Pharyngula

Posted by: PaleGreenPants | September 25, 2009 9:49 AM

You're doomed PZ. DOOMED!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 25, 2009 9:55 AM

You've turned riding a dinosaur into a profession?

ok I know that I of all people shouldn't be pointing out typos.

Posted by: AJ Milne | September 25, 2009 9:58 AM

You heard the man! Stop coarsing discourse, dammit!

(/Also, stop verbing nouns wronglike.)

Posted by: Drosera | September 25, 2009 9:59 AM

If all people who donate money to universities would cease doing so when one of the professors behaves in a silly way, then the universities would run out of funds pretty soon.

A suggestion to your administrators: let them tell Mr. Frische that he is an ungrateful bastard who can stick his petty donation up his stupid ass.

Posted by: Zifnab | September 25, 2009 10:05 AM

If all the deeply conservative, ardently religious anti-academic denialist thin skinned theoretical University supporters stop sending all their money to support the nonpartisan, secular, open-minded, egalitarian academic institution, where will you ever get any money from?

Rich superstitious World Nut Daily readers are the backbone of Minnesota higher education funding. So STFU, Myers!

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 25, 2009 10:06 AM

Every angry idiot who does not get his way has given me some line to the effect of

"Well, I was going to apply here, but now I not only won't, but I'll write a letter to the President telling him why. And it's because of you."

or

"I was going to make a donation to the library - well, not anymore."

And so on.

The first maybe 5 times it bothered or worried me a little. But then I realized that

1.) If the conflict arose due to the dimwit's laziness, chances are he's too lazy to bother writing a letter

OR

2.) The resulting letter will be so deranged that no one reading it will question that Mr. Complainer is just nuttier than a truckload of pralines.

My favorite of all is the librarian who told complainers who demanded her name that she was "Rosetta Stone." Someone lazy and demanding enough to have a problem also proves so ignorant that they never know when we're pulling one on them. Imagine all the jackasses who complained to the library board about "that rude librarian, Rosetta Stone."

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 25, 2009 10:11 AM

ha, this reminds me of the post PZ made about all the "i'll stop donating to your school" stuff UMM received after Crackergate, which amounted to millions of dollars... and then turned out to be nothing but hot air, and UMM actually ending up with more donation money than the previous year

Posted by: daveau | September 25, 2009 10:15 AM

I believe that tax payers of Minnesota have a interest in not having our professors at the public universities contributing publically to the coarsing of American discourse -- and behaving silly...

Ahhh. I miss Graham Chapman.

Posted by: Porco Dio | September 25, 2009 10:21 AM

he is presumably ok with his tax dollars dissemintaing lies and abuse in the nations religious institutions...

rock on!

Posted by: AJ Milne | September 25, 2009 10:26 AM

What's the bet that this moron has never contributed money to the university and has no friends that have even attended.

Let's put it this way: if you plunk down $10, you win $10.02.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 25, 2009 10:30 AM

it's impossible not to when one of the displays is a giant canvas covered completely by black paint, damn post-modernists

actually, that would be an example of modernism, minimalism to be precise. postmodernism came after (d'uh), as a reaction to that pretentious sillyness, and includes things like Andy Warhol's images

Posted by: puseaus | September 25, 2009 10:35 AM

I don't like the picture of PZ on that dinosaur either. Makes me burn. Life isn't fair anymore.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 25, 2009 10:39 AM

Due to the protest of the museum in August of 2009...

What is it about these morons that they cannot write decent English ?

Does he really think it was a musuem that was doing the protesting ?

Posted by: Mr T | September 25, 2009 10:44 AM

Dear Profession PZ Meyers (if that is your real name...):
As you have been alleged to profess riding the statue of a dinosaur, as perhaps evidenced by the outrageous pictures linked in this post and elsewhere on such things as the intertubes, I condemn the silliness of your behavior by not contributing monetarily to my own alma mater -- which happens not to be UMM, but nevertheless I also will tell my friends, if they indeed exist, to discontinue their contributions tangentially related to other facilities of higher educations equally professioned to such coarse discourse, regardless of the non-coarseness of other profession in other discourses at such institutionalizations. Mocking the museum in the museum! Curses to you, profession PZ Meyers! This level of discourse is coarse, of course, and should be especially consequential for professors of teh public universities. Profession Meyers silly behavior will have consequences, and my influences and those who are incapable of rational coarse discourse must of course effect such inaffectiveness by no longer supporting the education we have so obviously and obtusely benefitted from which.

Posted by: davej | September 25, 2009 10:46 AM

I was guessing he might be an insurance salesman or a comp sci. Maybe this is him?

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-frische/6/129/574

Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com | September 25, 2009 10:47 AM

Oh noes! However will you survive without the US$0.00 that this fellow and his cohorts were going to donate??????

lie lie lie for jeebus.....

Posted by: daveau | September 25, 2009 10:51 AM

Matt Penfold@25

What is it about these morons that they cannot write decent English ?

Does he really think it was a musuem that was doing the protesting ?

Dontcha just hate when that happens?

Posted by: raven | September 25, 2009 10:59 AM

Dear Bill Frische:

I was going to convert back to xianity and give Ham's Creation Museum all my extra money. However, your poorly written and threatening letter full of lies and misrepresentations changed my mind.

I don't want to be a near illiterate, lying, moron. But I'll pray for you.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 25, 2009 11:04 AM

Uh, I see the misspelling of museum, but what was wrong with morons?

Because it's morans

Posted by: Darren Garrison | September 25, 2009 11:05 AM

We interrupt this thread for a public service announcement.

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs217.snc1/8420_165904241417_571726417_4022515_1327875_n.jpg

We now return you to your regular thread, already in progress.

Posted by: Lowell | September 25, 2009 11:15 AM

I miss Graham Chapman.

It should have been signed:

Sincerely,
Bill Frische, Mrs.,

Posted by: AJ Milne | September 25, 2009 11:21 AM

This man is obviously very angry at God...

Fuck, yeah...

And don't get me started on those lippy leprechauns...

(/Yes, it's been done. It still amuses me.)

Posted by: Keanus | September 25, 2009 11:33 AM

Aside from the silliness of Bill Frische's letter, and its misspellings, bad grammar, and nonsense, I seriously doubt he's ever given more than a pittance to the University of MInnesota, if even that. Most self-righteous blowhards like him have little and give even less. And it's even questionable that he's a college grad, although in my years as a text book editor I corresponded with many teacher, both high school and college, who couldn't write a grammatically correct sentence without someone holding his or her hand (most were males, sadly).

Posted by: The Pint | September 25, 2009 12:09 PM

@ Jadehawk #21

Thank you for the correction. My familiarity with modern & post-modern art isn't what it should be - spent too much time studying the Impressionists & Surrealists, and up until the recent renovation at the AIC, modernist & post-modernist art shared a lot of the same exhibition space (the new modern wing at the AIC is absolutely fantastic, by the way) and that particular painting has been a pet peeve of mine for over a decade.

Posted by: Qwerty | September 25, 2009 12:16 PM

Bill is allowed to protest your actions with his withholding of possible contributions, but you're not allowed to protest the teaching of creationism. Hmmmm....

Yes, as hate mail it's kind of mild and somewhat incoherent.
It could also use a lot more detail as to what happened as his rant could leave the reader thinking WTF? Also, there's inconsistency as he thinks you were acting silly but still likes the picture of you on the bucking bronco/dinosaur.

Posted by: realinterrobang | September 25, 2009 12:26 PM

In the writing biz, we have a technical term for making those particular kinds of errors: "trying too hard." Those kinds of "almost right but not quite" malapropisms are the hallmark of someone who feels they need to sound professional and/or impressive and have thereby vastly overreached their meagre writing skills.

Posted by: Tony | September 25, 2009 12:37 PM

Is there any way of finding out how much he actually contributed? I bet the Pharyngulites could collectively pitch in at least that much to make a point.

Posted by: JackC | September 25, 2009 12:41 PM

Well, according to This (from the 2005-6 period at least), Frische is nowhere to be seen above the $1k mark.

Oh heck - that is probably just the Business College - probably not even related. Oh well - still trying...

JC

Posted by: subbie | September 25, 2009 12:56 PM

He coarses his course, of course, of course.
He rides a triceratops, not a horse.
He lives near the source with the Norse, the Norse.
He's the atheist Pee Zed.

Creos yakkity yak a streak, and tell a pack of lies.
But Pee Zed will tell you the truth each time
And get their dander to rise.

He coarses his course, of course, of course.
He'll lecture to you 'till he is hoarse.
He'll desecrate crackers without remorse.
He's the atheist Pee Zed.

(With apologies to Ray Evans and Jay Livingston)

Posted by: The effin' bear | September 25, 2009 1:12 PM

When alumni visit the AiG link, they will see for themselves the damning evidence against PZ's assertions:

Ken Ham hath a black friend!

Check, atheists, and I do believe, mate.

Posted by: theonides | September 25, 2009 1:13 PM

I find it funny how the "more balanced" sites are anti-atheist accounts, including the self-serving museum account designed only to cover their asses. where is the account from the film crew? Heaven forbid the atheists might have been wronged and the Christian *be* wrong!

Love PZ's assessment that at least fewer creationists will be damaging university policy. Creationists treat universities like career schools anyway.

Posted by: CunningLingus | September 25, 2009 1:31 PM

It appears to me, with not a shred of scientific evidence, or even any kind of science background myself, the majority of religious contributors to the majority of the blogs i visit, mostly seem to possess less than average writing skills, (and i by no means consider my own scribblings perfect, i'm merely educated to A level standard in the UK, so pretty average indeed).

At least it makes me snigger when i read the rants from the religiotards, highlighting their own intelligence and education skills, or rather lack of said skills.

No wonder religion appeals to these stumps.

Posted by: daveau | September 25, 2009 1:37 PM

subbie@57-

Damn you! That is going to be stuck in my head all day. (funny though)

Posted by: Free Lunch | September 25, 2009 1:50 PM

Pendant alert:

The grammar gods like errors.

Posted by: $ Thelonious 386sx | September 25, 2009 2:13 PM

and behaving silly

Technically I don't think there is a big grammar problem there.

behaving silly
silly behaving

Same difference.

Anyway, IMO, silly should be an adverb. If something looks like it wants to be an adverb real bad, then why the heck not!

Posted by: chgo_liz | September 25, 2009 2:22 PM

Jeannie @ #66:

I don't know in this case, but many colleges and universities are offering permanent email accounts to alumni as a perk. So, his edu address might just signal where he went to college, not where he works now.

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | September 25, 2009 3:47 PM

I see plenty of on-line fiction, some written by people who are long out of school and therefore theoretically exposed to proper grammar, punctuation and spelling, yet I still see "loose" when the author meant "lose", "dinning room" for "dining room", "desert" for "dessert", "coup" when they're really driving a "coupe", a school headed by a Principle and in one memorable tale, a young girl who goes into the "panty cupboard" to get her morning cereal, instantly turning the G class tale into PG if not R. All the above errors were not caught because the error is still a correct spelling of a real word. And some of this is quite well-written in terms of plot and character development. Just don't ask the author to spell.

I'm frequently left with the image of a family so poor that instead of enjoying bowls of ice cream while sitting at chairs around a table in a room custom-made for eating, they're munching on bowlfuls of sand whilst creditors remind them how much they owe. The US economy has been in tough shape recently, but I hope not THAT bad.

With PZ's rather pathetic little e-mail author, however, we're dealing with a higher and more original level of Fail. Spell-check is not just for breakfast any more. I'm supposed to believe he is a graduate of a major university, yet the evidence is pointing more to some middle-school dropout.

Posted by: JBlilie | September 25, 2009 3:53 PM

Mike @72

I was talking to my mother the other day, suggesting that she listen to President Obama (I still love to hear that ...) speaking before the UN General Assembly. I love my Mom; but we don't agree politically. She said, "hrumph! I don't want to hear him! He's bringing us socialism, this healthcare business." I replied, "Do you consider your Medicare to be socialism?" "Well, no, I like my medicare." "I rest my case."

Posted by: Lowell | September 25, 2009 4:04 PM

KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE, JBlilie!

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 25, 2009 5:20 PM

I'll bet this letter writer thought it was hilarious when George W. Bush pretended to search for WMD under his couch cushions, though.

@JBlilie: I've had people argue that Medicare isn't socialism because they paid for it. I always ask those people if they get monthly statements like they do with their bank accounts, showing how much they have left on their balance before Medicare gets turned off.

Posted by: Jeremy Walker | September 25, 2009 5:31 PM

How dare you besmirch the names of good scientists who are trying to spread the Gospels with the science that our Lord gave us? Can’t you see that PZ is trying to steal you from Christ? He spread poisonous lies in the guise of science and you are all falling for it. I will pray that our Lord Christ will take off your blind for that you may see that you are wrong.

Posted by: condignaction | September 25, 2009 5:40 PM

RE: "Prof. PZ Myers" (unless PZ happens to be a personal acquaintance of this nitwit, the honorific should be used, it's just common courtesy.

Not sure professor is an honorific. Isn't it a job title like Sheriff Smith? It's not an academic degree; that would be Doctor Myers. I absolutely must remember to demand that people address me as Master.

Anyway, I hate honorifics. Most english-language honorifics are remnants from the horrid social structure of the middle-ages. Others are stupid religions titles. Somebody believes imaginary flying monsters are real and I'm supposed to address them as your grace or reverend or pretend they are a member of my immediate family? That child-molester is not my father and the goofy girl wearing those goofy cult-clothes isn't my sister. How about we figure out a generic religious appellation? As in, "I'd like to welcome today's guests; Makebelievist Sun Myung Moon and Makebelievist James Robison."

Receive A Religious Title:
http://www.themonastery.org/catalog/receiveareligioustitle-p-65.html

Likewise with hereditary titulars. So... Lizzy Windsor is the great-granddaughter of some dead brutish non-elected dictator. Big fat wooppie. Maybe I'll let her borrow my shampoo if she asks nicely but I'm not going to refer to her as your majesty no matter how nicely she asks. Oh my gosh! Michelle Obama - a truly wonderful woman - isn't supposed to even touch special-special Lizzy cuz Lizzy has a great-granddaddy you can read about in history books. How silly. Time to put an end to honorifics and titular titles.

Posted by: Jeremy Walker | September 25, 2009 5:47 PM

No Owlmirror,I’m serious if you do not forfeit your heart and soul to our Lord he will punish you for eternity. I remember a gay student at my high school that was punished by the lord for being disobedient. He was punished with death. He will do the same to you if you don’t repent.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | September 25, 2009 5:58 PM

So many of these coment's are just wrife with comedic errers.

The Pint @#14, an editer, no less, uses "corroborate's" whilst bridging a pont.

http://www.apostropheabuse.com/

Next up, Jadehawk @21 leaps in because The Pint is SIWOTI and manage's to give us "sillyness" in the precess.

Fortunately, my grammer and speling errers are all irreligiously preforgiven, so there is no need to improve on my werds.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 25, 2009 6:02 PM

Jeremy Walker, #88:

Poe?

Posted by: DaveL | September 25, 2009 6:05 PM

How dare you besmirch the names of good scientists who are trying to spread the Gospels with the science that our Lord gave us?

1) Which scientists are having their names besmirched here? Bill Frische? There's no sign that he's any kind of scientist. Ken Ham? Also not a scientist.

2) Which good scientists spread the Gospel with science? How exactly would you go about doing that?

3) Science is something that humans work on themselves. Your imaginary friend doesn't enter into it.

Can’t you see that PZ is trying to steal you from Christ?

As far as I can tell, I'm still sitting here comfortably at home, and haven't been stolen by anyone. I have never belonged to your imaginary friend because - get this- he doesn't exist.

He spread poisonous lies in the guise of science and you are all falling for it.

Oh, well now, if they're lies, then surely you can refute them. Go ahead please, expose the lies. Make sure you give plenty of evidence, citing the primary literature.

I will pray that our Lord Christ will take off your blind for that you may see that you are wrong.

Go right ahead. Keep dropping by from time to time just to confirm how well prayer works.

I remember a gay student at my high school that was punished by the lord for being disobedient. He was punished with death.

As opposed to people like Richard Dawkins, who was punished by becoming a bestselling author, and Bill Gates, who was punished by becoming unbelievably wealthy. If you actually bother to examine the statistics, you'll find atheists fare as well or better than Christians across a wide swath of sociological indicators.

Posted by: Jeremy Walker | September 25, 2009 6:07 PM

Death isn't much of a threat. Everyone's going to die, sooner or later

That claim is false. True believers get everlasting life.

@ Chiroptera

Please. You seek to place the title of Poe on me? What insanity?! You're the one using the name of a filthy asinine creature as your screen name.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 25, 2009 6:10 PM

Jeremy Walker, #93: You're the one using the name of a filthy asinine creature as your screen name.

You don't like bats?

Posted by: Caine | September 25, 2009 6:12 PM

That claim is false. True believers get everlasting life.

No, you're gonna die. Just as every "true believer" before you died. And your happy fantasies of sitting on PsychoDad's lap will die with you.

Posted by: Jeremy Walker | September 25, 2009 6:14 PM

DaveL
It doesn't matter if you have evidence. They are doing to win souls for Christ and that's the ultimate reward. You have deluded yourself.

Chiroptera
They are Satan's familiars and unworthy of existing within the realm of the godly.

Owlmirror
I'm only giving you fair warning. If you want an eternity writhing in pain that is your choice. God gave us free will to weed out those that would turn to Satan.

Posted by: co | September 25, 2009 6:15 PM

They are doing to win souls for Christ and that's the ultimate reward.

What -- by throwing darts at them? I can totally get chicks to go down on me at the fair. Sign me up!

Posted by: Josh | September 25, 2009 6:20 PM

What the hell? Now even the Poe-trolls* are lame?

*If this one is actually serious, then I suspect the world is in more trouble than we had thought.

Posted by: Jeremy Walker | September 25, 2009 6:24 PM

Whatever Nerd of Redhead,
I'll be sorry for you as I watch burn in the fires of your ignorance after your departure from the earthly realms.

Josh,
You are just a contemptible fool.

Posted by: Caine | September 25, 2009 6:26 PM

There's no hell. There's no PsychoDaddy paradise either.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 25, 2009 6:28 PM

Poe trolls should be strung up by their thumbs, sprinkled with sticky corn meal, and then subjected to torture by pecking from the Pullet Patrol™.

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 25, 2009 6:31 PM

It doesn't matter if you have evidence. They are doing to win souls for Christ and that's the ultimate reward. You have deluded yourself.

Good joke, now that I know you're not serious. I mean, who the hell thinks that evidence doesn't matter?

They are Satan's familiars and unworthy of existing within the realm of the godly.

Yes, now you're funny again. "Satan's familiars", hahahaha!

I'm only giving you fair warning. If you want an eternity writhing in pain that is your choice. God gave us free will to weed out those that would turn to Satan.

Yeah, that's still funny. Most Christians would have snapped over to God being loving by now, but no, you're still blathering about the torture, torture, torture. God the torturer!

It's obvious you are a total fake.

Posted by: Jeremy Walker | September 25, 2009 6:34 PM

Owlmirror,
Why are you being so condescending towards me? I'm just trying to do good and save your soul. Where is your sense of gratitude?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 25, 2009 6:36 PM

Real godbots will receive their proper reward. Since their deity only exists between their ears, it dies when they die. No afterlife...

Posted by: Sgt. Obvious | September 25, 2009 6:39 PM

*yawns* Walker, if you're screwing around, you're doing it wrong. Go read the works of our good friend Smoggy Batzrubble, OM for a lesson on proper parody. If, on the other hand, you're actually serious, learn to be more subtle FAST. Otherwise, you won't last long here. You're too one-note for a proper argument, so the regulars won't find you fun enough to stave off the plonkhammer.

Posted by: Jeremy Walker | September 25, 2009 6:42 PM

Yeah, that's still funny. Most Christians would have snapped over to God being loving by now, but no, you're still blathering about the torture, torture, torture. God the torturer!

God does love you. That's why he sacrifice his only son to save you. Only a loving deity would make such a sacrifice. But you need to be willing to accept that sacrifice. That's why I'm coming off harsh and a bit morbid.

Posted by: Stephanie W. | September 25, 2009 6:45 PM

Apparently I lost my comment because we need to sign in now?

93-
I'm unclear on how bats are asinine. I'm talking outside of my area of expertise here, but I was always under the impression that vamps, at least, demonstrated some fairly impressive social intelligence.

Also, this young gay fellow who god punished with death? Do you consider all deaths to be divine punishment? Early deaths only? The increased modern lifespan a sign of god's love for the 20th/21st century? Thoughts on martyrdom? And considering that you haven't visited (unless heaven has ethernet.... ether, heaven, I suppose it sort of works) how do you know just who gets a post-death eternal life with Buddy Jesus?

Posted by: Jeremy Walker | September 25, 2009 6:46 PM

DaveL
In short, yes you are deluded. A truly good man would accept our Lord without question.

Posted by: SEF | September 25, 2009 6:48 PM

I also think that people who attended our university and graduated with such a poor grasp of grammar and spelling might not be the best representatives for our mission, anyway.

It's rather appalling that it's even possible to graduate while remaining that bad at the basics - assuming of course that the writer of the email was telling the truth at all. Then again, how come there are still cdesign proponentsists ...

PS Sign-in seems to be glitching. The list of available options kept omitting typekey/typepad altogether! It took several refreshes to get one at all (and logging in on the TK/TP site itself doesn't work for transferring back to here). NB The comment icon in threads here for those types of accounts keeps glitching as well - which might conceivably be related (ie if ScienceBlogs keeps forgetting that the typekey option even exists).

Posted by: Josh | September 25, 2009 6:51 PM

You are just a contemptible fool.

*yawn*

I'm sorry, sport. You have to understand. We now compare all you Poe-Trolls to Smoggy. You're going to have to work a little harder to be even slightly amusing*.

*And forget getting taken seriously**.

**Unless of course your next trick is to try and explain away Prometheus using eddies of freshwater that remained coherent and stationary as the Flud receded. Failing something like that, you have, it appears right now, nothing.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | September 25, 2009 6:53 PM

I'm only giving you fair warning. If you want an eternity writhing in pain that is your choice.

Your "loving, benevolent" god would give me eternal punishment if I don't believe in it? What an asshole it is. Any god that sadistic isn't worthy of my belief. And if it does exist and does so punish me, I'll spit in its face because that's what it deserves. No, I most certainly will not believe in or even pretend to believe in such a god. And it doesn't say much for you that you feel the need to worship a sadistic bully.

Posted by: Dania | September 25, 2009 6:56 PM

Unless of course your next trick is to try and explain away Prometheus using eddies of freshwater that remained coherent and stationary as the Flud receded. Failing something like that, you have, it appears right now, nothing.

Missing a delugionist to play with, Josh?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 25, 2009 6:58 PM

Yawn, how can we writhe in pain from a deity or devil who doesn't exist. No rationality here. Boring, which a Poe can't be...

Posted by: Dania | September 25, 2009 7:02 PM

At least I troll in the name of our loving Lord.

Trolling for Jesus?

Posted by: Josh | September 25, 2009 7:04 PM

Missing a delugionist to play with, Josh?

You bet your butt...

Posted by: Jeremy Walker | September 25, 2009 7:07 PM

ss232
Don't worry. They can't seem to accept that evolution is just another evil belief system like islam design to make evil soldiers. I praise Ken Ham for taking a stance against these lost souls. They act silly because they know in reality, their movement have no substance.

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 25, 2009 7:10 PM

Besides, you can always google the name to verify.

Which name? And why are you suggesting we pray to Google? Have you given up pretending to believe in God?

Shows how much common sense you have.

I have common sense and uncommon sense.

Both senses suggest that it's a bad idea to believe a fake.

Posted by: ss232 | September 25, 2009 7:16 PM

What movement? The 4 and a half billion year age of the earth is a scientifically established fact, as is the evolution of life on earth from a common ancestor. It is the creationists who have a "movement" to promote falsehoods in the place of established facts.

It's ok Walker, Christians have thick skin. I'm in the public school system and listen to the indoctrination of our children daily.

So you have no movement. I respect your perspective. My comments were of a curious nature is all. 4 1/2 billion? I thought it was 6 bil, I mean 8 bil, what's cute about your move, er, existence, is every time evolution is again proven wrong, you simply tack on a billion more years to the earth so that "chance" can seem more plausible.

I'm sorry, sir, but it's not an established fact. In FACT, there is more proof that our earth is actually very young. 6,000 wonderful young years. What's ironic is that evolution takes more "faith" than Christianity.

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 25, 2009 7:18 PM

They can't seem to accept that evolution is just another evil belief system like islam design to make evil soldiers.

Yawn. Now you're just getting pathetically silly. Everyone here already knows that Islam is not atheism.

I praise Ken Ham for taking a stance against these lost souls.

Yay, Ken Ham the liar!

They act silly because they know in reality, their movement have no substance.

I agree that you're acting silly because you know that in reality Christianity has no substance.

----

Oooh! I know!

Jeremy Walker and ss232 can do the "reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" routine!

Please, please, please, do that!

Posted by: raven | September 25, 2009 7:20 PM

ss the xian Death Cult troll:

OK, Christian here. Ken Ham just sent me a letter outlining your visit to the Creation Museum. It was enlightening reading.

I doubt it. Ken Ham is a professional liar, a Death Cult xian, and a crackpot.

I guess I just don't get it. You want your "movement" to be taken seriously, so you visit a Creation museum (thanks for the support) and act silly.

What movement? The areligious number around 60 million in the USA.. Fundies number about the same. Those Fake Xians make up the rest , 180 million. Polls show the majority of the US population are sick and tired of your movement.

You are supposed to represent academia but instead you just come off looking insecure and lacking self-esteem.

That's really stupid. You can simultaneously read the minds of 60 million Americans? Besides which, the areligious are a cross section of society, slanted to the more educated, higher income end. Unlike the fundies which make up the bottom.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | September 25, 2009 7:23 PM

ss232 #128

Hi Halibut,

OK, Christian here.

You're just an okay Christian, not a good one?

Ken Ham just sent me a letter outlining your visit to the Creation Museum.

This is not a point in your favor when talking to us.

It was enlightening reading.

Since it came from a liar, I have to doubt how "enlightening" it was.

I guess I just don't get it.

You probably don't.

You want your "movement" to be taken seriously, so you visit a Creation museum (thanks for the support) and act silly.

Do you really suppose that Ken Ham and his minions (of whom you appear to be one) are going to take atheism seriously? You're even more deluded then Ham and he's got a whole lot of industrial strength delusion in his brain.

As for the reason for visiting Ham's "museum," it was done to see what kind of lies Ham spews. It turns out his lies are even more deplorable than previously thought.

Now, I'm all for silly.

If you're one of Ham's followers, that goes without saying.

I love to have fun, but what kind of reflection does this have on your group?

What does this question mean? Why shouldn't a group of atheists see what kind of lies a fundamentalist nutjob like Ham is telling? You obviously think that Ham's Museum of Myth is a worthwhile place to visit. So why shouldn't people visit it? Besides, from all reports, Ham's Den of Deceit was a very silly place. You said you're all for silly.

You are supposed to represent academia but instead you just come off looking insecure and lacking self-esteem.

I assume you're referring to PZ Myers. How is it insecure for a scientific investigator to do investigation of a place that pretends to be sciency? How does this show low esteem? Just because Ham and his Merrie Men feel insecure about atheists visiting the Domocile of Disinformation doesn't mean the condition is mirrored by Myers.

What's your take?

That you're probably a stupid, ignorant Christard.

Posted by: Dania | September 25, 2009 7:25 PM

They can't seem to accept that evolution is just another evil belief system like islam design to make evil soldiers.

Wha...? That sentence... it makes no sense.

I thought it was 6 bil, I mean 8 bil, what's cute about your move, er, existence, is every time evolution is again proven wrong, you simply tack on a billion more years to the earth so that "chance" can seem more plausible.

What's going on here? Two lame Poe-trolls at once?

In FACT, there is more proof that our earth is actually very young. 6,000 wonderful young years.

Do tell! Do you happen to also know of evidence of Noah's Flood? Seems like someone needs to play...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 25, 2009 7:26 PM

Ah, poor FW didn't get the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_%28film%29

Posted by: momkat | September 25, 2009 7:28 PM

He's not for real. Not enough "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"s and no use of his Upper Case Voice. I am a heathen among the vast army of the saved in the deep south and know their mark well.

Posted by: Carlie | September 25, 2009 7:30 PM

In FACT, there is more proof that our earth is actually very young. 6,000 wonderful young years.

Oh Josh, I think we have a present for you...

Posted by: subbie | September 25, 2009 7:34 PM

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | September 25, 2009 7:36 PM

I was a non Christian for many years, and I have to give these guys credit--it's hard to be a non-believer...

Why is it that all the fundamentalist Christards all claim to have been "atheists" or "unbelievers" or "non-Christians"? Do this fucktards actually think we believe their lies?

Actually that's a silly question. They believe their own lies, so it's not unreasonable for them to think we'd believe the lies also.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 25, 2009 7:39 PM

ss232, #156: Jeremy, just continue to make intelligent, thoughtful, remarks and those who feel threatend will rely on the only thing they have--ridicule.

You do realize that Jeremy is just goofing around, don't you?

Posted by: Josh | September 25, 2009 7:41 PM

...is every time evolution is again proven wrong

Uh, and when was this, exactly? Got a citation from somewhere that isn't AIG?

In FACT, there is more proof that our earth is actually very young. 6,000 wonderful young years.

Please cite three examples.

Actually, before you do that, perhaps you could falsify this paper? You know, without referring to the Bible?

http://courses.washington.edu/bangblue/ONeil-Oldest_Rock_4.28Ga-Sci08.pdf

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 25, 2009 7:44 PM

ss232, #156: I was a non Christian for many years, and I have to give these guys credit--it's hard to be a non-believer...

Actually, I was an evangelical fundamentalist Christian, born again even, for many years. Then I became an atheist because, to be honest, it was proving more and more difficult, impossible actually, to remain a believer.

Yeah, I know: "you weren't really born again blah blah blah." I'm just pointing out how the "I was this, but dang gum it, it was too hard to maintain that belief" really doesn't prove anything.

Posted by: Sanction | September 25, 2009 7:51 PM

Wow, major HTML fail. Preview, you screwed me again.

Let's try once more.

<blockquote>Quotation</blockquote>

And the content-improving format:

<find brain>
<use brain>

Posted by: Monado | September 25, 2009 7:56 PM

We interrupt this thread to bring you a new poll a Political Chili: should Glenn Beck stay on the air?

It's currently 50:50 with several hundred votes each way.

Posted by: Carlie | September 25, 2009 8:30 PM

Did anyone catch They Might Be Giants on NPR's Science Friday today?

Yeah, and although I love them with every fiber of my being, I call bullshit on them saying that was the first time they'd ever heard of Tom Lehrer's Elements song. First, being who they are, they should have been intimately familiar with Lehrer long ago. Second, seriously at no point during the writing, fact-checking with scientists (which they did for all the songs on this album), production, promotion, video creation, and concerts they've already done, did anyone ever say "Elements like the Lehrer song?" before Ira Flatow? Nuh-uh.

Posted by: ss232 | September 25, 2009 8:35 PM

Raven,

Thanks for the input. And I would have to agree with your Rapture Monkey monicker, got me. I am in no way violent, though. When a Christian posts to an Atheist/Ag site, the attacks will fly! It's all good.

Perversion is also too strong. Evolution being taught as truth is indoctrination. It is still called the theory of...I believe it should be taught in the school systems, however, alongside Intelligent Design. If both "sides" can make cogent arguments backed by research, why should one theory be thrown out?

Yes, I know about the Separation Clause, but that notwithstanding, why can't both be taught, and go figure, let the students have a substanative conversation to make decisions for themselves?

As for the "we're watching," stuff, no, you aren't, and barely enough voters in the country know anything that's going on around them. Why? because no one approaches anything anymore with an open mind, nor are they apt to go out and find answers for themselves. They are simply wooed by good rhetoric (63 mil voting for Obama). Instead of listening to point/counterpoint too many people would rather throw stones, it's easier. There are always enough assenters to battle the dissenters into a stalemate.

I'm a taxpayer with children as well and I have to sit here and allow my tax money to fund abortions here and abroad and watch as my money is used to advance homosexuality within our schools(aka cass sustein).

You make some poignant and educated remarks but state them in a colloquial that is only understood by your compatriots. If you use language that is more accepted, I think your voice would resonate.

God Bless you all and good night...

Posted by: John Morales | September 25, 2009 8:50 PM

ss232:

[1] Evolution being taught as truth is indoctrination. [2] It is still called the theory of...I believe it should be taught in the school systems, however, alongside Intelligent Design. [3] If both "sides" can make cogent arguments backed by research, why should one theory be thrown out?

1. Only if teaching science is indoctrination. Most people consider that term applicable to inculcation of ideology, not to the imparting of knowledge.

2. Scientific theory.

3. Indeed. However, only one side can, hence your conditional remains unsatisfied.

God Bless you all and good night...

Why do you insult us?

Ah, well, in the same spirit, may you grow up and overcome your infantilism.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 25, 2009 8:57 PM

http://notjustatheory.com/

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 25, 2009 8:59 PM

Yes, I know about the Separation Clause, but that notwithstanding, why can't both be taught, and go figure, let the students have a substanative conversation to make decisions for themselves?

How should students do so? Are they trained in the biological sciences, indeed in science itself, so they are able to evaluate evidence and publications?

You have yet to say why ID/Creationism should be taught. Where is the consensus within scientific communities that it is a reasonable explanation? Why should religious fairy tales be granted equal weight when it comes to evidentiary decisions?

You're not really serious about science, are you? Your fairy tale reigns supreme, and that's all that matters.

I'm a taxpayer with children as well and I have to sit here and allow my tax money to fund abortions here and abroad and watch as my money is used to advance homosexuality within our schools (aka cass sustein).

And you're a bigot and an indecent human.

And before you respond...you have nothing, nothing, of value to say to LGBT people. Your bigotry is unwelcome, unwanted, unsupported, and useless. Keep your hate to yourself. No one is interested in the fact you're a bigot.

Posted by: SEF | September 25, 2009 9:19 PM

There aren't even only two sides at all when their (anti-science) "side" is properly considered. There are lots of different religions and a proliferation of sub-sects/cults within those religious groupings and even more individual pieces of personal make-believe from the various fantasists who claim to be members of those sects/cults of religions.

The dishonest religionists all want their own particular unevidenced fantasy to be taught instead of decent science. If they actually had to agree on the details of a single "other side" first, they'd never manage it. They've failed, violently and murderously, to manage it for millennia so far.

There's just one straight side (science) and a plethora of evil, twisted, deformed and abortive scribbles which are each claiming to be the one true side while failing utterly to measure up to the real thing.

Posted by: frankosaurus | September 25, 2009 9:24 PM

Only if teaching science is indoctrination. Most people consider that term applicable to inculcation of ideology, not to the imparting of knowledge.

tricky, because not always the case. when a person studies law, for example, they are said to be indoctrinated. indoctrination precedes quality reflection, which is really what school is all about before university. Somehow indoctrination has taken on more pejorative tones than good.

Anyways, I find Aristotle is always good to keep in mind when we have these discussions that deal with who has the moral edge over things:

Four types of people:
* Virtuous - those that truly enjoy doing what is right and do so without moral dilemma
* Continent - does the virtuous thing most of the time, but must overcome conflict
* Incontinent - faces the same moral conflict, but usually chooses the vicious ("full of vice") thing
* Vicious - sees little value in virtue and doesn't attempt it

Posted by: raven | September 25, 2009 9:34 PM

ss:

Evolution being taught as truth is indoctrination. It is still
called the theory of..

As several have pointed out, you don't know the scientific meaning of "theory". We still speak of The Germ Theory of Disease, the Theory of Relativity, or the Theory of Internal Combustion. Few doubt that germs can cause disease or that cars won't run if you put an engine in them and buy some gasoline.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. We know life has and is changing through time and 99%+ of all life that ever existed is extinct. That is evolution the fact The Theory of Evolution that is accepted was one of many, Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection.

I'm a taxpayer with children as well and I have to sit here and allow my tax money to fund abortions here and abroad and watch as my money is used to advance homosexuality within our schools(aka cass sustein).

What???? Up until recently it was illegal for federal funds to be used for abortions in the USA or abroad. I hadn't heard that the law was changed.

So how is homosexuality within our schools being advanced? That is a new one on me and I've never seen or heard that one before.

Everyone ends up paying taxes for things they don't like. I paid for a war in Iraq and also donated the lives of two of my friends. The money was no big deal but my friends aren't ever going to come back to life.
.

Posted by: John Morales | September 25, 2009 9:47 PM

frankosaurus @185, good points.

I plead that I was being terse, and keeping it simple.
It's clear that ss232 fails to understand that scientific facts and theories are not doctrine, though the method of science is.

Posted by: Sean3:16 | September 25, 2009 9:52 PM

Until ss232--or any other christian, muslim, jew, hindu, buddhist, atheist, or freethinker who thinks there's something wrong with being queer--is willing to say that, s/he has nothing of value to say. Nothing.

As science major, I think the only thing we can say is, not that it's wrong, but strange, or as you say "queer." It's a genetic abnormality, like being born conjoined, or with extra limbs. If that's what it is, I don't think it really can be advanced in school, so I don't know what ss232 is talking about.

Posted by: leepicton | September 25, 2009 10:24 PM

As science major, I think the only thing we can say is, not that it's wrong, but strange, or as you say "queer." It's a genetic abnormality, like being born conjoined, or with extra limbs.

FAIL. The definitive cause for homosexuality has yet to be determined, but all evidence we have so far does not indicate that it is something abnormal. It appears in all cultures at roughly the same percentages. The best way to think of homosexuality is that is akin to being left-handed. It is not something that is acquired; it is something that a person IS. And it is not a bad thing, it is just another manifestation of the diversity of sexual identification in the world. Fundies seem to think that sexuality is like a light switch - on or off, and that's it. It's part of their narrow-minded, absolutist view of the world. It's a bigotry that has caused untold misery down through the centuries and must stop.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 25, 2009 10:44 PM

but to get to the point, from what you know, is there anything about homosexuality than can be "advanced" in school?

Absolutely:

Some kids come from homes with two parents of the same-sex.
"Advancing" the fact that kids come from lots of kinds of families.

Straight-gay alliances.
"Advancing" the notion that gay and straight folks can get along with each other and create a culture of mutual respect and, yes, affection.

Accurate historical knowledge.
"Advancing" homosexuality by acknowledging different folks in history whose homosexuality did not inhibit their ability to contribute to society....

what bigots like SS actually are right about is this: teach accurate knowledge about LGBT folks leads to a greater incorporation of them/us into society. Telling the truth about us is "advancing homosexuality."

It's a good thing and we should stop denying it.

We are advancing homosexuality. We do so by saying that society should not be organized in such a way that being queer is punished. That's the direct opposite of what the bigots want.

Or, as the old campy chant went: Ten percent is not enough! Recruit! Recruit! Recruit!

Posted by: leepicton | September 25, 2009 10:50 PM

But stuff like trans is unquestionably genetic, isn't it?

I am outside the area of my expertise here, so I can only tell you what I DO know. We have persons with different genes who do not fit into the boxes that our culture determines they should fit into. As a result, they are not accepted for who they are, because there is no definition for them. Sometimes when a child is born with ambiguous gender, one is assigned to them and they are raised as assigned. People who under go surgical sex reassignment sometimes they say they feel deep down inside that they were intended to be other than what has been assigned to them. I cannot say what is "abnormal," it seems to me that is is wrong to classify someone that way if he or she is otherwise healthy, and able to function as a self-actualized human being. Perhaps one or more of the scientists on this blog can help you more with this. I was a computer nerd and am not qualified to comment in greater depth on this issue.

Posted by: Sean3:16 | September 25, 2009 11:07 PM

MAJeff@195 isn't that more advancing equality, a democratic value, than homosexuality specifically?

and John@196: same question I guess,except if it's innate, then i would think it couldn't be "advanced" as in proliferated; unless we were saying it is innate without being sure.

and Snoof@198 - i'm thinking trans like beard and breasts kind of trans, not identity-crisis-alone trans

Posted by: John Morales | September 25, 2009 11:17 PM

Sean3:16,

same question I guess,except if it's innate, then i would think it couldn't be "advanced" as in proliferated; unless we were saying it is innate without being sure.

Innate may have been a poor choice of terms; I don't want to bring the "nature vs. nurture" argument here, but what I meant is that it's not a deliberate or conscious choice, it's a preference that can't be consciously affected.

Do you consider that destigmatising a behaviour is equivalent to advancing/endorsing it?

Posted by: SquidBrandon | September 25, 2009 11:26 PM

Co @ #144

Awww shucks. I was going to point out that there was a gay pornstar by the name of Jeremy Walker but have been beaten to the punch. Do I at least get credit for not having to Google this one? :)

Posted by: gyeong-hwa | September 25, 2009 11:46 PM

I go away for a concert and I return to this!?
A YEC who is too stop to see the evidence even if it's in front of him and a troll using the name of a gay pornstar. (It's kinda embarrassing that I know which one too. :/)

Posted by: gyeong-hwa | September 25, 2009 11:54 PM

I'm a taxpayer with children as well and I have to sit here and allow my tax money to fund abortions here and abroad and watch as my money is used to advance homosexuality within our schools(aka cass sustein).

What a fucking LIAR FOR JESUS! Your tax payers money don't go to pay for abortions. Especially not abroad. It doesn't even make sense that you brought that up.

And schools hardly progress the "gay cause." On the contrary I have seen teachers openly denounce it. No school requires a child to learn about homosexuality but it is useful for them to learn.

But of course any school that doesn't teach your batshit religion MUST be against you.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 26, 2009 12:01 AM

Aiden Shaw right?

Absolutely.

(Still embarrassing that I know this.)

why? Let the freak flag fly, girl. As Franti says, "all the freaky people make the beauty of the world."

Posted by: gyeong-hwa | September 26, 2009 12:16 AM

why? Let the freak flag fly, girl. As Franti says, "all the freaky people make the beauty of the world."

Posted by: gyeong-hwa | September 26, 2009 12:27 AM

John Morales

gyeong hwa, I think 'girl' is a compliment, not literal.

Oh I know. ;) I just thought I'd pretend to be like most people who confuse sex (biological) with gender (cultural).

Posted by: John Morales | September 26, 2009 12:33 AM

[meta]

gyeong hwa, d'oh. Color me Waltonish :)

[OT]

Now I'm off to watch an Aussie Rules Grand Final.

Posted by: Sean3:16 | September 26, 2009 1:22 AM

Do you consider that destigmatising a behaviour is equivalent to advancing/endorsing it?

well I think every educational system has a moral goal that it tries to attain. I think a lot of what goes on in problematizing or deconstructing gender and sexuality isn't really based in evidence, but an implicit articulation of this moral goal. isn't it possible to accept homosexuality as a natural occurrence without forcing kids to read Heather has Two Mommies? If there is a fairly neutral principle to be implied, it's a principle of openness which is not really a principle at all, and one we can get swept away with. I think a better way to destigmatize things is to talk about the law and the constitution, and the interests it protects, because that's what will ultimately be enforced. there is a concern that certain things are better preparations for political radicalism than tolerance/acceptance. (where's the evidence, right? got me, which is why it is a concern, rather than a position)

Posted by: DingoJack | September 26, 2009 2:04 AM

All this over a Triceratops ride?
Lucky the original letter-writing genius didn't see PZ ride an Arthrodire! :)

Posted by: condignaction.wordpress.com | September 26, 2009 2:50 AM

isn't it possible to accept homosexuality as a natural occurrence without forcing kids to read Heather has Two Mommies?

Seems to be yet another Republican/Christian lie.

I can't find any substantiation that any school forced any student to read this book. Furthermore, I can't find any substantiation that this is part of any grade school reading curriculum even optionally.

However, I did find a link that the Wasilla Public Library Director refused to put a donated copy on this book on the library shelves for circulation: LJ Talks to Wasilla Public Library Director KJ (Kathy) Martin-Albrigh

Posted by: Sean3:16 | September 26, 2009 3:17 AM

hmm, i thought it was in some curricula. i know books like that have been read in classes here in Canada. there was a case brought before the supreme court. but i stand corrected if it never was officially mandated. shows what i know.

Posted by: Sean3:16 | September 26, 2009 4:04 AM

If you want to teach one religious origins story you have to teach them all

i suppose you can assign "isms" to almost anything. but it's good practice to do so in order to examine our own assumptions. In this case, where when logic can't provide a solution and one feels the need to appease all interested parties -- minoritarianism. so it's not really self-evident is all I'm saying.

dumb creationists, making me make your arguments for you...grr

Posted by: raven | September 26, 2009 5:57 AM

hmm, i thought it was in some curricula.

Probably "Heather has two mommies" was never in any school here either. For more than a few days a decade ago maybe. Fundie Death Cultists always, always lie. Then lie some more

Even if it was, not these days. The fundies turned the schools into battlegrounds like everything else they touch. And discovered that not everyone was a brain dead religious freak Fundies hate everyone else. Everyone else hates them back, funny how that works. School administrators don't let anything controversial happen in their schools anymore. The parents go ape and it could cost them their job.

A speech president Obama to kids telling them to study hard, work hard, and do well is all of the sudden "controversial". Our school here didn't show it because some parents complained. Other parents afterwards complained too. They called the adminstration cowards, right wing nutcases, and less appealing descriptions.

Posted by: Rorschach | September 26, 2009 9:49 AM

@ SEF,

Public Service Post:

Sign in or register with TypePad.

Useful link, ty.

The fact that it is needed shows that typekey on SB is fucked, however LOL.

Posted by: Carlie | September 26, 2009 10:30 AM

Well gosh, MAJeff, if you start teaching children in schools that having two mommies or two daddies is ok, what will that do to the poor children who actually do have two mommies or daddies? They wouldn't have to lie to everyone about their "real" parent's "roommate", they wouldn't have to keep basic information about their family secret from their best friends, they wouldn't have to choke down the bile at squeezing one parent in as a "family friend" when writing the other's obituary notice.

I mean really. Think about the children!

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/mike_kc_wagner#29178 | September 26, 2009 3:22 PM

@MAJeff,OM

What?!?! You're gay?? Does this mean I have to stop enjoying your posts, just because you happen to be attracted to people that I'm not?

Oh the predicament!

Oh wait. There's no predicament. I just had a brief case of the stupids.

Carry on! :)

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/mike_kc_wagner#29178 | September 26, 2009 3:42 PM

You're not going to like his "facts".

They always come back with biblical references, call that "the truth", and believe there is no questioning it.

One really annoying argument with a fake "agnostic" (he kept claiming to be agnostic, but made one biblical reference after another) involved them making completely inaccurate statements about evolution, genetics, etc. I would provide links to introductory science, and they would refuse to read them, demanding that I explain the full concept of each thing in total to prove I knew what I was talking about.

Basically, they love to make arguments which take the least amount of work, and avoid anything involving citation. And for ones that actually are willing to cite something, there are only three sources. The bible, Hovind, and Behe.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | September 26, 2009 4:37 PM

frankosaurus,

The argument against that type of political separatism is contained in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 26, 2009 5:22 PM

Frankosaurus, I'm not getting your point. Could you elaborate?

Posted by: frankosaurus | September 26, 2009 5:52 PM

sorry. "trait" is a bad use of words

Posted by: Dania | September 26, 2009 6:09 PM

if evolution is true, why not foster creation myths in class?

1. What do you mean by "foster"? Teach them as myths? I have no problem with that. Treat them as if they were accurate descriptions of the world? I DO have a problem with that... Lying to children is not a good thing, is it?

2. In which class? Science class? In what context and how would it be presented?

Posted by: frankosaurus | September 26, 2009 6:23 PM

Lying to children is not a good thing, is it?

no, lying is never a good thing. don't get me wrong, but I do struggle with some political issues. For example, if we struck out all myths in science relating to enlightenment, would students really be interested?

Posted by: frankosaurus | September 26, 2009 6:29 PM

hmm, on second thought, i think science speaks for itself, you don't need myths. sorry, scratch that last thought

Posted by: Josh | September 26, 2009 6:49 PM

The problem with this strategy is obvious. Which creation myth do we choose to cover and why do we choose that one? There are so many. There is barely enough time to teach the science that needs to be taught. We can't teach them all. Sure, the Christians are loud, obnoxious, and plentiful, but why should that mean their fairy tail automatically gets top billing?

Posted by: Dania | September 26, 2009 7:26 PM

The problem with this strategy is obvious. Which creation myth do we choose to cover and why do we choose that one?

I don't know how it works in the USA, but here teachers are required to mention fixism* before introducing evolution. The intention is to show why fixism is wrong and how the idea of the mutability of species slowly emerged as the evidence became too obvious. I think that's the better approach. You don't give privilege to any creation myth in particular but you get the opportunity to discuss the evidence against creationism with the students.

*That includes creationism, successive creations and spontaneous generation. There's no mention of any creation story in particular.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | September 26, 2009 8:06 PM

I guess I'm somewhat of a Nietzschean, that culture is not only the condition of life, it is the condition of knowing, and that we need the historical sense to avoid the errors of objectivity.

Why do we need students to be taught "the Aztecs believed this creation myth and the Sikhs believe that creation myth and the Zoroastrians believed t'other creation myth" in a science class? Teach that stuff in a comparative religion class or a sociology class. What's wrong with teaching science in science class? Your "avoid the errors of objectivity" nonsense doesn't belong in science class, it belongs in "avoid the errors of objectivity" class aka philosophy of sophistry class or "this shit doesn't mean anything to normal people but some people think it's important for some reason known only to them and some guy who died of syphilis" class.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | September 26, 2009 8:49 PM

I had a comparative religion class in high school in the mid 1960s.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 26, 2009 9:13 PM

were there creationists banging down the science doors in the 1960s?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | September 27, 2009 7:43 AM

were there creationists banging down the science doors in the 1960s?

You might want to acquaint yourself with the legal case State v. Scopes, 152 Tenn. 424 (Tenn. 1926), more often called the Scopes Monkey Trial. Creationists were "banging down the science doors" long before the 1960s.

Posted by: bastion of sass | October 18, 2009 3:23 PM

I don't understand what's going on with the TypePad/TypeKey sign-ins.

Yesterday, I signed in, and finally was able to sign-in. My posts had the little key logo used by TypeKey. OK.

Today, I still saw, "Thanks for signing in, bastion of sass. Now you can comment." But when I posted a comment on the everlasting thread, no little key, instead, a little person with a dialogue balloon. Huh?

So, now, without ever signing off, I re-signed on to TypeKey. Quick and easy this time. No errors. Now, will I get the key logo or not?

And who was that little person with the dialogue balloon?