# A School District Finally Brave Enough to Challenge Darwin **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 2, 2005, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045 "2005-05-02T13:15:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/41 "2005-05-02T21:18:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > This thread is a bunch of ignorant bigots. > > Now don’t get me wrong, so are the people in Kansas you’re all bigotted toward. Paint with a broad brush much, hmmm? I guess it’s easier to bash Kansans than have an original thought of your own. > [@mswas](#): > > Go forth, and do not multiply. I surely hope you take your own advice. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/42 "2005-05-02T21:18:56Z")
AFAIK, we don’t have stickers on our textbooks saying evolution is “just a theory”, that’s another state. However, several years ago, when this topic was being argued, teachers couldn’t teach evolution at all for pretty much an entire school year. I think it’s horrid, and a tragedy that illogical, credulous people are getting their way in this state. Good lord, I shouldn’t be suprised though, we still have Todd Tiahart representing us, IIRC. **griffen2** what a rude and horrid thing to say! Shall I go by your example for wishes upon your home state? 😉 I can understand that this disgusts you, however, think of those people who live here and feel as you do, then temper your words with mercy. FTR, not all of the citizens of Kansas are for getting rid of teaching evolution. (I’m certainly for keeping evolution in the curriculum, and probably **Baker** ,\*\* Filmgeek\*\*, and several other Kansas Dopers feel the same way.) That’s why these cretins are having to dredge this up again, because evolution prevailed eventually. We lost Govermental funding for our schools because of the fact that we weren’t teaching Science fully, under Clintion IIRC, I don’t see Bush doing similar though, which is probably why they’re doing this now. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/43 "2005-05-02T21:19:22Z")
“First God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards.” - Mark Twain ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/44 "2005-05-02T21:27:24Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > This thread is a bunch of ignorant bigots. > > Now don’t get me wrong, so are the people in Kansas you’re all bigotted toward. > > First of all let’s stomp a few of your assumptions. I find your comments highly offensive. I also am sardonically amused at your high and mighty proclomation about the population of this thread, which you also inhabit. :wally ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/45 "2005-05-02T21:29:57Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > That doesn’t mean that it should be entirely ignored by our education system. It just needs to be treated the way my high school teachers and college professors dealt with it : presented it [Creationism] as an alternative view, with the caveat that, by accepted and time-honored scientific principles, there is little scientific evidence to support such a theory, _but that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence_. So long as Creationism is presented along with the creation myths of forty or fifty other religions, plus maybe the Great Green Arkleseizure theory of origins. (Bless you!) No reason to single out Biblical creationism for special status. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/46 "2005-05-02T21:32:12Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > So long as Creationism is presented along with the creation myths of forty or fifty other religions, plus maybe the Great Green Arkleseizure theory of origins. Not to mention the “What an imagination I’ve got!” school of thought. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/47 "2005-05-02T21:37:37Z")
**RTFirefly** , I could back the teaching of the Great Green Arkleseizure theory myself. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![griffen2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ce7236/32.png) [@griffen2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffen2)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/48 "2005-05-02T21:40:13Z")
**mswas** > [@mswas](#): > > This thread is a bunch of ignorant bigots. > > Now don’t get me wrong, so are the people in Kansas you’re all bigotted toward. What, precisely, is _bigoted_ about wanting children to have the best possible education? What, precisely, is bigoted about objecting to having a steaming pile of horse manure dumped on the candle of rational inquiry to make room in our _science classes_ for the fantastical myths of agrarian goatherders? Why, _precisely,_ does an angry reaction to the news that, yet again, our tax dollars are to be used to impress a “theory” (and I use the term in its _loosest_ possible sense) which no-one but wilfully ignorant fundamentalists place any stock in, upon kids who may not know better? Our reactions don’t betray us as doctrinal “science-fetishists” _or_ bigots. We just hate bullshit. And we especially hate like the idea of bullshit being taught in schools, particularly in such a manner that would undoubtedly depict said bullshit as an equally viable “alternative” theory of creation to match evolution, a theory with infinitely more empirical substantiation. > [@mswas](#): > > While science may not be a religion per se. It clearly is for many people in this thread, and usually is for many people who enter into this debate. Speaking of making religions of things, I fear that you may be close to taking something of a doctrinaire approach to open-mindedness. Now, don’t get me wrong, I like to consider myself a pretty open-minded person, but forcibly bestowing Creationism with a validity that _simply isn’t there_ isn’t being open-minded. It’s just being dumb. Sometimes, the “other side of the debate” simply doesn’t _deserve_ a fair shake because it’s got absolutely nothing of value to say and progress towards a genuine, fact based consensus on the topic in question is merely hampered by their participation. Simply put, Creationists are like Holocaust deniers, only less offensive. The only thing they bring to the table is bullshit. I cannot tell you how sick to fucking death I am of the idea that in order to be truly objective one has to give both sides of every issue a fair hearing. That’s not objectivity. It’s laziness. Objectivity involves a neutral, dispassionate and above all _stringent_ adherence to the known facts. If one side of the debate has little or no facts to back him up then the truly _objective_ approach would be to pay it little or no heed. > [@mswas](#): > > The truth is there is absolutely NO WAY to rigorously test evolution, because it happens on a scale of time longer than the lifespan of a human being. Unless you find fossilized evidence of an ape giving birth to a humanoid you’re screwed. No you’re not. Evolution has been observed countless times. Insects that develop resistence to pesticides have _evolved_. So called ‘Superbugs’ are called ‘super’ because they have _evolved_ to render current anti-biotics ineffective. This is micro-evolution and while macro-evolution has never been observed, there is absolutely no reason why ten million years of micro-evolution cannot constitute macro-evolution. I quote [Talk.Origins](http://www.talkorigins.org/) > [@Talk Origins](#): > > Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails. In other words, we know species diverge, we know _how_ they diverge, and while we haven’t actually _seen_ species diverge we know enough to confidently state that unless a mechanism for preventing macro-evolution is discovered, species _will_ diverge. > [@](#): > > The problem with that also is that evolution is GRADUAL. Say it with me class “GRADUAL”. Therefore each step in evolution is going to have a minor variation from the last creature from which it evolved. That sounds about right. What’s your point? > [@mswas](#): > > People scoff ALL THE TIME, at intelligent design, whether we are some monkey alien hybrid, whether or not atlantis existed. However, those theories are no less plausible. There is no more or less proof that we descended from apes than any of those things. So…let me get this straight. You are saying that the theory that humans are descended from apes is just as plausible as the idea that aliens changed monkeys into humans and then beamed them back down to earth. Do I have that right? Well, if you genuinely believe that then the following explanation for why intelligent design is far _less_ plausible than evolution will just blow your mind. I do hope you’re not particularly attached to the wallpaper in your current surroundings 🙂 The foremost proponent of intelligent design (or ID for short) is a chap called Michael Behe. He first coined the term in his book _“Darwin’s black box:The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”_. His argument is basically that there are some things (things which he calls ‘Irreducably complex’ or IC, for short) which are too complex to have evolved, therefore God must have designed them. Behe defines IC things thusly > [@Michael Behe](#): > > “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” But how do we say which ‘systems’ are IC and which aren’t? It seems to me that Behe’s definition of something IC is basically something that he can’t figure out. Would you call legs ‘irreducably complex’? Legs are certainly systems with well matched interacting parts but take away the knee and the system will “effectively cease functioning”. I mean, if _legs_ are IC and thus proof of ID then what damn thing _isn’t_ proof of ID? Hands, fingers, eyes, toes, stomachs, hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys, brains, wings, gills, all these will break down if you remove any one of their component parts. Behe also argues that IC things (like legs) can’t evolve because before they reached the supposedly IC state in which we know them now they can’t have been complete and hence wouldn’t have worked. This is crap for a number of reasons. Firstly, evolution is, as you’ve noted, a very GRADUAL (say it with me class) process. Changes to systems like legs or ears or eyes happen very slowly, by the tiniest of tiny increments\*. Removing a whole part of a system is a _major_ change to that system. Therefore, Behe’s contention that IC systems couldn’t have existed in a ‘less complex’ state and evolved into a more complex one is bollocks. If the ‘less complex’ form gradually grew more complex in minute increments of a period of millions of years, it certainly _could_ have evolved. Secondly, the actual precursor may have had _more_ parts, not less. Evolution may have, over time, rendered some parts of a system obsolete and these parts, while performing a function in the past, may have been ‘phased out’ by evolution. Thirdly, it is not true that a precursor missing a part must be nonfunctional. It need only lack the function we specified. Even a single protein does something. There are a load more reasons why ID is more a rationalization designed to prop up creation mythology than a valid scientific theory but I trust I’ve made my point. > [@mswas](#): > > I’m perfectly willing to accept that we are somehow descended from Apes. Why? Because it sounds plausible. Did I rigorously test it? No, and neither has anyone else. The theory is pretty fucking sound, but stop acting like anyone questioning it is an idiot. The problem here is that these ideologues who push ID or Young Earth Creationism or whatever in our schools aren’t merely _questioning_ evolution, they’re ignoring that it fits _perfectly_ with everything we already know to be true and are advocating instead a theory with _no_ empirical support because it makes them feel better. People question evolution all the time. The people who question it most rigorously and most effectively are scientists. Researching and questioning is their job. That’s what they do. We don’t treat _them_ as idiots because they are actually acknowledging the truth and not spending their days trying to undermine it with lies and slander in order to score brownie points for the afterlife. > [@mswas](#): > > Here’s something most people who are pro “SCIENCE!!!” have trouble wrapping their heads around. They want THEIR rules to apply across the board, so if anyone questions the scientific validity of evolution, then they have to question the scientific validity of creationism. This is absolutely wrong. The fuck? The creationists ultimate aim is to get creationism taught in schools _instead_ of evolution. THEY are the one’s who want their rules to apply across the board. If I can guarantee you anything it’s this: If a reproducable, methodologically sound experiment is conducted that debunks evolutionary theory, the people who will stand behind it most staunchly will be scientists. If the creationists actually had any _proof_ that evolution is as hollow as they claim it is then they would be taken far more seriously. The sad fact of the matter is that all they have in their arsenal is bullshit, conjecture and a few unanswered questions about evolutionary theory. The only reason they’re getting supposedly ‘credible’ hearings is because they won’t accept that they’re wrong and shut the fuck up. They been shouting and pushing and gaining momentum for about a hundred years and now they’re a significant _political_ force. Piss off the fundies and you piss off a whole lot of voters. And since ‘creation science’ has been moulded and redefined to prey on the scientific ignorance of the average voter as effectively as possible, they’re meeting less and less resistance the louder they become. > [@](#): > > …the creationists are merely trying to discredit evolution using it’s own system against it. And they fail miserably each and every time they do. Doesn’t this tell you something? > [@mswas](#): > > But I think that while there are a few people on this board that are quite intelligent, and have really interesting arguments, that probably 5% of the posters are bringing up the average for everyone else, and the lowest 60% is probably below the average. In short, there are a lot of fucking idiots in this house of worship. Then, with all due respect, why the fuck are you wasting your time with us? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/49 "2005-05-02T21:45:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The real problem with this is the idea of public education. Public education is state indoctrination regardless of which side it’s being a proponent of. When you underpay idiots to teach your children a static curriculum designed by bureaucrats based upon a mixture of scientific studies, morality, cultural norms and budget concerns, you have to expect a very high noise to signal ratio. Public education that teaches ANYTHING other than reading, math and critical thinking skills as a requirement is going to fall short. Until we have a system that offers multiple tracks that a person can follow, it’s just not going to work. Both sides have a problem with their child being REQUIRED to learn the other side’s curriculum. > > Some things I have realized since my public education was that, most of the history taught to me was so shallow as to be of little value. I was actually good at Algebra, it was a conflict with teachers and the system that made me hate it. The kids that COULDN’T do it in their head eventually surpassed me because I felt like it was a waste of time and paper to write out 6 pages of Algebra problems, and they did their homework. I learned almost NO chemistry because I had a teacher that would go off on tangents about zoology and many other things on a daily basis. The Scarlet Letter was a dull uninteresting book, and that I was totally vindicated by skipping entire chapters in it when I ended up getting a near perfect score on the exam. With all due respect, if you don’t believe in public education, you should join or start a thread about it, rather than taking out your problems on an only tangentially related discussion. > [@](#): > > Arguing about Evolution and Creation in the school system stops us from actually doing anything productive with our educational system. So what you’re saying is that every time somebody comes up with a kooky idea in _any_ field, and gets enough yahoos on his side that he can tie up school boards in knots, the schools should abandon that subject entirely, or give equal time to both sides? Maybe I’ll create some alternative version of arithmetic, and once the argument gets going good and hot, you’ll tell everybody here that arguing about arithmetic and FireflyNumerics in the schools gets in the way of education, and both sides should shut up, or both sides should get equal time, or something. > [@](#): > > If our educational system made any sense at all, we could offer kids both ideas and let them decide on their own. No! We should _not_ reward the yammering of a bunch of ignorant baboons by giving their yammerings equal pride of place with scientific theories. Danegeld won’t keep the Dane away, and all that. > [@](#): > > The larger question of whether or not intelligence exists at all needs to be a consistant part of this debate. You’re certainly doing a good job of holding up one end of _that_ debate. ---
**Author:** ![griffen2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ce7236/32.png) [@griffen2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffen2)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/50 "2005-05-02T21:47:29Z")
> [@Zalabi Clawbane](#): > > **griffen2** what a rude and horrid thing to say! Shall I go by your example for wishes upon your home state? 🙂 I can understand that this disgusts you, however, think of those people who live here and feel as you do, then temper your words with mercy. I feel suitably chastened. My apologies to the sane people of Kansas (both of you 😉 ). May sanity prevail in the hearings and may your classrooms be free of fundie gibberish forever. ---
**Author:** ![guinnog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7993a0/32.png) [@guinnog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guinnog)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/51 "2005-05-02T21:48:37Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > Please, **guinnog** , you’re not helping matters by seemingly taking every opportunity to slam the U.S. in some way or other. We’re not all narrowminded fundamentalists. We didn’t all vote for Bush. We don’t all support the war in Iraq. Even if you’d just referred to ‘benighted rustic Americans’ it wouldn’t have been so bad. Hey, don’t blame me. I got it from Mark Twain. You saying he was wrong? ---
**Author:** ![griffen2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ce7236/32.png) [@griffen2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffen2)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/52 "2005-05-02T21:49:39Z")
> [@me](#): > > Why, precisely, does an angry reaction to the news that, yet again, our tax dollars are to be used to impress a “theory” (and I use the term in its loosest possible sense) which no-one but wilfully ignorant fundamentalists place any stock in, upon kids who may not know better? Should be > [@](#): > > Why, precisely, does an angry reaction to the news that, yet again, our tax dollars are to be used to impress a “theory” (and I use the term in its loosest possible sense) which no-one but wilfully ignorant fundamentalists place any stock in, upon kids who may not know better **make us bigoted**? [sub]preview is my friend, preview is my friend, preview is my…[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/53 "2005-05-02T21:52:44Z")
> [@guinnog](#): > > Hey, don’t blame me. I got it from Mark Twain. You saying he was wrong? He’s known as a humorist, and said that in jest, which is a different matter. It also makes a difference that he was joking about his own nationality. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/54 "2005-05-02T22:04:13Z")
**ExTank** : > [@](#): > > That doesn’t mean that it should be entirely ignored by our education system. It just needs to be treated the way my high school teachers and college professors dealt with it : presented it [Creationism] as an alternative view, with the caveat that, by accepted and time-honored scientific principles, there is little scientific evidence to support such a theory, I’ll ignore your misuse of the term ‘theory’ and instead ask what exactly “it” is. Were all species created separately over the course of a billion years? Were all species created all at once 6000 years ago? Did a smaller number of proto-species emerge from Noah’s Ark and “micro-evolve” into the current varieties? Did all life evolve slowly while the DNA was incrementally yet intelligently programmed? Did lower forms evolve but humans were created specially? These hypotheses compete with one another as well as with atheistic evolution, so it’s not a simple dichotomy. ---
**Author:** ![guinnog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7993a0/32.png) [@guinnog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guinnog)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/55 "2005-05-02T22:08:22Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > He’s known as a humorist, and said that in jest, which is a different matter. It also makes a difference that he was joking about his own nationality. OK. Lay it out for me. I may not, in your opinion, as a science teacher in Scotland, express my utter disdain for this abortion of the truth that is happening in science teaching in another country, because I do not come from that country? Now, I, I hasten to add, have utter carte blanche to defend my own country against criticism. I do not think though, that I would ever do so solely on the grounds of ‘You are a foreigner. You have no right to comment’. Do you feel like adding to the debate here or were you just chiding me for saying something you don’t like about an aspect of America? There \*\*is \*\*a great tradition of anti-intellectualism in your country. Do you disagree? What do you think about the Creationism debate? Reflect well on your country? I am sorry if I offended you (twice in two threads now!). I assure you I am far too clever to make the mistake of thinking \*\*all \*\*Americans are dumbass hicks. I am sure you are not one of them. Rest easy. Would it help if I started a thread about all the things I like about America? Would you feel better? I wish you could reassure me that your strong and robust tradition of democracy (which I admire) and your proud Constitution and Bill of Rights (which I certainly wish we had over here) would be sure to protect you against this child abuse. If nothing else, you would think your enormous economy would take its own future interests into account and realise it needs the next generation of Americans to be scientists, not Creationists. That alone, enlightened self-interest, should do the job. Government or big business will inevitably step in and squash this madness. Would you say? Eh? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/56 "2005-05-02T22:18:39Z")
To put it simply, I don’t think creation OR evolution should be pushed on our children. If anyone in here disagrees with that sentiment they can kindly fuck off. We should teach kids critical thinking skills, then offer them the debate to pick apart as they see fit. ALL religions I have been exposed to have a creation story. It would be too time consuming to address every creation story, but to throw out the idea of being created by an intelligence isn’t scientific, it isn’t rational, it isn’t skeptical. A truely pro-science argument would not say either way. It would simply state that there is no way to verify whether or not we were created by an intelligent being/system. I don’t hate public education. I am simply saying that it’s current incarnation is basically useless. Half the people in this thread are pushing an agenda and are unwilling to see any other side to it. That’s bigotry my friends. The fact that you are unwilling to even discuss creationism’s place in the curriculum even though a HUGE portion of the world believes in it, shows that bigotry. I maintain that the majority of people who believe evolution to be true, have no basis in that belief other than a faith that ‘some smart guys rigorously tested it’, and they depend upon the fact that some other smart guys will back them up with cites on this forum, and their ignorance goes unexposed. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to insult the whole state of Kansas, only the people establishing the Kangaroo court that was discussed here. Open-mindedness is not laziness. If you don’t know the answer, if you don’t have all the facts, admitting that you don’t is ok. THAT is being open minded. Entertaining opposing sides of an issue is not being lazy. Being UNWILLING to entertain that other side is what is lazy. Sorry for the broad strokes. A GOOD AMOUNT of the people in this thread, are fucking idiots. To be clear, I am not calling people idiots for believing in any one thing one way or the other. I am calling people idiots for dismissing people for a behavior that they themselves are engaging in currently. Maybe I should say ‘hypocrites’. Just because someone else tested it doesn’t mean you did. If you haven’t read their methodology, or tested it yourself then YOU ARE ACCEPTING IT ON FAITH. The truth, try using it sometime. You’ll marvel at it’s wonders. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/57 "2005-05-02T22:29:32Z")
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, so it belongs in the schools, as [Thomas Dolby]SCIENCE![/Thomas Dolby] The young earth/flat earth/creationism/Jesus horse/intelligent design nonsense is just that - ignorant nonsense, dogmatic bullshit, put forth by incredibly arrogant, overbearing vociferous, control-crazy stupid people. It has no business being taught as science. It has no business being taught as fact. It is an attempt by a few stupid people, to keep other people just as ignorant and stupid as they are, so that they can control them. I feel no need at all to even pretend to respect ignorant bullshit, or the ignorant assholes who peddle it. I see no reason why The State (such as it is) should be forced to support or to teach what is a “religious” dogma, especially since most religions (even christian ones) do not share this dogma. It is tyranny by the minority at its finest. There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. - Goethe ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/58 "2005-05-02T22:31:08Z")
> [@guinnog](#): > > Oh dear. > > **ExTank** and **mswas**. I feel so sorry for you. It must have been horrible growing up with such anger. I can see why you would want to hang around a board like this and bait the ‘clever folks’. A fine old American tradition of anti-intellectualism. > > I so wish you could have had a better education, both of you. > > The really ironic thing is that in a way you are right; science is not a dogma. You are potentially very bright people. If it is not too late and you can bear to read something to challenge your anger and ignorance, try Steve Jones’ ‘Almost like a Whale’. > > I realise in writing this that I am wasting my time though. You would rather stay angry at them goldarn Scientists. Hope it works out for you. > > Anyone, ever, who says that Creationism and evolution theory are in any way comparable in esteem or in veracity, is a complete and utter fool. One is as ‘true’ as the physics that let us build computers that work or aeroplanes that fly. The other is as true as the imaginary friend I used to have when I was a kid, or the tooth fairy. To see people who have (presumably) reached adulthood without grasping this essential difference is deeply sad somehow. > > **Extank** , to follow your line of reasoning, we would have to teach about Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and the Yeti in Biology. Transmutations of base metals to gold in Chemistry. And fucking ghosts or UFOs or something in Physics. After all, ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’. > > Fucks sake. Who’s mad at scientists in general? Where in my post did you get that? I expressed the opinion that scientists blindly adhereing to scientific dogma are no better than religious zealots adhering to religious dogma. I expressed the opinon that the majority of the contention between Evolution and Creationism is being caused by both. I expressed the opinion that both views could be presented (as various educators have presented it to me) in the manner I described in my previous post. In essence: “We’re teaching science, here. Evolution has the advantage, but Creationism cannot honestly be ruled out; since Evolution has the advantage by the Scientific Methods, and since this is a class teaching science, go talk to some religious people about Creationism if you want the 4-1-1 on it.” I have never read the Bible beyond a few, select passages (like the 23rd Psalm at funerals, and such) and haven’t set foot in an establishment of Faith for the purposes of expressing that Faith in over 10 years (when my niece received her Masters in Public Health from St. Louis U. last year, the commencement was held in a Cathedral, and I was honored to attend that commencement and see her graduate to her Master’s degree). I am not an advocate of teaching Creationism as being equally valid as Evolution; I never said that I was, and where you may have apprehended the notion is beyond me. And since it isn’t unreasonable to conceive that somewhere, some Biological Science student is at this moment raising the questionof Bigfoot, 'Nessie, and the Yeti, I don’t see any impediment from my expresed viewpoint for any teacher anywhere to simply say:" There is some scant evidence to support the existence of such creatures, but no hard, verifiable evidence has yet to be presented which would necessitate their inclusion into the zoological record." As far as the Philosopher’s Stone is concerned, that has been thoroughly debunked by Science, and would not countenance such being taught in a science class beyond an introductory “History of Science” type lecture. You cannot discount the quest for the Philosopher’s Stone, and it’s contributions to our understanding of the physical sciences, even if it has been debunked. Fuck sake, indeed. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![guinnog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7993a0/32.png) [@guinnog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guinnog)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/59 "2005-05-02T22:42:32Z")
**ExTank and mswas:** I am not getting through here, am I? How about bringing in Holocaust denial to the History class? Would that be OK? “There is some scant evidence to support the relevance of such a theory, but no hard, verifiable evidence has yet to be presented which would necessitate its inclusion into the historical record” The Holocaust never happened, the Jews faked it all. After all, it is a theory. And one theory is as good as another. And neither you nor I were there to see it happen. Would that work for you? Or you could insist that NASA provide equal time to the people who think that the Apollo program was a fake, but that UFOs are real. Unless the other side can \*\*prove \*\*that UFOs aren’t real. Any good? Or, best of all, should the Roman Catholic Church be compelled to give equal time to the DaVinci Code by Dan Brown? Actually, that last one would be quite amusing! As with Creationism, you could quite easily find, in each case, a substantial body of people who would vote for it. Is that reason enough to put it into a school curriculum? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045/60 "2005-05-02T22:47:25Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > There are no “Unassailable Scientific Laws”, but I think it behooves anyone who acknowledges that truth to also acknowledge how impressively tenable those scientific laws and theories really are. 😕 Did I say otherwise? > [@Loopydude](#): > > Most of those honest, open-minded scientists you appear to know all about would stake their very lives on the confidence those conceptual frameworks so amply deserve. Neo-Darwinian Evolution is about as good as it can conceivably get in terms of “theories”, and I highly doubt there are any evolutionists out there who expect any significant modification to that framework will ever be needed. Rather, what continues to surprise is the explanatory and predictive power the concept of natural selection has, to the point it can be applied to even non-living, yet self-organizing systems, and may in fact lead us to tenable theories on the origins of life here on Earth. They may very well do so, and I wouldn’t disagree with them, or their right to do so. “As good as it gets” is still not absolute truth, even if it is the best, current explanation, and that disregarding that evidence is “tilting at windmills” or living in a fantasy world of I.P.U.'s. And Abiogenesis is, as you have pretty much said, the cutting edge and practical explanation for origins of life here on Earth; it is by no means the final word. At one point in our history, Geocentric and Heliocentric models of existence were all the rage, as well and the Flat-Earth Theory. Advancements (Science rarely stands still for very long, nowadays) may render much of what we perceive to be “the most very likely explanation” a relic of scientific history. I revel in the advancement of human understanding by science, even if much of it is beyond me; I’m just flat-out suspicious of _anyone_ saying, “That’s What It Is, And That’s That!” > [@Loopydude](#): > > In that regard, if it’s not the last word, it’s about the only word to be taken seriously, because nothing else even comes close. Honest, open-minded scientists know when to be sceptical, but there’s no need to be absurd in the honest pursuit of new knowledge about the natural world. One needn’t be so open-minded that they must seriously consider the Biblical creation story has even one iota of fact in it, because it doesn’t. Those who like to play with the word “truth” to make it fit their own preconceptions are, of course, free to do so, but there’s little point in arguing about metaphysics. From a scientific point of view, that’s not terribly relevant; and as soon as something once confined to metaphysical scrutiny becomes either applied physics, or applied mysticism, metaphysical arguments are beyond moot. They are pointless. Which is why I advocated that Science classes not seriously discuss Creationism beyond the fact that it’s a theory, and not even a very creditable one by the accepted Scientific Principles, and that any student wishing to explore the matter any further should take it up outside of class with their respective religious counsel. > [@Loopydude](#): > > The “paranormal” (or whatever you want to call it) approach to “knowing” simply occupies a separate branch of enquiry, quite different from the practical application of the scientific method, and further quibbling about relative epitemic values, in my mind, is completely futile (because no evidential resolution to the debate can be had), and further, utterly unimportant to the pursuit of empirical evidence to test or refute theory, if experience is any guide. “Creation” has _never_ made one testable prediction, nor offered a single explanatory principle about the natural world a scientist could apply in anything remotely resembling “theory”. Hence, it long ago revealed its lack of potential, and no longer warrants consideration. One needn’t be “close-minded” to think so. Sanity will suffice. Since I never advocated such an approach to “knowing” in the sense of established Scientific Principles, I’m wondering why you bring it up in response to my post? While IANAP, I have read and vaguely comprehend some of the cutting-edge theories as to the creation of the Universe; as Scientific explanations go, they are so far over my head that I have no rational basis with which to evaluate their validity; but I also have no rational basis for thinking that the author has pulled an I.P.U. from his or her fundament, either. I fully accept the theories as good-faith efforts to identify and explain the Universe and its workings according to scientific principles; I also recognize that those _theories,_ while being good words, even worthy words, are not the _final word_. But I also see the assault on the Creationism Theory as an assault on other realms of human understanding, those which are extremely difficult to quantify and “prove” by scientific methods. For instance, “prove” that you “Love,” or have “Hope,” or any other unquantifiable human emotion. Yet these human qualities exist, and Creationism touches upon them. These other realms, from which the Scientific Principles have been derived over the history of philosophy (and it’s concomittant split into various endeavors), need not be advocated strongly by science classes; I would rather they not. Yet they need not be “edited” out of our classrooms in totality by the faction of scientists (whatever percentage they may be) who are hostile to anything that can’t be quantified in a laboratory, or reduced to a scientific equation Thus, I see no serious impediment to mentioning Creation Theory in a public-education science class, if only briefly. Science cannot separate itself from, and set itself up as, the sole and exclusive venue of human understanding from its roots and contemporaries; it just need not delve into those other areas to any degree beyond a passing mention in a science class. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-school-district-finally-brave-enough-to-challenge-darwin/302045.md?page=4)