0/+0the word "evolutionism" seems to be similar to the nonsense word "evolutionist," which really makes as little sense as "wet-waterist." It would be sad if we were so stupid that we need special words for the people who understand aspects of reality. Gravitationist! Food-Eatist! 1+1=2ist!
    • SeraphX, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Oh my starfish! The scientists are evolving!
    • ryusen, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1it just goes to show how ignorant they are. Seeing as how Darwin was a Christian and didn't the Church already say that Evolution and the Bible are not mutually exclusive?
      • Gemfinder, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1They also just issued an apology to him and his descendants.
        Which basically puts American Theocrats in a big happy bucket of IGNORANCE.
  • Rotzooi, on 09/28/2008, -7/+155I recently had the displeasure of talking to a group of homeschooling moms from Kansas. The kind that's scared of inoculating their kids and is afraid the Democrats put fluoride in the tap water to poison them. These types are the ones 'teaching' their children creationism.

    The sad thing is, some of their offspring seemed to have been able to think for themselves, at some point in their lives, but mommy brainwashed that right out of them. A lot of wasted potential. ***** like that is going to cost the US in the long run. Science is going to Europe and Asia.

    The good thing is, we will probably end up being a country that "makes" stuff, once again! Enjoy your factory jobs, creationists!
    • prrp, on 09/28/2008, -37/+2I disagree. You could be a great biologist while being a creationist *prepares for being buried* - hear me out. Biology is studying current things, current organisms. Knowing how things evolved really doesn't give us much insight on the here and now, especially considering how slow macroevolution is.

      A creationist can be a brilliant physicist, chemist, biologist, doctor, etc. I see no way that believing macroevolution as a fact makes you better at APPLICABLE science.
      • publiclurker, on 09/28/2008, -1/+24Have you ever asked an actual biologist about this? Somehow, I doubt they'll agree with you.
      • Dipsomaniac, on 09/28/2008, -1/+22So you honestly can't see how knowledge of genetic drift over time could provide insight into, say, the evolution of drug-resistant microbial and bacterial strains? Strains which can reproduce through hundreds or thousands of generations in a short time?

        If you can't see that, then you probably shouldn't be commenting on the 'value' of what you wrongly call macroevolution.
      • Aliendude, on 09/28/2008, -1/+20Knowing how things evolved is vital to understanding the here and now. Our origins explain a good number of behaviors we would otherwise not be able to understand. Why do men like women with gorgeous hair, smooth skin and a curvy bodies? Because they're more likely to provide healthy offspring, and then pass the original father's genes to the next generation. Men have evolved to prefer these characteristics in women.

        Without an understanding of evolution the best explanation is that "God made men like hot women." Of course a creationist doctor could still prescribe the right medicine, but as a scientist, they fail.
      • hsesports05, on 09/28/2008, -9/+1*to Dipsomaniac*

        fyi, your referring to what's known by evolutionary biologists as microevolution, not macroevolution. That being said macroevolution is seen on a year to year basis. Go look at Darwin's finches in the Galapagos when they have a severe conditions. There you can see a change of nearly 25000 Darwins from one year to the next.
      • Dipsomaniac, on 09/28/2008, -0/+11Evolutionary biologists don't make such a distinction, or use micro / macro-evolution in any sense but the ironic. There is no reason to believe that the mechanisms are different.

        There is no scientific organization that recognizes any scientific basis or merit in that differentiation.
      • gordonj, on 09/28/2008, -0/+12@hsesports05
        "fyi, your referring to what's known by evolutionary biologists as microevolution, not macroevolution."

        Fyi, evolutionary biologists don't make a distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution (well, they did once, but abandoned it in the late 1920s). It is a misleading creationist tactic to try to distinguish the 2 using outdated scientific nomenclature because they claim microevolution is true but macroevolution isn't.
      • gordonj, on 09/28/2008, -0/+9@prrp
        Ask most biologists and they will say the same thing as one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the last century.

        "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
        -Theodosius Dobzhansky
    • RayLuxuryYacht, on 09/28/2008, -11/+6Fluoride is a proven neurotoxin. Its effects on teeth are purely topical - there's no reason it needs to be ingested. There's no conspiracy, but it is kind of stupid to drink the stuff.
      • Rotzooi, on 09/28/2008, -1/+10The pros and cons of the stuff weren't really my point; it's just so insane to believe there is a Liberal/Communist conspiracy to behind it. To do what, exactly? Because they did honestly feel that this only happened to *them*, not to Liberal tap water drinkers.
    • ghostlywind, on 09/28/2008, -2/+21God i hate Kansas because of a lot of the crazy Christians that live here. If you need proof of how crazy they are visit First Family and Church of the Resurrection in Overland Park, will completely open your eyes on how good they are at brainwashing people.

      I can't wait to move out of Kansas
    • frsrblch, on 09/28/2008, -9/+2When its an idea you agree with, it's teaching; when it's one you disagree with, it's brainwashing.
      • bjornski, on 09/28/2008, -1/+6One is backed up by reproducible facts.

        The other is backed up by a storybook.

        And you think they're equal?
    • obamarama09, on 09/29/2008, -5/+1I'm a democrat, and I am a Christian. It offends me when people say that religious people can't think for themselves. Its a personal decision of mine to believe in God, and all of the things that He has done for me. Its also a personal decision of mine to be a democrat.
      • Ortheos, on 09/29/2008, -2/+3Is it also a personal decision to deny logic?

      • obamarama09, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Is it logical to think the world was created from a big explosion of nothing?

        When you create something...let's say a computer program. The more times you create that program, you add on new features and your program evolves. The program did not create itself. It had you as a creator. I did not create myself either. God created me and everything else. Its very logical. If you don't see the logic, that's your loss.
  • Dndlion, on 09/28/2008, -6/+166The Bible should be taught at church, not school. Or would these same fundamentalists agree to have the Koran and Dianetics brought into their children's science class too? Cognitive dissonance anyone?
    • SuperWinner, on 09/28/2008, -21/+20The bibble should not be taught at all, period. I cannot defend anyone who thinks the bibble is a fact of any kind.
      • bangalter, on 09/28/2008, -20/+4I bet you want books you don't agree with banned, too.
      • Gutterpunk, on 09/28/2008, -3/+7People do not study the bible for it's "fact" not more than you watch 24 for historical accuracy. Call it entertainment or "filling the void", bible study is not devoid of usefulness.

        /Atheist.
        //Bibble? Is that a new clever slur against religious people?
      • Rrab, on 09/28/2008, -2/+12Faith is the plague of modern society. Holy books shouldn't be banned -- look at how popular that made Catcher in the Rye. They just need to fade into obscurity like all the other inane supernatural myths.
      • Jaydo, on 09/28/2008, -4/+3The bibble is indeed nonsense. I mean, look at the values it teaches the people such as loave.

        I mean, what is LOAVE?!

        No bibble teaching, we say!
      • brb1031, on 09/28/2008, -0/+11How is bibble formed?
        How is bibble formed?

        How life get straited?
      • ace429k, on 09/28/2008, -2/+2You suck at spelling! The bibble?! How can anyone take you seriously when you don't even try to reread your comment.
      • wburglett, on 09/28/2008, -0/+5Does the bibble tell you how babby is formed?
      • rotundo, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2Well, it's a fact that the bible exists and billions of people claim to live by it (though almost none of them have read more than a few words of it).

        They can teach that in religion class.
      • bjornski, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2@brb1031

        Ok, more pop spit onto the keyboard...... +1
    • ph070sh0p, on 09/28/2008, -1/+29The bible should be taught in mythology/theology classes. The same way that students read about the Odyssey, Greek mythology, and eastern philosophy. The same with the Koran or other significant cultural works.
    • opiniastrous, on 09/28/2008, -0/+18Actually, that's an idea.

      To end their constant arguing for creationism to be taught in schools, we could shape the argument to insist that if Christian theology is taught, then so should the creation stories of a number of other religions. That might just force Christians to back off, because they don't want their kids to be taught about Hinduism, Scientology, et al. Failing that, they could (probably would) argue that creationism is a science, and the other religions' creation stories aren't, but that would force them to fight on our terms, where we could prove creationism brought nothing more to science than the story of Xenu.
    • SquigglyP, on 09/28/2008, -0/+3I think if they want a law to treat creationism and evolution as equals, then there should be a law that requires religious organizations to teach evolution as well.

      As soon as you wanted to put a law like that in place, tho, you'd have them yelling "separation of church and state!!" at the top of their lungs. Hypocrites.
    • Kzoo, on 09/28/2008, -1/+0That was my thought. There are any number of creation myths out there. Shouldn't we teach all of those too? When would we have time for evolutionary theory. . . you know, the part that's observable and has lots of evidence and studies to back it?

      Solution: cut abiogenesis. It's not technically part of evolutionary theory anyway. Evolutionary theory has been used in attempts to understand possible naturalistic origins for life, and to try to explain what we see in the fossil record. If we're going to get picky, get rid of the contentious part. Make a homework assignment to compare it to other ideas, and then forget about it. What one believes about where life came from at the beginning doesn't matter to scientists who aren't studying it. Preventing the complete "invalidation" of the theory (which -is- used by scientists studying what's in nature -now-) by people who aren't qualified to judge is much more important, in my opinion.

      (I'm not a creationist, by the way.)

      Either way it's very clear these school board members don't have a clue.
    • Gemfinder, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Let all the religions have their say, too. The Hopi maintained that their people crawled up into the world via a hollow log. What about the Norse and Hellenic Greek creation tales about giants' skulls? Was the Earth really brought up from the bottom of a formless primordial ocean by two ducks and two frogs, as the Ancient Egyptians claim? Can you imagine the President proclaiming that he, we, all of us are nothing but a dream in the mind of Vishnu?
  • Dralha, on 09/28/2008, -10/+117The fact that there still exist people who cling to primitive stone age goatherder mythology, in the face of hundreds of years of empirical science, is testament to the devastation of the psychological torture of religious indoctrination.
    • BuLong, on 09/28/2008, -3/+3now, nerfherders on the other hand...
    • SisyphusFragmnt, on 09/28/2008, -1/+5If you don't accept the theory of evolution you an idiot. Plain and simple.
    • AzureRise, on 09/28/2008, -2/+2I, am so quoting you, like, forever. ctrl+c ctrl+v
    • Talphin, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1*****... I think the thumbs up is broken. I have clicked it like a million times, and it only gave you one digg... :P
  • avataros, on 09/28/2008, -5/+43Time to vote 'em out. Evolution '09!

    Here's the board in question: http://www.co.brunswick.k12.nc.us/education
  • apastafarian, on 09/28/2008, -4/+35Unfortunately, the tiny minority that's for this votes while the overwhelming majority against stays home. It's also why distraction issues like abortion and gay marriage are always hot topics while issues like the economy and personal freedom become important only when there's some kind of crisis.
    • Shawn4168, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1"the tiny minority that's for this votes while the overwhelming majority against stays home"

      Wow...care to offer some proof there? Sounds like you're just trying to convince yourself that the majority of America thinks just like you, when in fact they don't.
      • apastafarian, on 09/28/2008, -1/+1You know, you might be right. I try to forget how dumb this country can be, then I read the morning paper and see "President Bush", "Sarah Palin" , "Patriot Act", "Intelligent Design", "Department of Homeland Security", Guantanamo Bay", and so many more and it slaps me hard in the face!
    • pagno, on 09/29/2008, -1/+1Where was the crisis with FISA? Oh that right, no one ever brought it up. Nevermind.
  • dtyer33, on 09/28/2008, -5/+31It is really scary. At what point are the ignorant going to stop trying to push their ideology on the young? The same people that want to teach this in schools are the same people with a closed mind who would discount evolution. I would extract my child immediately from any school system operating with this mentality. Let's move forward into the 21st century.
    • KatelynLiz, on 09/28/2008, -5/+2Why on Earth would you say such a thing? Do you not have faith in your child's ability to think for his/her self?

      Your argument is exactly like that of the religious zealots who pull their children out of school because they don't want them exposed to different ideas.

      I see no reason why Creationism and Evolution cannot both be taught. Obviously, Creationism has no place in a science curriculum, but it could be in included within Religion and Philosophy courses.
      • Mothrog, on 09/28/2008, -0/+5Probably because it is religion, and hence does not belong in public school. If you want religious education, send your kid to a private school.
      • KatelynLiz, on 09/28/2008, -1/+3@Mothrog - I don't have children, however I did attend school in a rural North Carolina town. Our school had a Religion and Philosophy course. Because of this course, many students who originally believed that Christianity was the ONLY religion are now aware of religions across the world. Many of these students even questioned their own faith and began to be more accepting of other ideas, including Evolution.

        Of course, this course was optional and was never forced upon any student. It would have been unfair, however, for this course to not be offered at all. Students whose families are wealthy enough to afford private education should not be the only ones who are aware enough about religion to make their own, well-informed opinions.
      • tonygunslinger, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2I upmodded you because there are some knee-jerk reactions here. There is a difference between "teaching religion" and "teaching religious studies" -- in other words, a social science.

        In fact, I support a curriculum that inform kids about different types of religious views, investigate their histories, as well as discussing current issues so the kids can be better prepared to make decisions, and open up more choices for them, in a complex world. No social institution has had greater impact on the world than religion, so it is absolutely paramount for kids to see it as objectively and informed about its impact as possible.

      • KatelynLiz, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1tonygunslinger, you may well be my hero today. I have repeatedly attempted to raise the same point, but have clearly been unable to get my point across as well as you.

        I am a firm believer in Evolution, yet I have faced criticism because I am not stubbornly opposed to the teaching of Creationism. I am thrilled to know that there are other open-minded people on digg...I was beginning to have serious doubts.
      • Gemfinder, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1I'm not against creationism being taught either, but I do object to it being taught in a scientific context. The closest they come to real science is anthropological studies, which by rights belong in Senior, maybe Junior-year high school and up.
        Back in the 1700s, astrology was part of astronomy but it wasn't dominant. It was a nice philosophical enhancement. Is there really a scorpion in the sky? No, but there's a pattern of stars that supposedly look like a scorpion...or a winged horse...or a little dog...or a river. But sorry, there's no river in space and were we to go up (out) there we wouldn't recognize the star-pictures that we call Scorpio, Pegasus, Canis Minor or Eridanus.
        For Pete's sake, people — we have people to heal and an environment to protect. Let's step forward, not backward.
  • operasara, on 09/28/2008, -6/+207We don't teach religion in SCIENCE class. It's not SCIENCE
    • Strongwings, on 09/28/2008, -21/+1Too bad evolution has the base of a religion.
      • Neiby, on 09/28/2008, -1/+15Too bad you're brain dead and ignorant.
      • Strongwings, on 09/28/2008, -13/+1Good come back. That hurt. Sounded like it came from your ancestor- the single cell organism that evolved from nothing.
      • cquinnd, on 09/28/2008, -0/+11Evolution has a base in biology, geology and animal husbandry.
      • Dimensio, on 09/29/2008, -1/+4"Too bad evolution has the base of a religion."

        Please explain and substantiate this assertion.
      • Mnementh2230, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2Evolution is based on FACT.

        It's called a Theory (capital T here, because it's a scientific Theory, not a layman's theory) because it is an explanatory framework for the OBSERVABLE, REPEATABLE FACT OF EVOLUTION.

        Creationism is a RELIGION. And no matter how hard you believe, your faith doesn't affect reality.
      • Gemfinder, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2I Dugg your comment, Mnementh223, but take exception to the last assertion.
        If you believe in yourself, you can affect reality significantly.
    • InnerGalbladder, on 09/28/2008, -0/+3Exactly. There is no testable hypothesis on the existence of intelligent design. You have to be able to prove it false or true. Can't go on faith to be a science.

      Also, in the scientific community, a theory is an idea that has withstood hundreds of tests and experiments and still holds true. People who say that the theory of evolution shouldn't be taught because it is a theory are ignorant of there own language.
  • Iphis, on 09/28/2008, -4/+60I have an idea, why don't we put a stipulation on federal funding to public school systems that if they teach creationism, they don't get any money. Worked for highways and the drinking age. Then they will have the right to teach this nonsense but they will have to make some hard fiscal choices. Besides, there is always a need for uneducated, low wage workers. These kids will be the future day laborers.

    What really cracks me up is the statement about not seeing evolution in action. Not to familiar with agribusiness and fruit fly research eh. Evolution in action. Oh and gravity it s theory too. How they gonna counter that one.


    • BuLong, on 09/28/2008, -0/+12Simple: Jebus walked on water, it's true, it's in the bible, gravity is just a theory too...
    • HumanNouveau, on 09/28/2008, -0/+11A-*****-men

      If they taught anything else that could be shown to be false, we'd call BS.

      Fact is that the Bible is demonstrably false. It's adherents continually resort to the same *****. Either they use the text to prove itself -- hard work because it is self-contradictory in many ways, or else they talk about how many people believe it, which is just a silly argument.
    • pier2, on 09/28/2008, -0/+9Gravity is being changed to intelligent falling.
      • rotundo, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2You jest, but this is exactly how we should approach the battle. Come up with equally cockamamie approaches to "science" and seriously push them on these school boards.

        "Intelligent falling" is good. There are probably many more. To hell with micro-organisms. "Intelligent Disease" anyone?
      • Gemfinder, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Evil spirits!
        I knew a guy who went to Egypt and saw pilgrims getting tattooed at a pilgrimage site. No sterilization, no needles changing, nothing, right out there in the flies and dust. The artist said that you'll only get a disease if you don't have faith in Allah. He refused to get tattooed and they chased him out of the city for an infidel.
  • MJG2007, on 09/28/2008, -3/+74Sure thing. But only if evolution is required for Sunday School.
  • Winston84, on 09/28/2008, -4/+24"The Brunswick County School" should change it's name to "The Brunswick County Church of the Last-day idiots"
    • soulkitchen, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2This just goes to show that every vote counts, local ones too. Of course, Brunswick County isn't known for being an intellectual hot-spot.

      Check out this census data: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm= ...

      ~1/5 has below high school education
      ~1/5 has a bachelors or above
      leaving a full 60% of the people (over 50K) with only a high school education.

      I wonder if they'd be willing to listen to my flying spaghetti monster curriculum plan?
  • sk11, on 09/28/2008, -5/+91Palin: many people call you folks crazy idiots, I call you my base
    * crowd of creationists cheer *
    • pintomp3, on 09/28/2008, -6/+46"evolution is a theory and i don't accept it" - ron paul

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
      • Ne007, on 09/28/2008, -23/+5But Ron Paul doesn't want his Religion pushed upon others either.
      • pintomp3, on 09/28/2008, -3/+30bzzt, try again.

        he tried to ban abortion at the federal level by declaring life as start at conception (a definition no other religion but christianity has)
        http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110 ...

        he supports the states right to ban sodomy:

        "Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_o ...

        since vaginal sex isn't in the constitution either, i wonder if ron paul supports being able to ban that too

        he doesn't believe in separation of church and state:

        "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs."
        "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage."
        http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

        someone should tell him that many of the founding fathers weren't christian, many even *gasp* atheist

        regardless of his reasonable stance on foreign policy, he is a religious nutjob just like sarah palin and rick santorum.
      • zephyear, on 09/28/2008, -1/+15always knew he was crazy
      • tnoy, on 09/28/2008, -4/+5@pintomp3
        Abortion wouldn't have been banned at the federal level, the act specifically removes the Supreme Court's ability to rule on abortioin cases. An individual state could make abortion legal, and the Federal Government wouldn't be able to rule against it. The law allowing or banning abortion would be up to the people in the state. It would effectively legalize abortion in many states.

        Go look at his voting record on abortion issues. Pretty much every case his vote was to limit the control of the federal government, or to remove funding for anything related to abortion. Voted 'no' on a bill to make it a federal crime to harm the fetus durring another crime. Voted 'no' on restricting minors to travel between states to get an abortion.

        "he supports the states right to ban sodomy"
        The poeple in the state would vote on such an issue.
        He also voted against banning same-sex marriages at the federal level, too.
        (State vs. Federal, here too.)

        His stance on school prayer and creationism has always been that the states should decide.

        Religion? Up to the states.

        See the pattern?

        Anyone who doesnt know that a Paul administration would allow a state to make sodomy a crime, ban abortion, and make it a requirement to learn creationism in school hasnt listened to a single thing Ron Paul has said.
      • pintomp3, on 09/28/2008, -2/+6why would religion be up to the states when making laws based on religion is a violation of the separation of church and state? are you saying states should be able to violate the constitution? would ron paul support a state instituting sharia law?

        "he supports the states right to ban sodomy"
        "The poeple in the state would vote on such an issue."
        again, should the people of the state also be able to ban vaginal sex?

        just because you can pack a state full of religious nutjobs doesn't mean you can use public funding to teach religious theories. should astronomy classes in those states also start teaching the sun goes around the earth?

        facts are not democratic. and you cannot vote to violate the constitution. if ron paul wants to live in a theocracy, he can move to iran.
    • BuLong, on 09/28/2008, -1/+6All her base!
    • KingGorilla, on 09/28/2008, -0/+3That explains a lot
    • pwdrskier, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1more like crowd of idiots cheer
  • getisboy, on 09/28/2008, -0/+11"The board allowed Fanti to speak longer than he was allowed"
    • fluxion, on 09/28/2008, -1/+17"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"

      uhh....because its so ***** slow, like you just said?

      i swear....like we're supposed to morph into manbearpig over the course of a generation.

      but ignore the fact that we HAVE observed microevolution and have an extensive fossil record supporting macroevolution...not like anyone up there in ***** town, usa is gonna call you on it.
      • KaiserArny, on 09/28/2008, -0/+7Was he he 2000 years ago? Yet still believe in Jesus.
      • Gallowspoling, on 09/28/2008, -0/+3fluxion, i totally agree with what you're saying but making a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution just plays into the creationist strategy of convincing people there IS a distinction. They are the same process and, since, as you said, evolution can and has been observed thousands of times, irrefutably, the only way a person could attack the idea would be to try and make a distinction that accounts for the change in bacteria after different pressures are put on a population but does not account for our evolution from primates.
    • Roobix, on 09/28/2008, -0/+5Fanti is slow too.
    • griffinjam, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1He was allowed to speak long than he was allowed....

      This is a logical absurdity. He was allowed to speak longer than a person is typically allowed. But he wasn't allowed to speak longer than he was allowed, he was allowed to speak for exactly as long as he did.
  • pygmy, on 09/28/2008, -0/+9such as in South Africa and the Iraq
  • Inohavehalos, on 09/28/2008, -2/+20Why the hell hasn't someone posted a picard facepalm yet?
    • pistonhonda, on 09/28/2008, -3/+25............................................________........................
      ....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
      .............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
      .........................,/...............................................”:,........
      .....................,?......................................................,.....
      .................../...........................................................,}....
      ................./......................................................,:`^`..}....
      .............../...................................................,:”........./.....
      ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../.....
      ............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
      .........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/...........
      ..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
      ...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
      ...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../.............
      ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
      ............/.`~,......`-...................................../...................
      .............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__...........
      ,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,....
      .....`=~-,__......`,.........................................................
      ...................`=~-,,.,......................................................
      ................................`:,,...........................`..............__..
      .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
      ........................................_..........._,-%.......`...............
      ...................................,
    • fluxion,