Militant ignorance in the defense of shaky religious belief continues. Last year it was Talibama; now it’s Georgia. Are there any residents of Atlanta–surely a world-class city?–who read this board? Are you embarrassed? Proud? Moving away?
I live 80 miles from Atlanta (in Flannery O’Connor’s hometown) and this part of the state is for the most part affluent and liberal. Outside of metro Atlanta there is nothing to distinguish Georgia from Alabama save for more mosquitoes: both are agrarian cultures that grow peaches, peanuts, and cotton, though Georgia does have an education lottery that Alabama’s never been able to pass. Both have rural population bases that will forgive a candidate’s $300,000 in bad checks on the Congressional bank so long as he promotes school prayer.
The best political news from Georgia this week, though, is that Bob Barr is now dead in the water. Hosanna!
(I couldn’t access your link, unfortunately.)
Hmm. I just retested it, and it worked fine. FWIW, if you couldn’t read the article because you didn’t want to register with the New York Times, I’m here to testify that I registered with the NYTimes in 1995 and have NEVER received spam of any kind from them. I tagged my account with a misspelling of my name and have never seen it returned to me by a third party, either. Meanwhile, here’s the first paragraph of the linked story:
This really should be in the Pit so I could open up with both barrels.
It is frightening how boneheadedly ignorant the fundamentalist Christians are, and how they misunderstand both their own religion and the nature of science.
How many times do these idiots need to be told that “theory” is not the antonym of “fact”? A scientifc theory is an overarching system of thought that explains a set of observations. Theories make predictions, they are testable and falsifiable, and they can be modified as new observations warrant. This is not true of creationism.
Moreover, religion exists to inculcate moral codes and to explain the purpose of existence. Science studies the mechanics of the universe, but has nothing to do with purpose or ethics.
I love this quote:
The NYTimes piece (I read it in the actual paper today, but I assume its the same one you linked to) was pretty interesting. I think it was revealing that, after a school board decision, the board head led the rest of the members in a prayer.
I think part of the problem is that those arguing that “Evolution is only a theory!”, and that Creationism (thinly veiled as “other viewpoints”) be taught alongside it are mistaken about the nature of science. Of course the concepts of evolution are “only theories” – this is how science works. Theories are made, experiments are performed, and those theories that hold up over time (assuming they’ve been tested over said time) hold more weight than those that don’t. The basic concepts of what we call “evolution” have been around for, what, 150 years? During this time, there has been no serious challenge to the most basic concepts. That is, no theory has been offered which better stands up to experimentation and observation.
Anyway, veering off track here. Those who would attempt to protect religious dogma from a perceived (and incorrectly so) attack are certainly doing a disservice to education. Honestly, I have yet to hear a justification of this that isn’t obvious doublespeak. Those who would push their religious agendas could at least have the decency to admit their motivations, rather than whitewashing it as “treating controversial theories objectively” and the like. If Creationism is to be submitted as a “competing theory”, it must be subjected to the scientific method. Obviously, this is not the case.
I have no problems with anyone believing what they want, or attempting to disseminate those beliefs. However, if something is presented in a scientific context (such as, you know, a science class), it must be scrutinized within the conventions of science.
It’s also interesting to note that most of those decrying evolution believe that the theory somehow “denies God”. I wish this country had another few thousand Trises or Polys to explain the difference between science and theology to these people.
Lissener, not everybody is interested in signing up, spam possibilities or no spam possibilities, and for future reference, if you’re giving links from a registration-only website, it’s a courtesy to those Dopers who don’t care to sign up to include a paragraph or two from whatever article you’re discussing, so we can get some idea of what you’re talking about.
And go look for it ourselves, on Google or Alltheweb.
Same NYT story, no registration required.
I thought this was interesting:
And this:
I think some people are missing the point of the article. If you can ignore the quoted Fundie parents’ ranting (that’s what sells newspapers), try to look at the fact that the school board passed a policy calling for teaching both creationism and evolution. Hey, Evolution got its foot in the door in Georgia. We should be celebrating, not gathering around to bash Fundies.
And, Gobear? I’d really prefer you not to say things like, “it’s frightening how boneheadedly ignorant the fundamentalist Christians are.” It’s exactly like saying, “It’s frightening how boneheadedly ignorant the blacks are.”
In the future, please try to rephrase it as, “it’s frightening how boneheadedly ignorant some fundamentalist Christians are”. See the difference? 
Thank you.
You need a better analogy. Being black is an intrinsic quality,; one’s religion is not. Being black says nothing about one’s beliefs or personality; fundamentalistism is defined by its well-known common set of beliefs, including Biblical inerrancy.
And to be a fundamentalist IS to be boneheadedly ignorant. If one believes that the world was created in six days, that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, that God flooded the entire world and saved only one family, who then repopulated the planet, in short, if one is a fundamentalist, then one is ignorant.
And don’t say that you are a fundamentalist but you’re not a Biblical inerrantist. That’s impossible because accepting Biblical inerrancy is part of the definition of what fundamentalism is.
That’s not neccessarily ignorance. An inerrantist or fundamentalist might have studied biology, geology, genetics, and all that, and might fully understand theories about the creation of the universe, and the theory of evolution, and every other scientific topic out there.
In spite of fully understanding the theory of evolution, they might still reject it, because for them, biblical truth trumps scientific truth. They might say, “Yeah, if you look at the scientific evidence, evolution wins hands down, my bible says otherwise, and it’s impossible for that to be wrong, because the bible is a better guide to truth than science is.”
Now, gobear, we know that you’re not one of those perverse promiscuous faggots that are trying to take down the American Way of Life, so don’t be offended by the language!
How you reacted to that paragraph is, I think, much how Duck Duck Goose reacted to yours – and she has every right to self-describe as “fundamentalist” and still remain an intelligent, rational person who can distinguish tripe from truth with the best of them.
I believe in “the fundamentals of the Christian faith” – as they were defined by the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon several hundred years before some benighted soft-shell Baptist decided to make up his shopping list of what “all true Christians” must believe.
I asked DDG some time ago to start a thread discussing fundamentalism as a rationally valid belief system; she declined, more or less on the grounds that she expected just the sort of reaction that you furnished.
So I don’t have an idea what specifically she means by it or why she identifies with it – but I’m sure that classing her and dreamer (who I think self-identifies as fundy too) with the “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” bizarreries seems to her to be on a par with the sort of insults that you have had to bear and I’m sure were shocked to hear from me.
IMHO, if you’ll accept it, “some” was not an unreasonable request, and I think she would go along with “most” as quite true. And, of course, not one word of the comments made on gay people, including the judiciously selected insult-noun, are anything I believe true – but that’s exactly my point: Just as there are conservative Christians who believe that most if not all gays meet my sardonic description above, which is effectively untrue for nearly everybody (I’m still not sure about Michelangelo Signorile! ;)), so most gay-friendly liberals would believe a stereotype about conservative Christians, or even Christians who consider themselves “fundamentalist,” that is by no means true for all of them – and DDG, as an exception, asked that the universal not be used, a fair request IMHO.
By that token, would you agree that Islamic fundamentalism is not by definition bigoted nor harmful? Just curious about your POV.
Cynthia McCrazy cashing in her chips is a step forward too, from what I can see. Or, to relate this to the topic, Bob & Cyn went extinct. Ha!
When I was younger I remember something about a graduated progression that involved “hypothesis” to “theory” to “law”.
A hypothesis was when you had an idea, then you tested it and developed a theory, then once that theory was proved, it became a scientific law. Like the “law of thermodynamics”.
I am sure I am missing something here, could someone please clear it up for me?
If you will ask Dreamer, she will tell you that the “God said…” credo is exactly what she believes. Biblical inerrancy is one of the tenets of fundamentalist Christianity, as stated in the tracts called “The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth” that circulated widely in the early 20th century and were responsible for the rise of what we call fundamentalist Christianity.
The set of beleifs that define fundamentalism (from this http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/fundam.htm"] site include
[ul]
[li] the necessity of a conversion experience through faith in Jesus Christ alone, (being “born-again”)[/li][li]the accuracy of the Bible in matters of science and history as well as theology[/li][li] the imminent physical return of Christ to the Earth where he would establish a millennial reign of peace and righteousness. [/li][/ul]
I maintain that a belief in the literal truth of the Bible is neither intelligent nor rational. And if you want to call me " a perverse promiscuous faggot," go right ahead.
I suggest that you read up on the history of fundamentalism, the Azusa Street movement, and the counterreaction to the Higher Criticism if you want to discuss this. Karen Armstrong’s The Battle For God is an excellent overview of the history of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalism.
What, exactly, are we supposed to be celebrating? If the Fundamentalists had kept their noses out of things, evolution would have been taught anyway! It’s kind of the default if you’re going to have any understanding of biology. Now, you get a heapin’ helping of evangelizin’ in your biology class, instead of (or, at best, in addition to), you know, biology. The point, of course, is that such evangelizing has no place in a science classroom. Creationism, no matter how you dress it up, will never be science.
The Creationist movement is about politics and control, not about knowledge or learning. The entire Creationist case is “God did it, the Bible says so.” Even if we allow that such a statement may be appropriate (which I do not) in a biology class, there is absolutely no way to allow for the ridiculous notion of “equal time” for Creationism.
Undoubtedly, there are a number of Fundamentalists who are celebrating. I, however, see nothing to celebrate.
Sorry, back to the OP…
Residents of Atlanta who read this board? Well, Alpharetta ain’t Atlanta, but pretty damn close.
Are you embarrassed? Absolutely. Particularly since my diploma is from Cobb County.
Proud? Puhleeze.
Moving away? And let THEM win? Nope.
For those of you unfamiliar with the area, Cobb County is a suburb of Atlanta, and includes the city of Marietta. Marietta is a bit blue collar at heart, built around the Lockheed plant that used to build C-5As, now builds the new fighters. But Cobb County is generally fast growing and affluent. Having lived in Cobb County for many years, I can tell you that is hard to find anyone over 30 years old who was born there. In fact, it is pretty hard to find a Southerner there (damn yankee transplants, mostly). Cobb County is the second largest school district in Georgia. And while Georgia does not rank high on the education stack, Cobb County generally has a very good school system (verb tense subject to change on short notice).
And no, Duck Duck Goose, evolution is not “new” to the Cobb County Schools - creationism, or “alternative explanations”, will be new.
The point is that Cobb County isn’t some backwards/backwoods Georgia county dominated by a bunch of bible thumpers (OK, don’t ask me for a cite on that one!). Deliverance wasn’t filmed there. It is generally quite progressive, albeit conservative. The scary part is that it could happen almost anywhere.
It’s not the fundies that are the concern, its the Republicans who give them the seats. Cobb is a Republican stronghold. W. Panic Snopes noted incumbent and NRA board member Bob Barr’s defeat in the congressional primary last week (in a different district). It should also be noted that the Republican gubernatorial primary was won by Sonny Perdue (no jokes about the names down here, please), who defeated Bill Byrne and Linda Shrenko. Bill Byrne was the former Chairman of the Cobb County Commission, and Linda Shrenko was the former Superintendent of Cobb County schools. While they lost, it does say something about the influence of Cobb County in Georgia’s Republican party. Downright scary.
What a patheic question! I think you’d probably find living in such an ignorant environment to be rather tolerable, if you had the guts! Go ahead and keep slinging your ignorant apeshit at decent people who’ve decided to honor Christian principles. Stay away from Georgia (and for that matter, Alabama) and we’ll thank you just the same, you ignorant piece of shit.
I find this kind of frightening, DDG. Are you suggesting that it’s a good thing to force biology teachers to sabotage their own students’ educational process by, in effect, forcing those teachers to deny–dishonestly!–the factuality of the science those CHILDREN are struggling to understand?
[Moderator Hat ON]
japatlgt, in this forum we prefer to debate, rather than call people “pieces of shit”. Do NOT do this again.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Ummmm…
The theory of evolution has been taught in Alabama schools (and possibly even Georgia schools) for decades. The “New Thing” is that Creationism is now guaranteed equal time, so to speak.