…and this is a 
I almost feel sorry for them
Category: Creationism
Posted on: January 12, 2007 3:21 PM, by PZ Myers
Hey, I'm the wild-eyed creationist smasher in this family. So why are all the lame creationists doing their stupid act in my daughter's blog? She's actually getting comments like this, intended to refute evolution:
why is it that nothing today is evolving and why is it (if we did come from apes)that they haven't all turned into humans?
Dogs are not evolving. different kinds of dogs yes but not dogs becoming cats
It's pathetic and creepy how they think they can get their arguments past the 16 year old girl instead of the curmudgeonly old college professor—and she and her friends are still kicking their butts.
Oh, and this "For the Kids" character is really repellent. Concern trolls are even slimier when they go after your kids…but again, Skatje's pretty good at handling herself.
Comments
Well, it's only creationists who aren't evolving, and then only when they are not having sex.
There may even be some development during sleep, when they cannot actively fight reality, but that's not what generally qualifies as evolution in a Darwinian sense.
Why aren't dogs becoming cats? That's easy -- Darwin predicted dogs would not become cats, and God has arranged it so Darwin would be proven right. That's the story I give to creationists, and I'm stickin' to it.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 12, 2007 3:28 PM
Actually Larry King asked a question similar to the former on his show once, something along the lines of "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" Ai ya.
That's like asking "Well, if your grandma did have kids, why aren't your cousins your siblings?"
Posted by: Jane E. Valentine | January 12, 2007 3:37 PM
The above-mentioned ForTheKids writes
I've read your post ... where you quote bible passages that are pulled from scripture with no context of surrounding history or their connection with the entire bibical narrative.
Newsflash: the blogs of atheists are probably the least rich source of such quotes on the internets. This ForTheKids dipshit should take his/her complaints to the thousands of fundie Christian blogs which mindlessly quote-mine the xian bible and every other book under the sun.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | January 12, 2007 3:42 PM
Jeez...from PZ's comment plus the "troll" label I thought "forthekids" would be some kind of monster making unappropiate comment or insulting Skatje.
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | January 12, 2007 3:57 PM
"ForTheKids" shows up on Panda's Thumb once in a great while and posts some truly odd things. I got the impression during some of these episodes that she is a regular troll of some sort on the KCFS board.
Posted by: Coin | January 12, 2007 3:57 PM
I think my cat is evolving into a dog. He comes when I call his name, he plays fetch, and he follows me around all day wagging his tail.
Posted by: Sonja | January 12, 2007 4:02 PM
Sonja:
Does he still use a litter box? If he does then you should breed him and have the ultimate house pet! My cat used to play fetch, now he chases and then comes running back and wants me to go get the toy and throw it again.
Posted by: jba | January 12, 2007 4:04 PM
I knew exactly what PZ meant. And they said exactly what was to be expected.
Vargas is our very own concern troll.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 12, 2007 4:04 PM
We're lucky that nearly all Creationist rhetoric is based in ignorance of even a simple understanding of science and evolution. Unfortunately, even when we point out the obvious, it's not enough and we get those classical non-starters: "God made it that way."
Posted by: Brando | January 12, 2007 4:05 PM
My brother's cat, Kafka, is part dog, since you can really rub his tummy with crushing force and he'll still like it.
I suspect he's a failed genetic experiment to make one of those hypoallergenic cats, rather than the target of a Creationist-style polymorph other spell.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | January 12, 2007 4:07 PM
I'm afraid we'd have to clone him. My cat Iggy has been responsibly de-'nadded. But he is the ultimate house pet, no doubt!
Posted by: Sonja | January 12, 2007 4:10 PM
THIS IS NOT NATURAL. Have you checked to see what the radiation levels in your home are??
Posted by: Coin | January 12, 2007 4:10 PM
I love the f-bomb in 115, followed by a lot cognitive dissidence by the believers. I'd say Skatje is someone that you don't want to mess with.
Posted by: JerryL | January 12, 2007 4:12 PM
I had a cat that thought it was raised by a dog, and it was kind of like a dog. And it grew a really big tail like a fox. So, well, whatever.
PZ: My daughter is 11, a freethinker. She is always turning in her teachers for doing things like wearing crosses around and making the kids sing hymns. She taunts her religious friends with talk of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (This is all public school, mind you.) I see your daughter's situation and think of Julia in a few years.
Maybe the whole internee thing will have dried up by then. But if not, there will be interesting things going on.
Kudos to Skatje.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 12, 2007 4:15 PM
Sonja:
Well, thats for the best (de-nadding, that is) but hell, Im all about cloning. Just so long as its not me... couldnt trust myself. I know Id come home one day and myself sleeping with my girlfriend. Then it would be suicide again for me.
Posted by: jba | January 12, 2007 4:15 PM
PZ:
Well, I went and read through Skatje's blog, and it's better than yours. See, the thing is, if you want to catch fish, you don't use a big scary shark as a lure. You use something that looks safe to attack (I'm thinking bass fishing here, mainly, which fits best). Then you drag the fish out of the water and have your way with it.
From a purely pragmatic blogosphere point of view, it seems like appearing vulnerable or malleable in some way is better. Skatje only seems that way because she is young, a student, female, has blue background and a flower and stuff on her blog. You have a frog and some cockroaches and, well, you look a little scary.
Not that I can talk, really, I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm just sayin'...
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 12, 2007 4:24 PM
Never before have I seen password protected content on a blog. Sad that it's come to this.
Posted by: Rhampton | January 12, 2007 4:29 PM
Well, one of my cats (the stupidest one) does not seem to see the species line between cats and dogs- his best friends include German Shepherds and a toy poodle. And one of the shepherds regularly tries to bathe him. Fortunately, he still uses the litter box; I'm not sure I could deal with a cat that had to be walked.
Incidentally, I notice from the comments that the species movement seems to be cats to dogs, and not vice versa; from a (normal) cat's perspective, wouldn't this qualify as devolution?
Posted by: MJ Memphis | January 12, 2007 4:29 PM
jba, I don't mind if someone clones me, but I hope to avoid being de-'nadded.
My cats, however, didn't get a vote on their own.
Posted by: Mister Nice Guy | January 12, 2007 4:30 PM
Those funny creationists:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php?ArticleID=1428
Stove also wants to know why few are noting the relationship between Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest and the robber-baron capitalists who "scientifically" justified their ruthless acquisitiveness. He also wants to know why hardly anyone is pointing out the relationship between Darwin, Hitler and Stalin. Nazi and Communist crimes can all be traced directly to Darwin's theory. In fact, Hitler criticized Christianity because it was in rebellion against nature! Nature being Darwin's theory of natural selection, which works every hour of every day to bring about earth's "favored races."
And my favorite:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php?ArticleID=1427
The problem with the Church during the time of Galileo was not that they were using the Bible to help them interpret the scientific evidence of the day, but rather, the Church had allowed the dominant philosophies and science of the day to influence their reading of scripture. Prior to Galileo, the dominant scientific viewpoint regarding the universe was that the earth was the center of everything; and thus, the sun, planets, and stars all revolved around the earth. This theory was first developed by pagan philosophers like Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Ptolemy (AD 2nd century); and later was adopted as the most plausible scientific explanation throughout academia and the Church. Thus, the Church had allowed their reading and interpretation of scripture to be influenced by the false theories of pagan philosophers, which had been adopted by the scientists of the day.
Posted by: Mark UK | January 12, 2007 4:34 PM
I feel like I am late to the conversation, since it have been an hour and twenty minutes, but there are so many comments. First off, I love the "f-bomb" referred to earlier in comment 115, because it is hilarious and made me laugh quite a bit. But, the main point of this comment is that PZ may almost feel sorry for them, but I totally do not feel sorry for them. They are the idiots, not us.
Posted by: Jason Fox | January 12, 2007 4:50 PM
Incidentally, I notice from the comments that the species movement seems to be cats to dogs, and not vice versa; from a (normal) cat's perspective, wouldn't this qualify as devolution?
No, its that dogs are bigger. That's the way evolution works.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 12, 2007 4:51 PM
I used to have 2 cats: one was very intelligent, and the other was a dimwit. The smart one died a couple of years ago, and Dimwit's IQ has since increased greatly. Is this some kind of spiritual transfer? If so, can we figure out a way to transfer unused brain energy from smart people who have died into the dimwits who need it? ;)
Posted by: abeja | January 12, 2007 5:13 PM
No one still tells what did I miss about "forthekids" that was so awful... I guess she is only "repellent" and "troll" to the same "knights of reason" that call me a troll just for asking. I'd keep that for things more worth it, dudes If not, you just wear and wash out your "rage" tactics.
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | January 12, 2007 5:14 PM
It's what ForTheKids assumed and implied.
They come on an admitted atheist teenagers blog and tries to act as if the daughter is the puppet of her father.
You're a concern troll because your always claiming people are treated unfairly.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 12, 2007 5:33 PM
Is that the same Jason that is banned from here posting over there? Didn't he become bored or something?
There seems to be a lot of adults going to kids blogs just to make trouble. Here's another example of that. These so called adults put comments where the kid couldn't respond to them. How brave.
As for dogs: if there are dogs, why are there still gray wolves?
As for cats: I always had dogs but then my sister got a cat and I took care of him sometimes. I didn't know how to interact with cats and a couple times I approached him like he was a dog. He didn't like it (obviously) but he got used to it. Maybe he thought that it was just some sort of weird human behavior. They get used to us fairly easily if they were raised around humans. Oh, btw, my sister's cat eats like a dog. I once lost the lox on my bagel when I was in the bathroom!
Posted by: Mena | January 12, 2007 5:49 PM
Posted by: Poseidon | January 12, 2007 5:54 PM
Rhampton said:
I understood the password protected posts as just personal stuff not for general consumption... Not sure that it's "come to this"
Posted by: intepid | January 12, 2007 5:58 PM
Yeah, even I (especially I?) don't get to read them.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 12, 2007 6:07 PM
These creationists don't know anything. Anyone with half-a-brain could tell them that dogs don't evolve into cats, they evolve into "dats".
Sheesh! Even Utah State Congressman Buttars knows that much!
Posted by: tacitus | January 12, 2007 6:11 PM
So my kitty Iggy is becoming a "cog"?
Posted by: Sonja | January 12, 2007 6:16 PM
Forthekids is one of the few people to get banned from the KCFS message boards (for creationist trolling). You can find her blog here.
Posted by: Kevin W. Parker | January 12, 2007 6:18 PM
Oh, and this "For the Kids" character is really repellent.
Isn't she awful? For a while I thought she had to be a sock-puppet for some atheist with a sick sense of humor. I'm afraid she isn't. *Shudder*
Posted by: Kristine | January 12, 2007 6:37 PM
Yeah, seriously, if you've never seen password protected content on a blog, then you've never read the blog of anyone under 25.
Posted by: Coin | January 12, 2007 6:47 PM
Forthekids has her fingers in a lot of blogs.
"For Satan always finds some mischief still for idle hands to do."
Posted by: ERV | January 12, 2007 7:01 PM
PZ says:
My anecdotal observation is that we old folks who would be least surprised or concerned with what our young ones write privately also are the adults most willing to respect their need for that private space.
Posted by: Russell | January 12, 2007 7:10 PM
Thanks for those selected quotes, PZ. Best laugh I've had all day.
I honestly have trouble believing how stupid people can be sometimes.
Posted by: Kyra | January 12, 2007 7:17 PM
"I think my cat is evolving into a dog. He comes when I call his name, he plays fetch, and he follows me around all day wagging his tail."
THIS IS NOT NATURAL. Have you checked to see what the radiation levels in your home are??
Posted by: Coin | January 12, 2007 04:10 PM
============================
These Chimaeras are what Bush was so frightened of last year! Ironically, the only know chimera is Vice President Cheney (1/2 cylon, 1/4 penguin, 1/4 horse's ass).
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle | January 12, 2007 7:21 PM
Someone needs to explain the concept of probability to creationists. And I am not putting my hand up to do it.
I think they also imagine the theory of biological evolution as being linear. Rather than the concept of common ancestry, or common descent. A twig on the end of a branch may have a common ancestry with the trunk, but it's relationship to another twig might not be so easy to observe. Especially if one does not have a complete picture of the tree to start with.
The theory of evolution through the study of fossils and genetics is in a continual process of ascertaining which twigs are in what relationship in order to map the "complete picture of the tree."
Perhaps it is like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle without any picture to refer to. One can see that all the pieces are related. But it takes a continual accumulation of knowledge to understand the specifics of those relationships.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | January 12, 2007 8:44 PM
I wouldn't favor a ban on religion any more than a ban on guns... but we need to find a way to keep them away from the kids.
Posted by: melior | January 12, 2007 9:11 PM
PZ,
You have an amazing daughter. However you raised her, you did good.
Posted by: Ken | January 12, 2007 9:13 PM
About comment #115: I get cranky sometimes. I guess most of what I was responding to wasn't clear since McH has been disemvowelled, but since a couple people have mentioned it, here:
And about the protected posts: It's more of a courtesy thing. I've apparently collected a few readers just by my posts on religion and abortion and such. I'm pretty sure they really don't want to hear me whine about teenage girly drama. I also try to keep them out of the way because I don't want to look too whiny. :3
About Forthekids: Ugh. Ugh ugh ugh. She refuses to read what's in front of her so she has the opportunity to whack away at strawmen. She also butted her ugly head in a post about a former friend of mine, telling me I need to accept people for who they are. In the abortion post, she tried to comment with a bunch of links to pictures of bloody, mangled late-term aborted fetuses and argue from emotion. It got caught in moderation and oopsie, I must have forgotten about it.
She's not even the amusing kid of troll, dangit.
Posted by: Skatje Myers | January 12, 2007 11:10 PM
Skatje's pretty good at handling herself.
She's pretty darn astute, actually.
Raise your daughter right, and then watch her stand on her own two feet.
Good job, dad.
Posted by: Graham | January 12, 2007 11:41 PM
Hmmm....all very interesting. Here is some more for you to consider:
http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/01/religious-indoctrination.html
Enjoy.
Posted by: Forthekids | January 13, 2007 12:27 AM
PZ wrote: "Oh, and this "For the Kids" character is really repellent..."
Yeah, let me chime in here. You know, 'For The Kids', I previously offered correspondence because (as I stated before) you don't seem to understand evolution. I pointed out to you that this was an opportunity to discuss this stuff with someone who is both a theist and a Darwinian, who is willing to give you a fair shake based upon the attitude you previously expressed.
That was months ago, and you've yet to respond. Don't you think before you go picking a fight with legitimate scientists whose expertise is in evolution and development that you should at least develop a little better understanding of what you're railing against? The offer remains open and I hope you'll consider it:
epigene13@hotmail.com
I now return this thread to its regularly-scheduled roasting of creationists....:)
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | January 13, 2007 12:36 AM
Skatje, I would just ignore people like Forthekids and Jason (McH) because no matter what you say and no matter how eloquently you say it, your words are like neutrinos passing right through them without being noticed. It looks like Forthekids is back on the abortion photo track again. These days nuttiness is next to godliness and it's best not to give them a forum.
Posted by: Mena | January 13, 2007 1:13 AM
Scott,
You are either a liar or delusional. I contacted you, you wrote back to me, and I sent you another very lengthy response, WHICH YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO!!
You most certainly know that I contacted you! If that wasn't you, then who the heck was I talking to?
BTW, I've had plenty chances to talk with someone "who is a theist and a Darwinist". In fact, I've carried on numerous conversations with quite a few.
I was involved in the KCFS forum for 2 years and wrote over 3600 posts. I also led the longest thread they have ever had. So, don't tell me I don't "understand evolution".
I simply cannot believe you indicated that I didn't contact you. But, then again, I'm not sure you are actually a theist either. You seem to hang out with PZ on a regular basis and from your comments, you seem to agree with most of what he says. I've even seen you chime in with negative comments about people of faith.
I'll try to go dig up that last email I sent you. It might still be around here somewhere. If I find it, you MIGHT TRYING ANSWERING IT THIS TIME!!! UGH.......
Posted by: Forthekids | January 13, 2007 1:21 AM
"It looks like Forthekids is back on the abortion photo track again."
Yes, isn't that just "nutty". Posting those "emotional" pictures is such a crime, yet KILLING THOSE PRECIOUS LIVES means absolutely nothing. Pure nuttiness.
Oh, BTW, I certainly wouldn't consider Skatje an "eloquent" writer, unless telling someone to "Fuck off" falls under that category.
Posted by: Forthekids | January 13, 2007 1:28 AM
ForTheKids,
I think you are flipping out at exactly the wrong person there (Scott Hatfield)... unless you really do want *everyone* here to despise you.
Why not invite him to a discussion on your own blog? Since you moderate comments you can restrict comments to yourself and Scott alone (you could post the email you mentioned).
Posted by: intepid | January 13, 2007 1:36 AM
From:
http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/01/religious-indoctrination.html
My point is that if we take secularism too far and are no longer allowed to discuss our personal religious beliefs, we are no better off than the fear of an authoritarian religious takeover of the government, which seems to be the paranoid vision that the Dawkins/Myers crowd fear. [The takeover has alreay happened. The President of the United States is an authoritarian bully who believes a fantasy God is telling him how to conduct foreign policy. He talks with religious kooks on a weekly basis.]
So, IMO, the way to solve this problem of the one-sided creation story currently being taught in our science classrooms would be to acknowledge the scientific inference of intellifent design. [Please tell us what a scientific inference is and why you consider intelligent design to be one.] That way, we mention no particular religious belief, yet our children are taught the very real scientific probability [what scientific probability, exactly? Where's the number? Throwing some pseudo-scientific jargon in with your opinions won't give them any more legitimacy.] that our origins arose [Huh?] from something other than a murky pond of nothingness, [Murky pond of nothingness. How poetic.] and that each human life is precious. [That's nice, but you don't need an intelligent designer to feel that way. I wonder if Geo. W. Bush, who has eliminated thousands upon thousands of Iraqis in the last 4 years, thinks all life is precious?]
In conclusion, after reading Skatje's blog, I believe that one could make very good arguments [but you are too lazy to make them?] that atheist's "indoctrinate" their own children [sounds to me like you are afraid of Skatje because she is so smart and articulate. Any sensible person can see that she takes pride in being independent and thinking for herself. If that's indoctrination, we need more of it.] into their faith beliefs [atheists don't have "faith beliefs."] they probably don't consider just as those who hold religious beliefs might "indoctrinate" their children. It should be pointed out that all three of PZ's children are atheists. [Yippeee! You realize that's a good thing, right?]
Posted by: George | January 13, 2007 1:39 AM
Yes, isn't that just "nutty". Posting those "emotional" pictures is such a crime, yet KILLING THOSE PRECIOUS LIVES means absolutely nothing. Pure nuttiness.
Neutrinos just streaming through...
You aren't interested in a dialogue, you want to preach. Since you apparently know my views on abortion, care to share them with the class? I must be one of dem der libruls, huh?
Oh, BTW, I certainly wouldn't consider Skatje an "eloquent" writer, unless telling someone to "Fuck off" falls under that category.
She's as eloquent as any 16 year old who is being harassed by an adult. Besides, we can't all use capitalization and quotes as well as you.
Posted by: Mena | January 13, 2007 1:48 AM
"Fuck off" is quite eloquent indeed. And you deserve no less the moment you start making assumptions about my personal life and telling me what to do. There is debating issues and there is spewing unwelcome bullshit concern into my personal issues.
Eloquent isn't the same as being nice, you know. I feel unobligated to be either in that situation. Most likely won't be nice in any other situation either, but personal things call for an extra level of "fuck off."
Posted by: Skatje Myers | January 13, 2007 1:56 AM
Why not invite him to a discussion on your own blog? Since you moderate comments you can restrict comments to yourself and Scott alone (you could post the email you mentioned).
Why not restrict comments to FTK? Better yet, make it a private blog with one subscriber: FTK.
FTK: Life is Precious. What do you think, FTK?
FTK: Oh so precious, FTK. Wait, I feel the old logorrhea coming on.... I think I'll go visit that atheist blog and spew my anti-abortion tripe all over the comment section.
FTK: Say a big hi to Scott! Happy spewing!
Posted by: George | January 13, 2007 2:03 AM
Wow. For the kids makes many mistakes in his/her/it's assumptions. First there is the complete misunderstanding of the word "indoctrination." Being exposed to an idea is quite different than being told that it is true and that you must believe as well. If mommy is a jainist and daddy is an agnostic, you can simply say that "this is what we both believe hunny and we want you to make up you own mind about it all." This though doesn't require anyone being in the dark about what your family believes. It's the imposition of belief and not the exposure to it that creates indoctrination.
Moreover, the implication that all of PZ's children being athiest means he has indoctrinated them is bold faced wrong. It implies that children being of like mind is due to indoctrination, and what naturally follows is that if children have differing opinions then this is due to a lack of indoctrination. This is simply wrong as any atheist retreating from an indocrtinating evangelical christian family background (like myself) will prove by their very existance.
And lastly, if any god makes claims that can be easily shown wrong (like god saying that he is at once all red and all green, all over) then I have no more need to inquire into that particular religon. So when we hear of the christians god's perfection, and the perfection of his word, all I need to do is find a single mistake disproving his omnipotence and then I can move on. I don't need to know the cultural history of man claiming that since he can only be where he is and cannot be anywhere other than where he is, therefore he cannot move, is wrong.
-I'd like to give a shout out to Zeno for that last one.
Posted by: Michael | January 13, 2007 2:38 AM
For the kids, anyone listening:
I think I may have goofed up here, and so I owe FTK an apology of sorts. I will also post this on FTK's blog as well as reply in person. The facts are these: after reading FTK's reply, I rechecked my email folder and I have to own up to everyone that I did, in fact, receive two identical replies from this person.
This may account for the vehemence of their response. Whatever reservations some of you may have about their arguments or tactics, it may very well be that they acted in good faith and I ask you not to misjudge FTK for any possible error of omission on my part.
However, I do not have the lengthy response that 'for the kids' alluded to. Perhaps this is due to failure of my email, or else an error on my part. I am willing to believe that if it will facilitate dialogue.
In that spirit, I would appreciate it if you would take me at my word when I say that I'm a theist. I don't know what I could possibly gain from saying otherwise at Pharyngula. Shoot, just Google my name and that of one Caledonian and you'll discover at least one individual who thinks I'm nothing more than a glib apologist for religion.
As far as agreeing with PZ, I've said on more than one occasion that I consider myself a guest here. I enjoy PZ's blog and I learn a great deal from it. I have received bracing criticism at times, but I have also been offered significant assistance and advice from PZ and others on this blog, not all of which is visible on the threads. Under the circumstances, I feel it would be rather crass of me to make a regular issue of our theological differences, especially when we have never broken bread together.
PZ, if you're listening, my standing offer of a beer should anyone make it to Fresno goes double for you. Apologies to all, again, for any errors in my previous post...SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | January 13, 2007 4:35 AM
(Mental health warning: link to Uncommon Dissent. Try here for some perspective on what you may become).
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | January 13, 2007 4:45 AM
Scott, I don't think there is such a thing as a 'true Christian', but in my experience, you seem to come close. Kudos to you, from a (some would say, militant) atheist.
People like ForTheKids re-enforce my view that theists are stupid, ignorant, deceitful, nutters. People like you allow me to keep an open mind, which is a good thing.
Thanks.
Posted by: Mark | January 13, 2007 8:30 AM
FTK: It should be pointed out that all three of PZ's children are atheists.
You're right... statistically we would expect one Christian, one Muslim and one Hindu kid?
Posted by: windy | January 13, 2007 8:46 AM
Don't worry, Bob. It's not to censor her opinions or anything. I would've let it through had it not contained those foul images.
Posted by: Skatje Myers | January 13, 2007 9:01 AM
Greg Laden: "My daughter is 11, a freethinker. She is always turning in her teachers for doing things like wearing crosses around and making the kids sing hymns."
Do you think that there is something illegal or even inappropriate in a teacher at a public school wearing a cross? Please explain.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | January 13, 2007 9:02 AM
ForTheKids wrote: "I was involved in the KCFS forum for 2 years and wrote over 3600 posts. I also led the longest thread they have ever had. So, don't tell me I don't "understand evolution"."
Talking a lot about something and not listening to anyone else (dissent on your blog and UD and other similarly inclined sites is systematically deleted/banned) hardly constitutes understanding. Understanding consists first of listening, then assimilating knowledge, the applying that knowledge, and THEN talking about it. Skipping the first three steps makes the fourth one irrelevant as proof of knowledge.
Posted by: Alison | January 13, 2007 9:18 AM
FtK bragged of "leading" the biggest thread at KCFS.
That thread consisted of her posting a page from Walt Brown's crap each morning then ignoring the rebuttals and evidence provided by the other posters. The cycle was repeated for months.
The length of the thread is testimony to the impermeability of FtK's mind to the evidence against 6-day biblical creation and the Noachic epic.
Skatje's "fuck off" response was perfectly justified.
[/offtopic]
Posted by: nunyer | January 13, 2007 9:21 AM
Scott,
Don't worry about it. Sorry about the harsh response, but your comment just took me by surprise because I remember the emails vividly.
I'll see if I can dig up the additional one I sent. I sometimes keep them for future reference, so I'll let you know one way or the other.
Posted by: Forthekids | January 13, 2007 10:04 AM
"FtK bragged of "leading" the biggest thread at KCFS."
Is she related to AFDave, who frequents Antievolution's " After the Bar Closes" forum? Mother? Daughter? Both?
AF DAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS stretched to 5000 posts over several months. Beat that, FtK!
Posted by: Mark | January 13, 2007 10:23 AM
Skatje:
As a former kid who constantly had smarmy adults lose in the intellectual arena with me, and dishonorably retort with "well, when you are my age you will agree with me", or some such nonsense as you got, I say keep at it. I've been proving them wrong my whole life, and I hope you do to.
Posted by: MarkP | January 13, 2007 10:54 AM
Mark: (blushing) I'm afraid my true Scotsman kilt is showing.
In all seriousness, though,thanks for the encouragement. Regardless of our religious commitments (or lack of same), all of us can profit by listening to each other, not being too quick to judge one another and confessing our faults.
I failed to do the second, and so it's good for me to do the second. May the day come when seeking or offering forgiveness is not seen as the Christian thing to do, but the human thing.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | January 13, 2007 11:22 AM
Michael Kremer: the problem is not that wearing a religious emblem is illegal. The difficulty comes when there is any student interaction involving the symbol. Unless you are very quick to note that it is something personal and private, you are likely to have a conversation that could be interpreted as proselytizing.
I get around this once a year (heh) by dressing up as Gregor Mendel. When I start to teach evolution, however, you can bet that I get a lot of questions about my personal faith. I try to defer those questions by pointing to the very real fact that I don't have as much personal freedom of religious expression in the classroom as students do, and that this arrangement is appropriate.
The disturbing thing about the David Paskiewicz case discussed elsewhere is that the teacher clearly routinely goes beyond wearing a cross, and browbeats students with his private religious views. My district has policies that clearly rule out such conduct and has given seminars hosted by a lawyer to explain the grey areas to make sure that teachers know their limits.
SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | January 13, 2007 11:31 AM
DMC: Ewww. A truly repellent post.
Only a fanatic eager to score talking points at the expense of the truth would so eagerly clutch at an argument that says, in effect, that another's parental pride is merely an agitprop for their own personal agenda.
If any child of mine was as brave and forthright as Skatje Myers, I would be proud of them, even if I disagreed with their views. If any child of mine was as cowardly and unprincipled to attack a atheism (another human being) through their offspring, as you did, I would be ashamed of them even if I shared their views on atheism.
Disgustedly...SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | January 13, 2007 11:41 AM
"links to pictures of bloody, mangled late-term aborted fetuses"
Tasteless. I persoanlly do not need to see carnage to make up my mind. We could find some gory pictures to make our points too, but usually this is only done by us to prove an scientific observation. To link to this kind of graphic material on a teeenager's blog is beyond what's acceptable for my standards. Are you into "hell shows" too?
Because of that, plus the weird and cheaty "forthekids" name, I declare you totally repellent!!!! I finally see what the others are talking about.
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | January 13, 2007 12:25 PM
Michael,
Heh. It's due to children being children. Aping their parents is what children do, and is entirely healthy. Now of course, as children get older they should do this less and less, but even adults behave in this manner to some extent. But all of PZ's children starting out their intellectual life as atheists is entirely what I would expect, and doesn't indicate anything improper. (I'm presuming the other parent(s) are also atheist—not that it's any of my business).
Yes. I presume that as you grew up you started evaluating your beliefs with greater and greater sophistication? I would presume Skatje is also evaluating her beliefs; that's what I would expect.
But I do think that people underestimate how much their pre-existing biases and expectations effect their judgements. I am not surprised by bright, intelligent people remaining theists. I am also not surprised by bright, intelligent atheists remaining atheists, but then I wouldn't, being an atheist myself. I don't mean this as a slam against Skatje, I see it as part of the human condition.
I also don't mean this analysis as a slam against Skatje's arguments. Those arguments should stand or fall on their own merits; how Skatje came to them is quite immaterial.
Posted by: Andrew Wade | January 13, 2007 12:30 PM
Andrew Wade -
Your analysis fails when dealing with a child of religious parents who grew up religion-free. Without indoctrination in the beliefs, those beliefs cannot take hold easily. It has nothing to do with whether the parents are atheist or not. I have recounted elsewhere that my parents were religious but did not raise us with any particular faith. Atheism appears to me to be the default, as well. Thankfully, my parents let me make the choice for myself.
Posted by: mndean | January 13, 2007 12:49 PM
Actually the "Apes into humans" aurgument and "Cats into Dogs" aurgument made me think. Just why hasn't my Cd player turned into a Dvd player? Or my washer into a dryer?
To paraphrase Morbo from Futurama- Evolution does not work that way! Apes went down a differnt evolutonary branch, as did cats from dogs.
As for "Fuck Off". Depends on the context. Their are times when I can be the best reply possible.
Posted by: Ghostgodzilla | January 13, 2007 12:53 PM
Yes, I grew up attending the Lutheran church (my mother's choice), but my father was Church of Christ -- he never attended that I saw -- and while getting regularly exposed to religion, I never got any of that "you'll go to hell if you don't go to sunday school" crap, and I never even heard any suggestions that you had to believe a certain way to go to heaven. It is entirely possible to be raised with religion in a way that is not indoctrination, just as you can be brought up in an atheist household with no pressure to be godless.
Some people seem unable to understand that. You can be an example and you can stand up for beliefs in yourself without having to compel your kids to be anything in particular.
I get the same problem in teaching from certain quarters. I can be a vocal atheist, yet that doesn't mean when I'm in the classroom that I treat theistic students less than fairly, or even care what their religious beliefs might be. It's actually possible to teach without trying to indoctrinate. A certain David Paszkiewicz doesn't comprehend that, and that's why he's a poor teacher.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 13, 2007 1:03 PM
Scott wrote:
"Only a fanatic eager to score talking points at the expense of the truth would so eagerly clutch at an argument that says, in effect, that another's parental pride is merely an agitprop for their own personal agenda.
If any child of mine was as brave and forthright as Skatje Myers, I would be proud of them, even if I disagreed with their views. If any child of mine was as cowardly and unprincipled to attack a atheism (another human being) through their offspring, as you did, I would be ashamed of them even if I shared their views on atheism.
Disgustedly...SH"
??????
Are you referring to MY post regarding religious indoctrination?? I most certainly did not imply that "another's parental pride is merely an agitprop for their own personal agenda". I made it very clear that I don't think Skatje and PZ even realize that Skatje is affected by her father's beliefs in the same manner that a religious parent influences their child's beliefs. It's as though they are both blind to the fact. My point is that if you (and the choirboys) deem me as a "fanatic" who indoctrinates her children because she shares her religious beliefs with them, I in turn see no difference between my "fanatic" behavior and that of PZ Myers.
I didn't "attack" Skatje - I was making an observation, and she was the perfect person to observe in regard to this subject. And, Skatje is most certainly forthright, but if my sons spoke to people with the type of attitude and disregard for the perspectives and feelings of others that she often displays, "proud" is not the feeling that I would hold for them.
Something else that you need to understand clearly is that I am not "attacking" atheists. I have many friends who are agnostic and atheistic (in fact one has been a very close friend for 20 years). But, I can tell you that those people treat me respect regardless of my personal religious beliefs.
I was not attacking, but making an observation that those who hold atheistic beliefs influence their children just as religious folks do. There is no difference, unless someone is holding a gun to their child's head and forcing them to kneel at an alter somewhere. In that case, forcing a child to believe anything is certainly not going to be a positive influence.
It is very interesting that you consider my views on religious indoctrination as an "attack" to be ashamed of, yet you seem to defend PZ & his daughter who regularly attack those who hold religious views. Let's see, PZ's last volatile attack was on Doug Kaufman, and in this post he refered to me as "slimy" and "repellent". I believe he files these type of attacks under "kooks".
Both PZ & Skatje have written posts regarding religious indoctrination, and I see absolutely no reason why I should be "ashamed" of sharing my views on the subject as well.
Sir, I believe you have not thought this issue through thoroughly, and be quite aware that I am not "cowardly" as I have no problem going straight to the source and discussing these issues with PZ . I'm here, and I'm sharing. If he wants to pipe in and speak to me, all power to him.
Posted by: Forthekids | January 13, 2007 1:51 PM
Sure, I'll pipe in. You're contemptible. Go away.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 13, 2007 1:56 PM
I still remember the first time my parents took me to a regular Sunday church service (I guess I was about 4) and I still recall my initial impression. What I saw were adults "playing" a game, "playing" pretend like kids do. Then all through Sunday school growing up, I always thought that there was no way that the grown-ups actually believed any of this stuff. I assumed they were all pretending.
By the time I was confirmed in the Lutheran Church, I knew I didn't believe in God, heaven, hell or any of it and only saw hypocracy among the wealthy church-goers at the words of Jesus (helping the poor and loving your enemies, etc.).
So, how do you explain the people who go through the system and still don't believe?
This is a question I've asked my whole life. When I was younger (as I said), I guessed that many of the people in church didn't really believe everything, but attended church for social reasons.
Of course, I've found later that people really do believe this nonsense.
I know Dawkins has been criticized for implying that people that haven't come to the same conclusions as him are "stupid". But from my own life experience, a person's individual intellectual capabilities just can't be dismissed as a factor in their ability to escape from the indoctrination.
So in conclusion, the idea that those of us who get our understanding of the world by using our own reason and intelligence can convince people who get their understanding of the world through indoctrination is on its face a foolish notion.
Dismiss the trolls and seek out people who have the capacity for independent thought.
Posted by: Sonja | January 13, 2007 2:09 PM
BTW, it is impossible by definition to "indoctrinate" someone to critical thinking.
Posted by: Sonja | January 13, 2007 2:27 PM
"I have many friends who are agnostic and atheistic (in fact one has been a very close friend for 20 years). But, I can tell you that those people treat me respect regardless of my personal religious beliefs."
I don't respect theism, but I do respect theists until they've otherwise proved that they don't deserve it. You, FtK, have proven time and time again to be nothing more than a pathetically annoying troll and I'll treat you as such.
Just go away already. Seriously.
Posted by: Skatje Myers | January 13, 2007 2:43 PM
PZ writes:
"You're contemptible"
I keep seeing all these adjectives flying across my screen, but have yet seen the