Public high school band shirts get banned because they reference evolution.
“I don’t think evolution should be associated with our school,” parent Sherry Melby said.
Oh, don’t worry. I don’t think anyone will mistake you for modern humans after this.
Yeah, that quote made me laugh too. And I love the (hearteningly few) people in comments saying things like “if they’d shown creationism on a T-Shirt, you atheists would all be throwing a hissyfit too!” For starters, how the hell do you show “creationism” on a T-Shirt?
Why do school administrations continue to legitimize these people? There is no “debate” between evolution and creationism. There is no scientific controversy. Stop treating them as two equal and opposite theories. I’m going to go ahead and repeat that:
Journalists: STOP TREATING THEM AS TWO EQUAL THEORIES
Schools: STOP TREATING THEM AS TWO EQUAL THEORIES
Politicians: STOP TREATING THEM AS TWO EQUAL THEORIES
They’re not. One is an accepted and repeatedly proven scientific theory and the other is ONE religion’s interpretation of creation. Want to teach the controversy? Want to teach about the “conflicting views” on creation? Okay, go ahead. Teach each and every creationist theory for every religion in the world. Have fun. It’ll be an interesting theology class. But it’s not science. And it shouldn’t be treated as science.
I especially address this to the media. As a journalism student, the way stories are framed in the media is important to me. You do not need to remain “impartial” when it comes to evolution and creationism, if that impartiality means presenting them as two equally valid theories. By all means, present an unbiased account of these religious beliefs. It is important to report these things accurately. But don’t present creationism as an equal, alternative explanation for evolution.
(And yes, I realize that evolution is not abiogenesis and does not even try to explain the origins of life. I’m trying to keep things simple for people who can’t even understand that it’s a more valid theory than creationism).
Oh, and because I forgot to address it in my last comment, I should be clear. When I say “don’t treat these as two equal theories,” I don’t mean to accidentally imply that creationism is a theory. It’s not. Evolution is a theory. That is to say it is an explanation for the relationship between a number of facts. “It’s a theory, not a fact.” That’s right. A theory is not a fact. A theory consists of MULTIPLE FACTS.
Creationism is not a theory. It’s not even a hypothesis, because hypotheses are falsifiable.
I realize I’m preaching to the choir here but this stuff still pisses me off.
Yeah, they just matched it against a something with a religious connotation. Which is absolutely a horrible comparison – evolution doesn’t presuppose any religious denomination (or lack thereof). FFS, isn’t that the point of Intelligent Design – a way to include evolution without discounting a “designer” (God)?
Shit, someone should protest whatever their next shirt is – oh shit that has a trumpet. We don’t want our school associated with metallurgy and acoustics!
“For starters, how the hell do you show “creationism” on a T-Shirt?”
Just put a big print of some bull shit on it
I’m not usually very violent in my opinions, I proud myself on making the effort to understand other people’s views…
… but I would put a bullet inside each and every one of this creationist assholes, they piss me off like nobody else does.
You do not mess with Science, Science messes with you
One of the people quoted about how evolution shouldn’t be taught in schools is supposed to be a teacher. That makes me sad. Not surprised, but still sad…
“how the hell do you show “creationism” on a T-Shirt?”
That Far Side cartoon where God is making snakes?
AMS, you beat beat me to it.
Also I have heard a report about a kid getting in trouble at school for wearing gym shorts that had the NIKE swoosh insignia on. Apparently at a PTA meeting someone suggested school uniforms consisting Hitler Youth uniforms to solve the problem. Seems like a good solution for this case too.
“Creationism” on a t-shirt is *EASY*. You’ve probably already seen one at some point in your life.
I want to see the Brass Resurrectionists. I’m Christian and I don’t see what the big deal is. Is that really the biggest thing your scared of for public school kids? Cripes. I’m glad my neighborhood didn’t care about anything.
I can see why they pulled the shirts. People didn’t evolve from monkeys–we share a common ancestor that was not a monkey nor a man. The shirts were simply inaccurate.
More seriously, I am confused that so many people in the article think evolution is a religion. I’ve heard people argue that atheism is a religion, but evolution?
Religion (creationism) is being argued as a science that should be taught in schools, and actual science (evolution) is being called a religion that should be kept out of them. I … what?
If the worst problem your life has is the t-shirts on the high school marching band? Well fuck.
I can’t even.
I can only wonder what would have happened if the band kids had been largely minority and wearing evolution t-shirts. There might have been a riot.
This makes me pretty angry, guys.
Specifically, this: Pollitt said the district would now have to absorb the cost of the T-shirts — $700 — that would have been paid for by the band parents.
Ah, for the ancient days of the drumline wearing “Men Without Drum Hats”… which was roughly 1984 when they did that… And oh, irony, there were at least two… no wait three girls on the drumline…
Concerned parents = people who should have not lived to adulthood.
Wait, this is a PUBLIC school?
I grew up in religious Jewish youth groups, and we used some form of the evolution-diagram joke on a bunch of our T-shirts. Not even the strictest parents ever thought of it as a possible issue.
I think in the same way that some people sue over anything and everything, some people can take religious/moral offense at anything – and America is the only country in the world where the system doesn’t know how to say, “Yes, we’ve heard your complaint, but you are being f**king ridiculous.”
It gets so tiring having to deal with this stupidity day after day.
Science, logic and reason follow a specific pattern when exploring an event. First they find out How and event occurred, then if there is evidence of a conscious interaction a WHO is answered, and thebn finally, if a WHO is present, a WHY is then answered.
Religion operates in the completely ass-backwards manner by first answering “WHY am I here?”, then it anthropomorphizes the unknown into a WHO and finally creates (and re-interprets via apologist) mythologies to explain HOW the event occurred.
Science, logic, reason = HOW -> WHO -> WHY
Religion = WHY -> WHO -> HOW
Bluepard makes an excellent point!
Also, does anyone else feel like maybe it’s time to change the way schooling works? Maybe if governments deliberately set up faith school departments within public schools this crap wouldn’t matter, because retarded parents could opt out their kids from science without affecting the children of people with brains, and any kid who is opted out but is curious about rational thought will be exposed to kids who are being taught about evolution and such, so at least some of the knowledge would be available to them… it’s not a great idea, but neither is the country that leads the free world openly admitting that around half its population believe in the magic sky man, and we seem to rumble on ok.
“One is an accepted and repeatedly proven scientific theory and the other is ONE religion’s interpretation of creation.”
Isn’t a theory, by it’s very definition, not proven? It’d cease to be a theory and then become a fact, last time I checked. Also, while Christianity tends to get lumped in with creationism because they’re the most vehemently vocal, it’s not the only religion that supports that idea on how we all got here. In fact just about every major religion has a version of creationism behind it in some form. Still, it should be noted that intelligent design and creationism are two separate things that tend to get lumped together.
“Intelligent Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority” – Thomas Jefferson
That said, this is still really stupid and reminds me of just how completely closed-minded and ignorant people can be.
Before the replies start flying let me be clear: I realize what he was trying to say, I was just clarifying that a theory isn’t a proven fact, though there are a lot of people that tend to act/think it is. It’s a potential explanation backed by scientific evidence as I’m pretty sure he was trying to say in a later post. People can be just as vehement and ignorant about evolution as religious zealots are about creationism.
“More seriously, I am confused that so many people in the article think evolution is a religion. I’ve heard people argue that atheism is a religion, but evolution?”
Likely because they have no frame of reference for anything but a faith based belief system. They can’t (or won’t) parse the fact that it’s based on something other then words in a book and wishing really hard that it’s true.
“On the sixth day, God created BAND”
Surely that wouldn’t offend.
Randy: why quote a man (Jefferson) to refute a scientific discovery that was made after his death? I’m sure if Jefferson had lived to see Darwin’s work, he would have simply modified his opinion that God had guided the evolutionary process and/or set up the world so that the evolutionary process would go the way he wanted it to. God the Watchmaker, in other words.
Randy, the short answer is that evolution is a theory because we’re still working out the details.
Look up Theory in wikipedia for the detailed explanation, but evolution won’t become a scientific law until we understand it so well we can use it to predict development, instead of just understand what we see.
Yes, the linguistic quirk causes problems. But explaining it is a teaching opportunity.
Also, I liked this quote from the comments on the article:
“When I went to school, we could sing Christmas carols that exalted God and Him condescending [sic] to man in the flesh”
Which is pretty much my feelings on religion in a nutshell.
“Likely because they have no frame of reference for anything but a faith based belief system.”
Exactly. It’s all out of ignorance more often than not. I’ve known people like that all my life, where everything is viewed through religion-tinted glasses. These are the same kinds of people that automatically label things a “cult” or devil worship. Gah, I can still remember having that conversation with my grandmother when I started playing Magic the Gathering as a kid. :-p
I wasn’t trying to refute anything at all and I agree that he’d likely take that stance (God the Watchmaker)and right now that’s pretty much my own position as well, for lack of a better way to phrase it. I came across that quote earlier in the day because a friend of mine had quoted it on another website and thought it pertained to this conversation in as far as Intelligent Design being considered a more science-based theory as opposed to a religious one- so I threw it out there because I found it interesting. I personally don’t have a problem with evolution, though I think the theory itself has flaws just as they all do. That’s why they’re still theories.
The point I was trying to make with my posts (though I admit that I didn’t do a very good job considering it was 6 in the morning and I was half asleep) was that whenever something stupid like this happens it’s important to remember that there are ignorant, closed-minded people on both sides of the fence. These types of conversations easily devolve into religion bashing sessions, which isn’t the issue. The issue is a group or moronic people lashing out at something that they don’t understand or have been taught to hate out of ignorance and stupidity and those poor students are the ones that have to suffer for it.
As far as I can tell, intelligent design comes down to bad statistics. They say that the mathematical odds of everything going right, on everything from an universe capable of supporting life to mutation reaching such an advanced level in the relatively short existence of the universe, are so long that there must be some guiding hand involved.
If you flip a coin, and it comes up heads, what are the odds of it being heads? After the fact, 100%. Whatever the odds involved, it has happened. No amount of existential angst makes the might-have-beens relevant to this universe.
People like this are why I’m never having kids. The human race has been run, and we lost.
Still, it should be noted that intelligent design and creationism are two separate things that tend to get lumped together.
Not really. Intelligent design is just creationism with a new name to get around that pesky constitution, since creationism isn’t allowed to be taught in schools due to the separation of church and state. One of the first “intelligent design” textbooks, Of Pandas and People, was originally a creationist textbook. They literally simply replaced the word “creationism” with “intelligent design” and “creationist” with “design proponent”, and kept everything else the same, so where originally you had
“Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”
now you had
“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
Of course, they weren’t all that clever about replacing the words.
Check out the Kitzmiller v. Dover case for more about this. But no, intelligent design is by no means more “scientific” than creationism. It is creationism.
I stand corrected.
What’s so bizarre about a community of people deciding to ban something they find distasteful? It isn’t like they are going against the public opinion or anything. Let them live their lives in their blissful ignorance, and you can live your life in yours.
“As far as I can tell, intelligent design comes down to bad statistics. They say that the mathematical odds of everything going right, on everything from an universe capable of supporting life to mutation reaching such an advanced level in the relatively short existence of the universe, are so long that there must be some guiding hand involved.
Nonsense to you, not to everyone. As far as I can tell, the odds that there is some intelligent design (label it as you will) behind all the intricacies and delicate balances that allows even a single lifeform to exist as it does are just as great as it all happening by some happy cosmic coincidence, especially given that mutations etc. are generally harmful and rejected by natural selection as opposed to being passed on. Like Joe mentioned earlier, we can only understand what we can see. Hundreds of years ago we believed that Earth was the center of the universe with everything revolving around us, as we understood it, because that’s what we could see at the time. Science makes leaps forward all the time, we adapt as we learn, but in all the scientific leaps we’ve made in the last few centuries we’ve still not been able to prove one way or another exactly how it all works.
“If you flip a coin, and it comes up heads, what are the odds of it being heads? After the fact, 100%. Whatever the odds involved, it has happened. No amount of existential angst makes the might-have-beens relevant to this universe.”
But that’s kind of the point, it’s all a might have been until it can be proven otherwise. Of course evolution can be seen, no one is arguing that (except for the loons) but how it all started and how it all works hasn’t been definitively proven yet, so your very argument could be used to support the other side of the coin as well. “God did it. It happened. What are the odds of it happening? 100% after the fact because it happened. God designed the whole thing so it’d work out the way it has.” They believe what they believe just as strongly as you; and until you can prove that it was coincidence and not some other intelligent being guiding it all from the start you’ll just have to agree to disagree regardless of how ridiculous you think their stance is. The problem comes when either side feels the need to force their beliefs onto others and cause harm, as the retards in this article did.
Personally I want to believe that there is a higher intelligence behind it all. I want to believe that there may be something beyond this life. I want to believe that there might actually be a point to all this as opposed to it all being some fucking huge cosmic oops because otherwise why bother? Why bother to deal with all the bullshit, to practice any kind of morality, or to even live at all if we’re only here for 70 or so years then it’s all over and it’s completely pointless in the grand scheme of things? Maybe that makes me a fool, or existentially emo, or whatever, but it’s faith that there’s a possibility it’s not all for nothing that keeps me going every day- especially with how fucking miserable and difficult everything is right now for a lot of us.
We’re overlooking the real problem. Lucifer was a musician. Why are these students emulating Lucifer?
For anyone who thinks that intelligent design isn’t completely groundless, read the wedge document.
Randy B., that’s the most outlandish pseudo-Jeffersonism I’ve ever seen. Google traces this to a whackjob named Stephen Meyer. Swap the quote into Google and you’ll get to Michael Ruse disassembling him: http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1244.html
We do need to ask how so many American communities came to believe that Darwinism is an existential threat to them if there is nothing inherently “atheistic” about it. Personally, I think Will Rogers had it right. You don’t go trying to pass laws to prevent people from talking about who your ancestors were unless you’ve got something to hide.
“Randy B., that’s the most outlandish pseudo-Jeffersonism I’ve ever seen.”
As I previously said, I saw it quoted on another website I was at before coming over to this topic and found it interesting so I put it here. I didn’t google it or double check because, quite frankly, I didn’t care enough to bother. The person who quoted it is a friend of mine and he’s usually good about that sort of thing so I just assumed it was legit. Oops. My bad. Thanks for pointing it out so I don’t make that mistake again.
“We do need to ask how so many American communities came to believe that Darwinism is an existential threat to them if there is nothing inherently “atheistic” about it.”
Because the religious zealots blew it out of proportion, as they tend to do, which caused the other side to fire back, and so on until it became a huge issue that still continues to be one to this day.
Nonsense to you, not to everyone. As far as I can tell, the odds that there is some intelligent design (label it as you will) behind all the intricacies and delicate balances that allows even a single lifeform to exist as it does are just as great as it all happening by some happy cosmic coincidence, especially given that mutations etc. are generally harmful and rejected by natural selection as opposed to being passed on.
There is no suggestion of intelligent design present in any form of life. This is not a 50/50 chance. There is not going to be some miraculous singular piece of evidence that tips the scale in your direction.
You creationist idiots just don’t fathom how low on the scientific totem pole you really are. You’re not neck and neck with evolution or abiogenesis. You’re not even fucking close.
Allow me to demonstrate by showing you ten pseudosciences that have more scientific merit than your intelligent design bullshit does:
10. Perpetual Motion – the applied notion of continuous energy has more merit than anything that could come from Creationism.
9. Faith healing – studying the psychological effects of desperate people who fall for this scam is worth more than anything Creationism presents.
8. Homeopathic Medicine – They are at least truthful when they say that there are no side-effects.
7. Seances and Divination of the Dead – Cold reading has more psychological merit than Creationism has scientific merit.
6. Phlogiston Theory – a notion based on actual observation of rusting metal and burning wood.
5. Astrology – Overtly ambiguous readings which are derived from factual Astronomical observations.
4. Alchemy – Intellectually retarded applications aside, the study of basic chemical reactions are still worthy of merit.
3. Parapsychology – At least there are tests to produce direct supporting evidence that ESP and other psychic phenomena exists in people. Those tests haven’t produced anything, but at least they have the tests. Creationists don’t have that much.
2. Paranormal studies – even a fake photo and odd sounds on tape recordings are more than what Creationism has to support it.
1. Storks delivering babies – a photo of a stork and a photo of a baby is more supporting evidence than anything Creationism has to offer.
ARE WE LEARNING YET?
As for mutations, life is NOT as delicately balanced as you would like to think. The reality is every human being carries over A THOUSAND genetic mutations from its parents while still maintaining the needed genetic material to form a fully functional human being.
I know you’d like to think that the complexities and intricacies of life would make it seem that its too good to be random or “by chance”, the reality is, that random chances and “odds” are not scientific terms. Random and “by chance” are metaphors which describe a series of dozens or thousands of measurable events that lead up to a singular conclusion.
Whereas a real scientist will spend years or even a lifetime trying to determine what each of those singular events are, the inbred Creationist/IDiot will merely shrug his shoulders and say “God done it” because “thems learnings iz too hard.”
You totally missed the point I was making. I wasn’t arguing the scientific merit of anything, I was simply saying that the logic he was using could be applied either way. Saying “God designed evolution at the beginning of time” and “by coincidence the universe and every form of life naturally evolved to how it is now” has the same odds when using the “100% chance after the fact” method. It doesn’t have anything to do with scientific merit, it has everything to do with backing up a personal belief that can’t be definitively proven (unless someone invented a time machine) with faulty logic. Science may very well prove it some day, but until they do people are going to believe what they want (and they probably will after they prove it anyway).
By the way, there are plenty of things in nature that are delicately balanced and just a slight shift in one direction or another would cause the whole thing to fall apart, such as the position of the Earth in it’s relative location and orbit around the sun, or the intricate complexity of how the eye works, for a few examples. The fact that they work the way they do is amazing, regardless of how it actually happened. Believing that there may be a higher power at work behind them doesn’t make every person who believes in God an “inbred idiot with no book learnin'”. There are many scientists with religious beliefs that are researching the very things you’ve mentioned, who also happen to believe that however it happened God (whichever one they may believe in) was the one that designed how it would all play out in the first place (and to be honest was what I meant when I said “intelligent design” which was admittedly a bad choice of words on my part given the subject). Perhaps that seems ridiculous, silly, idiotic, whatever to you, but that’s why they call it personal beliefs/faith. It doesn’t make reality any less true, regardless of who’s right or who’s wrong. Raging against it and insulting them only makes you look like a dick (and really no better than the religious zealots are) and makes any points you make, regardless of how good they may be, moot because they’ll stop listening.
Err, most commenters seem to be missing the salient point..the people agaisnt the band shirt arent stupid, religious, ill-informed, etc but are desperately trying to hold onto a certain worldview. Its is a worldview that is rather authoritaria; with a set social patriachal hierarchy, and this hierarchy is derived from and suported by a strict interpretation of a the Bible. Any information that would seem to undermine the Bible (evolutionary theory, equal rights for guys, etc) must therefore be repressed, expunged, or other wise driven away. If you could question some of these people you find their views come either a local religious leader or a local leader with religious support. Other key signifiers are use of the terms ‘God’s will’, ‘God-fearing’, and ‘I know in my heart Jesus would…’. So reasoned discourse don’t work, and if you give these guys an inch they will go on and on for days. At best isolation in small geographical areas with large EXIT HERE signs for people who want out would be the best solution. As to why someone would go fo this, its a worldview where you know your place, your future and your kids future. People will willing chanin themselsves if you put it right. See Patriot Act for more examples of that thinking in action.
But why can’t God have created evolution?
Having God create evolution would entail accepting the mind boggling facts of deep time. This would undermine a belief a humna-centric cosmos that actaully cares about human and their egos. Deep time leads to non-egocentric thinking i.e. that the environment is not meant for us to whatvere we want with it. Can also lead to Lovecraftian view of the cosmos (we aint nothing but dust motes in a screaming drak void of alien unknowable madness). Nope, for many its a 6000 year old universe that is only for white Protestant not-to-educated older males and their current favorite toadies and honies. And thats the way they like it.
True. Playing the devil’s advocate, though, God is omniscient, so he would have known that evolution would lead to humans.
Also, what’s so wrong with being non-egocentric?
Personally, I think life is an experiment. And where “God” is the experimenter, evolution is one of his tools.
“Nope, for many its a 6000 year old universe that is only for white Protestant not-to-educated older males and their current favorite toadies and honies. And thats the way they like it.”
Unfortunately that tends to be the representation of the more vocal segment of the population. Of course this is coming from a “heretic” former youth director that can’t land a church job here in the south because of my “liberal” stances on what should be taught to youth like: we should live a balanced lifestyle, not be zealots, not beat people over the head with our beliefs, treat the bible as a book we can learn from and not the “infallible, inerrant word of God”, we should think for ourselves, study the history behind things and know what we believe and why we believe it, not assume we’re right and everyone else is wrong, learn about other people’s beliefs, be open minded to new things, that science isn’t evil, that God doesn’t hate people: including people of a skin tone other than white or a lifestyle other than “traditional”. You know crazy, dangerous stuff like that.
I think Ambrael was simply pointing out the fallacy of “The universe is so amazingly complex, and the Earth is so perfectly made for life, that God must have designed it! It couldn’t have just happened” as an argument. Certainly, it’s the pitch I’ve heard most often in favor of creationism, whether in support of a literal six-days creation of everything or of a hands-off watchmaker.
The fact is, if the Earth wasn’t so perfect for the life that’s on it right now, then, either we wouldn’t be here to marvel at how perfect it is at all, or we would instead be marvelling at how amazing it is that the Earth is just perfect for methane-breathing pseudo-lizards (or whatever we would have evolved into on a completely different Earth with completely different conditions).
(I’ve always wondered: if the complexity of the universe is such that it must have a creator, then how could the creator have just happened? *grin*)
And apropos of nothing, I think the world would be a lot less fucked if people would treat it like the only home they’ll ever have, instead of the mud-caked doormat to a better place.
(Er, came across rather more aggressive than I really meant to. If your faith makes you a better or happier person, and especially if that faith is all that makes you practice any kind of morality, I’m glad you have it.)
If these people’s faith in God can be shaken so strongly by a T-shirt, they have far greater problems they should be looking at.
“If these people’s faith in God can be shaken so strongly by a T-shirt, they have far greater problems they should be looking at.”
I think the point ultimately comes down to we don’t know for sure what happened one way or another, and while science certainly points to the most likely scenarios, there’s still plenty of room for conjecture and for people to believe whatever makes them feel the most comfortable. In the end arguing about it, or causing problems like the group in the article did, doesn’t accomplish anything but making things worse for all involved. Banning the T-Shirts was a bunch of PC bullshit, as I think we can all agree, regardless of personal beliefs on evolution, God, or the tooth fairy. Freedom of Religion doesn’t automatically = freedom from being insulted every time someone says or does something you don’t personally agree with. It’d be a different matter all together if the school was forcing kids that didn’t agree with the shirts for whatever personal reasons to wear it, but the information in the article never said anything to lead us to that conclusion and the school board made a mistake in bowing to the wishes of the parents that decided to make a huge issue of it. “You don’t like the shirts, don’t buy them or wear them.” Hell, I was in varsity band in a public school, in the south, on the Bible belt buckle, and our mascot was the freaking devil (The Red Devils) with a big picture of a devil on everything we wore.
Sorry that I wasn’t clear. I’m not denying the possibility of a creator. I’m just saying that the arguments that try to use the statistical improbability of life as we know it as evidence of one are irrational. Any given possibility is just as likely on the first toss of the die as on the last one. It is a fallacy to say that the math supports a creator over any other explanation. And yes, this does apply to evolution too. Darwin just has the benefit of extensive collaborating evidence, while creationism has a really old novel.
As for your other comments, I’ve personally discarded the question as largely irrelevant. If there is a god, I’ve lived my life as best as I know how, and I’m comfortable being judged on what I’ve done. And if there isn’t? So What? That is just all the more reason to live well and treat others well to make the most and best of what we do have. Memento Mori, and godspeed.
“Sorry that I wasn’t clear.” Ha, no problem. I haven’t been as clear as I should have been either. It’s still been an interesting discussion and I agree with your comments. I think we were touching on a lot of the same things and just coming at it from different perspectives.
As for the rest, I find myself in a place of questioning and searching right now, so this topic just kinda hit me where I live so to speak. Up until a year ago I was a full time minister, and while I’ve always been fairly open minded and “liberal” as far as my personal views about religion etc. goes (especially compared to other ministers I’ve known), I’ve been through a lot of experiences in the last couple of years that’s left me questioning a lot of what I’ve not only put my personal faith in, but what I’ve devoted my life to and sacrificed for the past 12 years or so.
I guess that’s why I’ve been a bit all over the place in this topic because as I’ve been responding I’ve actually been evaluating just where I’m at personally, which has been an interesting process in itself. It’s one thing to be in your own head thinking about these things or venting to close friends, it’s another when it comes to having an active discussion with others that may have vastly different viewpoints from what you’re used to. I’ve enjoyed it and I appreciate all who’ve taken the time to respond, even if it’s been a little far to the left of the topic at times.
Isn’t a theory, by it’s very definition, not proven? It’d cease to be a theory and then become a fact, last time I checked.
Last time you checked? When was that? I’ll bet, very strongly, on “never”, because the only people who think things go hypothesis -> theory -> law are idiots who don’t know even the most basic, introductory, trivial things about how science works.
Like, apparently, you.
Free clue: “Theory” is as high as it gets, when you’re discussing explanations for why something happens. “Laws” describe *how* things happen, which is something completely different. There’s a Law of gravity because we know that masses attract and we can measure how much they’ll attract, with a very simple mathematical formula. There is, then gravity THEORY that explains *WHY* masses attract.
Gravity, for the record? We know SWEET FUCK ALL about for sure. There are a TON of competing hypotheses. There’s only one Theory Of Evolution because there’s only one explanation that the sum total of humanity’s efforts has ever come up with that fits the facts – and not only does it fit the facts, it predicts places to look for new facts (which we then consistently find), it’s replicable in a lab, and it’s TRIVIAL to take the theory, turn it into Laws in a simulation, and run it…. and, hey, look, it produces results that match the real-world evidence! Which is to say, taking the real-world starting point, and applying what we *think* happened, leads us to the real-world finishing point.
There is almost more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for *every other scientific theory combined*. Rejecting evolution REQUIRES profound dishonesty, mindboggling ignorance, unbelievable intellectual incoherency, or, most often, all three.
Also, while Christianity tends to get lumped in with creationism because they’re the most vehemently vocal, it’s not the only religion that supports that idea on how we all got here
Christian Creationism is the only kind well-funded dishonest assholes are trying to have taught in US public schools.
I’ve not once said that I reject evolution (which I don’t), or that I believe in Creationism (as it pertains to the “theory”). I’ve also said several times that I’ve been mistaken with my choice of words or, at times, have not been as clear as I should have been with what I was saying. In the post you’ve quoted (and in many following) I was simply trying to look at things from the other perspective, because conversations such as this one can often devolve into impolite bashing sessions (especially when religion is involved)- as I think you’ve done well in proving. I’m well aware of what a theory is. Like I said, I didn’t phrase that nearly as well as I could have. Had you actually taken the time to read the following posts in this discussion as opposed to flying off the handle and hurling insults at the first post you saw you might be aware of that.
I’ve not supported teaching creationism in schools in this post, nor do I in real life. I’ve been pretty adamant in several responses already that I think what happened in the article was ridiculous and wrong. I was simply pointing out that most religions believe in some form of creationism- not the “theory”, but the idea that we were created by a higher power or intelligent being of some sort, however it may have happened. That doesn’t make them all uneducated idiots, and it doesn’t mean that they all reject science, evolution, gravity, or whatever else you care to throw out there- though you may feel differently about them and, it seems, me. As hard as it will be, I’ll try not to let the fact that an anonymous person on the internet thinks I’m an idiot ruin my day.
I was under the impression that this was a comment section of a humor website/blog, not a professional debate or criminal trial. Next time I make the mistake of joining in on the conversation in the interests of fun and having a discussion, I’ll make sure to take it more seriously and have a 10 page research paper prepared on the subject to satisfy the few assholes that feel the need to tear random strangers down to inflate their own ego and sense of intellectual superiority as opposed to using their staggering intellect to actually read the posts and try to understand where the other person is coming from and not letting their own personal prejudices taint their response with unnecessary insults.
To the rest- I’ve enjoyed the conversation.
Had you actually taken the time to read the following posts in this discussion as opposed to flying off the handle and hurling insults at the first post you saw you might be aware of that.
I read them. I just still think you need the wakeup call, because, despite what you’ve said later, you don’t appear to get it.
I was simply pointing out that most religions believe in some form of creationism
Most religions are objectively counterfactual and absolutely incontroveritbly provably wrong, yes, you’re right.
That doesn’t make them all uneducated idiots, and it doesn’t mean that they all reject science, evolution, gravity, or whatever else you care to throw out there
Actually, it kind of does.
Rejecting evolution makes you at least one of:
3) Irredeemably stupid.
No exceptions *are possible*.
Creationism necessitates rejecting evolution, which means that all creationists are at least one of:
3) Irredeemably stupid.
As hard as it will be, I’ll try not to let the fact that an anonymous person on the internet thinks I’m an idiot ruin my day.
Oh, come on, I don’t think you’re *necessarily* an idiot! I totally admit the possibility that you might just be ignorant and uneducated!
PS: Yes, I’m relatively anonymous. But my name really is John, and the website link really is mine. The email address is a dumpheap of nonsense, but it’s the same dumphead of nonsense that I give to all web forums and discussions.
I was under the impression that this was a comment section of a humor website/blog, not a professional debate or criminal trial.
I am very sad that you’ve made the mistake of thinking that the evidence changes based on the audience.
In the mean time, because you said “I’ve enjoyed it and I appreciate all who’ve taken the time to respond, even if it’s been a little far to the left of the topic at times.“, I will point out Ichneumon, a Freeper (which is to say, significantly to the right of Attilla The Hun) who understands basic sceince and can explain it to you from a more comfortable POV.
You keep saying “rejecting evolution”, but if someone personally believes that evolution was originally designed or guided by a higher power how is that rejecting it? Sure, they may be rejecting the “completely by chance” portion, but that’s about it. I actually know, both personally and professionally, many highly educated men and women who believe that very thing- some of whom are research scientists that absolutely believe in evolution, support it being taught in schools (and even teach it themselves), etc. They’ve just applied their own personal spiritual beliefs to what they’ve found to be backed up by scientific evidence and to fill in whatever “gaps” there are that science has been unable to prove yet or is still a complete mystery. Perhaps that’s not good enough for you, but your opinion of them won’t affect them one iota, nor does it affect their jobs or the research that they do. They’re not uneducated or idiots, they just believe that there’s room to account for the possibility that there may be forces out there that science has yet to explain- such as God or whatever you care to place there. However, don’t bother to respond because it’s rather pointless. Besides, I got what I came for.
You see, I totally “get it”, I’m just working on gathering evidence for a theory of my own. My going theory is you’re a smug asshole who only sees what he wants to see in people’s responses because he’s blinded by his own perceptions about people and things- such as religion- and is incapable of talking like a rational, decent human being without being condescending or resorting to insults. So far I’ve been able to gather evidence to support my theory, and given your response I was even able to predict places to look for new facts! Science is great! (But it ain’t blowin’ me.)- Sorry, been thinking about that quote since this topic began and even went back to read MGK’s version of Civil War over again. Still hilarious!
Anyway, it’s a workable theory, though I think it may only apply to online interactions given the the relatively safe environment that quasi-anonymity and social detachment the internet provides. This is, of course, building off of the foundation of Penny Arcade’s “Fuckwad” theory laid out in regards to online game playing. For reference: (http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/215499488_8pSZr-L-2.jpg)
Sorry about that, the art section of their site is down so the link didn’t work. Let’s try this one: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
"[O]ne of the funniest bloggers on the planet... I only wish he updated more." -- Popcrunch.com
"By MightyGodKing, we mean sexiest blog in western civilization." -- Jenn
Subscribe in a reader