North Florida weighing in against evolution

Posted 24 January 2008 by PvM

The St Petersburg Times has another great article on what the school boards really mean when they want to teach alternative theories.

Evolution is "going to be taught as fact, and everyone knows it's not fact," said Dennis Bennett, the superintendent in Dixie County, west of Gainesville. "There's holes in it you can drive a truck through.

and

"We just wanted to get it on the record that we're a Judeo-Christian community, and we believe in academic freedom," Bennett said.

Most of the resolutions have nearly identical wording. Some object to the characterization of evolution as something other than a "theory." Others ask that alternative theories be included. "I'm a Christian. And I believe I was created by God, and that I didn't come from an amoeba or a monkey," said Ken Hall, a School Board member in Madison County, east of Tallahassee. The St. John's resolution says the standards should "allow for balanced, objective and intellectually open instruction" that doesn't treat evolution as "dogmatic fact." "Anybody with half a brain can see that natural selection takes place," said Beverly Slough, a St. John's board member who is president-elect of the Florida School Boards Association. "But to make great leaps from a fish to a man ... the fossil record doesn't support all that."

Keep those references coming, as they provide a clear understanding of what is meant by these resolutions, a topic which may come up in a possible lawsuit.

51 Comments

Eamon Knight · 24 January 2008

Someone remind me: the intent of an action counts before the courts, when determining whether it represents an entanglement with religion, right?
Guess the lawyers, as well as vetting the resolution, should have advised the board members to keep their big yaps shut.

Henry J · 24 January 2008

“I’m a Christian. And I believe I was created by God, and that I didn’t come from an amoeba or a monkey,” said Ken Hall

Were there amoebae of some kind in our ancestry? I don't know if scientists have concluded that or not. Henry

Michael Buratovich · 24 January 2008

These poor students are going to receive a substandard science education because some local school boards-people want to monkey with state-wide standards that scientists and educators spent months writing. Does that mean that the state standards are perfect? Almost certainly not, but they are probably five-hundred times better than anything someone not involved in the scientific or educational enterprises could come up with in the same amount of time.

Students should be taught the framework presently used by laboratory and field scientists to address biological questions. Anything else is a waste of precious classroom time.

Registered User · 24 January 2008

“I’m a Christian. And I believe I was created by God, and that I didn’t come from an amoeba or a monkey,” said Ken Hall

Most likely, Mr. Hall came from a pair of humans of the sub-species Fundamentalus ignoramus.

Mike O'Risal · 24 January 2008

Grrrr... that Bennett guy is seriously education-deficient. Not only can't he tell valid scientific theory from a hole in the ground, he can't even conjugate verbs properly in English.

It's "There ARE holes," not "There IS holes."

How does a guy who fails science and English get to be the superintendent of a school district? Was he selected based on having more remaining teeth than the other candidates?

I know a good hole that he ought to try driving his truck into.

skyotter · 24 January 2008

"Dear Florida,

Ix-nay on the Od-gay. Remember, we're still trying to get past the Lemon Test.

Many thanks,
The Discovery Institute"

Nate · 24 January 2008

Looking through some of the comments and threads both here and at Florida Citizens of Science, I have a new map of FL counties.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/3001/flantievolutionr2un4.jpg

Flint · 24 January 2008

I hope I live long enough to see how this particular campaign ultimately plays out. Granted, in light-turnout races with minimal media coverage (like school board elections), an ounce of investment can buy a ton of PR, and pack the boards with zealous ignorami. And the effect, in practice, is what we used to call a consciousness-raising experience. Which means, a whole lot of people formerly unaware of the entire business find themselves polarized, and some of them even find themselves informed. The silent majority is awakened and mobilized.

But this is perhaps a dangerous strategy - I don't think anyone really knows (except for some rather dubious polls) where this sleeping giant will tromp. And Lenny Flank, bless his soul, points out that creationists always shoot themselves in the foot. Their most visible, quoteworthy spokesfolk are guaranteed to trumpet stonking ignorance, of the "my grampaw wasn't no ape" variety. These good citizens know only one way to ward off the subversive evil of knowledge -- they wave their bibles at it. Courts tend to notice this, and for some reason associate their political goals with religious motivations.

So I wonder when the DI will notice that their target audience, unsophisticated in the ways of gaming the judges, just can't ever keep their Jesus under their hats. How many jurisdictions will have definitive decisions decoding the DI's codewords for creationism and prohibiting them, before the DI is obliged to adopt a somewhat less two-faced strategy, more in keeping with the instincts of the rubes?

Jake · 24 January 2008

I believe I was created by god
Yes, I believe He created mostly morons ...

Tom G · 24 January 2008

As they say, Southern Florida is "Northen", and Northern Florida is "Southern". This is nothing new and should come as no surprise.

Tom

JohnK · 24 January 2008

Dixie County? Real Life trumps Fiction again.
Will there be balconies in the courthouse?

JakeS · 24 January 2008

Whenever a creationist superintendent or school board member mentions "holes big enough to drive a truck through" I think they should be asked what those holes are. I predict that they will answer with either: a) "why are there still monkeys", 2nd law of thermodynamics, or some other bit of utter ignorance that reveals just how inadequate science education actually is; or b) attack the questioner's assumed political stance, supposed worthiness in the eyes of God, or patriotism.

FL · 24 January 2008

Whenever a creationist superintendent or school board member mentions “holes big enough to drive a truck through” I think they should be asked what those holes are.

Answer: Prebiotic chemical evolution. Full of unholy holes. "Weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology", the guy from SciAm said. FL :)

Red Right Hand · 24 January 2008

“I’m a Christian. And I believe I was created by God, and that I didn’t come from an amoeba or a monkey”

I love the smell of religious fundamentalism in federal court. It smells like...victory.

CJO · 24 January 2008

FL, what does the word "prebiotic" mean to you?

David Stanton · 24 January 2008

Well I think these guys should be free to pass any resolutions they want. I think we should also be free to make them public knowledge so that everyone can decide for themselves whether they want to live (or continue to live) in such a county.

Of course, there will be consequences to these actions. First, they will have violated the Constitution of the United States and will therefore have to form a new nation. Second, their students will probably be denied entry into medical schools and universities across the country.

Seriously, why don't we get an official statement from the University of Florida stating what the entrance requirements are for Biology majors? These people will then have to choose whether they want to belong to the ignorant masses or join the modern world. Personally, I don't have a problem with anyone remaining willfully ignorant, as long as they don't try to tell me what I have to believe or teach.

Matthew Lowry · 24 January 2008

FL:
Whenever a creationist superintendent or school board member mentions “holes big enough to drive a truck through” I think they should be asked what those holes are.
Answer: Prebiotic chemical evolution. Full of unholy holes. "Weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology", the guy from SciAm said. FL :)

Uhhh... your point? There are huge gaps in our knowledge of physics as well. For example, we have yet to reconcile the modern theory of gravity (called general relativity), which describes the cosmos on the largest of scales, with quantum mechanics, which describes the cosmos on the smallest of scales. When you try to put GR and QM together, the result is non-sensical mush. Does this then mean that all of physics is a "theory in crisis" and that we should "teach the controversy" of physics? Should we be demanding that the "godless, dogmatic" Gravitist/Atomists stop cramming their unsubstantiated ideas down our children's throats in physics classes? Should we allow "alternate views" of physics into the classroom: Transcendental Meditation's view of gravity and the "What the Bleep" view of quantum mechanics? Clearly the answer is "no". And to demand such would be just as silly as the arguments presented by creationists concerning evolutionary biology.

waldteufel · 24 January 2008

It's going to get tough for the science illiterates churned out by the
Florida schools.

They already have one of the poorest science education programs in the country, and they on on-track to be at the bottom of the heap.

That should please our troglodyte troll FL.

Mike O'Risal · 24 January 2008

Psssst...

Nobody tell FL that we have a good enough handle on this stuff to have constructed a functioning bacterial chromosome from scratch over in Maryland, OK?

Or that a paper was recently published demonstrating a transitional form in a living organism that has one foot in RNA world and still carries out some of its genomic functions the REALLY old fashioned way.

Or that short-duration self-replicating oligonucleotides were first produced in a laboratory in 1993, as I recall.

Or that we know how at least one nucleotide, adenosine, can be produced from cyanide and ammonia in extremely low temperature environments and that we keep finding all sorts of organic precursors scattered throughout the galaxy every time we look at some obscure cloud of interstellar gas.

I mean, it's not like we actually know anything, so don't let on to FL.

Not that any of it matters for evolutionary theory, of course, but even the misdirected attacks about abiogenesis increasingly don't hold water. But you know these whackadoodles; they get this stuff in their heads and nothing in the universe will ever convince them of anything else.

Stanton · 24 January 2008

FL:
Whenever a creationist superintendent or school board member mentions “holes big enough to drive a truck through” I think they should be asked what those holes are.
Answer: Prebiotic chemical evolution. Full of unholy holes. "Weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology", the guy from SciAm said. FL :)

How does a lack of understanding in "prebiotic chemical evolution" prevent understanding the documented changes in generations of pigeons, pigs, sheep, dogs, orchids, and flies? Perhaps you would like to quote the passage of the Bible that told you this?

Jorde · 24 January 2008

FL:
Whenever a creationist superintendent or school board member mentions “holes big enough to drive a truck through” I think they should be asked what those holes are.
Answer: Prebiotic chemical evolution. Full of unholy holes. "Weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology", the guy from SciAm said. FL :)

Exactly, holes in the theory of abiogenisis imply holes in evolutionary theory. Its basic science, just like holes in the theory of gravity imply holes in the germ theory of disease... o wait... Anyway... I think I finally know what "Darwinism" is. It is the creationist stepchild of a evolutionary theory, abiogenisis, and the big bang. The theory states: "a giant monkey exploded, sending amino acids through the universe that changed into man." Is it a straw man if the person arguing against it actually believes that is the stance held by scientists? :)

Dan meagher · 24 January 2008

Oh no; I live here, (Orlando; not so bad you say? Ha!).
I've written twice recently to the local rag, but they keep publishing "both sides" by printing letters that could have been written by Ken Hall (bless his soul).
part of what keeps this whole charade (Fundamentalist doctrine as science alternative) going is the unwillingness of the elites and the opinion-makers to stick their neck out for the truth. Church is big down here; you will be ostracized for supporting evolution (atheism). so the local paper is silent - although props to the St. Pete Times for stickin' it to the man.

Dan meagher · 24 January 2008

FL;
curious:
- why are there no giraffes in the Americas?, or kangaroos in Africa?
any thoughts on that?

How about potatoes in Europe? or tomatoes in Italy?

I know, there are NOW - why were there none before Columbus?

Simple question, can you answer it?

I can; not 'cause I'm smart,

Darwin did it for me.

Dan

apollo230 · 24 January 2008

I wonder what the big deal is - after all, how many kids really absorb the content of their science classes?

Stanton · 24 January 2008

Jorde:
FL:
Whenever a creationist superintendent or school board member mentions “holes big enough to drive a truck through” I think they should be asked what those holes are.
Answer: Prebiotic chemical evolution. Full of unholy holes. "Weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology", the guy from SciAm said. FL :)
Exactly, holes in the theory of abiogenisis imply holes in evolutionary theory. Its basic science, just like holes in the theory of gravity imply holes in the germ theory of disease... o wait... Anyway... I think I finally know what "Darwinism" is. It is the creationist stepchild of a evolutionary theory, abiogenisis, and the big bang. The theory states: "a giant monkey exploded, sending amino acids through the universe that changed into man."

You forgot to mention that the creationist says that God told him so in a specific passage in the Bible, and that this is the reason why we're supposed to believe what the creationist says because the creationist's opinion is God's opinion, and to disagree with the creationist's opinion means that God is ultimately going to kill us horribly and make us suffer forever and ever and ever.

Is it a straw man if the person arguing against it actually believes that is the stance held by scientists? :)

No. That's what's known as "pointing out the fact that the person is an idiot/lunatic"

Dan meagher: FL; curious: - why are there no giraffes in the Americas?, or kangaroos in Africa? any thoughts on that? How about potatoes in Europe? or tomatoes in Italy? I know, there are NOW - why were there none before Columbus? Simple question, can you answer it? I can; not 'cause I'm smart, Darwin did it for me. Dan

Want to bet that FL will say that the aforementioned organisms got to their native lands by saying that 1) Noah dropped them off on his way to Mt Ararat, 2) they got to where they are today through the help of magical continental conveyor belts, 3) koalas and eucalyptus trees were faster than gazelles and tigers back in Noah's day, or 4) angels escorted them to where they were supposed to be?

Flint · 24 January 2008

I think I finally know what “Darwinism” is. It is the creationist stepchild of a evolutionary theory, abiogenisis, and the big bang.

Context is critical here. To the creationist, all origins -- of the universe, of life, of people, etc. -- happened all at the same time, one time, POOF. "Darwinism" is a code-word for the false claim that creation happened any differently. The notion that there were multiple origins, at vastly different times and by totally different mechanisms -- of the universe, of life, of people, of species -- simply does not compute. I'm reminded of languages that do not have separate words for blue and green; these are "seen" as one segment of the spectrum, and given a word that's grenerally translated "grue". Creationism is like grue, conceptually undifferentiable into different events.

John Pieret · 24 January 2008

Dixie County? Real Life trumps Fiction again. Will there be balconies in the courthouse?

Nope. But last I heard it still had a couple of tons of 10 Commandments monument on the front steps: dododreams.blogspot.com/2007/04/blog-post.html

Ravilyn Sanders · 24 January 2008

“I’m a Christian. And I believe I was created by God, and that I didn’t come from an amoeba or a monkey,” said Ken Hall

In related news monkeys and amoebae said they are relieved they would not be held responsible for producing such dumb progeny as the Northern Florida school board members like Ken Hall.

Alan C. · 24 January 2008

apollo230: I wonder what the big deal is - after all, how many kids really absorb the content of their science classes?

While you're correct in the sentiment (I've seen several quotes from local FL high school students that affirm what you're saying, for example), I think this forum's devotees see this as a concrete platform for the "greater truth" (and I agree!). In a perfect world, we would be able to take this battle against religiously-driven defiance of the scientific facts to the population as a whole. Unfortunately, our position gets little airplay on Fox News, unless it is "fair and balanced" with divergent positions (i.e. the Christian Bible's account, oops, no, no, we didn't mean that ... uh), and so gets so diluted as to be just another one of those clamorous voices between commercials while we're waiting for the latest on Britney. Seriously, this issue transcends the actual venue and its audience. This harkens back to the take-away of Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" (and the thesis of many of his other works); let's break through the veil of human-imposed ignorance and really appreciate the universe for all the glory it is in reality, with life on this planet in particular as a glorious example. This is far richer, more subtle, and deeper than any archaic human religion, based on their pre-scientific books, has ever conceived. What a marvelous time we live in to see these wondrous ideas discovered, fleshed out and amplified in detail. We in this forum honestly wonder, why can't these people opposing evolution see what we see?

Flint · 24 January 2008

With all the publicity, and especially with all the attempts to get this evolution stuff out of the classrooms, I imagine interest among students will be heightened. Certainly most kids I know would be eager to see what a whole lot of adults don't want them to see. All we need now is science teachers who don't moonlight teaching creationism in Sunday school. Might be hard to find these in North Florida.

Alan C. · 24 January 2008

Flint: With all the publicity, and especially with all the attempts to get this evolution stuff out of the classrooms, I imagine interest among students will be heightened. Certainly most kids I know would be eager to see what a whole lot of adults don't want them to see. All we need now is science teachers who don't moonlight teaching creationism in Sunday school. Might be hard to find these in North Florida.

I like your idea, Flint, that the kids will want to see what has their parents so worked up; I'm personally working through my second generation of recalcitrant teens, so you certainly have a point. With my local schools (Okaloosa County, FL, Baja Alabama ... OK, the panhandle), I have my reservations on your second point, at least as the practical matter you identify. Check on this thread (and other related ones), we have documentation of a "science curriculum specialist" who doesn't understand scientific theory from fact, and a high school science teacher who "valiantly" declares she can teach that which she doesn't actually "have-to" believe in this district. (So, the accusation of a "dogmatic approach to teaching evolution as if it were a religion" does have a real grounding in fact. Ouch!) I doubt that our local students' needs (along the lines of your post) will be well served with the likes of that ... Sigh!

raven · 24 January 2008

I wonder what the big deal is - after all, how many kids really absorb the content of their science classes?

How many kids really absorb anything in their classes? Judging from the school board officials in N. Florida, they didn't absorb much. In fact, they seem to be products of substandard school systems themselves. Whatever, creo areas tend to be backward and I guess wallowing in ignorance must be entertaining to some.

soteos · 24 January 2008

I have an idea. How about all board members voting on evolution be required to take a test to show that they at least understand it. Anyone who doesn't understand it, doesn't get to vote. They don't have to believe it, only demonstrate that they know at least the basic principles. Board members should not be able to get away with ousting evolution when they can't even define it.

JakeS · 25 January 2008

soteos: I have an idea. How about all board members voting on evolution be required to take a test to show that they at least understand it. Anyone who doesn't understand it, doesn't get to vote. They don't have to believe it, only demonstrate that they know at least the basic principles. Board members should not be able to get away with ousting evolution when they can't even define it.

Good idea, but in the interest of better education it should apply to all subjects. Not necessarily show proficiency, just enough that they can show to their constituents that they have at least learned something of what their teenagers are being asked to learn. So maybe they can describe evolution as they understand it (as I sort of implied on my last post before FL pounced) for biology. Show that they can organize their thoughts into one of those lame 5-paragraphs, 5-sentence per paragraph essays for english, for example. For history, maybe just let us know what year they think the civil war ended (or war of northern aggression, depending on the school board), perhaps ask them to tackle some simple math problem to show that they possess to spend money, etc. Hell, I wonder how many of them even understand the constitution that they are asking their kids to study in civics? Particularly that one amendement. You know. One of the first two. The one that isn't about guns.

Nigel D · 25 January 2008

Excellent! FL has shown up to receive another metaphorical kicking...

Answer: Prebiotic chemical evolution.
— FL

Which is an oxymoron. Evolution applies to biological organisms. "Prebiotic" kind of means "before life". So, you are wrong. Thanks for sharing.

Full of unholy holes. “Weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology”, the guy from SciAm said

Now, let's see ... Yes, abiogenesis has many questions and few answers at present. No, that has no impact on the status of evolutionary theory, because they are separate fields of inquiry. No, we should not consider "the guy from SciAm" as the ultimate authority, even when he's right. An argument from authority is always a logical fallacy.

Nigel D · 25 January 2008

Seriously, this issue transcends the actual venue and its audience. This harkens back to the take-away of Carl Sagan’s “Demon Haunted World” (and the thesis of many of his other works); let’s break through the veil of human-imposed ignorance and really appreciate the universe for all the glory it is in reality, with life on this planet in particular as a glorious example. This is far richer, more subtle, and deeper than any archaic human religion, based on their pre-scientific books, has ever conceived. What a marvelous time we live in to see these wondrous ideas discovered, fleshed out and amplified in detail. We in this forum honestly wonder, why can’t these people opposing evolution see what we see?
— Alan C

Nicely put, sir.

TomS · 25 January 2008

I am not a lawyer, but...

Regarding the Lemon test, and its concern with whether the action of the state has the intent of furthering religion...

I believe that Justice Scalia has indicated that he would like to get rid of the Lemon test, and, in particular, that "intent" concern.

If this ever gets to the Supreme Court, I would expect that Scalia would be very happy to use such a case. And he may have a majority on his side, now.

David Stanton · 25 January 2008

Soteos wrote:

"I have an idea. How about all board members voting on evolution be required to take a test to show that they at least understand it. Anyone who doesn’t understand it, doesn’t get to vote."

I remember an episode of Third Rock where Dick is incredulous that everyone gets one vote, even if they don't know anything about what they are voting on.

Unfortunately, this is the way that democracy works in this country. Probably because of the problems caused by literacy requirements in the past. Presumably school board members know what they are doing because they are elected officials. Unfortunately, the people who vote for them may or may not know anything either.

As I said, everyone has the right to willful ignorance. I certainly won't stand in their way if they choose that path. However, there will be consequences imposed by harsh realities and I don't want to have to pay for the willful ignorance of others. If they insist on ignoring the Constitution, let them get their own country to ruin.

John Pieret · 25 January 2008

TomS:

If this ever gets to the Supreme Court, I would expect that Scalia would be very happy to use such a case. And he may have a majority on his side, now.

That is certainly a danger but it is not certain. Kennedy has been pretty unwilling to turn this court into a conservative version of the Warren Court. Even Roberts and Alito seem more intent at nibbling at the edges (okay, taking large bites out of the edges) rather than forcing big philosophical changes in the law along the lines Scalia wants. It is more likely that Lemon will be reined in some, probably in the area of divining motives for actions, rather than it being gutted altogether. On the other hand, predicting the actions of the Supreme Court bears a striking resemblance to reading chicken entrails ...

Matthew Lowry · 26 January 2008

apollo230: I wonder what the big deal is - after all, how many kids really absorb the content of their science classes?

Yeah, you're right. Why teach science in any case? After all, we all know that the reason why we made it to the Moon, vaccines work, and automobiles run is due to magic & wishful thinking. Who needs science? Since you don't think science is that important, are you going to throw away your computer (from which you likely typed your idiotic message) seeing as how both it and the Internet are a direct result of scientific research? Please do so and spare the rest of us your vacuous "reasoning"... -- From a pissed-off science teacher

David B. Benson · 26 January 2008

In vol. 41 #4 (2007) of Caltech News there is quite an encouraging article about teaching high school teachers (in Southern California) about botany and a variety of experiments which illuminate other aspects of biology via growing plants, easy and safe for the high school setting.

Here are the California standards:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/scbiology.asp

Note the impressive section on evolution!

Dan meagher · 26 January 2008

Hey FL;
any thoughts on the tomatoes?
I was intrigued to discover that the tomato was not introduced to Italy until after the discovery of the New World. Isn't that fascinating? I cannot imagine Italian cuisine without tomatoes, and yet, it existed for thousands of years...
But why were there no tomatoes in Europe before Columbus?
that is the question that, as far as I can tell, simply has no answer in the Bible.
Tell me where I am wrong.
Dan

Stacy S. · 26 January 2008

Matthew Lowry:
apollo230: I wonder what the big deal is - after all, how many kids really absorb the content of their science classes?
Yeah, you're right. Why teach science in any case? After all, we all know that the reason why we made it to the Moon, vaccines work, and automobiles run is due to magic & wishful thinking. Who needs science? Since you don't think science is that important, are you going to throw away your computer (from which you likely typed your idiotic message) seeing as how both it and the Internet are a direct result of scientific research? Please do so and spare the rest of us your vacuous "reasoning"... -- From a pissed-off science teacher

I must have had a great biology teacher in HS - I remember plenty. Don't you worry about comments like that.

Pole Greaser · 26 January 2008

Alan C.:
apollo230: I wonder what the big deal is - after all, how many kids really absorb the content of their science classes?
While you're correct in the sentiment (I've seen several quotes from local FL high school students that affirm what you're saying, for example), I think this forum's devotees see this as a concrete platform for the "greater truth" (and I agree!). In a perfect world, we would be able to take this battle against religiously-driven defiance of the scientific facts to the population as a whole. Unfortunately, our position gets little airplay on Fox News, unless it is "fair and balanced" with divergent positions (i.e. the Christian Bible's account, oops, no, no, we didn't mean that ... uh), and so gets so diluted as to be just another one of those clamorous voices between commercials while we're waiting for the latest on Britney. Seriously, this issue transcends the actual venue and its audience. This harkens back to the take-away of Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" (and the thesis of many of his other works); let's break through the veil of human-imposed ignorance and really appreciate the universe for all the glory it is in reality, with life on this planet in particular as a glorious example. This is far richer, more subtle, and deeper than any archaic human religion, based on their pre-scientific books, has ever conceived. What a marvelous time we live in to see these wondrous ideas discovered, fleshed out and amplified in detail. We in this forum honestly wonder, why can't these people opposing evolution see what we see?

So I guess this is a tacit admission that it's all about acquiring power for evolutionists. Any lack of media attention the religion of evolution receives only shows how sad and pathetic the faith of Darwin is. Heck, the prophet Darwin can't even compete with Britney Spears, much less Jesus Christ! Ergo, Darwinists need a monopoly on taxpayer-funded educational institutions to evangelize, where everybody must pay and you can't turn it off or change the channel!

pvm · 26 January 2008

So I guess this is a tacit admission that it’s all about acquiring power for evolutionists. Any lack of media attention the religion of evolution receives only shows how sad and pathetic the faith of Darwin is.

I see you have chosen to continue your lies. How sad. In Christ's name please stop making Him look foolish

Alan C. · 27 January 2008

Pole Greaser: So I guess this is a tacit admission that it's all about acquiring power for evolutionists. Any lack of media attention the religion of evolution receives only shows how sad and pathetic the faith of Darwin is. Heck, the prophet Darwin can't even compete with Britney Spears, much less Jesus Christ! Ergo, Darwinists need a monopoly on taxpayer-funded educational institutions to evangelize, where everybody must pay and you can't turn it off or change the channel!

Wow. PG, to equate my disappointment with the current state of the media in this country and the oft-described low attention span of the audience served by that media with 1) acquiring power for the evolutionists (Huh?), and is 2) a claim that there is even a religion of "Darwin" (every time I looked, nobody was on their knees praying to Darwin, or blowing themselves up for the "Darwinian" jihad), well, (double Huh?) it just leaves me gasping for breath! How could you see that in what I said? It is truly sad to me to see someone who seems reasonably intelligent making statements like these. You are free to take your children out of our secular public schools to prevent them from being exposed to the truth you so object to. You most decidedly are not free to turn our secular public schools into madrassas for your religion, at least not while I have a say in it!

David Stanton · 27 January 2008

Pole Greaser Wrote:

"Heck, the prophet Darwin can’t even compete with Britney Spears, much less Jesus Christ! Ergo, Darwinists need a monopoly on taxpayer-funded educational institutions to evangelize, where everybody must pay and you can’t turn it off or change the channel!"

So, I guess then you would be against Christianity being taught in public school science classes. Looks like this is your motivation not that of scientists. Your religion can't compete with science, or other religions for that matter. That's why you want your religion taught in public school science classes. Why isn't your tax-free church enough? WHy are you so afraid that students will learn the truth?

Nigel D · 28 January 2008

Alan C. and David Stanton, please note that Pole Greaser is a sad loser who does not actually believe what he/she posts here. (S)he never answers questions, and never makes any effort to either engagae in a debate or become informed. (S)he is just trying to yank your chain.

Ignore it, and it might go away.

David Stanton · 29 January 2008

Nigel,

I guess you are right. On various threads he has claimed that anything that is not "random" is "intelligent" and that anyone who does not share his religious beliefs should be his slave. Either he is a raving lunatic or someone trying to make religion look bad with nonsensical arguments. Either way, I guess it is no use responding to such delusional crap.

As others have pointed out, someone may even be trying to soil the bad name of "Pole Grteaser" even further by using his posting name to spout absurd nonsense. Of course, when you can't tell, that kind of means he had it coming I guess.

Tim J · 2 February 2008

Yes because Pole Greaser has different views from me he must be a bigot..

Ban him!

ben · 2 February 2008

Tim J, why don't you head over to the ID sites and see whole points of view banned and entire unfavorable threads deleted because they don't unambiguously cheerlead for the ID viewpoint. Nobody wants PG banned for what he thinks, but because he's an obvious troll who has no intention of contributing to the discussion and is likely just here to stir the pot with provocative, intentionally inflammatory hateful rhetoric which he himself probably doesn't believe.

Better, why don't you try criticizing--or even commenting--on their practices of deleting opposing arguments, and see how long your comment lasts before it's deleted and you are banned from posting again.