…and this is a 
Florida: Land of the Delusional
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 23, 2008 12:46 PM, by PZ Myers
Donna Callaway, a member of the Florida Board of Education, has an editorial that has to be read to be believed. This is a woman who has drunk deep of the Kool-Aid.
First, she's babbles about how surprised she was that the revision of the science standards included major elements, such as evolution, of which she disapproved. This seems to be hard for many people to grasp, especially some of those who are appointed to education boards, but the board members are administrators, not scientists. To write the science standards, they actually recruit knowledgeable, qualified people to put together a document that reflects the current state of science: it doesn't matter if the bureaucrat in charge of implementing the standards doesn't know the science. Problems arise when one of these paper pushers decides to impose her brand of ignorance and attempt to override the efforts of the standards writing team (a situation that arose right here in Minnesota several years ago, with Cheri Yecke's efforts to sabotage our state science standards.)
Callaway is alarmed at one of the Florida standards: "Diversity and Evolution of Living Organisms. A. Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology." Your alarm is irrelevant, Donna. You aren't a biologist. That standard is accurate and properly represents the opinion of the scientific community. If instruction in the state of Florida is to prepare students for understanding the reality of biology rather than the errors of your ideology, then that is what should be taught.
Not only does she not have a clue about what her job entails, but she's swaddled in meters-thick layers of delusion.
If there is a victory for those who oppose the evolution standard as written or amended, it is that they stood shoulder to shoulder, not in a fanatical, demanding way as many may have expected. Rather, they stood kindly with a sense of calm assurance, with open and transparent reasoning that confused their opponents who expected a religious battle. This was never that battle; it was a battle over student rights. Those rights were not recognized.
Well, they might have confused their opponents, but it wasn't because they were open and transparent and reasonable — it was because they were batshit insane. Have they already forgotten the orange man?
As for whether there was no religious battle, note that this editorial was published in the Florida Baptist Witness and, well, read on.
I left the SBOE meeting emotionally drained but reaffirmed by the love for children and the respect for others that I saw in those who hold beliefs with which I can identify. And, speaking of identity, I began my comments to the SBOE with an acknowledgement that I have a religious identity. That identity urges me to use the Master Teacher as my example.
(Trust me, I don't think she's talking about Richard Feynman here.)
The model He set for us 2,000 years ago is so appropriate for today. He allowed Himself to be questioned. He never thrust his belief on anyone. He allowed both Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman to question Him, each from an opposite end of the human spectrum. It was as if He said, "Ask me questions. I will answer. It may not be what you want to hear, but there is more. I invite you to come and see. Decide for yourself." Learning took place under those circumstances.
We very much want that kind of learning experience to occur for our children. When they are not just allowed, but encouraged to debate issues, they explore them, search for evidence, think critically, and then have an ownership of the knowledge they gain. Adults have a right to do this. How can we deny that to our children?
In the immortal words of that masterful tactician, Bill Buckingham, "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" Oh, right, we're supposed to believe these bozos are promoting Intelligent Design with purely secular intent. If there is a god, why does he keep promoting his most stupid followers to school boards?
Comments
Is PZ Myers gonna have to choke a bitch?
Posted by: J | February 23, 2008 12:59 PM
Richard Feynman was cooler than Jesus.
Posted by: Alex | February 23, 2008 12:59 PM
Sure, the Socratic dialog that she portrays Jesus as using in his ministry is her ideal of education. All we have to do is to bat ideas around, never bother with the evil world (that is how Jesus depicts the world), and come to a consensus.
Science arose when people realized that this sort of empty rhetoric yields no meaningful product, and results in no justice for the accused. One learns by actually looking at the evidence, and interpreting that evidence in accordance with "proven" ideas. That's why we want to teach evolutionary theory, after all, because it is one of the examples of how to think properly, rather than voting on issues, or letting the slickest sophists manipulate opinion.
Callaway is anti-knowledge, wishing to go back to meaningless dialog because it will produce the meaningless consensus of heaven and god (the Good is what he called it)which Plato concluded must exist.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 23, 2008 1:00 PM
I wonder if anyone other than creationists is fooled by the "student rights" smokescreen.
Posted by: dzd | February 23, 2008 1:05 PM
It was as if He said, "Ask me questions. I will answer. It may not be what you want to hear, but there is more. I invite you to come and see. Decide for yourself."
Why, it as if Jesus understood that the religious zealots like her might not like to hear that evolution is reality, but they are invited to come and see for themselves!
Wait, that's not what she meant?
J - Inappropriate. Even as a parody statement, which is the way I assume it was meant in the original clip. Don't.
Posted by: Carlie | February 23, 2008 1:06 PM
Carlie: apologies, no offense intended. Definitely parody, in the original and in my post. Chalk it up to scientist's extreme frustration with the creos.
Posted by: J | February 23, 2008 1:12 PM
This is the motto for all pseudosciences. Throw out the experts. Throw out the method. Throw out rigor and cross-checking and stringent analysis and controlled studies and peer review by people who work with what they deal with.
It's all about personal experience and finding out what works for you and making up your OWN mind, free and unhampered by any limiting logic and reason. You're as good as anybody else, because all that counts is a pure heart and humble attitude. You are a child of a universe which made you for a purpose.
Think of the children.
Posted by: Sastra | February 23, 2008 1:20 PM
S'ok, J, and I love Wayne Brady. But a commenter here awhile back correctly noted that there sometimes pretty offensive statements made here that don't get slapped down, and I wanted to make sure this one got explained especially since it looks so stark by itself.
Posted by: Carlie | February 23, 2008 1:25 PM
Carlie - cool, done and done. :-)
Posted by: J | February 23, 2008 1:34 PM
Once again, we see another example of the supposed "stealth technology" of the religious right. They think they are cloaking their true intentions in public (even though inevitably one of the rank-and-file blurts out what they really believe), but their motives are completely obvious to anyone who knows what they say in "private" to the other true believers. Killed them in Kitzmiller, yet they continue on in the same mode.
Disingenuous and stupid, no?
Their cloaking device is off-line. Target their warp nacelles! Fire!
Posted by: jeh | February 23, 2008 1:42 PM
The Christian war against Florida's science education is not over with yet.
"An evolution compromise approved on Feb. 19 by the State Board of Education was the best that could be achieved in that body but legislative action to protect academic freedom of teachers offering criticisms of Darwinian evolution is possible, House Speaker Marco Rubio told Florida Baptist Witness in a Feb. 20 interview."
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/8463.article
Posted by: BobC | February 23, 2008 1:43 PM
I live in Orlando, and I have followed this whole thing very closely.
It angers and frustrates me that Ms. Callaway, with no scientific background, has this kind of power to decide what my kids will be taught in science.
Yes, in a strangely bizarre twist that put Ms. Callaway voting as part of the 4 to 3 minority, along with the only two sane members of the Board (they all voted against MODIFIED standards), we actually got new standards. Go figure the logic behind that. Our two sane members voted against anything but the original standards, while Ms. Callaway would have voted against anything that didn't include some flavor of Creationism.
For getting new science standards for our schools, I am glad. But I'm also frustrated that the fundie groups get to go back home flaunting their "victory" at inserting these 11th hour, unvetted modification to the standards, inserting "Scientific Theory of" before each mention of the word "evolution". Note that these mods were inserted on the Friday just prior to the three-day weekend that preceded the Tuesday when the vote was taken. Coincidence? Go figure that the Board would allow these kind of sleazy shenanigans, and go figure that the board would ignore the writers' and framers' wishes to have the standards passed without modifications.
I'm sure that the fundies are all back home now, telling their congregations of their victory, and bragging that while Florida teachers will now be using the dreaded 'E' word, the State has at least formally "conceded" that evolution is "just a theory".
Ahhhhhh! I live a few miles west of the launchpads of some of the greatest science on (and off) the planet, and at the same time live among some of the most backwards people in this entire country!
Somebody please pinch me and wake me from this crazy nightmare!
Posted by: BobH | February 23, 2008 1:44 PM
As a card carrying [ornery lady likened to a female dog],
I reckon people need to
chill the [recreational copulation] out. Eliminating the verbal abuse of [female dogs] is not going to eliminate sexism in the same way that yanking the tail off of a lizard is going to kill the lizard.
If anyone called ME specifically, a [lady canine] to my face, I'd kick them in the [mule that Jesus rode]. Otherwise, as a general term, I don't care.
Posted by: Batch | February 23, 2008 1:56 PM
OMG
"The model He set for us 2,000 years ago is so appropriate for today. He allowed Himself to be questioned. He never thrust his belief on anyone."
Didn't thrust his belief on anone? Really?! You might want to tell the folk over at Landover Baptist Church that. They seem to think differently.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1200/ntdamnation.html
Yeah, I know it's been posted here before...
Posted by: Dahan | February 23, 2008 2:08 PM
Very interesting blog you have here. I have been brought up my entire life believing the Creationistic theory, and only recently have been challenged by one of my customers in heated debates, to be open to the theory of Evolution. I have tried to listen to his emphatic counter-pounding, and insistence that all fundamentals are wrong because of PROOF. But when I asked him to please show me proof, so I could be as knowledgable as he, he merely told me, "Well, everybody knows that creation is hogwash, and evolution is accepted by everybody!"
I am a skeptic by nature, which is the only reason why I was open to hearing this man out. And yet, the man began to footsie around (as many of my other customers have), and could not tell me why he believed straight Creation could NOT be true, except that he did not believe in God, and that evolution was just 'so accepted'.
Therefore, sir, I am led to believe that evolutionists do not so much have a solid defense for what they believe, but instead have this unquestioning faith in their god-like peers. I was fascinated reading over your blog-comments, because it seems like so many of your commenters took a lot of time to trash any body who disagreed with the way 'everybody believes', and what 'all scientists agree with'. That was all they had to say; "so and so is wrong and she's full of **** and her God is just another god, and I'm just another person following the crowd."
But, isn't it intriguing that some of these studiers of science have the courage to step out from among the throngs of popular belief, and say what they believe? I don't understand why so many people have this HATRED for anybody who doesn't bow down and believe the way they do! If the persons' opinion is so insignifant, then just let her talk! Let her say what she believes! Let her be wrong in your eyes! It takes alot of courage to go against 'what everybody believes and thinks'. At least she has more courage as an individual, than you have as an accepted evolutionist surrounded by the undying support of your unquestioning fans.
Posted by: Andria | February 23, 2008 2:14 PM
2 + 2 = 5.
Decide for yourself!
Posted by: defectiverobot | February 23, 2008 2:14 PM
Like Nicodemus, Jesus' point is totally lost on Callaway.
Posted by: IanR | February 23, 2008 2:16 PM
Posted by: Andria | February 23, 2008 2:14 PM
As I said in the thread below, there truly is something wrong with these people. This entire comment is a demonstration.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 23, 2008 2:18 PM
Donna Callaway wrote: "I contacted the executive editor of this publication because I felt that this standard needed to get out to Christian parents, children and churches throughout the state."
Why did she feel that the standard needed to go out to Christian people? If something is false, it's false for everyone. Or does she not care about non-Christian children being taught fallacious information? Or does she realise that this has nothing to do with education, with evolution or with "think about the kids!" By her own admission, this is a Christian/religious matter.
"Interestingly, the battle lines were drawn, not between religion and evolution, but between those who wanted fairness for our children and those whose single goal was to keep "religion" out of the standards."
I'm not American, but as far as I know your separation of church and state would imply that keeping religion out of the standards IS what is fair for the children. Why is she pretending those are two different goals? Why is she pretending now that it's not a religious issue, when she just singled out Christians as the ones affected by the standards?
This is just embarrassing. The whole article made me cringe. "Master Teacher"? Ugh.
Posted by: Prazzie | February 23, 2008 2:36 PM
If the persons' opinion is so insignifant, then just let her talk! Let her say what she believes! Let her be wrong in your eyes!
A. Her opinion is not insignificant, as she is on a state board of education, and therefore decides what every child in the state system will learn. Therefore, she has a particular responsibility to be informed and correct in matters that pertain to the education of children.
B. She is wrong not just in our eyes, but in the eyes of reality.
Posted by: Carlie | February 23, 2008 2:37 PM
Religions which claim to promote truth damage themselves in the long run when they rely on incompetent sources for science information.
Posted by: Les Lane | February 23, 2008 2:38 PM
Aside from her CreoStupidity (TM) "Now With Chunks!", the woman can't write her way out of a paper bag. That article is a pointless mess with no narrative flow, no logical structure, and a surfeit of convoluted, ugly phrasing. No doubt she thinks it makes her sound "thoughtful." I hate bad writing almost as much as I hate CreoStupidity; it's doubly offensive when it comes from people in charge of public school curricula.
Posted by: Josh | February 23, 2008 2:39 PM
I saw this quote on the main page,
And I was struck about how it applied so accurately to Donna Callaway's opinions and positions.
Posted by: Stanton | February 23, 2008 2:41 PM
Oh, I forgot to add I was sorely tempted to "choke a bitch" after reading this.
ALERT FOR THE IRONY-IMPAIRED - I'm not advocating violence against women. Now that I've ruined my own joke, will you promise not to get "concerned and troubled?"
Posted by: Josh | February 23, 2008 2:42 PM
Andria, you're joking, right? Joking or trolling.
The theory of evolution is one of the most robust theories in science. It is backed up by 150 years of evidence. What should your "customer" have done? Whipped out his trolley filled with science journals? Showed you his quick PowerPoint presentation that he carries around just for such moments?
You have access to the internet. Use it. I'm sorry, but evolutionary cannot be condensed into a single sentence like the Creationists' "God did it." I know that it's unfortunate, but we're not 3 anymore. "Just because" is no longer a satisfactory answer to "Why?".
Start with http://www.talkorigins.org/
Posted by: Prazzie | February 23, 2008 2:47 PM
Josh, if you are unable to make a joke that doesn't involve choking someone as part of the punchline, I feel sorry for you.
Somehow, I suspected that simply saying that advocating violence isn't funny even if meant as irony because it contributes to the overall infusion of such language and ideas in society would provoke vociferous all-caps rabid frothing responses within an hour or two. Thanks for not letting me down.
Posted by: Carlie | February 23, 2008 2:50 PM
Missed a word there: "but evolutionary theory cannot be condensed".
Posted by: Prazzie | February 23, 2008 2:51 PM
Who the fuck are Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman? Sounds like characters in a fucking comic book.
Posted by: PhysioProf | February 23, 2008 2:53 PM
PZ:
"To write the science standards, they actually recruit knowledgeable, qualified people to put together a document that reflects the current state of science"
Thank heaven somebody is doing it.
dzd:
"I wonder if anyone other than creationists is fooled by the 'student rights' smokescreen."
I should hope not. All my uneducated teenage flailings with regards to "student rights" were ignored when I was in high school. But if I had argued for the indoctrination of moldy old dogma as my student right, then they would take me seriously? Even back then I would have considered that to be bullshit.
Sastra:
"It's all about personal experience and finding out what works for you and making up your OWN mind, free and unhampered by any limiting logic and reason. You're as good as anybody else, because all that counts is a pure heart and humble attitude. You are a child of a universe which made you for a purpose."
Unless, of course, you decide to have sex with members of the same gender, or some other behavior they don't approve of.
Andria:
"If the persons' opinion is so insignifant, then just let her talk! Let her say what she believes! Let her be wrong in your eyes!"
In what fever-dream world are these people NOT allowed to talk? They do nothing BUT talk and talk. They write newspaper editorials. And we counter. That's the nature of communication. If you seriously can't stand any of that, then there's plenty of other things to do with your life. We get rightly testy when people come in (and there's been several this week) who just come in and whine about how mean evolutionists supposedly are, and then don't offer any substantial argument in their favor.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 23, 2008 2:54 PM
I think you may be laboring under a misaprehension - this woman can at least write in coherent sentences, and thus qualifies as well above average as far as evangelical Christians in the United States go.
Posted by: nlightnmnt | February 23, 2008 2:56 PM
PhysioProf,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicodemus
http://www.lifeintheholyland.com/woman_at_the_well.htm
Posted by: Stanton | February 23, 2008 2:57 PM
I suspected that simply saying that advocating violence isn't funny even if meant as irony because it contributes to the overall infusion of such language and ideas in society would provoke vociferous all-caps rabid frothing responses within an hour or two.
Maybe that's becauise the idea that "joking about violence contributes to the overall infusion of such language and ideas in society" is ridiculous?
Posted by: ndt | February 23, 2008 2:59 PM
Andria #15 wrote:
Anyone can tell a 'personal story' where they met someone who said they believed 'X,' but, when questioned, could only say they believed it because "everyone knows it's true." An atheist could easily say that's what "someone" said when asked why they think God exists, or Christianity is true. It says nothing.
As for accepting evolution, the "faith" is not in "god-like peers." On the contrary, if you have an absolute confidence in individual scientists, then you will NOT value science. Science, as a method, tells us we shouldn't trust scientists -- not as people, we shouldn't. People make mistakes. That's why we need a method which tries to weed out biases and errors, which checks and cross-checks, which requires demonstration and consistency. It seeks an objectively inter-subjective consensus, because it starts out with "we can be wrong." Unlike faith, which starts out with confidence.
The vast majority of experts in the field of biology use evolutionary theory, and claim it works. For you, a non-expert, to go against the overwhelming consensus of a well-educated majority which has been using a difficult, stringent method which has been confirming predictions for over 100 years -- what exactly are you relying on? Instinct? Hope? Faith in intuition? Personal faith? Feelings? Wanting to make your mind up "for yourself?"
Posted by: Sastra | February 23, 2008 3:00 PM
All right, let's try logic, since apparently you all are not used to opposition. Your only answers, as of yet, are 'she is wrong, because we say she is, and 'J' says she is, and my teacher in the third grade says she is'. But who decides 'the eyes of reality'? Are YOU reality? Who gave you that authority?
Perhaps you are not fighting out against Christianity, or me, or Calloway. Perhaps you are fighting against the thought that you might be wrong. Why else would you so vehemently deny anybody else's theories credence? All she fought for was establishing that EVOLUTION is a THEORY. It IS a theory, just as much as Creation is! Both are 'a priori', which means 'by faith'. Are you so scared that children will grow up and know that evolution was based on man, and not God? If Christians (and by the way, Landover Baptist Church is by no means Christianity) are just little bugs of opinions that need to be squashed, then why a dedicated sight to slamming all Christians - like they are some universal hate-force? Whoever is doing this slamming, has clearly never tried to understand Christians.
In my opinion, 'Christianity' is just a word. A word that is sorely mis-used, mis-represented, and hated before understood. What is more important, is how you believe, and you interpret God's word, and how you view life. God is not just an ideal. He IS reality. And even if you may deny it, all you have in the end - is your right to deny it. But it still doesn't make you right.
Posted by: Andria | February 23, 2008 3:00 PM
PhysioProf,
Nicodemus was a Pharisee who met with Jesus three times (the last time being Jesus dying on the Cross), and for the most part, agreed with what Jesus said.
And the Samaritan Woman was a woman whom Jesus surprised by talking to her, and asking for a drink of water from a deep well (at the time, the Jews regarded the Samaritans as being unclean).
Posted by: Stanton | February 23, 2008 3:01 PM
Andria wrote: "All right, let's try logic..."
K, go for it.
Posted by: Prazzie | February 23, 2008 3:04 PM
Andria, please give a concise explanation for the existence and distribution of endogeneous retroviral sequences in metazoan genomes.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 23, 2008 3:06 PM
Andria, a "theory" is an experimentally proven hypothesis. Furthermore, the word "theory" has been brutally abused far more than "Christianity," especially since your religious handlers have made sure that you repeat the stale mantra of "Evolution is just a theory."
That you rail against "abuse" of word while simultaneously perpetuating it in order to remain ignorant of reality marks you as a hypocrite of the highest order, especially since you are not bothered one wit that Florida's science curricula have become among the very worst in the entire nation thanks to the efforts of fundamentalists like Donna Callaway.
Posted by: Stanton | February 23, 2008 3:08 PM
There... All fixed.
Posted by: Dan | February 23, 2008 3:09 PM
Comments by Andria in bold quotes.
I have been brought up my entire life believing the Creationistic theory... I am a skeptic by nature,
Then why do you simply believe in the stuff you were brought up with? Isn't the burden of proof on those teachers as well?
I have tried to listen to his emphatic counter-pounding, and insistence that all fundamentals are wrong because of PROOF.
I call shenanigans on this one. You're just setting up a straw man argument. Do you know what this is?
Suppose you asked someone to explain the operation of a nuclear reactor. Does it invalidate the existence of said reactor if that particular person doesn't know the math, physics and engineering and simply points to existence of verifiable theory and artifacts?
But when I asked him to please show me proof,
So do you realize you are completely unfamiliar with how science works?
Have you demanded a proof of your god? Do you have such a proof to show us?
Therefore, sir, I am led to believe that evolutionists do not so much have a solid defense for what they believe, but instead have this unquestioning faith in their god-like peers.
Can you tell me how, based upon the performance of a few lay persons, you can generalize to pass judgment on the work of decades by thousands of people?
I'm not asking you to believe in their work, I asking if you can walk us all through how you can make such a leap of logic. Do you truly believe that your inference constitutes a proof of the validity of all evolutionary theory?
Or are you an intellectual coward?
Can you answer this last question. This is a challenge similar to the one you put to your customers. We are all waiting to hear. Now is your chance to convert us all.
Posted by: Zirrad | February 23, 2008 3:10 PM
Andria wrote: "All she fought for was establishing that EVOLUTION is a THEORY. It IS a theory, just as much as Creation is!"
I'm guessing you haven't been to that link yet.
There is a really nifty FAQ that lists five common misconceptions about evolution. Number five is:
"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
Before you ruin your reputation as a skeptic, rush on over and wisen up. It helps to know what the words mean that you're using. (Hint, "theory" in science doesn't mean what you think it does. I know it sucks, but you need to know the basic if you're going to post on a science blog.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Posted by: Prazzie | February 23, 2008 3:12 PM
According to John's gospel, the Samaritan woman is "the woman at the well" whom Jesus importunes for a drink, whereupon she asks why a Jew would ask favors of a Samaritan. Then they get to cross rhetorical swords over the differences in their religious sects. I did my own mischievous rewrite last year as The women at the well plays along.
Posted by: Zeno | February 23, 2008 3:12 PM
*basics
Note to self, read the preview.
Posted by: Prazzie | February 23, 2008 3:13 PM
Andria #32 wrote:
Evolution is a science theory, which means it rises or falls based on the evidence, and must always be revised or discarded given disconfirming findings -- such as fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.
What kind of evidence would convince you that Creationism is false?
What kind of evidence would demonstrate that you're wrong about Christianity being true?
What kind of evidence would persuade you that God does not exist, and never did?
Is creationism a science theory? Is Christianity a science theory? Is the existence of God a science theory? If so, then give your answers, because you must have already worked them out.
Again, science starts out by asking the question "If I'm wrong, how would I know?" If you're wrong, how would you know? Or would you "being wrong" suddenly morph into God "being wrong?"
Posted by: Sastra | February 23, 2008 3:13 PM
"Because GODDIDIT"
Posted by: Stanton | February 23, 2008 3:14 PM
Florida State Board of Education member Calloway writes: I left the SBOE meeting emotionally drained but reaffirmed by the love for children and the respect for others that I saw in those who hold beliefs with which I can identify.
It appears not to occur to Calloway that love and respect for children and others and education motivates the proponents of teaching science in science classes.
Despite her board membership, Ms. Calloway writes that she was unaware that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology." What gall to be so ignorant these days, when it is so easy for any literate person to be educated about any aspect of the world around us?
The self-described "skeptic" Creationist in #15 above writes: If the persons' opinion is so insignifant, then just let her talk! Let her say what she believes! Let her be wrong in your eyes
Unfortunately, Ms. Calloway is not merely a quietly "retired educator" but a public official who presumes to set education policy for the state of Florida without knowing the first thing about biology.
And you, sir, #15, spare us your defense of "courageous ignorance" and go educate yourself. It is so easy to do.
To paraphrase Loyal Rue in his recent chat with PZ about telling the human story: What is it, Ms. Calloway, about Christianity that requires closing one's eyes and ears and mind to all the marvelous discoveries of science, and believing that everything we can ever know about the world was revealed in a 3,000 year old Babylonian myth?
Posted by: Daniel Murphy | February 23, 2008 3:18 PM
I got bingo on Andria's #32 post alone! Right after I finished laughing at the first sentence, that is. Everyone else has already done the hard work, so I'll just chime in and say that Andria, you have said absolutely nothing that hasn't been said and shown to be wrong hundreds of times before, dozens of those times on this site alone. Google is your friend. Look up your "arguments" before you go spouting them off at the big kids' table.
And as for this, Whoever is doing this slamming, has clearly never tried to understand Christians., a lot of the slammers used to be quite dedicated Christians, so you can't use the "but they don't understand us" canard around here.
Posted by: Carlie | February 23, 2008 3:20 PM
You bruise easily, don't you Andria?
"since apparently you all are not used to opposition."
We get it quite frequently, in fact.
"Your only answers, as of yet, are 'she is wrong, because we say she is, and 'J' says she is, and my teacher in the third grade says she is'."
Well, one poster above gave you an informative web link. But aside from that, there are a lot of books out there on the subject. Heck, probably any high-school level or college-level textbook could give you a good summary.
"It IS a theory, just as much as Creation is! Both are 'a priori', which means 'by faith'."
Wrong. It's based on evidence. Something that is curiously lacking in the creation theory. Do you seriously think that the underlying theory that unites all of biology and has enabled us to, among other things, cure and continue to cure many diseases and improve our food crops and their resistance to pests, is just taken on faith?
"Are you so scared that children will grow up and know that evolution was based on man, and not God?"
The Bible was also written by men. Also, edited, translated, retranslated, re-edited, amended, and so forth, by men. Just saying.
"Whoever is doing this slamming, has clearly never tried to understand Christians."
On the contrary, the sizable majority of the people who comment to this site (our host included) used to be Christians. And most of them were raised just like you.
"What is more important, is how you believe, and you interpret God's word, and how you view life."
It's been interpreted and believed in nearly as many ways as there have been people who have called themselves Christians. There is little way for any of them, solely in the framework of that religion, to tell which way is right, or even which ways are more right than others.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 23, 2008 3:22 PM
Andria,
1) Ms. Callaway was actually trying to discredit evolution. The "academic freedom" canard was not aimed at gravity or electromagnetism, and no one was raising a ruckus about plate tectonics not being labeled "the scientific theory of plate tectonics."
2) Evolution is both theory and fact, based on evidence, not on faith. To paraphrase Prof. David Baltimore, evolution occurred, and is occurring, it's a matter of exactly how and when that is being investigated. Creationism is not in any way a scientific theory since it presents no hypotheses that can be tested and relies on faith upon something outside the natural world, and thus outside of the realm of science. In fact, it vigorously denies scientific evidence.
3) For most mainstream Christian religions, evolution is, like any natural process, part of God's universe. Only a literal reading of the Bible (typically the English King James version) causes a conflict.
Posted by: J | February 23, 2008 3:23 PM
Andria,
We're not going to get into a pissing contest with you by trying to explain 150 years of the science of evolutionary biology. I don't know what your science education was (I suspect you didn't have much), but there are certain rock solid tenets of science that you should start with.
Number one is that science looks for naturalistic explanations. Invoking god or the supernatural to explain something automatically puts your idea outside the realm of science because those types of ideas can't be tested.
Now you might not like that rule, but it is part of the fundamental definition of science. That's why creationism, intelligent design or whatever the flavor of the month is from its religious proponents can't be taught in a science classroom or a science curriculum.
I suggest that if you really want an education on the subject matter, you start with a basic understanding of science. You shouldn't even proceed to discussing evolution until you understand the scientific method. Otherwise you look like an ignoramus claiming (for example) that there is no way an automobile can work because you can't see a horse attached to the front it.
Posted by: semi | February 23, 2008 3:27 PM
Do boards of education always seek out the least qualified candidates available?
Do creationists ever care about "teaching the controversy" or "letting kids debate" when the topic is anything but evolution?
The most amusing part of the article is the promotion of Jesus as an advocate of the free exchange of ideas. "Become my follower and believe everything I tell you or be tortured for an eternity" doesn't sound like a particularly free exchange of ideas to me.
Posted by: Tosser | February 23, 2008 3:30 PM
From the commentary:
My neck hurts from the whiplash after reading those two consecutive paragraphs. They really don't have the slightest grasp on reality.
Posted by: tacitus | February 23, 2008 3:40 PM
Actually Andria, we don't give a rat's ass what you believe. It is a free country. We do care when you try to sneak your lies into our kids science classes, destroy the US constitution, and settle us into a new Dark Ages.
The Amish don't believe in electricity and phones. We don't care because they aren't out blowing up power plants and cutting transmission lines so that we have to sit in the dark.
The issue with the fundies isn't their trying to force 2 pages of 4,000 year old mythology into a description of a 13.7 billion year old universe. It is trying to force everyone else to accept their bronze age mythology as reality.
And BTW, over 99% of the world's scientists accept evolution and astronomy and geology etc. as facts. The few who don't freely admit they do so on sectarian religious grounds. You can find more scientists in mental hospitals and detox centers than scientists who reject 2,000 years of evidence.
Posted by: raven | February 23, 2008 3:42 PM
Carlie, #26
For goodness' sake, life is too short to waste energy getting upset about this small stuff. We have enough work to do fighting the fundamentalists. I propose a deal: let's call a truce and be friends. I won't make any jokes about choking someone out of respect for your point of view if you'll refrain from blowing it out of proportion and into a sociological commentary of epic proportions.
And, I realize we disagree, but I think labeling my post as "rabid frothing" is, well, a lot over the top. I don't think your'e insane or a whacko for disagreeing with me, and I'd appreciate it if you'd return the courtesy.
Posted by: Josh | February 23, 2008 3:46 PM
Andria food for thought:
http://www.myspace.com/greydonsquare
Posted by: sailor | February 23, 2008 3:47 PM
Haha, you guys are all ganging up on me. It's great. All right, I am told to understand that 'evolution' is 'highly complicated, and takes years of study, and only the best scientists can truly defend it'. I beg to differ.
Sometimes the most complicated things have simple answers. And it's great cause you don't even have to be 3 to understand it!
So, since we are trying to teach our kids evolution in the second grade - when is it that they will be able to understand it? Eh? In the 7th grade perhaps? Or maybe when the graduate from high school? When do all of the complicated pieces fall into a comfortable pattern of circular reasoning so the child can rise and type on a blog - 'my! I have all the answers!'
While I am not going to put on a highly-educated front of 'knowing everything' like some on this site are apt to do, I will say that there is a primary difference between the theory of Evolution and the theory of Creation.
Creation starts with - God.
Evolution starts with - what is it again - a cell? A highly powerful speck of life-potential? RIGHT. We all know the theory. That speck became highly-intelligent human beings with the ability to think and reason and then die peacably - without worry of hell of heaven or any other such nonsense. Evolution tells man that he is responsible to no one, because man came from nothing. And better yet -- Evolution (devised by woman-hater Charles Darwin) has been around a whole 150 years! Wow - this shocks me. Here we've been around billions of years -- and all of our extensive proof and reasoning goes back 150 honkin years. That's huge!
My question for Evolutionists is - where did the speck come from? Who made the speck? I'm sure you're used to this coming from skeptics and other such annoying challengers of your methods (pardons for calling it a faith), but just for the absolute fun of disagreeing for a second - where did the speck come from? How did life come about? Man accepts the ability to breathe and think as naturally as he accepts the sun will shine the next day. And yet - it is not idealistic to wonder if an exhorbent amount of time + a speck = life and intelligence. It is, in fact, realistic to doubt.
I realize I'm barking up a dead tree, and this will only be picked apart by people who determined it was wrong before they read it, but I can't help but wonder whether the simple answer of 'yes, God did it', is more logical than 'chance brought me about, and by a miracle of nothingness, and the highly-thought-out theory of the speck, my complex brain took form and here I am'.
I am not oblivious to you who are staring at your screen, getting your buttons pushed and itching to find my chokable-neck, but why not challenge yourself? Since I'm already making you 'rightly testy' (and no, I don't shy away from a debate), how do you reason that everything so detailed, and so complex in this world - came from nothing? How do you KNOW there is not a God?
If life can come from chance (for that IS what your theory is based on), why can't chance defy death?
Tell me, if you have the answer for life, what is the answer for death?
Posted by: Andria | February 23, 2008 3:48 PM
"I wonder if anyone other than creationists is fooled by the "student rights" smokescreen."
Why not? Plenty of people are fooled by cigarette industry funded "smoker's rights" groups.
Posted by: Craig | February 23, 2008 3:48 PM
Andria: I'll save myself and you a lot of venomous bile
by having you prove that your imaginary god exists and
have it come down and smite all of us that have the nerve
to question your insane beliefs. Come on, let's see this
freaking god of yours. You cannot do it because all this
superstitous crap is lodged in your deranged brain and
will forever misguide your pathetic and insane life.
Posted by: Holbach | February 23, 2008 3:51 PM
I'm with ya, Andria. But, my Creationist fantasy begins like this:
"Lasers. Eight o'clock. Day One!"
Posted by: Dan | February 23, 2008 3:51 PM
O/T ****Book TV*** This weekend
There are several books being reviewed on CSPAN's Book TV that I think will be of interest, including John West (of Disco Inst) talking about the dangers of Darwinism & another talk on Creation vs. Evolution and many more.
Here is the schedule:
http://www.booktv.org/schedule.aspx
Posted by: healthphysicist | February 23, 2008 3:52 PM
Many of my relatives are Christians. Most of the people in the town where I grew up (Huntsville, Alabama) are Christians. Do you really think I never even tried to understand the people I grew up with, went to school with, celebrated holidays with?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 23, 2008 3:57 PM
It's cute how Andria claims to be a skeptic. Don't you think?
Andria, I find you to be about as probing and insightful as a two inch colonoscopy.
Posted by: Dan | February 23, 2008 4:00 PM
Why does every creationist seem to think they're the first person ever to ask their foolish questions?
Posted by: Craig | February 23, 2008 4:01 PM
PZ has missed the very first delusion in Callaway's column; Callaway says that the hearing took place on November 19. She wrote that in the column and the editors at Florida Baptist Witness published her column without checking so much as the first two words in it. I got wind of Callaway's column this morning and wrote a bit about it myself including a screen shot of the most egregious error ever. Then again, these are religious fundamentalists we're talking about here. Since when have they ever bothered worrying about facts?
And as proof of that, we now have Andria lurking about in the comments here spewing her blathering nothings. As is typical for Creationists, she has no clue what the theory of evolution says and doesn't care because she's here not to discuss anything factual but to vomit forth her twisted, stupid, Medievalist, laughably asinine vision of a religion with its impotent, invisible, blood-drinking vampire of a manurepile of a deity.
I know God doesn't exist because if there were an omnipotent being capable of creating and guiding the development of living things, there'd be no excuse for the existence of people as utterly, deeply stupid -- and in this case, I don't mean ignorant, I mean STUPID -- as Donna Callaway and her wannabe butt-buddy, Andria.
The answer for death is very simple. It's fundamentalist "intellect." Given enough time and enough people willing to treat it with kid gloves, it's a toxic idiocy enough to kill everything.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | February 23, 2008 4:01 PM
Andria:
"How did life come about?" is a science question. A scientific answer will attempt to provide mechanism. The differing theories of abiogenesis -- I assume you are familiar with them -- all try to do this. They deal with chemical reactions under differing circumstances. All of the hypotheses are, in theory, falsifiable.
Is "God" a science hypothesis? If so, what are the mechanisms in its operation, and how did it come about? What evidence would falsify it?
If you want to play with us, you have to play by the same rules. No tennis without a net.
Posted by: Sastra | February 23, 2008 4:01 PM
You're all wrong!
This is how it really happened! End of discussion!
Posted by: Chris the Ninja Pirate | February 23, 2008 4:02 PM
Take this statement:
And then ask, "Who made God? Where did God come from?"
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 23, 2008 4:02 PM
You're not being "ganged up on" Andrea. You are being given concise answers to your statements and questions and are being asked direct simple questions, none of which you have answered yourself.
Posted by: Michael X | February 23, 2008 4:04 PM
We don't. We could be wrong. There could be.
But it's an unnecessary hypothesis, and provides no explanation deeper than "like comes from like." But like does not always come from like. On the contrary, science has discovered that complicated, different things actually can come out of simpler things, given a mindless selective process which shapes to the environment.
If there is a God, it doesn't appear to do anything that couldn't happen without it.
Posted by: Sastra | February 23, 2008 4:11 PM
Re: Donna Callaway.
What a load of self serving claptrap, dished out for the titillation of like-minded theocrats.
Oh! And Donna, do something about your hair. At least show some respect for your body if not your mind.
Posted by: Budbear | February 23, 2008 4:12 PM
Andria, you're lying or you can't read. The mechanism behind evolution is simplistic. You didn't ask for a definition of evolution, you asked for proof of evolution. I pointed out that we're sitting on top of 150 years' worth of evidence (not proof, but let's not go into that - you're not ready). You can't reasonably expect one person to be able to condense it for you, right? That is why we have books and websites. I directed you to such a site. To clarify once more, no one said "evolution is highly complicated". I said that the evidence for evolution is vast. Spot the difference?
The rest of your post reads like a "how to" from Answers in Genesis. Like I said, you're online. The answers are available. We've "opposed" these questions so many times before that you can't turn left online without bumping into a "creationist vs sane person" thread.
You're following a tired old formula. Whatever we say, you'll respond with more creationist nonsense that will spiral away from truth and logic at an alarming rate. Soon you're going to find you're one of those idiots babbling about moon dust and the unreliability of radiometric dating.
Case in point: "Tell me, if you have the answer for life, what is the answer for death?"
Seriously, are you on something? 42, now go away.
Posted by: Prazzie | February 23, 2008 4:21 PM