Pharyngula

I try to stay away from Dinesh D’Souza’s ravings, but when you’ve got SIWOTI syndrome, the man is like a magnet of wrong. His one saving grace now is that his columns are so bad, I usually can’t get through the first paragraph without having to close the window. This one is no exception. One paragraph is all any normal person can take.

The real problem with Darwinism in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way.

No, it is not. I’m about as ferocious an atheist as you’ll find in a classroom, and I’m at a university where I have more latitude than I would in a public school, and I don’t teach it “in an atheist way”. I teach it as a secular science. Secular ≠ atheist. Secular just means that you teach it in a way that a rational Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or atheist professor can all agree that it should be taught, and that a rational Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or atheist student should be able to learn it.

Textbooks by biologists like William Provine and Richard Dawkins routinely assert that evolution has done away with the need for God.

Provine and Dawkins have written public school biology textbooks? That’s news to all of us.

Last I looked, the most popular biology textbook in the public high schools was Miller and Levine — the Ken Miller who is a Catholic and preaches for theistic evolution. Let’s spell that out for D’Souza: The most popular biology textbook is not written by an atheist. He doesn’t even like atheism. He hasn’t even wandered accidentally in the direction of agnosticism. There isn’t so much as a hint of a wobble of doubt in his public discussions of faith. The man is annoyingly Catholic.

The textbooks are secular. They teach the widely agreed-upon material evidence and natural interpretations of the world. A Catholic or an atheist can use that book equally well.

In my introductory biology course, I use Life, by Sadava, Heller, Orians, Purves, and Hillis. I don’t know what the religious beliefs of any of the authors might be, and I don’t care. Is that what D’Souza thinks “atheism” means, that we can teach the evidence without recourse to whatever theological dogmas or metaphysical irrelevancies we might have? That sounds like a good thing to me.

The claim is that chance and natural selection have demonstrated that we can have design–or the appearance of design–without a designer.

Well, yes, we have. We don’t need a designer to explain biology; some people choose to stick one in there (which I personally find silly and pointless), but that’s not what we discuss in the biology classroom. We talk about biology there. The other stuff we do on blogs and in books and in public speaking events.

In this sense Darwinism becomes propaganda for atheism.

Nah, reality is propaganda for atheism. If you’ve got a religious belief that withers in the face of observations of the natural world, you ought to rethink your beliefs — rethinking the world isn’t an option.

What D’Souza is railing against isn’t atheism, since atheism isn’t being taught — it’s secularism. And his agenda is empty: he’s just complaining that he doesn’t like the secular consensus on science, but he doesn’t come right and admit what his only alternative to secularism is, which is to teach religion in the science lab.

Comments

  1. #1 J. D. Mack
    April 3, 2008

    SIWOTI Syndrome! That’s great! I love that XKCD comic, and now you’ve given us a good shorthand for referencing it.

    J. D.

  2. #2 Jim Royal
    April 3, 2008

    People like D’Souza and Jonah Goldberg are propagandists, nothing more. They have two goals:

    First, to push their claims to such ridiculous extremes that when ordinary people assume that the truth is somewhere in the middle, the middle will be so far from the truth that there will be no hope of re-educating people.

    Second, to throw tinfoil into the radar. They hope to generate outrage. It encourages people who actually have a clue to go ballistic, thus making the experts sound like lunatics.

    The rift between what is considered common sense in the USA versus the rest of the western world is now so large that it is impossible to have reasonable conversations about almost any subject, even the weather. I see it in my own family relations with my relatives who live in the USA.

  3. #3 Glen Davidson
    April 3, 2008

    Recall, too, that the Dover matter involved a textbook co-written by Ken Miller (and some of the teachers were frankly Christian). I hardly think that atheism was to what the school board and Behe were objecting in that case–or in any other that I have heard about. Miller and Levine’s book also happens to be a common textbook at the lower levels.

    On the other hand, this is fairly minor pablum that D’Souza is spouting here. It does reinforce prejudices, but they weren’t going anywhere soon anyway.

    His point that ID is a complete failure matters more, so noxious as this tripe is, it doesn’t concern me overmuch.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  4. #4 danley
    April 3, 2008

    Thanks for ripping this a new a-hole PZ.

  5. #5 Lago
    April 3, 2008

    “‘d like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures. ”

    I see I am not the first one to mention this, but I do believe it needs to be asked over and over again until we get answers. Where are these textbooks saying, “Darwinism shows there is no god?”

    I think we should not stop driving the author nuts until he answers us on this..

  6. #6 JRQ
    April 3, 2008

    Has Dinesh ever set foot in a public school?

  7. #7 Richard Harris
    April 3, 2008

    Duh’Souza said, “…Darwinism becomes propaganda for atheism.”

    What a fool! When I was about ten, I read Darwin. I was deeply impressed. By twelve years of age, I had realized that science trumps mythology, so I became an atheist.

    It amazes me that anyone can cling to absurd superstitions like Xianity, which are obviously made up, & derived from more ancient superstitions, if they understand Darwin.

  8. #8 Tosser
    April 3, 2008

    All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures.

    I’d be surprised to see any biology textbook that makes a claim for atheism. Also, did Dawkins ever write a high school text book? I can’t find a reference for one, but Dinesh says there’s one. He probably just wanted to use the boogeyman of Dawkins.

  9. #9 notthedroids
    April 3, 2008

    “I’d like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures.”

    By all means, bring it on.

    Is D’Souza even aware of the Dover case?

  10. #10 Phouka
    April 3, 2008

    The comment have surged beyond “funny” to “pathetic” and “scary”. I know people who will suck this up and trumpet it as truth…not the smartest tools in the shed, but they sure seem to have a lot of company.

  11. #11 Aaron
    April 3, 2008

    There are as many mentions of god(s) in biology books as there are in the user’s manual for my car. I guess Dinesh thinks Toyota manufactures atheist cars then?

  12. #12 Starbix
    April 3, 2008

    D’Souza will be having a debate with Michael Shermer in a couple of weeks near where I live. Any suggestions as to what to throw out during Q&A?

    “Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams

  13. #13 Forrest Prince
    April 3, 2008

    #20: Because he can type and spell pretty good. Can’t write worth beans, but sure can type.

  14. #14 Interrobang
    April 3, 2008

    When speaking of DuhDuh, I think we have to go with BartCop’s Principle here: When someone’s livelihood depends on their not learning something, they’ll never learn it. (Welfare reform I support: End welfare for wingnuts now!)

    My position has been when it comes to teaching various methods on the origins of life

    Yeah, good bloody damn thing for you nobody’s talking about the origins of life. Seems to me we’re talking about evolution over here, and not abiogenesis. That’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish, which may or may not involve biology. If you somehow have a problem with the idea that populations of living creatures change over time because no individual is identical to its parents, I really can’t help you, save to direct you to your local mental health provider. (Paid for on the taxpayer dime in my jurisdiction; you should be so lucky. Maybe that’s why my country doesn’t have as many raving cre(a)ti(o)nist loons as yours does — we make sure ours get treated before they really become a nuisance.)

    The private schools do a better job at teaching in general.

    Not that I don’t know better than to ask, but do you actually have any evidence of that? I went to a very excellent public secondary school and a world-class public university; I’m failing to see how I missed out, save that I don’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of student debt.

  15. #15 Candy
    April 3, 2008

    I’m in a community college Gen Bio class, and the book our truly excellent instructor uses is Biology by Campbell, Reece, 8th Edition. It seems to be an excellent text.

    It’s been very instructive to see her try to teach science in spite of having a couple of very vocal cretinists in the class. She’s stated plainly that she won’t debate Creationism in the class, but one student, a Bosnian Muslim – not all cretinists are Xtian – constantly tries to derail the lectures by asking things like, “If we’re descended from monkeys, why are we so much smarter?” (This question was asked while we were discussing Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, ffs.)Fortunately, there are several students (I’m one) who, not having to worry about being fired from a non-tenured community college position, are unafraid to slap him down. Our instructor is a model of – dare I say it – saintly patience. I really admire her.

  16. #16 M. Robert Bond
    April 3, 2008

    Oh, God. Dinesh D’Souza. I saw him lose a debate with Daniel Dennett on YouTube once. Every time he talked, I just closed my eyes, and I thought I was listening to Stephen Colbert. Style, content, cadence, pitch, intensity. The only thing different about D’Souza was his ostensible sincerity which soured the whole experience for me substantially.

  17. #17 Jonathon
    April 3, 2008

    Thanks for the heads up on yet another screed from the insane Dinesh D’Souza.

    I went and read the whole thing. Once I stopped heaving and resisted the urge to throw my computer out of the window, I left the following as my comment:

    ================================================

    As usual, Dinesh is wrong. Darwinism does not equate to atheism; evolution is not an atheistic ideology. All that evolution says is that living organisms change over time, respond to their changing environment by mutating gradually over many generations, and occasionally spawning a new species that is distinct from the one that preceded it. The only folks who are confused about the evolution=atheism nonsense are those who insist upon a literal interpretation of scriptures, specifically the creation story from Genesis. The existence or non-existence of gods and deities is not part of evolutionary theory.

    And atheism is not religion. Sure… one’s freedom to believe or not believe in any religion is guaranteed and protected by the 1st Amendment, but atheism can hardly be called a “religion” in the same way that Christianity, Islam, Hindusim, etc. are religions. There is no organized group or universally-shared doctrinal ideologies among atheists. Atheism is not a religion; it is a philosophical position.

    Dinesh’s suggested approach of accusing science teachers of promoting “atheism” by teaching evolution is pure nonsense and will be treated as such by any responsible jurist. The alternatives to evolution, creationism and “intelligent design”, are simply ways for religious fundamentalists to inject their own religion into public schools. Creationism and ID cannot be separated from religion; they are based on a religious assumption and have zero scientific merit.

    What creationists and ID supporters must do, and what they have consistently failed to do, is to provide SCIENTIFIC and EMPIRICAL evidence to support their claims. Bring forth the “designer” and have him reveal himself. Find evidence that establishes that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Present fossil evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. In truth, creationists’ claims come down to their own faith in their religion, and since faith in itself is not evidence it is unlikely that there will ever be acceptance by science of creationism’s theory.

    =================================================

    D’Souza is a neoconservative, reactionary moron. How I wish he would just go away…..

  18. #18 David vun Kannon, FCD
    April 3, 2008

    Nice hair, Dinesh!

    The best thing about his post is leaving Dembski out of a list ID luminaries.

  19. #19 negentropyeater
    April 3, 2008

    As long as D’Souza is against ID/YEC he will be a strategic ally.
    Mainstream Christians need a bone to bite, fine, let them have “Darwinism shouldn’t be tought in an Atheistic way”.

  20. #20 Steven Alleyn
    April 3, 2008

    I’ve got a couple of baptist friends (of the YEC variety); to them a Catholic – even a devout one – might aswell be an atheist.

  21. #21 SC
    April 3, 2008

    “Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated. In other words, the term ‘religion’ means not only ‘religion’ but also ‘atheism’.

    Right – just like policies that prohibit discrimination based on marital status make make the term “married” mean not only “married” but “unmarried.” For the correct definition of atheism, see the last four words of your first sentence, pinhead.

  22. #22 SC
    April 3, 2008

    Sorry – my post at #56 should have read:

    “Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated. In other words, the term ‘religion’ means not only ‘religion’ but also ‘atheism’.”

    Right – just like policies that prohibit discrimination based on marital status make the term “married” mean not only “married” but also “unmarried.”

    [Acute SIWOTI attack.]

  23. #23 artificialhabitat
    April 3, 2008

    Schools would be on notice that they cannot use scientific facts to draw metaphysical conclusions in favor of atheism.

    Oh, come now, DD, why not leave it at

    Schools would be on notice that they cannot use scientific facts.

    That’s better, no?

  24. #24 Nicki
    April 3, 2008

    “The Bible is a compilation of books written by pharoahs. Genesis- Pharoah Moses I. It was their ideas on how everything started, because writing hadn’t been invented yet when the events occurred.

    How the Universe started is a different debate from how did the human universe started.

    It is now used to educate people to abstract language. People who have a brain learn a new language from reading it. They coalesce from the different interpretations & create alliances to disadvantage others, those they consider Neandrathal.

    Anyone who believes their is a God, is used by those malicious enough to use them as slaves. Aka- Egypt, the first church on the planet. It started out as a prison. Greece, home of the original ape, was constantly at war. The prisoners were used as an army, and the first civilization fell.

    End of story. You bible thumpers should know this, if you ‘able’ to read the book you speak of. But of course Cain killed Able.

    Decaying atoms in the darkness of space formed into rock, then planetoid bodies, as they grew over billions of years, they developed molten cores under the pressure, after billions more years they developed into stars just like our Sun. It happened all over the Universe. No Big Bang.

    Earth was a swamp world, most dinosaur fossils are fish! Cartilage from aquatic animals fossilize into what we see today, bones decay from the elements. As the polar regions of our planet froze, the earths crust twisted and cracked, creating the land and the oceans. No island of Pangia.

    Joseph”

    WOW! i can’t breath for the stoopid, I know, at least I think he’s on our side but i really can’t tell.
    I really think its time to start a new pollicy euthanasia for stupidity. These kind of people just drag us down and really we all know that once god is back in the science classroom then its back to being owned for gals like me.

    And leashes outside the bedroom kinda suck :)

    Nicki

  25. #25 revmonkeyboy
    April 3, 2008

    DuhDuh seems to think evolution and biology are taught in public schools. It was pretty much rushed over in my high school biology class. I think that in the small Indiana town I grew up in a teacher would be suicidal to teach much on the subject. The teacher seemed really nervous about the whole subject.

    I had to do the learning myself, much later in life. One of the reasons America is failing to keep it’s lead in science, research and practical applications is due to this public inability to deal with reality. My history classes were pretty light on facts as well. It is no surprise to me that public schools are controlled by the local population, most of whom are not concerned by truth or facts.

  26. #26 Ralph
    April 3, 2008

    Even though he doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously, I’ll give a refutation of Dinesh’s argument. There’s an important distinction that he’s failed to make. Asserting that a view is incorrect is not the same thing as forcing someone not to hold that view. So, even if evolution suggests that religion is wrong, teaching evolution in schools does NOT impinge upon the rights of students to freely exercise their religion.

  27. #27 josefina welch
    April 3, 2008

    Fortunately, there are several students (I’m one) who, not having to worry about being fired from a non-tenured community college position, are unafraid to slap him down.

    Speaking as a former TA–Candy, thanks so much for your slappage.

  28. #28 Onkel Bob
    April 3, 2008

    Slightly OT
    It appears that the movie which should not be named will be part of the discussion tomorrow on American Public Media’s radio program Marketplace (marketplace.publicradio.org)

  29. #29 Julie Stahlhut
    April 3, 2008

    That column was one hunka hunka burning stupid.

    Has this guy ever actually read a science textbook?

  30. #30 Azkyroth
    April 3, 2008

    I really think its time to start a new pollicy euthanasia for stupidity. These kind of people just drag us down and really we all know that once god is back in the science classroom then its back to being owned for gals like me.

    Careful; the IDiots love to quote mine that sorta thing. x.x

    Also, it wouldn’t work; IDiocy is a memetic plague, not a genetic disorder.

    And leashes outside the bedroom kinda suck :)

    That’d be surprising; aren’t the wingnuts mostly too uptight to get into “oral sodomy?” ;/

  31. #31 Aquaria
    April 3, 2008

    I wonder if DuhSouza’s brain would explode if he knew Lutheran school religion class taught me how to be an atheist. I mean, they put the information right in my hands via their textbook, and then the pastors and teachers couldn’t explain it away. Not logically.

    Kinda scary that a 10-year-old girl had a better grasp on logic than adults, but so it goes.

  32. #32 J Myers
    April 3, 2008

    I really don’t think D’Souza deserves all the vitriol here…. seeing the huge population of much more demented loons of the likes of Ben Stein, Michael Behe, Ken Ham…
    So has the Overton window actually been shifted so far to the stupid end of the spectrum that some people see D’Souza as undeserving of rebuke? And here I’d been thinking that ID hadn’t produced any results…

    IDiocy is a memetic plague
    mnemonic plague?

  33. #33 wazza
    April 3, 2008

    “Just the other day, Nicholas Kristof reported that 20% of Americans think the Sun orbits the Earth.”

    Are they catholics?

    I mean, like, really traditionalist ones?

  34. #34 wazza
    April 3, 2008

    Really?

    You’d like to hear a widely-read call for the abolition of the constitution?

  35. #35 Rey Fox
    April 4, 2008

    “Dinesh D’Souza does in fact makes a valid point, by teaching evolution in a government school does make “metaphysical conclusions in favor of atheism.”"

    No, he didn’t. And no, it doesn’t.

    “A study that says there is no god as the creator. It’s an attack on the student’s beliefs. ”

    Do you have even the slightest clue of what you’re talking about?

    “Perhaps the so-called alien theory of creation might pass…lol”

    LOL means Laughing Out Loud. Please don’t laugh at your own jokes, it’s unseemly. And does anyone else find it weird that Dawkins’ whole off-the-cuff panspermia thing is such a joke to some people, yet the God character from the bible is regarded as completely plausible?

    “He treats Dinesh D’Souza like Saturday Night Live used to treat former President Ford.”

    Again with the out-of-nowhere Gerald Ford reference. Have we found another cousin of Gerald Spezio, constantly giggling at his own private jokes?

  36. #36 negentropyeater
    April 4, 2008

    J Myers,
    “So has the Overton window actually been shifted so far to the stupid end of the spectrum that some people see D’Souza as undeserving of rebuke? And here I’d been thinking that ID hadn’t produced any results…”

    Well that’s exactly my point, the far edge of the window (Ben Stein, Idists, YEcs, etc…) deserves vitriol and ridicule. People like D’Souza deserve a rebuke. Let’s not confuse the two.

  37. #37 wazza
    April 4, 2008

    Michael, you’re not making any sense. At all. You just told him he was wrong for addressing a precise and factual rebuttal to your point.

    As for the ridiculous idea of making all schooling private, or barring the teaching of evolution from public schools (virtually synonymous, as evolution is one of the basic tenets of science, and without science, schools devolve into essentially playgroups for teenagers)… education is too important to be left in the hands of McDonalds and Exxon, which is basically what would happen after 20 years of market forces.

    As A C Clarke put it (I paraphrase): Consenting adults may believe whatever they choose, but we must also consider the young and innocent.

    By teaching evolution in high school and creationism in sunday school, we let the children make their own choice. If our idea just happens to make more sense to them, so be it. We won’t mourn the loss to science of anyone who seriously believes in ID.

  38. #38 wazza
    April 4, 2008

    Damian: Personal jinx!

    As for the finland thing, they may spend less money, but they also have less population. And yes, they get that score from public schooling, just like all the other countries that top the US.

  39. #39 wazza
    April 4, 2008

    Darwin had a degree (ironically in theology, though the course in those days involved extensive study of natural history), and had also performed some absolutely cutting-edge and diligent research. His lesser-known theory of coral reef formation still holds true.

    Eh, I can’t be bothered to provide a rebuttal to any more of that. I mean, it’s not like his theory was independently proposed by another researcher, or caused an enormous controversy leading to one of the most famous debates of all time within a few months of publication…

    is it?

    I guess it could have been accepted because it’s true…

  40. #40 Azkyroth
    April 4, 2008

    Did you know the United States compared to the world is ranked towards the bottom? Did you know Finland which doesn’t spend the money the US does, but yet it’s students test number one in the world.

    …uh, does Finland not use primarily public schooling?

    Otherwise that would seem to be a strike against your argument.

    There continues to be no “arrogance” nor ungodly conduct about placing education in the hands of the private sector which is basically free from special interest groups, it can govern themselves no matter what the belief is, costs less, produces better results.

    1) ….do you even know what the phrase “special interest group” actually refers to?
    2) evidence, plzthx.

  41. #41 Arthur C. Clarke
    April 4, 2008

    “I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.”

  42. #42 J. A. Baker
    April 4, 2008

    Nah, reality is propaganda for atheism.

    Or, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert, “Reality has an atheist bias.”

  43. #43 Summer Glau
    April 4, 2008

    Yes, I was guilty of SIWOTI Syndrome on this very blog earlier, and my husband demanded I see today’s XKCD: http://xkcd.com/406/

  44. #44 Kagehi
    April 4, 2008

    Either something javaish screwed up the ability of AO-helL’s news system sending me the email and password confirming my registration, or they are deep enough in the pocket of these idiots to let Double-dumb block names. Tried to post twice, once in response to the nitwit saying he would rather side with the 90% that believed in God, and therefor presumably disbelieve evolution. The other one.. Who cares, since its never going to show up on the site. Much like a prior place I tried to post, its quite apparent that no post that attempts to alleviate confusion, cannot be held as an example of the anger of atheism, or presents clear arguments against the position of people like DD, are “expelled” immediately.

  45. #45 Stanton
    April 5, 2008

    The biology teacher in my homeroom was an atheist and the biology teacher next door which was a good friend of his, would be considered today as a “Creationist” but he taught nothing more than evolution in the classroom.

    “Creationists” today believe that the events described in the Book of Genesis literally happened as they were described, some 6,000 years ago, even though no specific date is given. Furthermore, “Creationists” today make it a point to physically reject all evidence that does not point to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, to the point where those “Creationists” today who actually know that “Darwinism” is very different from “Theory of Evolution,” or that even be trusted to understand how Science works can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and have many, many, many fingers left over.

  46. #46 deang
    April 5, 2008

    Those of you who seem to be suggesting that the very idea of public schooling itself is problematic need to read Jonathan Kozol’s books to understand that it’s not the concept of education-for-all that is the problem, it’s the lack of dedication to that concept.

  47. #47 wazza
    April 5, 2008

    Indeed, it does violate the laws of physics, Michael. That’s because the big bang occurs at a point of singularity, where all laws of physics break down.

    Ya mug.

  48. #48 Brian X
    April 6, 2008

    Michael:

    I can’t help but notice that the logical consequence of your argument is to render a public education so content-free that the whole thing would have to be shut down.

    If someone advocated the Universe was 100 billion years old, could some teacher advocate his theory of age to his students as long as it doesn’t agree with Creation? What’s the difference in your opinion from atheist evolution and secular evolution?

    The only way such a position could be accepted is if there was sufficient evidence to back it up. That would require some fairly drastic changes in the overall field of cosmology before it ever made it into a high school physics textbook. (And evolution, as many people have probably explained to you on many occasions, has nothing at all to do with cosmology.)

    I believe your advocating a different type of religion. One that responses on it’s own…

    How very postmodern of you. You do realize that such a statement only makes sense if there is no evidence to support the modern view of biology, physics, and cosmology, and that the overwhelming view of the scientific community is that the evidence is decisive and faith does not enter into it at all?

    Carl Sagan believe before the big bang, the matter and mass were eternal, and compressed in an organized manner then without any reason exploded into the big bang. Other evolutionistscosmologists claim it popped out of no where by nothing and then exploded into the big bang.

    So what? The best anyone can do with the Big Bang at the moment is extrapolating from existing evidence, and it’s entirely possible to derive different conclusions from the same evidence, at least until more evidence is found.

    Either angle you look at it, defies laws of physics.

    Only in a strictly Newtonian world. By deconstructing the holes in Euclid, Einstein showed that the laws of physics, such as they are, do not always apply in a manner that relates to everyday experience. Gravitational lensing makes no sense without Einstein, the transistor makes no sense without quantum mechanics. As for the Big Bang itself, the laws have not yet been written, so it’s pretty much impossible to say that it defies them.

    Secondly, making something out of nothing, is supernatural…Having random chance create something out of nothing defies the laws of science. Since it’s hypothesis appears supernatural rather than natural without an intelligent designer. It’s a religion as well.

    Tell that to Stephen Hawking, or anyone else who works in his branch of astrophysics. Things popping out of the vacuum are par for the course — it’s because there’s no possible way to reach zero energy. (Otherwise we’d have found a way to hit absolute zero by now. And we never will, if current thinking holds up.) If a black hole can release radiation, and a particle-antiparticle pair can appear along the event horizon, there’s absolutely no reason that an incident like that can’t burp out an entire universe. It’s extremely unlikely, but it does seem to have happened at least once.

    I’m having so much fun with this and feel it’s important to express, and I have like this through the years, and I don’t curse anyone out, nor call people, “duh” for the sake of beliefs or government money. Kseniya this is why I’m still at it…

    Well, I can’t speak for Kseniya, but everyone’s gotta have a hobby.

  49. #49 Kseniya
    April 6, 2008

    Brian:

    I can’t help but notice that the logical consequence of your argument is to render a public education so content-free that the whole thing would have to be shut down.

    Bingo, and that’s pretty much what I’m trying to say, too. And though he denies there is such a consequence, it perfectly serves his real agenda: to see the end of them thar gummint skools.

    (They’re so transparent, aren’t they?)

  50. #50 Michael X
    April 6, 2008

    A Brian X huh?

    *Sun leaps to high noon. Tumbleweeds appear across… the… er… screen?*

    Actually, I’d be amused if when any nutter sees a handle ending in X, they start to feel nervous.

  51. #51 True Bob X
    April 6, 2008

    Just poppin’ in to upset…some nutter?

  52. #52 mirc mirš m?rc
    December 31, 2008

    Thanks so much for this! This is exactly what I was looking for

  53. #53 mirc m?rc mirš
    December 31, 2008

    Thanks so much for this! This is exactly what I was looking for