Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

[lakercub]

Source: www.cnn.com

SISTERS, Oregon (AP) -- During his eight days as a part-time high school biology teacher, Kris Helphinstine included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.

That was enough for the Sisters School Board, which fired the teacher Monday night for deviating from the curriculum on the theory of evolution.

"I think his performance was not just a little bit over the line," board member Jeff Smith said. "It was a severe contradiction of what we trust teachers to do in our classrooms."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/03/20/teacherfired.ap.ap/index.html

---

I think the headline is a little disingenuous. I am disgusted whenever Bible-thumpers try to get their crap into science class, but the Planned Parenthood-Nazi nonsense is what probably put him over the edge. That is a gross abuse of his position. Teaching creation in science class is ridiculous, but comparing Planned Parenthood and evolution to the Nazis is vile. I assume THAT is what he was fired for.

Truth be told, however, I am all for cracking down on teachers who present creationism in science at public schools. It isn't science by any real definition and has no place in a science classroom (unless it's to show how not to do science).

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. Fired for breaking Godwin's Law. Good riddance!

And to the fundies... cry "persecution" all you like. Your whining is music to my ears.

[Irreverend IX]

2. I'm sure he'll get a nice job on the fundie speaker circuit...

Moaning about how he was persecuted for his beliefs.

[derby378]

3. Who was that nutjob who blamed evolution on the Jews?

He was down somewhere in Mississippi or Alabama, but I can't remember his name...

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. Marshall Hall - "Fixed Earth" - and Georgia State Rep. Ben Bridges

Hall's wife is Bridges' campaign manager.

http://www.fixedearth.com/subject_areas/subject_area_4.htm

Gimme that Old Pharisee Religion

Texas State Rep. Warren Chisum then recommended to his fellow representatives a memo that Bridges sent him. Chisum claimed, when it was pointed out that not only was it anti-evolution, but the website claimed evolution was a Jewish conspiracy, and that the earth is not rotating, or orbiting the sun, that he hadn't actually bothered reading it. Bridges then claimed he hadn't read it either, but always let his campaign manager send out any old shit under his name. You know these people (all Republicans, natch) are in trouble when they have to fall back on "I didn't mean what I said - it was just stuff I don't really believe at all".

[Cerridwen]

4. "unless it's to show how not to do science"

I have to wonder if that is what he was doing by using selections from the bible. I posted this in the GD thread about this, I'm going to put it over here, too.

Eugenics was a movement begun in the U.S. and allegedly advocated by many progressive leaders of the day including Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood. It was practiced in the U.S., yes there is proof of this, though the nazis took it to an extreme. There have been many progressive movements which have suffered through intense classism and racism including the early birth *control* movement. It's ugly, but it is part of our history. And, yes, I do believe we should not only think critically about our current progressive movements but know the history of them; as much as we hate it; so we can see what can happen if we don't address our own racism and classism.

I'm not sure what biblical passages he used but if he were trying to show how creationism conflicts with scientific evidence surrounding evolution, I'd think that would be a good way to, again, prompt the children to think critically about what is being told to them; even if it comes to them from such an authority such as the bible.

I wish we had more information to go on.

[MissB]

32. His claim is that he was teaching critical thinking and showing bias in sources of info.

So I wouldn't necessarily say that he was in the wrong, really depending on what his real point is.

The articles I've read (local) don't really tell much more than CNN's link.

[depakid]

5. Non-CNN link to the AP story, plus local coverage

AP story: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200670320007

From the Sisters Nugget:

Kris Helphinstine lasted two weeks on the job as a new Sisters High School biology teacher. The school board fired him last night on the recommendation of Suprintendent Ted Thonstad for deviating from accepted curriculum by presenting materials supporting creationism to his biology class.

Helphinstine said he was trying to stimulate critical thinking.

One parent, John Rahm, said his daughter reported that only "one day of ten" was devoted to the study of evolution, with the rest devoted to devoted to "Intelligent Design" materials. "The test as well was 90-plus percent ID material," Rahm said.

<snip>

The school district has gotten in trouble before for blurring the line between church and state. The State of Oregon is witholding $1.2 million in state school funds that had been earlier paid out for a disallowed homeschool program that involved students at the local private Christian school.

http://www.nuggetnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=5&SubSectionID=5&ArticleID=12833

[Kerrytravelers]

6. I like the dad's comment in the last paragraph.

"How many minds did he pollute?" Dan Harrison, the father of a student in Helphinstine's class, said at the meeting. "It's a thinly veiled attempt to hide his own agenda."


Personally, I have no problem with believing that God created evolution... but I don't want that taught on my tax dollars. What is so hard for these people to understand? :eyes: Here is a quote from the "teacher":

Helphinstine, 27, said in a phone interview with The Bulletin newspaper of Bend that he included the supplemental material to teach students about bias in sources, and his only agenda was to teach critical thinking.

"Critical thinking is vital to scientific inquiry," said Helphinstine, who has a master's degree in science from Oregon State. "My whole purpose was to give accurate information and to get them thinking."

Helphinstine said he did not teach the idea that God created the world. "I never taught creationism," he said. "I know what it is, and I went out of my way not to teach it."

*sigh* Yep. We're all that stupid. We believe every word you said. :eyes:

[yardwork]

34. He taught "intelligent design" and didn't call it creationism

That's b.s. "Intelligent design" is a cover for creationism.

I personally believe that the Goddess/God/One created the Universe, but I don't feel that it conflicts in any way with what we know about evolution, geology, and other science.

People pushing "intelligent design" are not advocating critical thinking. They're advocating anti-intellectual brainwashing.

Edit for spelling.

[sakabatou]

36. Creationism Lite

Now for only %19.99 in all Kool-aide flavors!

[jahyarain]

139. no, it's called common sense

modern science teaches us that everything came from nothing. however, NO religion should be taught in ANY school ANYWHERE.

[eagler]

130. Intelligent design isn't creationism - It's an acceptence of

evolution by an intelligent higher power. Children need to be exposed to different points of view and allowed to make their own choices. The bottom line is that it's all only theory and we'll never know because we weren't there. I would personally be offended if an educator told me that one theory was the only true answer and everything else was a lie.

[lakercub]

134. Wrong

In terms of science class, intelligent design has no place. There is no real evidence, it is not in any way falsifiable, and is therefore utterly useless to science. In science class, one does not teach both sides, unless there is much doubt. Should we teach both sides of germ theory? Or should we go back to leaches and the humors?

As for the idea they are all just theory. Absolutely wrong in the scientific sense. A scientific theory is an idea that has been hypothesized and has had mounds of supporting evidence found to back it up. Like evolution. Intelligent design is empty conjecture that says nothing, has no real research, no evidence, nothing. ID is a belief...evolution is a theory...and there is a world of difference.

[eagler]

135. It's still an opinion But I do agree with you on the scientific aspect

in as much as science is based on observation. However to say that Darwinism is the ONLY plausible theory is shortsighted. That kind of attitude stifles free thought. And yes I am a believer in evolution

[Zhade]

141. It's not hard to be a believer in something proven to exist.

You accept evolution, which has been observed in the lab.

[WindRavenX]

144. just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it has equal weight

Saying something is "just" a theory or has holes doesn't mean it's not an observed fact--evolution is a fact. Period. A theory is a set of observed facts. It cannot be proven 100%, but all theories are like this. Gravity is, after all, just a theory. We don't know what gravity is, but we know gravity is absolutly real.

ID isn't science. It has no testable hypothesis. Bottom line, it has no place in a *science* class.

[eagler]

150. Gravity is a law not a theory

[WindRavenX]

151. No it isn't

Gravity is most certainly a theory. We don't know what gravity *is* though we can predict it and measure it. The part of the theory that is a law is the law of universal gravitation.

But I digress--my background is in biology and not physics.

[eagler]

152. Tell that to Newton

So what you're telling me is thst you believe in something you can't even see? you're giving me a headache.

[WindRavenX]

153. LOL

:rofl:

You do realize that Newton's discoveries do not always work in some conditions (such as near a black hole, some orbits of planets), right? Which is where Einstein comes in with his theory of general relativity.

Do you know what general relativity is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation

Seriously, you're over your head on this.

edit: It's not a belief that I "believe" in gravtity. We can see atoms with powerful microscropes, can't we? But I don't see any atoms with my eyes, so I guess they must not exist.

Oh this is rich.

[eagler]

154. Was Einstein an atheist? Or Newton?

[WindRavenX]

155. Does it matter?

:shrug:

[Zhade]

160. Einstein, yes. He stated so near the end of his life. Not that it matters one bit.

NT!

[lakercub]

156. Gravity is a theory

and part of the theory is laws. We are able to reliably predict motion, velocity, acceleration, displacement, etc using Newton's laws. However, those laws fall apart under certain conditions. The Theory of Relativity and quantam physics are needed when Newton's Laws break down. This is how science works. Newton "discovers" (terrible word, it was always there) gravity, and posits his laws, which begin to build the theory. The laws tend to be right 100% percent of the time for the known universe. However as the knowledge of the known universe changes, Newton's laws need to be revised, adapted, or tossed out because we begin to make discoveries where Newton's laws do not work. The theory of gravity is therefore expanded upon as new research and evidence come to light. This is exactly how science, including the theory of evolution, works.

Newton's equations are laws, but laws are only part of the deal. It takes more than the laws to hold up the theory. For instance, what actually causes gravity? Is it gravitons as have some posited? Some other force or energy we have not yet discovered? No one knows. In fact, evolution is far more researched and much better understood than gravity. We can predict how gravity will work, but we are not entirely sure why. Evolution is far more advanced in terms of our knowledge of the whys and the hows.

[WindRavenX]

162. Thank you.

Much better job of explaining this than I could have done :thumbsup:

[Zhade]

140. There's no such thing as acceptence of something that has no evidence.

That's called an assumption.

[nodehopper]

42. also what the hell is a Master's Degree in science?

I may be in social sciences, but I am pretty sure you have to specialize in one science or the other. "Science" isn't even a college major.

[Lisa]

51. yes -- if he does have an MSc, it would help to know which department

As you say, at the graduate level (and even for undergrads) one has to pick a specialization. (Mine's in geography -- biogeography and climatology -- although geography tends to be grouped with the social sciences.)

[anitar1]

113. I think he is a few steps from Fred Phelps family.

All of these religious nut cases start out in mild ways and The accelerate their mania for forcing their sick beliefs on the rest of us. They expecially love to get their hands on children. Assuring money and control for future endeavors. edit for spelling

[zbdent]

7. Whaddaya expect from the Corporate media?

The Truth???

Of course the "soundbyte" is disingenuous ... it's supposed to be, so that the sheep get one idea, but don't bother to find out the full story ...

[Unca Jim]

8. Well...

As a very religious teacher, I concur that religion and philosophy have no place in science education *aside from* scientific ethics and responsible experimentation.

Further, I agree that any one religion (including atheism) cannot be pushed on kids no matter where they are in the public schools.

At the same time, when kids ask I tell them I am a christian and I celebrate christmas and so forth. I feel no need to hide who I am. Further, when questions come up about God's role in the development of humanity, I make sure to make the point that evolution and belief in a higher power influencing humanity's development are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is just the mechanism, the "how", not necessarily the "why". Of course the "why" might just be genetic imperative, but that whole question is separate from how evolution works -which is what should be taught.

A quick question, though. If a rabid fundamentalist atheist (and I've met them here on DU and other places) were to promote his/her religion (that there must be no divine influence in human development) in class would you be so incensed?

Just askin'...

[lakercub]

14. interesting

Number one, I am also a Christian, but I must admit I differ from church teachings in a lot of ways. I am not and never will be a Biblical literalist. That being said, people being Christian isn't what bothers me. Number two, atheism isn't a religion. I know that is a Christian talking point, and there is some Supreme Court case out there about it, but atheism is just not a religion.

As for atheism in the classroom. Classrooms should be nontheistic. No mention of supreme beings is at all necessary in science class, math class, foreign language classes (except for studies of the culture of the people who speak the language, and that should only be a discussion of what is believed, not the teacher's opinion of the belief), and most other classes. Literature classes should be able to have honest discussions about writers and their philosophies when discussing particular works, but these should never have to devolve into "you're going to hell" arguments. History and philosophy classes cannot avoid religion, but even there, all viewpoints should be respected, and in the case of history the facts need to be presented so students can determine what motivated events to occur. But it should still never become a religion-bashing session.

[Unca Jim]

58. I concur with absolutely everything you said...

All classes should be non-theistic, but if you have a bunch of kids in a room you are going to get some theistic questions about the subject. There's a big difference about honestly trying to answer those questions and pimping your own personal religion.

[denverbill]

18. Fundamentalist atheist? Can you explain that term? n/t

[Unca Jim]

60. Somone who...

believes in the doctrine of "all that made humanity what it is today can be explained through science", and tries to push that personal belief on others. I know several of them.

[Kerrytravelers]

19. Well, I'll begin by pointing out the flaw in the statement that an Atheist has a religion to promote

Then I would argue that by stating that in a biology/science class there is no consideration that a divine influence plays a role in human development is nothing like calling groups of people and/pr organizations Nazis.

Exactly what agenda would be pushed by insisting that one keep their religious beliefs out of the classroom? I'm a public school teacher and I have never felt the need to hide who I am. That is just silly. However, I don't go on and on and on about my personal religious beliefs. If a kid makes a statement that is false, such as catholics aren't Christians, I will let them know that Catholics are indeed Christians, but I'm not reprimanding, simply stating that Catholics believe in Christ and are therefore Christians. As religious preferences are a part of life, naturally the subject comes up at school. However, I think you know as well as I do that there is a huge difference between an open discussion and a teacher proselytizing. Clearly calling the theory of Evolution and Planned Parenthood akin to Nazis is no longer a simple discussion and has crossed into a teacher pushing his personal beliefs on a classroom full of students in a public classroom using public tax dollars.

[Unca Jim]

61. Yikes! Did I say otherwise?

Clearly, this guy is a nut and shouldn't be teaching. I just asked the question (and apparently this was a mistake) whether people would feel the same way if an Atheist used the public schools to push his/her beliefs. I have seen it, and generally it flies beneath the radar until a parent complains, just like the evangelical proselytizing often does.

I concur completely that the public schools are no place to teach religion.

[Kerrytravelers]

133. You insinuated.

But you know that already, don't you?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

20. I would be pised off at any...

science teacher who tried to come to any conclusions about the origins of the world beyond what science can currently tell us. :shrug:

That's the thing I like about scientists - they tend to be "just the facts" people.

[Unca Jim]

62. Perfectly reasonable.

But what if the *science* teacher pushed his/her belief that there is nothing in the universe besides science?

I'm just saying it's an interesting discussion.

[Canuckistanian]

24. As the saying goes....

If religion is a TV channel, then atheism is the OFF button.

[FiveGoodMen]

26. That's good.

Another one I liked was, "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

[BattyDem]

35. I like that!

:toast:

Atheism is not a religion. Science is not a religion. Fundies love to call them both "religions" because then they can point to all science and non-theistic views and say that public schools are promoting certain religious beliefs in the classroom, so Christian beliefs should be allowed as well. :eyes:

[Unca Jim]

64. Well, roll those eyes al you want...

but Atheism is a belief system, not scientific fact.

I never would want to see any religious views shoved on kids in any class, even Atheist ones.

And I am neither a fundie or a republic.

[NMMNG]

80. Atheism is non-belief in god(s)

How is that a "belief system"? Is non-belief in unicorns, fairies or ghosts a "belief system"?

[BattyDem]

115. A non-belief is not a belief system

I don't believe in leprechauns. Some would say that's an opinion; some would say that's common sense. I don't see how either could be classified as a "belief system" :shrug:

I never said atheism was scientific fact. What I said was neither atheism nor science is a religion. I also never said you were a fundie. (I didn't even respond to your post directly.) What I said was that fundies like to promote atheism and science (specifically evolution) as some sort of religion so they can justify inserting Christian religious beliefs into public schools.


I never would want to see any religious views shoved on kids in any class, even Atheist ones.

I agree ... no one's religious beliefs should ever be inserted into a public school curriculum, but atheism is not religion. Atheists don't hold "non-prayer services" or "anti-Bible studies" in the classroom and, to the best of my knowledge, they have never tried to insert any belief (or non-belief) into a public school curriculum ... though they have certainly fought to remove a few and/or prevent them from being added in the first place.

[Zhade]

116. No, it's not, no matter who much you wish it were.

It's the lack of belief in gods, not the belief there are no gods.

Think about it, you might eventually comprehend that critical distinction.

[Canuckistanian]

39. Also good!

And I practice what I believe - nothing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. I prefer "Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color." -nt

[Unca Jim]

65. Bald may not be a hair color...

but is certainly is a head color. What's the difference?

[NMMNG]

82. NO HAIR is equivalent to NO RELIGION

That's the difference.

Read, learn.

[FiveGoodMen]

87. If you REALLY don't get the point of that ...

[Zhade]

117. Is a head hair?

Jesus, this really needs to be explained? I mean, it's not blindingly obvious?

[hayu_lol]

163. Bald is NOT a hair color...

it is a physical condition.

[Unca Jim]

63. Sure...

Look, I'm a big science dork with a Psychology degree, and I think you're missing an important point: Science alone cannot and does not adequately describe human behavior and development. In order to to believe that there is no outside influence on humanity, you must *believe* and *have faith* that science alone is the answer.

Hence, it is a religion in the same way Confucianism is a religion.

[NMMNG]

94. And you're making a big mistake

Atheism is not Science. Atheism is simply non-belief in gods. So none of your prattling about science has anything to do with any of this.

[smoogatz]

102. There you go again with this ID code-language.

"Science alone cannot and does not adequately describe human behavior and development." Where's the problem? "Adequately" according to who?

[knight_of_the_star]

146. Please no ad hominem

That really doesn't further the discussion any and what you're throwing out is contradicted by previous posts.

[smoogatz]

166. I disagree.

I think it's very useful to the discussion to be able to identify and expose ID/creationist boilerplate as it crops up. It gives us a good deal of insight into the motives and degree of intellectual honesty of certain posters--who may not be altogether truthful about who they are and what they believe. It's also my feeling that when dealing with fundie cranks who insist that atheism is a religion, no matter how often one corrects them, and that there's a "gaping hole in our understanding of human development" without ever saying what that gaping hole is, and then completely contradict themselves later in the thread and blame their behavior on "cough syrup," a certain amount of ad hominem ribbing is entirely in order. Maybe you should, you know, read the rest of the thread before commenting further.

[knight_of_the_star]

167. I did

And I will repeat, please no ad hominem. It's illogical, uncalled for, and doesn't prove anything except that you went to kindergarten too. Only Repukes, in my eyes, consider ad hominem a legitimate form of debate.

[VegasWolf]

72. Atheism is the cure for those afflicted by Religion. nt

[WindRavenX]

25. atheism isn't a religion

NT

[RebelOne]

29. Correct. It's non-religion.

[WindRavenX]

30. yup. I always find it amusing when people claim science is the atheist's religion

The correct understanding of what atheism means is not very well understood by most people, in my experience. I've even read that evolution is the main trickery of atheists :rofl:

[Unca Jim]

66. Evolution is a scientific theory...

and has nothing to do with Atheists' belief that there can be no external force on humanity's development.

There is no scientific evidence backing up that belief, it's just their own faith.

By the way, more power to 'em!

[smoogatz]

84. Unca Jim. Buddy.

Let's try this again. There may be some atheists who believe "that there can be no external force on humanity's development." I don't know any, can't speak for them if there are, I've never met one. The atheists I know--and I know a bunch of them--are of the studied opinion that there is no empirical evidence that supports the existence of god(s), except as constructs of human culture. We don't "believe" it's impossible; we're not predisposed in some emotional way against the idea, even. But where's the evidence? Aside from a few religious texts of dubious provenance, where's your evidence that god/gods/goddesses exist? It's not a question of faith; it's a question of weighing the empirical against the emotional.

[Unca Jim]

89. I agree...

I have no evidence that god/gods/goddesses exist. But when I look the empirical scientific evidence I see a gaping hole in human development which cannot be filled in by science. I logically deduce that there may well be something we do not understand at work here. I do not base that on religious texts (which are largely stories and people's opinions), I base it on critical thinking. The empirical vs. the emotional, if you will. I have no emotional interest in believing in God, I just see it as the best logical conclusion. So that's why I think Religion and Atheism are not apples and oranges. They are apples and apples, two belief systems based on trying to logically understand the nature of humanity and world around us. Of course, neither belief system is more correct or superior for everyone.

And I can assure you that there are atheists who believe "that there can be no external force on humanity's development" and are itching to spread their belief by any means necessary.

I'm not lumping you into that category just like you're not lumping me in with the fundies.

[smoogatz]

90. Okay--what's the "gaping hole in human development"

that's got you stumped? You seem to think sentience is a big deal, but your cat would probably fit 90% of any definition of sentience you could formulate. Chimps, gorillas and dolphins would undoubtedly fit the rest. Did God make them in his image, too?

On edit: if it's okay for Christians to proselytize, it must be okay for atheists, too, right? Assuming they'd want to waste their time doing such a thing.

[Zhade]

118. I'm an atheist. I don't believe as you claim I do. You're wrong.

You'll never be right, either, because YOU don't know what's in MY head.

[Zhade]

38. Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of any.

There is no such thing as a fundamental atheist; there is nothing atheists share for certain except for not believing in gods (which it completely different from believing there are no gods, if you're intelligent enough to grasp that concept).

Not believing in something is not the same as believing that something doesn't exist. I do no believe there are no gods, I simply don't believe in any due to the lack of corroborating evidence for any of them. I am qualified to say what I believe; you are not, because you are not in my head.

</ignorance correction>

[smoogatz]

46. I would even toss the word "belief" from the definition.

It is my opinion, given the current evidence as I understand it, that god(s) do not exist, except as constructs of human culture.

[Unca Jim]

67. Let's see that evidence!

That's like saying "there is no evidence that X-rays exist" in 1820. That doesn't mean they don't and we won't discover them someday. It just means we can't understand how it works now.

Seriously, believe what you want, but it is neither inferior nor superior to others' beliefs.

[smoogatz]

76. That would be pretty much all of science up to the present moment,

which--last time I checked--continues to support the hypothesis that natural phenomena have natural causes, as opposed to supernatural ones. The empirical evidence in favor of the existence of god(s), on the other hand, is pretty thin. In fact, there isn't any.

[Unca Jim]

81. Maybe I wasn't clear...

I was specifically referring to human development. There is no scientific evidence that proves genetics and evolution are the sole reason people became sentient. There is belief that those things alone could create humanity that is required.


And seriously, when did I argue that natural phenomena have supernatural causes?

The empirical evidence that only science and nature is responsible for human development is also pretty thin. In fact, there isn't any. To believe that is an act of faith.


Obviously, we're not getting anywhere here. I respect your beliefs/opinions/conclusions, I just don't see why they are superior to mine. And you know what, I probably never will. So, lets just move on to the snarky last word and leave this debate. :)

[smoogatz]

85. Cripes.

"The empirical evidence that only science and nature is responsible for human development is also pretty thin. In fact, there isn't any. To believe that is an act of faith."

You've just proved that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. But you're right about one thing--you don't see why my conclusions are superior to yours. And you probably never will.

[Unca Jim]

92. Well, it's good we could get to that...

snarky, morally superior, belittling sendoff!

Thankfully your super-superior logicalness has been proven irrefutably right again!

You are so my intellectual superior! I completely concur with your vaguely-defined nebulous beliefs that allow you to treat others like they are less than you! Your completely non-emotional reaction to my questioning your beliefs totally proves they are based solely on cool, cool, logic! I defer to your obviously superior wisdom. :sarcasm:

[smoogatz]

95. Hurt your little feelings, did I?

Okay, Unka Jim--let's see if you can figure out why this sentence of yours is incredibly fucking stupid:

"The empirical evidence that only science and nature is responsible for human development is also pretty thin. In fact, there isn't any. To believe that is an act of faith."

Here's a hint, courtesy of our friend Mondo Joe: "There is no scientific evidence of anything BUT evolution as the sole reason for human sentience. If you've got empirical evidence of something ELSE, by all means present it. But so far, evolution is the only game in town."

So, what's the evidence, Unka Jim? Let's hear it.

[mondo joe]

86. There is no scientific evidence of anything BUT evolution as the sole reason

for human sentience.

If you've got empirical evidence of something ELSE, by all means present it.

But so far, evolution is the only game in town.

[LeftyMom]

40. The idea that atheism is a religion is a right wing talking point.

[smoogatz]

43. Ahem.

Please define the terms "rabid fundamentalist atheist," which may be offensive to some of us here on DU. Also, let me give YOU a definition: atheists are without religion. That's what the word means. And until empirical evidence of "divine influence in human development" is found, I think it's reasonable to teach that there is no such evidence. No?

[Unca Jim]

68. Sorry to offend...

but I still think we should leave personal belief out of the curriculum, *whatever* that personal belief might be.

[smoogatz]

71. What if your "personal belief" happens to be that science

is the investigation of natural phenomena, and that discussion of the supernatural has no place in such an investigation? Does it matter if your "personal beliefs" happen to coincide with the core principles of the discipline you happen to be teaching? Or are they still suspect, because they happen to be your "personal beliefs"? In any case, thoughtful atheists don't have "beliefs"--they have opinions.

[Unca Jim]

75. Oh, C'mon!

Don't bust out the semantics and pretend your belief system is better than mine!

That is seriously no better than the fundies.

[smoogatz]

78. I made no value judgment.

What I'm talking about is the difference between belief and opinion. As a "person of faith," is what you believe subject to change given additional evidence to the contrary? It shouldn't be, if your faith is really faith. My opinions are entirely subject to change given new evidence: if Jesus Christ appeared on my doorstep tomorrow and offered me a free timeshare in Tuscany, my worldview would be significantly altered. I'm not saying my way of figuring things out is better, necessarily--I'm saying it's different. And somewhat more rational.

[Unca Jim]

83. Are you kidding?

What I believe is constantly subject to change. The third part of the Trinity is the Spirit of Truth. Every Religion changes over time as does every scientific theory and belief system.

I'm not telling you how to be an Atheist, don't tell me how to be a "person of faith".

I simply do not accept that the belief that only science can be used to explain humanity's development is more rational.

You can believe what you want about that and what it means to be a "person of faith", but it doesn't make you more rational.

[smoogatz]

88. What's so special about humanity's development?

We share 96-99% of our DNA with chimps. We're apes who got lucky, for cryin' out loud.

Your belief is that a man in the sky with a long white beard--a man who's everywhere at once, who knows everyhing and can do everything--waved his hands and spoke the word and made man in his image, and then pulled a rib from his chest and turned it into the first woman, and then the woman took a bite of an apple which she got from a talking snake, and God threw the man and the woman out of their earthly paradise, and that's why childbirth is painful. For that you have a Jewish folk-tale as your founding document and sole evidence. But it's your contention that your belief in that 5,000+ year-old Jewish folktale is every bit as rational as my provisional opinion--in agreement with literally every reputable scientist to publish on the subject in the last hundred years--that evolution is most likely the means through which all life on earth arrived at its current--and temporary--state. That about right?

[Unca Jim]

96. That is exactly what I believe in a nutshell.

I thought we couldn't get more judgmental, but I was wrong!

I never claimed that biblical literalism was just as logical and rational as science. I never will. I'm not a biblical literalist, largely because I understand the bible's history.

I'd suggest you actually read my posts, but why? Your mind's made up about what I'm saying and even what my argument is. Your continued emotional response to my questions proves my point. I am questioning your faith that "we're apes who got lucky", and you are attacking me and belittling anything that threatens that belief.

Show me some scientific evidence that "we're apes who got lucky" or accept that we're talking apples and apples here.

BTW: I accept that evolution is real and that we differ genetically from chimps by 3%. How does that prove that "we're apes who got lucky"? And how did we get lucky? Can science tell us that?

[smoogatz]

99. Well then, Jim, suppose you tell us what it is that you do believe.

Because I'd like to know who and what I'm dealing with here. At the moment you seem to be making it up as you go along. I think the evidence that we're "apes who got lucky" lies in the 96-99% of DNA we share with chimps (apes), and the fact that mostly we no longer have to worry about getting eaten by cheetahs. We got lucky in the sense that we evolved with the ability to use complex language (although there's a body of evidence that suggests that chimps can do that, too), build stuff and write stuff down so we don't forget it. And it's not a belief, or a faith--it's an observation.

[Unca Jim]

103. And now we've moved on to the following up all my posts...

and telling others what I mean phase of the mass smear to protect your fragile belief system. Jeeze! Why so vehement?

By what mechanism, exactly, did we develop the ability to use complex language?

By what mechanism, exactly, did we develop the ability to build things?

I am perfectly willing to tell anyone who asks me that I don't have the answers to those questions. Neither does the scientific community, and neither do you.

I am reminded by a joke an atheist friend of mine used to tell: "Arguing on the Internet is like participating in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded".

This is taking too much of my time. We are never going to agree. I'm going to bed. Have a nice life.

[smoogatz]

104. You can't be serious.

"By what mechanism, exactly, did we develop the ability to use complex language?"

Evolution. Obviously.

"By what mechanism, exactly, did we develop the ability to build things?"

Ditto.

"I am perfectly willing to tell anyone who asks me that I don't have the answers to those questions. Neither does the scientific community, and neither do you."

Well, you got one out of three right, anyway, chief.

On edit: I think what irks me about guys like Unka Jim is the intellectual laziness. What little he knows about evolution doesn't answer his questions--which are kind of bizarre and dumb in the first place--but instead of trying to find out more about the one possible source of information that might actually provide some genuine insight, he decides that the answer has to lie in supernatural intervention--and the corollary belief, of course, is that if he doesn't know (and doesn't get it), then nobody else does/can, either. Sheesh. Ignorance may be a form of bliss for the ignorant, but it's hell on everybody else.

[Unca Jim]

106. Jeeze, this is like potato chips...

you know they're bad for you, but you just can't help reaching for one more... :)

Please show me something evolve. Right now, right here, right in front of my face. You can't, because evolution has never been observed. Now, my absolute biblical literalism aside, I still accept evolution is a fact because I accept the argument and it seems reasonable to me. I *believe* in it.

Please explain to me and provide evidence (aside from one word) that human beings evolved the ability to care about one another more than they care about themselves. Please explain the evolutionary advantages of love, kindness, and humor while you're at it. Note: one word, overly simplistic explanation generally come from blind faith, not logic.

And just for the record, I don't have any problem with your beliefs, nor will I disrespect them or belittle them. Neither will I accept that they are superior, or that mine are. Further, I'm not going to tell you what your beliefs are.

I believe a closed mind is the saddest thing on the planet.

[mondo joe]

107. Silly thing. Evolution is the only explanation there is ANY evidence of.

It might be that magic fairies or aliens or Zeus is responsible.

But there's no evidence of any such intervention, but evidence aplenty of evolution.

[smoogatz]

108. Okey dokey.

Cold and flu viruses. Right in front of your face, Jim. Evolving right now--coming to get you.

Love, kindness and humor are all socializing behaviors that grease the skids of community and reproduction, obviously. You're thinking of evolution as though it's got something to do with so-called social Darwinism, but that's a (common) misperception. Those genetic traits that are good for the survival of the species as whole, over the long run, tend to be re-selected again and again. Those traits that place individuals at risk of early death--anti-social behaviors, for instance--tend to get selected out. You really don't know this stuff, do you? It's biology 101, for chrissakes.

I've got one for you--a bit of a conundrum, even for me. What's the "evolutionary purpose" of religious experience? If we are, in fact, the product of evolution, why are so many of us suffering from the apparent delusion that god exists?

[smoogatz]

109. It's a fundie myth that evolution has never been observed, by the way.

Here's a recent example (go on, read it--it won't hurt you!):

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060826043738data_trunc_sys.shtml

[smoogatz]

111. Here's another one--

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060412_catfish_hunter.html

[smoogatz]

112. And another...

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/02.08/01-evolutionatwork.html

[smoogatz]

114. Google is a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime.

But that's what I mean about your intellectual laziness--you'd rather repeat some fundie propaganda catch-phrase than actually find out for yourself. Tsk tsk, Unka Jim. Didn't you say you were a teacher? Not science, I hope!

[Zhade]

120. Way to smack down his argument.

See? We have evidence, he has jack shit. Well done.

[smoogatz]

122. Thanks!

It was nothin'. And I was a creative writing major. If I can do it, almost anybody can. Except Unka Jim, of course.

[Zhade]

119. You're so scientifically illiterate you don't even know evolution has been observed in the lab?

They're called fruit flies. Look it up.

[Arugula Latte]

159. Unca Jim -- Evolution HAS been observed multiple times!!

Classic example -- the pepper moths in England. Light-winged before the industrial evolution. Factories come; soot blackens town and trees. Birds prey on light colored moths on dark trees (easier to see). Pepper moths with darker coloration survive, have dark-winged babies. Soon dark wings are the norm. All in a matter of a few short years. THAT'S EVOLUTION.

[mondo joe]

101. Obviously, a magical fairy is the explanation.

Or not.

The fact is evolution is the only answer we have to date.

You can believe anything in addition to that as you like. But you've got no evidence for anything BUT evolution.

[smoogatz]

105. Unka Jim knows better.

He's got a degree in psychology!

[mark414]

44. atheist religion?

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


i possess none of those characteristics - it is not something i dwell on, preach for, write about or even think about for that matter. i live my life with no thought or concern for anything that falls under that category...to be frank, i could care less about why we are or how we got here because none of us will ever know those answers. what i DO know, is that however i got here, i am indeed here, so i damn well better make the best of it because i only get one shot at it. trying to explain things away seems frivolous and a waste of time - i'm too busy living.

[mondo joe]

48. #1: Atheism is not a religion; #2: If anatheist used science class as a platform

for advocating atheism I'd be as incensed.

[Sin]

54. So atheism is a Religion is it.

And how did you reach that wondrous conclusion?
so our complete absence of faith = a faith? our not Believing in any thing supernatural = a religion?

Since you're a Teacher and all this might help you seeing as you can read.

re·li·gion

n.

1 a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

GRRRR can't you see the foam.

[yardwork]

55. Yes, I disapprove of any religious teaching in science classes. Period.

There's nothing wrong with a teacher stating that they are a Christian as long as they don't impose their beliefs on the students.

Would you be equally ok with a teacher stating that they are an Atheist? I've experienced many outspoken Christian teachers in my life, but not one who ever said that they were an Atheist. In the school district where I grew up such a teacher would probably have been fired and taken to the edge of town.

[Unca Jim]

69. Absolutely.

Some of the teachers I most respect and work with are atheist...and they don't push their beliefs on anyone any more than I do.

[NMMNG]

77. What is a "fundamentalist atheist"?

And how is atheism a religion?

Just askin'....

[smoogatz]

91. Don't bother.

He has no idea. It's probably something he heard on Dr. Laura...

[NMMNG]

93. I already know from having read his other posts that he throws it out

like Rethugs throw around their talking points. It's just interesting to poke a stick in the hive anyway. :shrug:

[smoogatz]

97. He's some kind of ID whacko.

Human exceptionalism, evolution can't account for sentience, blah, blah, blah. The usual thinly-veiled creationist nonsense.

[NMMNG]

98. And he can't tell the difference between Atheism and Science

:crazy:

[smoogatz]

100. No, but he knows he doesn't like them much.

[WindRavenX]

145. when will you people get it-- science is the religion of atheists!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ohhh dear. This thread has officially turned into a disaster.

[NMMNG]

149. I thought atheism was the religion of atheists.

Or was it Secular Humanism?
Materialism?

I'm so darn confused. :crazy:

[lakercub]

157. I'm sorry I started it

:)

[WindRavenX]

158. no these threads always bring the trolls out

They're very useful, you see ;)

[JNelson6563]

125. You're a teacher?

Oy.

[Zhade]

142. Or a liar.

If the first, here's hoping his credentials are yanked - he's too ignorant to teach my kid, who understands the scientific method far better than he does.

[Seldona]

128. 'a rabid fundamentalist atheist'

:crazy:

If demanding to live under the rule of law, with equal protection under the law for EVERYONE, makes one 'a rabid fundamentalist atheist' than sign me up.

There is only ONE group concerned with what everyone else is doing, and it isn't us atheists. Personally the ONLY time I even think about religion is when someone is trying to jam it down my throat.

[Sequoia]

9. I just finished reading "American Facists" where the author

mentioned that very thing these war monging fundlementalists are up to. These dangerous people aim to take away all our rights and gays are high on their target.

[DrunkenMaster]

57. Chris Hedges Rules!

If you get the chance, be sure to read his first book, "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" -- it is astonishing.

[Sequoia]

129. Thanks, I wondered about that.

[orleans]

10. i would have been wild if my kid had sat through one of his

perverted presentations!

(i didn't read the article, but i'm guessing the "sisters school board" = religious school and maybe that was why he thought he could get away with it)

[Viva_La_Revolution]

73. Sisters is a town in Oregon

a public school (but in the redneck part of the state)

:)

[valerief]

11. What a HelPHILISTINE! Good riddance. nt

[RebelOne]

12. The RaptureReady.com fundies are applauding him.

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=296941

[Buzz Clik]

13. "I think the headline is a little disingenuous." No kidding.

I think CNN missed the point. Intentionally, no doubt.

[valerief]

15. It's CNN. You can't expect accuracy from a nooze org that gives you

the Rapture Index.

[depakid]

33. That's why I provided the Non-CNN link with a more accurate title

Oregon teacher fired after veering from evolution textbook

It would be nice when these wire stories came up if people would just take 30 seconds to use Google news and cite us a more credible source. Plus- do we really need to be clicking on CNN and driving up their traffic?

[lakercub]

37. I used the CNN story

because the headline is part of the problem, in my view. This wasn't Bible-bashing, but common sense. The headline however, is more incendiary than that, and I wanted that pointed out. But go ahead and be sanctimonious about it.

[depakid]

53. Just sayin'

Not trying to be sanctimonious... it's a very relevant story; one that's all too easy to dismiss with rolling eyes when it comes from other regions of the country.

I very much appreciate your bringing it to our attention. It's also interesting to look at how different news outlets frame the exact same story, eh?

We can look at Google news and find several sets of headlines with almost any wire service story- they usually run in groups of headlines, and so we want to click on the link at the end that says:

"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 167 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."

And have a look.

[lakercub]

136. Fair enough

Sorry about being touchy. :toast:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. I went through 12 freakin' years...

of Catholic school and during science class, we got science -- including evolution -- with no religion attached. The few times I remember students asking question about how God/creation/science/evolution are squared, it was done in religion class and the teachers always made a point of fully respecting science.

Hells bells, if a Catholic school can keep religion out of science class, there should be no reason a public school can't. :eyes:

[Marrah_G]

23. Catholics are different when dealing with Science

In my experience the catholic church has no problem with science and sees it as an extension of god, through the intelligence he gave to man. I am not catholic but I also have no problem mixing science with my religious beliefs.

[Unca Jim]

70. That is exactly...

how I see science. We're supposed to be critical thinkers and Empiricists to solve the mysteries of life and make the world a better place for everyone.

[eagler]

164. That's how it should be done

[crim son]

17. The headline was misleading. The man was fooled

for being an idiot.

[Marrah_G]

21. My daughter would have walked out of his class

and I would have backed her all the way.

As Wiccans we do not shove our religious beliefs down the throat of others. Our faith is sacred to us, not to be used to gain attention or recruit others. I have no issue what so ever with a teacher being extremely religious. In fact my own father became a teacher after leaving the Catholic Seminary due to illness (while out on leave he fell in love with mom..hehe) However, when you take your own faith and try to instill it another persons child from a point of authority, I have an issue with that.

[Xenotime]

22. Is there any supporting facts in the bible?

Is there any mythology in evolution?

[Tanuki]

27. Firing is insufficient punishment. He defrauded the school system,

and violated the children's civil rights. He should have to pay back every dime of his salary, plus damages for fraud and the expense of hiring a master teacher to come in and undo the damage he did. He should also have to pay each and every one of those children for the valuable education time he wasted. I am all for throwing the book at someone who violates the public trust like this so that he doesn't just skip town and perperate something like this elsewhere, and as a warning to any other creeps who would try to get by with the same thing.

[HuffleClaw]

28. "links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood"

wow, that is damned funny. twisted, insane and hateful too, but still pretty funny.

[ArbustoBuster]

47. The only link I can think of is that they all have the letter E in them.

Oh, and they all took place on Earth.

Annnnnd...that's all I can think of. :)

[tanyev]

49. Link between Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood = Prescott Bush

Prescott S. Bush as Treasurer of Planned Parenthood First National Fundrasing Drive—1947

Planned Parenthood fundraising letter of January 8, 1947, lists Prescott S. Bush as treasurer of Margaret Sanger's first national fundraising drive. At that time, contraception was against the law in Connecticut, and the state had a large Catholic constituency. In 1950, during Prescott's first race for the U.S. Senate, the syndicated columnist Drew Pearson accused Bush of being a member of Planned Parenthood. Bush lost and accused Pearson of spreading the lie that cost him elected office. This fund-raising letter proved Pearson right.

Image of the letter at link: http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/thefamily/extras_documents.php


Prescott Bush and the Nazis: Union Banking Corporation

Prescott Bush, later U.S. Senator and George W. Bush’s grandfather, was a director of Union Banking Corporation, which in October 1942 was seized by the Office of Alien Property acting “under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, and by Executive Order 9095, as amended.” This has been the basis of charges on the internet and elsewhere that Prescott Bush had been engaged in illegal, perhaps even treasonous, relations with the Nazis. These charges are based on a misunderstanding of a sequence of events. Prescott Bush’s relationship with Union Banking was legally beyond reproach, though its duration into the late 1930s raises ethical questions.

The Wall Street firm Brown Brothers Harriman, of which Prescott Bush was a partner, was linked to the rise of the Nazi regime through Fritz Thyssen, a German industrialist known to be a supporter of Hitler before Hitler became chancellor of Germany in January 1933. United Banking Corporation was founded in 1924 to manage Thyssen’s U. S. investments. Several Brown Brothers Harriman partners, including Prescott Bush, served as directors of Union Banking. In March 1933 Hitler became dictator of Germany; in July of that year, he appointed Fritz Thyssen economic “czar” of the industrial Rheinland-Westphalia region. Thyssen finally broke with Hitler in December 1939, after Hitler had begun World War II in Europe.

Although Hitler’s promulgation of the Nuremburg Laws in 1935 and subsequent anti-Jewish measures taken by the German government did not cause Prescott Bush and his fellow Brown Brothers Harriman partners to disengage from Union Banking, the directors found themselves in an embarrassing position with the outbreak of a war in which the U. S. might become involved. Union Banking had been established as a subsidiary of a Dutch bank controlled by Thyssen’s family. When the Netherlands surrendered to the Germans in May 1940, the U. S. government froze all Dutch assets in the United States, including Union Banking’s assets, to protect them from the Nazis.

Despite their best efforts to extricate themselves, Prescott and his associates carried on as directors of Union Banking, operating under the supervision of the Treasury Dept., and a front page story in the New York Herald Tribune on July 31, 1941 publicized their connection with Union Banking. In November 1941 the U. S. government reclassified Union Banking as a German-owned business. Following U.S. entry into the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9095 which established the Office of Alien Property and empowered the Alien Property Custodian to confiscate businesses owned by enemy nationals, a category that included Union Banking.

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/thefamily/extras_documents.php

[Ilsa]

50. Thanks. You beat me to explaining that link. Nice job! nt

[MissB]

31. Interesting that he was using it to teach critical thinking and show bias in sources.

At least, that is what he claims in the story, a few paragraphs down.

[smoogatz]

45. Good.

I hope the door hits him in the ass on the way out. Let him peddle his mythology in church, where it belongs.

[heatstreak]

52. good riddance

[Iceburg]

56. So long, and thanks for the fish! /nt

[VegasWolf]

74. Don't let the door hit your Evangelical Christian ass on the way out! nt

[rec_report]

79. The headline is DECEPTIVE. He was fired for the Nazi insanity. n/t

[anitar1]

110. Should be special asylums for these sick nut cases.

They are the true Nazis.

[Zhade]

121. Yeah, like idiots who think atheism is a religion.

Fucking morons.

[eagler]

131. Atheism is a personal belief system and religion is a personal belief system

and anytime someone tries to shove either one of them down someone's throat it's offensive. Bigots come in all flavors.

[Zhade]

143. No, it's not, as explained above.

If you can't understand the difference between not having belief in any gods, and believing there are no gods, I can't help you. It's too easy a concept to break down any further.

[eagler]

148. It's still a belief system my friend - if you believe there is no God

then that's your belief system.

[Zhade]

161. Listen as carefully as your closed mind will allow:

I.

Do.

NOT.

Believe.

There.

Are.

No.

Gods.

I do not make that claim. I never have. I never will. I am not a god and cannot possibly have all information in the universe to be certain no gods exist. I merely lack belief in any purported gods due to the lack of any corroborating evidence for them.

You are, quite simply, 100% wrong about what I believe. And since you're not in MY head, YOU don't get to state what I believe. You are completely unqualified to do so; you cannot read my mind.

It is not my belief system. You are, again, wrong. To continue to assert that you know what I believe is both laughable and insulting - you're calling me a liar.

Now, I don't give a fuck if you're too dim to grasp the difference. Those reading our posts are likely above your third-grade understanding of the issue, and will judge accordingly.

(And most will likely judge you wrong, because you are.)

[eagler]

165. you're funny

[FogerRox]

123. Its way worse than that

Video, Kearny BOE meeting, March 19th, student states we dont believe in the big bang theory, we dont believe in that evolution stuff.
http://www.bluejersey.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=4273

Please forgive me if I get this wrong, I'm going by memory. When school started in September one of Matts teachers started the year off by diving into Creationism/Dominionism. On the 3rd day Matt recorded the teacher's "sermon". Later in October, a meeting was held with the Principal, the teacher David Paszkiewicz, Matt & Paul LaClair. During the meeting Matt cited dozens of quotes of the teacher, Paszkiewicz denied everything. Matt then produced Audio CD's he had burned of the "Sermonizing".

Later on Paszkiewicz publicly portrays the meeting with the Principal falsely. If you get into trouble because you were recorded one time, what are the odds you would be recorded again ? Right, Matt had recorded the meeting with the Principal. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paszkiewicz lied.

Lying in order to do Gods work is a basic tenent of Dominionism. D. James Kennedy, Pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, calls on his followers to exercise "godly dominion ... over every aspect ... of human society." At a "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference in February, 2005, Kennedy said:


Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

Bruce Prescott, Executive Director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, President of the Oklahoma Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, writes about Dominionism & Reconstructionism:


They believe the Mosaic law is God's blueprint for all societies. Transported to the context of twenty-first century America, they see themselves as "Christian Libertarians." Stripped to its barest essentials, here is their blueprint for America. Their ultimate goal is to make the U.S. Constitution conform to a strict, literal interpretation of Biblical law. To do that involves a series of legal and social reforms that will move society toward their goal. Here is their blueprint: 1) Make the ten commandments the law of the land, 2) Strengthen patriarchically ordered families, 3) Close public schools - make parents totally responsible for the education of their children, 4) Reduce the role of government to the defense of property rights, 5) Require "tithes" to ecclesiastical agencies to provide welfare services, 6) Close prisons - reinstitute slavery as a form of punishment and require capital punishment for all of ancient Israel's capital offenses - including apostacy, blasphemy, incorrigibility in children, murder, rape, Sabbath breaking, sodomy, and witchcraft.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2005/11/26/01436/229


Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, La., is co-author of the book Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford University Press), describes the Wedge Strategy:



The Wedge strategy is the intelligent design movement's tactical plan for promoting intelligent design (ID) creationism as an alternative to evolutionary theory in the American cultural mainstream and public school science classes.
Americans need to know about the darker side of the Wedge strategy, which few people except its supporters have seen. ID is more than just creationism's Trojan horse -- it is a stalking horse for the Religious Right's effort to steamroll its way into American education and public policy. The core of this issue is really about power -- who controls education and thus the minds of children, and who controls the policy that shapes American culture and public life.

How did it come to this? And what is the solution?
Because if they are in the schools in New Jersey, a fairly blue state, they are EVERYWHERE.


James Dobson:
"Chidren are the prize to the winners in the great second civil war. Those that control what young people are taught and what they experience-what they see, hear, think and believe - will determine the future course of the nation."

Children At Risk: The Battle for the Hearts and Minds of Our Kids, Word Publishing, 1990, p. 35.

I have to ask, if there was a guy walking around your town saying


Children are the prize to the winners

Wouldn't you be nervous? Well this has been going on for over 20 years. And if you aren't nervous you ought to be, in fact you ought to be scared. You should be scared for you kids, the kids next door, every damn kid on the planet.

[B3Nut]

124. The dominionists are sick bastards

If an all-powerful god wanted a country to be run that way, it would have been set up a LONG time ago. These people are terrfyingly delusional. Children are the prize? What kind of depraved monster comes up with that shit? Christ on a trailer hitch...

No wonder I'm liking A Perfect Circle and Tool so much these days...

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[Seabiscuit]

126. I read a depressing article today that said 25% of Americans are white fundie evangelicals.

And that 80% of them voted for Bush. There's the hardcord 20% support he always has.

This country is so chock full of STUPIDS I sometimes feel the need to :puke:

Couldn't we just ship them to Pluto or something?

[Unca Jim]

127. So, what have we learned today?

First off, let me apologize for making that most pathetic argument ever that Evolution has never been observed. I realize that evolution has been observed occurring by Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization in viruses, plants, and insects.

Obviously, the cough syrup was getting to me last night and when I was personally attacked again and again my brain just shut off and I fell back to an argument I've heard from fundies when I argue for evolution on other boards. It’s a very poor argument, and not how I should have framed the discussion in the first place. I really wasn't trying to argue against evolution at all, I was just trying to advocate the idea that any explanation “why” humanity has developed has no place in the classroom, only the “how” of evolution.

Apparently, I should have just gone to bed and slept off the cold.

Anyway, I wanted to thank all of you who were patient with me and refrained from judging my entire life based off a few poorly-thought-out posts.

I’d love to have a stimulating discussion on the hows and whys of human evolution and cultural development sometime. If someone wants to start a new thread, I promise to lay off the cough syrup this time. I’m specifically intrigued by the hybridization theories about how interbreeding early hominids created genetic speciation through hybridization, as we see frequently in plants. As there is a sudden development of many of the things we talked about in this discussion (memory, tool making) amongst humanity 20,000 years ago, there are a lot of interesting theories why.

I understand that some of what I was saying was pretty offensive to Atheists, and I apologize for being insensitive. I would never want to be judgmental and dismiss another’s beliefs out of hand without thinking about them fairly. I’d rather we all get along and keep talking; that’s better for all of us.

[Kerrytravelers]

132. Uh-huh.

I hope you don't take cough syrup before entering your classroom.

How much cough syrup did you drink? I know it contains alcohol, but wow. :wow: You must be a real lightweight.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NotGivingUp]

138. adios muchachos!

[outofbounds]

147. Why didn't he teach them to read?

Instead of trying to indoctrinate the kids teach them the freaking basics! Teach what is supposed to be taught and keep your bullshit ideologies out of the classroom. We are graduating kids who can speak all day long about evolution and creationism yet they can't read the books written about them.