.... Have you ever had this happen: You are minding your own business, teaching your life science course, it's early in the term. A student, on the way out after class (never at the beginning of class, rarely during class) mentions something about "carbon dating." This usually happens around the time of year you are doing an overview of the main points of the course, but before you've gotten to the "evolution module"...
The student is talking about C14 dating and how it "has problems." But you are a life science teacher and can't think of a single point in your class that you really touch on C14. Dating in the evolution section does not involve C14. This is for later time periods, more in the area of archaeology, and you know nothing about it. So you brush off the question but are left with an uneasy feeling.
Next class, probably just after class, the same student, again at a moment that gives you zero warning and usually no time to think of how to respond, mentions something about the Laws of Thermodynamics. This question you find more interesting and possibly even useful as the starting point of a "teachable moment..." The nature of life itself includes the fact that life works upstream against entropy. That one utterly mind-blowing aspect of life is really all you need to define life itself. If that was the only thing you used to define life, you would have very few non-life entities or events accidentally included. If you can truly understand ... I mean really, really truly at a detailed level understand .... how the heck life works against the gradient of entropy, then you will understand a LOT (like, at the MA level, at least) of what is going on. To get a believable and reasonable level of understanding of this, you must get more than just basic cell function ... it is not good enough to just say "The mitochondria are the tiny little powerhouses of the cell" because you have not explained how that works. You need to know about ATP and stuff. Really, you even need to know why cells use ATP as energy but none of the other obvious forms of energy that they could use ... the phylogenetic effect at a very
a repost
Now, the creationist reading this will say, "Aha! The teacher is annoyed at the creationist, and the great Doctor of Evolutionary Biology is disturbed that such difficult questions come from the mouth's of babes ... these simple honest questions that are in fact impossible to answer! The Evilutionists would prefer if these questions were never even asked...."
BZZZZZZZZGGGGKKKKKZZZZZTTTG
That was the "oh please, cut out the crap" buzzer going off. The annoying creationist's voices must now stop ... after a week of feverish delirium I don't need that crap.. This is my head, and your voices need to go somewhere else... ... OK, that's better.
Back to the issue at hand... This student is not an innocent child asking legitimate questions. Child? Yes. Innocent? That needs, in my opinion, to be demonstrated, but from a teacher's perspective, OK, you can assume innocent until proven nefarious. But wait and see what happens. Yesterday it was C14, today it was Thermodynamics. Tomorrow it will be intelligent design at the cellular level, later on it will be missing transitional forms, and so on. The student might or might not tell you ... perhaps as an admission, perhaps as a proud statement ("See, I researched this.") that these questions are mostly coming from the Answers in Genesis web site.
Did this student find the web site through a private initiative, or perhaps by accident? Did a parent point this student to the web site? Did a Sunday school teacher or pastor tell the student about it? All of these things tend to happen, but the latter two are the most common. There is a pretty good chance that this student has been put up to this, but most likely willingly. Little 10th graders can be the strongest crusaders. Jeanne d'Arc was in tenth grade, if I remember correctly. So this is not going to end quietly.
The student will eventually start to bring these issues up during class, not just after class or before class. Most likely the other students in the class will get annoyed and protest to the student directly ... they are, after all, there to learn the biology for their own reasons (like getting a high school diploma or passing a test or whatever) and regardless of their own religious views, they are not interested in this disruption. Even if they did want to get a creationist or religious perspective, they probably don't want to hear it from this kid even outside of the class. Jeanne d'Arc might have been a tenth grader, but most tenth graders, regardless of the level of their zealotry, are not Jeanne d'Arc. Their discourse does not tend to capture the audience and they are unlikely to make a credible case that they have been visited by The Virgin.
Teacher, listen to this: There is a wide range of possible responses to the situation outlined above (or some other similar situation). Only some of them are legal. Only some of them are ethical. There are things you can do that may make perfect sense but that will significantly enhance the probability of your school or district being successfully sued.
Anyone who tells you there is an easy way to handle this is misinformed.
When Pastor Bob arms your student with creationist claims and sends him or her into your classroom, he is creating not just a disruption or an annoyance, but a professionally dangerous situation. Most likely he knows this and is doing this to generate trouble. He is, obviously, using this child as a pawn in a game that he feels he is prepared to play and maybe win. He knows he is getting points with god by doing this (as does the pawn-child) and he cares not one bit about you or your career. He sees disruption of your science class, and thus of the science education of the other students in your class, as a good thing. This may, indeed, be his primary objective other than his own salvation from sin.
While it is true that almost no teachers are prepared through formal training to handle this sort of situation without risking career or the school's legal budget, or losing control of the class, or losing the pawn-child, most teachers can avoid trouble by keeping a few guidelines in mind.
You can't talk about religion in your science classroom. This means you can't have a conversation about creationism in your classroom. You may have to pull the student aside and indicate that this discussion will not happen. The student will object, indicating that "intelligent design" is not creationism. You must very firmly indicate to the student that according to the current, standing law, intelligent design IS creationism, and creationism IS religion, and religion cannot be discussed in any way whatsoever in a science classroom without risk of breaking the law. It may be necessary to indicate to the student that continued attempts to bring this conversation into the classroom have to be seen as a disciplinary problem.
Let's talk about that angle for a moment. Have you ever had a student who will not stop talking about sex or related anatomy whenever an opportunity arises in class... blurting things out and disrupting class? Think about that scenario for a moment. The student is not special ed or special needs. The student blurts out a profanity and/or sexual or anatomical reference four or five times per class, giggles with his buddies, attempts to recruit those around him into this shenanigans even if you keep moving him, etc. This is a disciplinary issue, and you have ways of addressing it as a teacher.
A student who has been informed that there will be no discussion of creationist claims from AIG (Answers in Genesis) or anywhere else in the classroom, that ID is creationism, etc. but continues to do so is no different. As a teacher, and as a particular teacher in a particular classroom, you can't be told by me or anyone else how to deal with this, but you must deal with it properly. A chat with a dean/assistant principal, councilors, etc. is probably in order.
And if anyone in the admin, your department head or any colleagues tell you to lighten up, that the students can express their religious views in class because of the first amendment, etc. etc., then you are on the next level of difficulties, beyond what we can do here in this one blog post. Seek outside help. Drop me a line. Contact NCSE. Get a lawyer.
I want to end with a very specific idea that I've seen suggested many times among teachers, and it is something that you CAN NOT do. You can't do this. There are books out there, such as and especially Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" that deal with the religion/science interface in the area of evolution. I have seen it suggested that teachers can recommend a book like "Finding Darwin's God" to students or parents. You can not do this. Miller's book is about reconciling religion ... and a particular subset of religion, a particular area of Christianity ... with science. As a science teacher, in the context of a science classroom, if you recommend this book, you would be promoting religion in general, and a specific religion in particular. It may sound like a good idea, and it may seem perfectly sensible and innocent. But you would be violating the Establishment Clause. To my knowledge, this exact scenario has not been tested in the courts, but I don't think you want to be the teacher on the witness stand when it is.
(Personally, I think if you take this tact, you should lose your job.)
The truth is that the legal protections supporting the teaching of real evolutionary biology in the classroom do not arise because real evolutionary biology is ... ah ... real, and creationism is not. The importance and veracity of the science itself is only part of the argument, even though it should be, and I think could be, the only argument. We don't have slack-jawed yokels sneaking onto the school board so that they can force Language Arts teachers to tell the students that "i aint got no George Strait tunes, you gotta brang soma his CD's over, ye'hear?" or to insist that the shop teacher tell the students "you know, these safety devices ... especially the ones on electric saws ... really are a pain in the ass, so the first thing we do every semester is learn how to disable the safety devices" and so on. Those are arguments about quality, and you can make arguments about quality all you want regarding life sciences in the classroom and no one will care even a little. Creationism is not allowed in the classroom because it is religion, not because it is stoopid. Which is a great convenience for you as a life science teacher, but rather shameful, at the broader social and political level, when you think about it.
Thank you very much, that is all the thinking I will be doing today.
Education
Comments
I'm reading HWMNBN's latest book 'The Greatest Show On Earth' for review. It discussescarbon dating, thermodynamics etc etc. Perhaps if confronted by such students a teacher could pass this book out. HWMNBN I'd stunningly articulate, so you don't have to be.
Posted by: cromercrox | August 12, 2009 1:31 PM
Why does this post fail to mention a 100% effective technique, officially considered harmless and helpful for maintaining order and respect for authority?
And are there any corrections you'd like to issue now regarding posts from the past "week of feverish delirium"?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 12, 2009 1:56 PM
Pierce, I'm trying to be nice here, OK?
Posted by: Greg Laden | August 12, 2009 2:14 PM
I've read this before. Repost with editing?
Posted by: gb | August 12, 2009 2:34 PM
This is the point that I sense is the biggest problem, and the one that probably scares me the most:
How many teachers get too frightened to pursue the issue when their superiors tell them to "lighten up" after they point out such a student's disruptive behavior? How many teachers get fired or "re-assigned" for their failure to "lighten up".
It's a very sad and frightening situation when people must be afraid to stand up for science in the face of religion in our public schools.
How long before there are stocks in the town square for people labeled "heretic" or "apostate"? Don't laugh, people, because that is exactly what the evangelicals and fundamentalists want.
Posted by: Dan J | August 12, 2009 2:41 PM
When I was a TA, the other TA and I often referred to the prof (who was also head of the dept) as 'God'. As in, "have you submitted the grades for the last lab to god yet?"
A student overheard us, and subjected us to a ten minute tearful tirade.
We decided to drop the nickname.
Posted by: Rich Wilson | August 12, 2009 3:38 PM
Better, in some ways:
Creationism is not allowed in the classroom because it is not science. Positive teaching moment and all that, based on the definitions that are should be part of any science class.
Aside from that, there's the (very well supported in law) principle that the teacher must be able to maintain order in the classroom. Disruption is disruption, and as you point out it's not the content of disruption but the "time, place, and manner." And, yes, those are legal terms. Anyone interested can look up the context.
Tools. Lots of them.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 12, 2009 3:45 PM
I dunno...it seems to me that you can talk about C14 dating (and other radiometric dating methods, some of which show that the original igneous rocks on Earth were 4+ billion years old), without even bringing up the question of religion. You can talk about how life is able to move from simplicity to complexity because of a sun/heat/chemical-based energy source that powers the root of the system with phytoplankton and land-based vegetation. You can take a stand that our best evidence shows these things without ever bringing up the question of which religions and denominations happen to agree and which happen not to agree. The very purpose of science education is to teach how science works, how evidence leads to theories that can be tested by observation. Even if you suspect a student is getting his answers "in Genesis" and approaching you with questions, the teachable moment is not to show how stupid those beliefs (which remain hypothetical until voiced) are, but how we know that the questions are satisfactorily answered by well-founded theories. Once it becomes a question of the student presenting not questions, but beliefs of his own (e.g. I believe the world is 6,000 years old vs. how do we know the world is not 6,000 years old?), you can order him to cease and desist, but until then, I say treat the questions assuming the student has a genuine desire to learn from evidence rather than from Authority.
Posted by: VolcanoMan | August 12, 2009 3:47 PM
Rich Wilson: How many years ago was that? If two or more I'd put money on that student being an atheist/agnostic by now. Just a gut feeling.
Posted by: Greg Laden | August 12, 2009 3:57 PM
One possibility would be to ask the student where he is getting his information, and if he acknowledges it's from AIG or some such, belittle it as coming from some random Internet web site, and then use this as an opportunity to talk about the trustworthiness of the Internet in general.
Don't even mention ID or religion! Just point out to the class (at some length -- this is a teachable moment!) how full the Internet is of misinformation, and firmly state that it is not your job to refute every claim made there. Tenth grade students are sensitive to ridicule, so if you do this often enough it might just shut the little bugger up!
Posted by: jb | August 12, 2009 3:59 PM
# 3, more concisely: Bzzzzzappp!!!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 12, 2009 4:16 PM
I would ask her, in front of the class, to come up with the science behind her claim of there being problems with carbon dating. Send her off to the physics journals abstracts and see what she comes back with. Point out that if physicists never heard of these problems then either her source is guaranteed a Nobel and world acclaim, or they're selling snake oil.
Posted by: Watt de Fawke | August 12, 2009 4:17 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to just redirect them to talkorigins? As far as I know, it has answers to every question AIG has produced, and deals strictly with science, rather than theology. If you offer to meet with them if they have further questions, it forces them to actually read the material before bringing anything up.
Posted by: qbsmd | August 12, 2009 4:58 PM
WdF, you're on your way to my (probably bad, but entertaining) solution of assigning a research paper. Given the examples Greg has presented (T2 and carbon dating) I'd go for a paper on the common statistical mathematics underlying them both.
Then every time our student attempts to disrupt the class the teacher can put the question off at least until that paper is ready.
Of course, to be really nasty, assign the student to write up an experimental protocol with sufficient power to disprove hir hypothesis.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 12, 2009 5:24 PM
Quoting a couple of the suggestions:
andReading those, I know that neither writer has been in a middle school or high school classroom as a teacher. My wife, on the other hand, has done that for more than 40 years, and you do not attempt to teach 10th graders (when biology is usually taught) by using ridicule or sending a 15 year-old to the physics abstracts or denigrating a source that is almost certainly coming through a pastor or parent. Setting up that kind of authority clash is a guaranteed loss for the teacher.There are ways of handing those questions, but very very few middle school and high school science teachers have the background necessary. We (commenters on science blogs) tend to have the background because we've been embedded in the controversy for years (or in my case, decades). But a teacher facing 5 or 6 preparations and 150 or more students a day doesn't have the leisure. We -- those knowledgeable in the ways of AIG, ICR, and the Disco 'Tute, have to get off our asses and help those teachers by talking with them, providing materials, and above all ensuring that they have supportive Boards of Education and administrators.
Read my Freshwater posts on Panda's Thumb to see what happens when the Board is unaware and the administration is composed of a few fundamentalists enabled by a larger community of evangelicals.
Posted by: RBH | August 12, 2009 5:38 PM
Thermodynamic reversal of entropy is simple. Application of electrical energy inside the fridge cools your can of beer; entropy reversed! Drink beer; entropy increases. Fall in a drunken stupor on the ski slope and freeze to death; entropy reversed. Summer comes, your corpse warms up; entropy increased. Coroner puts your remains in freezer; entropy reversed. Man, it's so simple!
Posted by: eigenvector | August 12, 2009 5:41 PM
RBH: Thanks. I'm sure the commenters all either meant well or were having fun, but yes, these ideas are mostly out of the range of what one can do in 10th grade, or perhaps HS generally. Certainly not middle school! I was reading some off these to my teacher-wife, and we were getting a laugh but only that kind of laugh that ends with a sly look and a comment like .... "right... can't do that one either...."
Posted by: Greg Laden | August 12, 2009 5:47 PM
What to do about college professors who ban students from thinking for themselves:
1) Fire them
2) Ban the from teaching anywhere in the United States for life
3) Question their motives - are they 1917 communist college professor sympathizers/terrorists?
4) Withold federal funds from any college who hires a professor who embraces socialism, "social justice", or any other brand of evil - yes this mean Bill Ayers too
5) Encourage kids to go to real universities where professors teach rather than indoctrinate and brainwash. College professors are notorious for brainwashing young minds, they will stand before a Judge one day and pay for it though. I hope they enjoy it while it lasts.
Posted by: Angry Right Wing Mobster | August 12, 2009 7:25 PM
"Did this student find the web site through a private initiative, or perhaps by accident? Did a parent point this student to the web site? Did a Sunday school teacher or pastor tell the student about it? All of these things tend to happen, but the latter two are the most common."
--------------
Yes parents do tell their kids about creation (the truth) and to deny evolution and the teachers who embrace it. We teach them to question the teacher's poltical motives - anti-Christian?
Yes Sunday School and pastors do teach about Creationism. It and Answers In Genesis and others have been discussed in our church services. So what? We have the right.
Deal with it.
When anti-Christian teachers and colleges brainwash students with evolution crap, we know we must fight it with full force. In other words Greg, When the kids are in school, we have no control over what type of indoctrination is going on in that classroom. We can look at their textbooks and homework and make sure we understand what might be going on and explian the situation to the kid. However, when the kid is at church, evolution is not mentioned except to debunk and belittle it.
Sorry, there is no room in the house of God for Satan's lies of evoltion.
deal with it !
Posted by: Evolution denier | August 12, 2009 7:33 PM
Evo denier,
Why not just home school your kids if you are afraid of them understanding science and how it works? It is indeed an option, then you won't have to worry about us nefarious high school teachers getting your child to develop an understanding of evolution. Sadly for you, science is based upon empirical evidence and until folks on your side come up with evidence that would disprove Evolution and/or support your hypothesis, your ideas will be nothing more than philosphy which is not a topic one should be teaching in a science class.
Posted by: Paul Merda | August 12, 2009 7:48 PM
"What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ" - George Washington, May 12, 1779, speech to the Deleware indian Chiefs.
Posted by: Reality man | August 12, 2009 8:00 PM
your ideas will be nothing more than philosphy which is not a topic one should be teaching in a science class.
-----------
What about in a religious history class?
Do you disagree with creationism being discussed and studied in a religious history class?
Home school and private Christian school are better choices than the indoctination leftist teachers union prisons called public school.
Students who go to private christian schools are better off. They learn more about math, science, history (not revised) and the like. Not abortion, population control, greenpeace environutism and such things that should not be in public schools, but left to the parents and churches to teach.
Posted by: Evolution denier | August 12, 2009 8:05 PM
Yes, because it's badly written and poorly thought out footnote in religious history and philosophy. It may seem very important to a bunch of people who don't know much about religious history or philosophy, but in the grand scheme of things it's certainly not an important idea historically beyond the political influence that its proponents have managed to accumulate.
Posted by: rsm | August 12, 2009 9:08 PM
Evo denier:
Everything around you that you use every day, your computer, your car, your food, your clothes, your home was made possible by science.
Religion created none of it.
If you really feel science is so evil, you really should homeschool as you say.
... in a cave, around a campfire, eating whatever you managed to forage or kill, reciting you class lessons from the imperfect memories of what your parents told you in their cave, hoping you dont forget some detail that will save your kid's souls.
For science class you could pray that a handful of sand would become a silicon chip so that you could email us to beg for medicine, tools, fertilizer and matches.
Then maybe in your philosophy class after praying that the shadows stay away from your fire, you could discuss how the truth of god is in his makings ... and realize that by studying reality with scientific methods, you'd actually be honouring your god by learning his truthes, earning respect from your god instead of living in fear of him in denial of the true wonders science reveals.
Or you could just accept reality and the bleak limitations of your existence and admit there's no god like everyone else here. ... We'd probably let you move out of the cave.
Posted by: Ken | August 12, 2009 9:41 PM
#3 D.C. Sessions: Teaching non-science in a science classroom doesn't violate the establishment clause, unless that non-science is religion.
That's why I suspect one of these days the creationist strategy--"teach the controversy" or "exploring evolution"--will succeed in meeting constitutional muster.
#21 Reality man: That's a misquotation of the single example of George Washington mentioning "Jesus Christ." For the accurate quotation, in context, see:
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/01/the-one-time-washington-mentioned-christ.html
Posted by: Jim Lippard | August 12, 2009 10:09 PM
Ken, for the win.
Posted by: Ted Gideonse | August 12, 2009 10:26 PM
I agree that many of the suggestions, while potentially entertaining, don't work in a school setting. The best thing is to defuse and avoid while in the classroom, and look for other opportunities to discuss if necessary. And keep your supervising administrator informed, like it or not.
Posted by: Irene | August 12, 2009 10:33 PM
I resent the implication that there is something wrong with caves.
Posted by: og | August 12, 2009 10:35 PM
You should write more posts like this, it is very useful.
Posted by: teach | August 12, 2009 10:38 PM
Actually, there's a good way to head off the old canard about C14 dating. Get hold of the Jack Chick tract that makes fun of C14 dating because some lab calibrating their equipment on a live bivalve estimated that said bivalve had been dead for 3000 years. Then follow the reference. I don't remember the authors' names, but the year is 1963.
A major assumption of C14 dating is that any carbon taken into a living organism comes from something that is alive or only recently dead. (In other words, it comes from ingesting plants, animals, fungi, or microbes. If you could drink crude oil instead of eating meat and vegetables, and incorporate the carbon from the oil into your body tissues, your own C14 results would look a bit weird too.) When the researchers found this result interesting and took a closer look at what the bivalves were doing, they found out that these animals were ingesting carbon in the form of calcium carbonate, and incorporating it into their shells.
The teaching moment is that C14 dating, like other methods used in science, isn't meant to reveal dogmatic truths. It's a tool meant to uncover evidence that can support or refute a hypothesis -- or to generate a new one. You may or may not be a person who prays, but either way, you can still do science. But if you want something or someone to pray to, science isn't it.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | August 12, 2009 11:04 PM
Maybe make a reference to the talk origins site: Index of Creationist Claims, as well as the "29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ".
Now, to Angry Right Wing Mobster:
5) Encourage kids to go to real universities where professors teach rather than indoctrinate and brainwash. College professors are notorious for brainwashing young minds, they will stand before a Judge one day and pay for it though. I hope they enjoy it while it lasts.
Why don't you list the "real universities" then? For that matter, why don't you try proving what you said about how college professors are "notorious for brainwashing young minds".
How's about some evidence instead of brainless accusations?
Posted by: Reynold | August 13, 2009 3:51 AM
Thanks for the useful post. I do teach evolution to 8th graders and have to agree with Greg and Irene. Invariably questions about god or religion come up and the best you can do is downplay the religion and provide really strong examples for the science. At this level, most questions arise because the student notices a difference between the science they learn in school and what they hear at church.
To redirect a student to any resource that goes beyond the science and argues against their belief system is a great way to lose your job. The website http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ is a wonderful resource for primary and secondary level teachers of evolution.
Posted by: James | August 13, 2009 10:42 AM
@Evo - I must agree that home schooling is the best option for people that are afraid that their children will get an education in reality.
What gives you the right to disturb a teacher who is mandated by law to teach the standards as written??
Posted by: Stacy | August 13, 2009 12:28 PM
Ken: Actually most of the artifacts of modern life owe very little to science, but much to engineering. Science, too, owes much to engineering. It's traditional to give science and scientists credit for everything, but dishonest.
Posted by: Nathan Myers | August 13, 2009 1:27 PM
Jim Lippard:
Regardless of whether it's religion or literature, it's out of place in a science classroom and should be shut down just as much as a discussion of the latest gossip. That's why a redirect to "what is (and isn't) science" is a useful segue.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 13, 2009 1:34 PM
I think at the level of 10th grade, the student probably just doesn't understand the science behind what they are talking about.
For the thermodynamic nonsense, the best thing you can do is point out the window at that gigantic ball of an energy source.
I think the best way to handle this is to ask the student to do research on carbon dating or thermodynamics or whatever, as an extra credit assignment, with the caveat that they must use peer-reviewed sources.
Posted by: catgirl | August 13, 2009 3:55 PM
"Everything around you that you use every day, your computer, your car, your food, your clothes, your home was made possible by science."
-------
I agree. Science is handy. Now, WHO created the whole earth and allowed humanity to use the creation of the universe and all that is in it for the advancement of the human race? Why GOD, of course.
The bit about sand and silicon chip is cute. You do not realize that without God, the silicon chip would not exist. He created the sand to make it with.
Here's a good example in the form of a joke for you:
A group of scientists became so technologically advanced and so smart that they could create life in a laboratory. They decided that since they could accomplish this feat, they would no longer need God.
One day they all met with God and told Him that he was no longer need. They could make humans and make them better and more perfect than God could.
God laughed and accepted this as a challenge. He challenged the scientists to a man making competition. Of course the scientists' arrogance and pride got the better of them and they gladly accepted the challenge.
God said that there was only one rule involved: "You have to create a man EXACTLY as I did".
One of the scientists agreed to try and as he bent over to grab a handful of dirt, God replied "NO NO, NO! You have to make your own dirt!"
The lesson here is that your self declared scientists have not realized that all that you study was created for and created by God. Nothing exists that was not forst created by God. Sorry to dissapoint you, but your sand idea is invalid.
Posted by: Evolution denier | August 13, 2009 7:14 PM
@Evo - " The lesson here is that your self declared scientists have not realized that all that you study was created for and created by God. Nothing exists that was not forst created by God. Sorry to dissapoint you, but your sand idea is invalid." Prove it.
Posted by: Stacy | August 13, 2009 7:21 PM
First the scientists had to find some driftwood?
Posted by: Stephanie Z | August 13, 2009 8:24 PM
You have to make your own dirt!!!! That's ..... not really very funny. I was hoping for something funny.
Posted by: Greg Laden | August 13, 2009 8:45 PM
To Evolution denier: Go ahead with you crazy loony Christian agenda to turn America into an intellectual backwater. As someone who earned his doctorate from this fantastic place, I can tell you that what makes America great is her science. And her movies, her science-fiction, her pop music and basketball. Not Christianity!
As someone who has been to China, and very many parts of the world, I can say confidently to you that if you and your children do not want to take part in the future of science, there's plenty of scientists from India, China and all over Asia, South America, Finland who do not care one whit about your crazy loony religion.
You may win your political game in the US, but there's no way you can win the rest of the world. So go ahead and suppress what's good about America. Be the downfall of America. I will be there to chronicle every last sword you draw against my colleagues from that fantastic place.
Posted by: Anders Brink | August 14, 2009 11:48 AM
Your so called fantastic place will burn with the rest of the earth on judgement day. What makes America great is that it was founded on the principles of individual freedom given to humanity by his Creator. Did you not read this self evident truth in history? Perhaps you learned froma revised history class eh?
I do not object to science at all. As a matter of fact I am a fan of science that works. Evolution is not science. it is a simple man made idea that promotes secularization into the world that God has made and declared for Himself, given unto us.
Along with secularization comes all kinds of evils: socialism, marxism, communism, atheism, liberalism,etc.
What you saw in China is NOT a result of a lack of science. it is a result in the lack of individual freedom to worship the creator. Once God is taken out of a society, that society becomes bitter, mean, evil, and more socialistic/communistic. Look at Britian and most of Europe. Europe turned her back on God and what did they end up with? Socialist dicatatorships and more government rule. It's almost as if they are still in the days of Ceasar.
Less God equals more secualr government control and less individual freedom for civilization.
More God equals more indivual freedom, a more prosperous nation, and more prosperous society, and less governmental infringements into our liberty.
We are less free than we were 20 years ago are we not?
More government and secualrization means less freedom. Look around you. Secularism kills civilizations and individual freedoms. Only evil abounds in such a society.
So my question to you is quite simple:
Why defend a belief that you will have to stand before God and give account for in the end anyway?
What will you say when an angels has his hands on you about to throw you int the fiery pit of hell and God asks you why you lied about His creation to young minds so many times and caused so many lives to be destroyed in hell for teaching that belief?
You WILL give an account one day wether you beieve it now or not.
Posted by: Evolution denier | August 14, 2009 7:23 PM
Your so called fantastic place will burn with the rest of the earth on judgement day. What makes America great is that it was founded on the principles of individual freedom given to humanity by his Creator. Did you not read this self evident truth in history? Perhaps you learned froma revised history class eh?
I do not object to science at all. As a matter of fact I am a fan of science that works. Evolution is not science. it is a simple man made idea that promotes secularization into the world that God has made and declared for Himself, given unto us.
Along with secularization comes all kinds of evils: socialism, marxism, communism, atheism, liberalism,etc.
What you saw in China is NOT a result of a lack of science. it is a result in the lack of individual freedom to worship the creator. Once God is taken out of a society, that society becomes bitter, mean, evil, and more socialistic/communistic. Look at Britian and most of Europe. Europe turned her back on God and what did they end up with? Socialist dicatatorships and more government rule. It's almost as if they are still in the days of Ceasar.
Less God equals more secualr government control and less individual freedom for civilization.
More God equals more indivual freedom, a more prosperous nation, and more prosperous society, and less governmental infringements into our liberty.
We are less free than we were 20 years ago are we not?
More government and secualrization means less freedom. Look around you. Secularism kills civilizations and individual freedoms. Only evil abounds in such a society.
So my question to you is quite simple:
Why defend a belief that you will have to stand before God and give account for in the end anyway?
What will you say when an angels has his hands on you about to throw you int the fiery pit of hell and God asks you why you lied about His creation to young minds so many times and caused so many lives to be destroyed in hell for teaching that belief?
You WILL give an account one day wether you beieve it now or not.
Posted by: Evolution denier | August 14, 2009 7:25 PM
You've got quite the troll infestation, Greg !
ED, you can claim that all you want, but in the end, Fenrir WILL eat the sun and moon. Now prove me wrong.
Posted by: Annick | August 14, 2009 8:12 PM
What will you say when an angels has his hands on you about to throw you int the fiery pit of hell and God asks you why you lied about His creation to young minds so many times and caused so many lives to be destroyed in hell for teaching that belief?
- Who the fuck slipped me that brown acid?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | August 14, 2009 8:45 PM
Evolution denier, pretty much every advance in human society was opposed by your lot. And that includes the advancement of human freedom let alone the advancement of science.
Posted by: a lurker | August 14, 2009 9:40 PM
Evolution denier, what did the doctors tell you about that head injury? Change your bandage twice a day, take all your meds, and don't trade your meds with the other patients.
Posted by: Nurse Ratched | August 14, 2009 10:43 PM
You WILL give an account one day wether you beieve it now or not.
This is why people should not be allowed to own handguns.
Posted by: Greg Laden | August 14, 2009 11:21 PM
Thank you Evolution Denier, for responding in EXACTLY the why I knew a bible-thumper would respond. Like an whacked-out idiot, xenophobic, untravelled, never seeing the real world, ranting nonsensically about the rest of the world you've never met.
I pressed your buttons, and I can press it again. Anytime.
In another time, this would be called "demon-summoning". I has mad skillz.
Posted by: Anders Brink | August 15, 2009 11:15 AM
ED: Are you an authority about China now? I am Chinese, *not* from China and I don't think I am an authority on Chinese history, policy, motives or anything.
But I can tell you one simple fact: The Chinese people are not Christian. They have not beeen Christian for a LONG LONG TIME. We have a history books that goes all the way back to 5000 years, BEFORE CHRIST. Saying Mao suppressed natural worship is true, but the natural worship was not Christian!
The Chinese people have had commerce for thousands of years. They are also not communists, you silly idiot.
This is the kind of stupid error makes you seem like an blathering, gibbering idiot to me.
Posted by: Anders Brink | August 15, 2009 11:35 AM
China is not a communist nation?
Since when did that change?
I suppose Cuba is not communist either huh?
Was the Soviet Union communist? According to you, it was not.
I realize that China is not a Christian nation (unlike America) and never has been. Communism often forbids Christianity and most other religions, hence the lack of personal individual freedom.
Only a nation of communists could require by nationalist decree that a husband and wife can have only one child. That is pure evil and the socialists in the world just happen to go along with population control. it is quite scary. God said to be fruitful and multiply, not kill people's kids because you fear over population.
Communism and socialism is the enemies of individual liberty and national freedom. It just so happens that McCarthy was right!
Population control through whatever scheme (healthcare control, global warming lies, abortion, euthanasia, etc.) is absolute pure evil and is a fascist idea that should be killed entirely.
Beleive in population control? Fine, we'll get rid of the people who embrace communism and socialism. That should cut the population down quite a bit.
Posted by: Evolution denier | August 15, 2009 7:09 PM
Evolution denier -
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA!!!!! You really are batshit insane...
Posted by: DuWayne | August 15, 2009 7:20 PM
Yeah, DuWayne, I ws thinking exactly the same thing. Of course, Evolution Denier (Whom, I'm guessing, probably wears 10 denier silk stockings with his evening gowns) should be extremeley thankful to science. If we were still living in the 1940's or 1950's, ED would most definitely be trussed up in a mental institution doing an equivalent of the "thorazine shuffle".
Face it, ED. We don't want your religion. We don't need your religion. What we do want is for you to shut your mouth and go back to your church. We'd appreciate some peace for a change.
Posted by: Dan J | August 15, 2009 7:31 PM
It's not a matter of wether you want or need MY religion. One day you will want it and need it, except it will be too late. Your worship of darwin and his false science and the other false satanic sciences or the world has clouded your mind and caused your downfall.
Quite frankly, the 1940s and 1950s would be nice right about now. We would be more free from the threats of socialism and the radical far leftists who control society.
Leftsists are dangerous to civilization. They push for more government control and call it help. it is a quite intelligently designed system of rule I might add. The masses do not know the trouble that lies ahead.
We must kill ll forms of socialism while we still have the chance and still have freedom.
You do not want my religion. That's fine.
I do not want your countr either.
I refuse to give up my freedom in the same way that the UK has surrendered their freedom to a socialist dicatorial system - that is pure evil and I wish that type of system a very dark, painful, agonizing death.
Death to socialism, power to freedom and liberty. Down with governmental tyranny! Death to population control advocates and their satanic leftists axis comrades!
Give me freedom any day!
Posted by: Evolution Denier | August 16, 2009 10:28 AM
ED, given a choice, I would absolutely give you the freedom you think you want. Of course, I wouldn't make you keep it for more than a couple of days. That would be cruel.
Read: http://tuibguy.com/?p=1414
Posted by: Stephanie Z | August 16, 2009 11:53 AM
I do not want your countr either.
You know, I am not for telling anyone to love it or leave it, but given you don't want our country, you are welcome to fuck off.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 16, 2009 12:32 PM
I don't want YOUR country. I am fine with my America - the America the founding fathers created. Robald Reagan warned us 48 years ago about the socialists getting their foot in the door under the disguise of "healthcare". Through this guise, they could eventually expand socialism to the rest of the nation.
If I were in charge anyone who acepted socialism would be deemed a traitor and sentenced to hang under the laws of treason.
We have to kill socialism before it kills us.
Under the country you want, it would be illegal to f**K off without first consulting a panel of legislatige f**K off experts. You see, I wouldn't even have the freedom to do that under your type of dictatorial rule.
Posted by: Evolution denier | August 16, 2009 5:57 PM
ED -
You are a parody unto yourself. Seriously, we have had a remarkable amount of redistribution for decades upon decades now and while we still have to constantly strive to keep the loons from stealing our civil liberties. Note, such loons are not relegated to one side or another of some socialist paradigm. Rather they are everywhere, in virtually every political/economic paradigm, including extreme libertarianism.
So please, spare us your juvenile rantings (unless they include dick and fart jokes) that aren't even worthy of a highschool student...
Posted by: DuWayne | August 18, 2009 7:44 AM
Whta do you know about civil liberties?
Isn't your party the party who grants minorities numeorus social programs in order to secure future votes? What do you think welfare and fod stamps is for? You think those wonderful politicians care about people? NO! Welfare is a program that secures votes. As long as people get a free handout, who do you think they'll vote for? The people gioving out the free checks or the people who want us to work for a living? See what I mean? The new healthscare mandate is another vote securing social program as well as an effective population control program.
By the way, where do you leftist marxists come from anyway?I have always wanted to now how you multiply so rapidly. You must be hemaphradites or something.
That's the only conclusion I could make since you kill half your babies through abortion and the other half is unable to reproduce due to homosexuality syndrome. You have to reproduce asexually, or your aliens who lay eggs when people arent;t looking. Seriously, with the liberals killing their babies and the the other half being homo, how do you reproduce? Is liberalism a contageous disease? God, I hope not! God destroy us now. I do not wish to de in that horrible manner.
Posted by: Evolution denier | August 19, 2009 10:06 PM
Who's party? I don't have one, nor have I voted more than two or three times for a republicrat in my entire life and then only in local elections.
But again ED, you are nothing but a sick little parody - albeit one that would be funny, if it weren't fairly clear you probably believe the crap you spew...
Posted by: DuWayne | August 20, 2009 8:26 AM
Is it just me, or does ED seem to be more off his meds than usual lately? They do still make Thorazine, don't they?
Posted by: Dan J | August 20, 2009 9:32 AM
"if it weren't fairly clear you probably believe the crap you spew..."
---------
Funny you should mention spewing crap ... on THIS site...
-----------
DAN,
5-HTP is better for you than prescription meds by the way.
Want me to lecture you in natural remedies now or later?
Posted by: Evolution denier | August 20, 2009 9:15 PM
Oh PLEASE!!! Lecture us NOW about them natural remedies!!!
While you're at it, you could explain to us exactly how 5-HTP interacts with the brain, as apposed to, hmmm, the Welbutrin I am taking these days. And please explain how 5-HTP would help someone who is schizophrenic, or someone like me, who is bipolar.
Inquiring minds that have probably spent exponentially more time learning about these natural remedies than you have, would love to hear what you have to say on the topic. Just be sure that you give us clear and concise explanations for how each of these remedies actually works with the human body and cite the evidence for their efficacy.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 21, 2009 9:22 AM
Greg, I've just discovered your blog - very good post here, as are so many of your other ones. I hope this is somewhat on topic - not about teaching, but about Life and the Laws of Thermodynamics. I absolutely loved the way the authors of this article dealt with the issue in their advocacy of a "metabolism first" abiogenesis theory.
In their view, life may have started with a process that very conveniently provided a "downhill" entropy ride for the highly energetic electrons that were so abundant just after the formation of the early solar system. This process may have produced, as a side-effect, the variability, heritability and differential fitness features that allowed natural selection to begin working, with life as an emergent resulting complexity. I'd be interested in your views.
Re creationist students and trolls - do they not go away if you ignore them?
Posted by: Scotlyn | August 27, 2009 11:33 AM