Parents in the Berkeley Unified School District are horrified to discover that one of their elementary school teachers is a creationist. Berkeley is like another weird world: this is so common everywhere else, and Berzerkeleyites are so shocked when it happens among their own. I was actually amused at what the creationist teacher did, though.
Parents said that Martin had listed Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Harry Potter under fiction on the blackboard, which promptly reduced some of the 8-year-olds to tears, after which she made the comment about God. ["the only thing they should believe in was God"]
They said that Martin then said that she didn't believe in evolution or the Big Bang theory either.
Usually it's us atheists portrayed as the disillusioning bastards who shatter small children's happy consoling beliefs (and it's true: nothing warms the shriveled valves and atrophied muscles of my tiny dark heart than to visit department stores at Christmas time and announce to the waiting lines of tots that Santa is dead).
But seriously, it's about time the sheltered elite enclaves woke up to the fact that the creationist movement is working its tendrils in everywhere.
- Log in to post comments
Wow, a creationist admitting that *SAINT* Nicholas isn't real?
Berkeley is indeed a bit more insulated than I suspected. I wonder which upset some of them more though - teacher publically denies Santa et al or science? (not that I condone any of it - my 6 year old is suspicious of the Santa myth but is not quite ready to abandon it; she does however know about genetic variation from our walks in local natural areas)
Oh, if you're going to do the evil santa-is-dead trope, you need to change the beard into a mustache you can twirl.
Personally, I imagined you instead wandering into a local church and telling congregants that Jeebus was dead (which might cause them greater confusion than usual considering it was literally true so they can't really contradict you).
They're not, you know. They're really not.
Did the story say what they plan to do with the savaged remains of the creationist?
And she's a fumbling creationist, at that. Telling children that "the only thing they should believe in was God" in class at a non confessionnal school, it's difficult to make it more glaringly a violation of the separation of church and state...
And she's a fumbling creationist, at that. Telling children that "the only thing they should believe in was God" in class at a non confessionnal school, it's difficult to make it more glaringly a violation of the separation of church and state...
What next, will we mention God on our currency, or set aside a national day of prayer???
My dad told me she shot the easter bunny...no joke!
Some of us like to hold on to the delusion that there are places where rationality reigns supreme.
Haha...I called my dad a she...woops!
"But seriously, it's about time the sheltered elite enclaves woke up to the fact that the creationist movement is working its tendrils in everywhere."
That sentence really gave me the heebee jeebees... Seriously, I caught a chill at the thought of creeping tendrils working their way into people's brains...euugh...*shiver*
Doubting Foo-
Do you know what the famous Austrian psychiatrist called his sailboat?
The Freudian Sloop.
Ba rump bump - Please tip your waitresses and bartenders.
I've been ruminating over the question of how it is that these religious idiots can so fervently believe that they're right, when there's no evidence for their beliefs, & be so sure about it that they have the hubris to impose their nonsense on innocent children, other people's children, even.
For instance, there's a thermodynamics prof in the UK, (U of Leeds), who's a young Earth creationist, who's a lay preacher & provides internet sermons.
I can't recall ever having seen a psychology study on how religious believers justify the nonsense to themselves. Surely someone must've carried out this research? If not, why not? Do we have anyone here who can organize such a study?
If we knew what's influencing the idiocy, & I guess there'd be quite a few different factors, then maybe we could do something constructive about it.
Until then, all we can do is mock the idiocy of the Bronze Age superstitions, & the nutjobs who believe the magic. And prosecute those who overstep the law.
Damn it! 8 years old is the time to believe into retarded things innocently and being forgiven for it! Why was she so evil to destroy them like that then wash her religious BS over them?
When you're a child, religious is OUT and fairy tales are IN. It's a fun time to believe into anything innocent, like the big jolly man! It's not the time to scare them shitless with dumb religious shit, bitch!
A boot to the ass!
"For instance, there's a thermodynamics prof in the UK, (U of Leeds), who's a young Earth creationist"
I guess he wasn't asked about the 2nd Law when they interviewed him for the job.
Michael Shermer summed it up well in Why People Believe Weird Things:
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons."
Richard harris said:
"For instance, there's a thermodynamics prof in the UK, (U of Leeds), who's a young Earth creationist, who's a lay preacher & provides internet sermons.
I can't recall ever having seen a psychology study on how religious believers justify the nonsense to themselves."
Richard, my guess is that the answer is compartmentalization. Thermodynamics involves mathematics that can't really be understood.
Calculus requires a sort of Kierkegaardian leap of faith - in order to actually DO it, you have to put your inability to actually understand how it works aside, and just learn the process of its mechanics.
Very much like how religious faith works - suppress your rational instincts and just believe that a rote process will work out well for you.
Its that initial conversation that the religious have with themselves that fascinates me. The moment when they contemplate whether they will commit to having "faith", which is the moment that they dedicate their lives to unreason.
It must be a moment just like the one experienced by a potential heroin user as he hesitates, needle hovering over his skin, weighing the balance.
To Richard Harris @11:
"I've been ruminating over the question of how it is that these religious idiots can so fervently believe that they're right, when there's no evidence for their beliefs, & be so sure about it that they have the hubris to impose their nonsense on innocent children, other people's children, even."
I personally think that it's simple human denial, nothing more. Religion isn't any different than deluding oneself that stocks and housing prices have to go up, that one's political party has all the answers, that other people may have drinking problems but *I* don't, that the weekend is plenty of time to finish that term paper, or that a husband may beat his wife into submission but it's okay because she loves him. People will believe almost anything if it's easier than facing the truth. The only thing special about religion is that it makes denial an absolute virtue, then demands, reinforces, and praises it.
"Martin had listed Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Harry Potter under fiction on the blackboard, which promptly reduced some of the 8-year-olds to tears, after which she made the comment about God. ["the only thing they should believe in was God"]"
Wow. In the horror novel The M.D. (1991), by Thomas Disch, the main character is traumatized at the start of the novel as a child by a teacher making almost exactly the same argument.
That main character then proceeds, as an adult, to murder millions of people.
Someone needs to kick that nut in the teeth until they shit enamel.
HJ
Calculus requires a sort of Kierkegaardian leap of faith - in order to actually DO it, you have to put your inability to actually understand how it works aside, and just learn the process of its mechanics.
Oh. Thank you, I think I'll go learn calculus now that I know there really is no way to make it seem reasonable... seriously, I've been trying to roll that mental block uphill for almost 25 years. Wish someone had told me that when I was in high school. Appreciate it. :)
To Gingerbaker #15:
"Its that initial conversation that the religious have with themselves that fascinates me. The moment when they contemplate whether they will commit to having "faith", which is the moment that they dedicate their lives to unreason.
It must be a moment just like the one experienced by a potential heroin user as he hesitates, needle hovering over his skin, weighing the balance."
Aren't most religious people raised unquestioningly to be so by their parents and community? They probably never have a chance to contemplate the decision, as they don't realize there's a choice. And in both cases, peer pressure goes a long way towards wiping out any individual, rational hesitation.
I know I was baptized as a kid solely because my parents told me to do so, or rather ordered me, even though I objected.
Gingerbaker @ 15,
I think you've hit the nail on the head with the whole "compartmentalizing" bit. My cousin's father is a world-class biologist (I'm not naming names) who is also a steadfast Christian. He manages to get along by just not thinking about both at the same time. Weird, but true.
Pteryxx said:
"Aren't most religious people raised unquestioningly to be so by their parents and community? They probably never have a chance to contemplate the decision, as they don't realize there's a choice."
I think you are absolutely correct, Ptryxx that most people get raised in the religious mileau of their parents, and don't realize that there is a choice.
But, I think most people don't really believe in their religions all that strongly. They go to church, do the ablutions more as a cultural/tribal experience, and frankly don't think about it all that much. Their faith is more of a comfortable habit.
On the other hand, there are The Believers. And these, I think, are the ones who took that conversation with themselves seriously, chose the little red pill, and there is no easy going back for them. Their faith is not a mere comfortable habit, but is their red badge of courage.
Then again - what do I know? I wasn't raised Christian, and never took religion seriously. It was just another non optional extracurricular activity for me.
I just find the psychological dynamic of religion morbidly fascinating. How the cult manages the cognitive dissonance is a study that must have its roots in the earliest, most primitive human culture and has something to do with pecking orders, I think. Dominance and subservience. Conditioning.
Don't be ridiculous. Integration is just multiplication with a faster floatier rubber ducky. Derivatives are just a better kind of division. I admit Laplace transforms and Eigen vectors are hard to understand, but even they become clear after you've done a few hundred. Now, on the other hand, if you'd have accused those damned wave functions in quantum mechanics of being impossible to understand ...
Santa Claus is not a real person? But Saint Nicholas was a real person who lived in what is now Turkey, some 1700 years ago.
Aside from that, I found some very interesting things about belief in Santa Claus. The first is that 8 years is the average age that children give up Santa, according to an AP-AOL News poll at least.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/23/AR20061…
The other thing is that according to some experts, belief in Santa might help nurture the growing mind of a child.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/23/opinion/23woolley.html?_r=2&oref=slog…
PZ - you almost sound bitter that Berkeley has reached a level of rationalism (at least on the topics of evolution/church state laws) that you are working to promote EVERYWHERE. You almost sound like a republican with this "elitism" rhetoric.
Having lived all over the US, I assert that Berkeley isn't the "weird" place. Anyway, since when is normal good?
Calculus requires a sort of Kierkegaardian leap of faith - in order to actually DO it, you have to put your inability to actually understand how it works aside, and just learn the process of its mechanics.
I remember reading about how, in a class learning calculus, you can 'hear' half the class drop out. It was nearly fifty years ago, but I think that I remember noticing that.
I would like to read the results of such a study that would look at what is religious faith is or the belief in anything that can't be proved and maybe demonstrably false.
My thinking is that ability to make that kind of "leap of faith" or error in perception is related to our ability to think itself.
We all do it to some degree or another in some area or other, it is involved in our love of stories and the theatrical experience, we can suspend our disbelief and enjoy doing it.
I think it is also connected to our ability to conceptualize to understand things and processes that are not easily seen or experienced in direct simple ways.
I also suspect that in the statement "I believe" it is the "I" that is most important it is self supporting, reinforcing our own personal concept about who and what we are.
Like many things that separate our intelligence from the "lower" animals it have positive and negative aspects that have survival benefits. The whale can live in the sea but can no longer get out of the water and we can think and tell stories and make societies and cultures but some times get lost in our heads and have trouble living in the natural real world. We seem to have trouble the difference between the concept we come up with and the real world we live in.
All of that is mixed up with our emotions as a social animals. Look to fear to understand what makes the fundamentalist so aggressive. Nothing so dangerous as an animal in a corner.
just some unfinished thoughts
Gingerbaker,
At what point does one say they understand something? I don't understand how people can play console video games so adeptly, or can so masterfully perform on ice skates, but one would say that those people have internalized and really *know* their stuff. In the same vein, many (including myself, which is why I'm writing this in the first place) understand calculus, even the more hairy bits of it (Lebesgue integration, anyone?). As llewelly stated, it's just a matter of getting comfortable with it, and all becomes clear, even the Bourbaki-style proofs and the logic ultimately underlying it.
Thermodynamics is a slightly better example, because although it's used and affirmed every day, it's ultimately a postulational study. Once you allow statistical mechanics to inform thermodynamics, though (sort of an artificial, historical divide, but one perpetuated 'til now, mainly because of the need to divide things neatly for semester school systems), you've once again put it on solid, physical ground. The math describing thermodynamics is *well* understood.
So, what did you expect from a moron who thinks the "Flintstones" is a documentary?
"All right, kids, stop that crying right now! - or I'll give you all personal demonstrations of how a Tesla coil works! ... Okay, Dylan, Emma, Huey - roll up your sleeves..."
Michelle @ 12:
Damn it! 8 years old is the time to believe into retarded things innocently and being forgiven for it!
I disagree, actually. I have never liked the whole Santa myth. I wish I'd never been taught to believe in Santa. It was a foreshadowing of my later struggles with theism, struggling with doubt and fear. I remember worrying that if Santa *did* exist, he would know that I doubted and wouldn't bring me anything, and then everyone would see that I didn't get anything from Santa, and think I must've done something really really bad. It wasn't nearly as traumatic as the whole God thing, but it wasn't pleasant.
Our close friends think im some sort of cruel boorish thug of a parent. I refuse to lie to my child about anything. So Santa, tooth fairy, leprechauns, and the alternative minimum tax have always been treated as the fiction that they are.
So what kind of horrible child have I created? One that writes her own fiction, reads at a 2nd grade level, understands fairly complex concepts (like a round earth, life is made of cells, oh and she knows Pi to 8 digits) and she just turned 6 last weekend.
Im sorry, but if your kid is 8 years old, and breaks down crying when they find out Santa is a myth, then your failing as a parent, in my humble opinion.
This kind of skepticism is infectious too. All of her friends at daycare seem to cast a skeptical look on this stuff. I've told my daughter to respect others if they want to believe in fantasies, but somehow it seems to be effecting the other kids around her.
Thats our job as parents. Raise your kids so that they raise the consciousness of the world around them.
Wonderful.
um...I'm kinda with Bart here.
Why is it wrong to teach your children to believe one fiction (God) but OK to teach your children to believe in another (Santa)?
And are there really 8 year olds who believe in Santa? Wow.
Mind you, I apparently was a strangely skeptical kid - my mom says that I would just give her a weird look that said "yeah, you keep believing that stuff..." when she talked about Santa and then go back to creating my "Santa list", which included sizes, colour preferences, prices and stock/page numbers from the Sears "Wish Book"...
Wait what? You should believe in God, but Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Harry Potter are simply figments of your imagination? At least the Harry Potter books are internally consistent. J.K.Rowling 1 - God 0.
Gingerbaker, I strongly disagree with the claim about calculus. As someone who has tutored a lot of people in calc and is currently TAing a calc class, one is far more likely to understand how to apply things if one understands why they work. Moreover, understanding helps one catch when one has misapplied something or when some subtle thing might be making your results horribly wrong.
FlameDuck, the Harry Potter books consistency level is not great. For example, the stunning spell that is introduced in book 4 would have made the outcome of book 3 very different. There are many similar examples. The books are more consistent than say Genesis but the consistency level isn't that great.
In Berkeley?!?!. Have you ever been there?! I, too, would like to hold on to the delusion that somewhere in the world there exists a place where rationality reigns. Berkeley would not be my first choice. It's right across the bay from me - I've been there. Not even close.
On the Santa question, it's clearly wrong to disabuse children of the notion in a cruel or malicious way, but I also don't see the point in lying to them. Surely by eight, most children recognize that Harry Potter and his ilk are make believe, even if they are more able to engage fully in that make believe than we adults are. Oddly, one person whom I respect very, very much, and yet is devoutly religious (I know, I question whether this is a case of my own cognitive dissonance on a regular basis) won't lie to his children about Santa precisely so he won't give them cause to doubt whether he will tell them the truth about important matters. My own mother refused to lie about the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy, etc, because basically she respected us too much to try to trick us.
That aside, if the story parents reported is true, that teacher sounds like a crazy jerk who ought to be fired.
Im not really surprised. If you've been to Berkeley you'll find that it is populated by all kinds of the weirdest loons believing the most ridiculous nonsense.
Creationists would fit right in.
In Berkeley?!?!.
I live there. Not even close. I was one of the folks who sent this link to PZ.
I think what probably happened was the teacher had planned a lesson on telling fiction from non-fiction. When listing fictional characters one of the kids suggested listing God. Then the teacher (this was her first week of ever teaching) probably did one of three very wrong things.
a) figured it was okay to say "well, I think God is non-fiction" and expect the kiddies to distinguish a personal opinion from advocacy. (a1. She flustered and said God might be fiction but it's the only fiction a person should believe)
b) decided it was more important to be true to her God than the law.
c) never occured to her that God might not be non-fiction.
...Or maybe she was a nut job and did intend a lesson about the reality of God.
I'm intending to believe a) in which case she needs a good chewing out and a hard lesson in reality. If any of the others ... well, should be out on her ear.
====
Oh, Berkeley isn't where rationality reigns but it isn't a place we'd expect Christian creationism to have a foothold. As others have stated, it's a place so irrational in the other way, we wouldn't be surprised if it declared believing in Santa Claus, Harry Potter, and Godzilla were protected rights. ... which I guess they *are* but ....
Dear Gingerbaker,
Hope you play drums better than you can think about HOW you know something? And how to decide if something is true.
Just because you can't understand a thing is no basis to claim it is false, or "just a matter of belief". There are proofs to the calculus. Calculus informs your mind, err my mind and the mind of many others, to understand and work with the changes that happen in this world. (This world - you can experience it; you can test things in it; it contains the reality of life and death, of love and consequences.) This world is not an imaginary world controlled by a church/ churches/ 'better than us' deciders.
Posters above have told you that there are proofs for the calculus. Did you know that the subject of Algebra can actually be proven from clearly known and revealed premises? And not revealed by got but revealed and open to anyone who wants to check them out.
Posters above have suggested that calculus is to multiplication as multiplication is to algebra. Close enough to show you how -if you only were to jump level- that you could indeed actually understand math and not "believe it".
Sage advice: Don't believe anything. That's necessary in The Scientific Method. Belief is totally outside of science. Don't despair, so is "Beauty." And I see a beautiful world, not believe in it.
P.S. I took calculus twice. It was much more fun the second time around. So good I went to take Calculus 2. Never can tell where a good idea leads.
P.P.S. A good idea: not to over-populate the earth. Another good idea: if you find out that you are wrong, give up. Use the band-aid method, SZZzrriip!
This past week I was listening to NPR. (Disclaimer, I am not a scientist) They were discussing a study in which the researcher had subjected one group to random, almost continual failure on tests. (even if something was the correct answer, it was still "wrong." The other group was was not. The first group began seeing patterns where there were no patterns at all, like in television static. They put this in the context of how people believe in conspiracy theories and superstitions. I kept waiting for them to mention belief in god, but they never did, of course.
I found the story. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95345337
If you've been to Berkeley you'll find that it is populated by all kinds of the weirdest loons believing the most ridiculous nonsense. Creationists would fit right in.
Yes, but on whole we/they are rabidly intolerant of conservative and traditional ridiculous nonsense. It's only liberal and non-traditional non-western ridiculous nonsense that we are rabidly tolerant of. ("rabidly tolerant"-- new phrase)
Still though. I don't think it's quite fair to find the humor in the idea that we were smugly shccked, *shocked* and all a twitter over an occurance that occurs on a regular basis in weird backward places like Kansas but never here. I think shocked is a proper response for both smugly self-enlightened utopias *and* hellish backwards backwater throwbacks.
akshelby, thanks for that NPR link. That piece (the underlying phenomenon has been known for a long time, but mainly in context of finding images of human faces in noisy patterns) strikes me as saying that people are inherently and instinctively scientists. The problem is that, given more information about situations, some people just don't have the willingness to adapt their old rules of the game to be more accurate.
#15
Gingerbaker, welcome to the world of the concern troll. You have my sympathy, I've been there.
If it's any consulation, I understand what you were trying to say.
===
As to "Aren't most religious people raised unquestioningly to be so by their parents and community? They probably never have a chance to contemplate the decision, as they don't realize there's a choice." I must confess that idea never occured to me until I read the "God Delusion" and I still find it hard to believe. I'd like think that even the most benighted hovel of backwater hell, there is still a public library where the word "atheist" is mentioned.
Then again, I've never met a creationist or a young earther. Honestly, I never have. Or at least never one who told me he/she was one.
====
By the way, I was never raised to believe in Santa Claus either. Some folks find that weird. I never did.
Also by the way, the grade isn't mentioned but aren't 8-year olds in the third-grade. A bit old for "a time for fairy tales" don't you think? Still not sure it's "nice" to abuse the somewhat slower ones but I can't really blame a teacher for assuming that eight year olds already knew there was no Santa Claus.
co
Yes, I remember reading about that phenomena about faces in Dawkins book. But, it was interesting reading about how people in stressful situations seem more prone to seeing patterns. That's probably why there tends to be an upsurge in in religious fundamentalism during times of stress.
woozy said:
"Gingerbaker, welcome to the world of the concern troll. You have my sympathy, I've been there.
If it's any consulation, I understand what you were trying to say."
Thanks, woozy!
It's hard for this to be a shock given that one of the leading promoters of creationism, Philip Johnson, was a law professor at UC Berkeley (now emeritus).
Gingerbaker, to be fair, I noticed no trolling (concern or otherwise) in your post. It's tough to give a good science/math analogy in a place where many of the readers are conversant with those things (and they're not afraid to pick nits).
It's hard for this to be a shock given that one of the leading promoters of creationism, Philip Johnson, was a law professor at UC Berkeley (now emeritus).
Town and gown, mike. Town and gown. This is the Berkeley Public Schools.
And to top that, she won't wear birkenstocks.
Why is it wrong to teach your children to believe one fiction (God) but OK to teach your children to believe in another (Santa)?
Um, because we expect Santa to be a game to grow out of but God is real and truly and supposed to last forever. Seems a bit cruel to teach a kid the earth is flat, Thomas Edison built the grand canyon, you had a pet dinosaur as a kid, toilets eat your poop, and then trun around around and "Gee, kid. I was only kidding. Now its your turn to figure it out on your own".
As to why Santa is okay? Um, not sure but it really does seem to be harmless and some smart folks say believing was a good experience. I don't think there is anything wrong with a "time for fairy tales" but I'd hazard a theory that it's best if they complement the real world rather than add to it. e.g. "Ooh, there's a magical world just over the hills where fairies have their little adventures on this world the share with us" rather than "Ooh, the fairies made this world 6000 years ago and its flat and the *real* world isn't real". (Um, does that make sense). Another theory that I just thought of this minute, is that the act of believing in Santa Claus but then analyzing that it just doesn't make sense and isn't true, is maybe *good* for a child's development.
I gotta admit though, it never occured to me to consider to let kids believe in God as a fairy tale just like Santa. Seems *wrong* to me somehow. Maybe because they'll discover people really do go to adulthood and keep believing and thus thing there's another logic that believers believe and it's okay. And no son of mine is gonna be an a-damned theist!!!!
And are there really 8 year olds who believe in Santa? Wow.
Let's keep in mind that the case was brought against by parents who heard it from their kids who weren't in the class but heard it from others. This kiddies crying over Santa Claus is probably just a bit of "telephone tag" hyperbole. As I said, I do doubt the intent of the teacher was to promote God. I think, like the Teddy Bear Mohamed, that a child probably brought up the "I know a fictional character. God!" and the Theist teacher then utterly blew it.
As a supposed concern troll, I like to twist stories to best and worst possible light so as not to lose my objectivity. At best: maybe the teacher acknowledged God *might* or *might* not be fiction and then figured that because it's okay (in her opinion) for people to believe religion, flubbed and meant "God is the only one of these maybe fictions you should believe" (i.e. you shouldn't believe in Harry Potter, and Sherlock Holmes but it's okay to believe in God even if he *is* a fiction. {I don't mean to suggest this is a valid opinion; just maybe her deer in the headlight flubbed solution to the dilema she found herself in; Aug. 29th was her very first week of teaching, after all. Oh, and I *don't* mean to sound sympathetic to her for flubbing, if she did. I'm not.})
That's the *BEST* case scenario. The worst case is, of course, she's a rabid creationist who thinks she should ignore all church and state separation.
I thought Calculus was meaningless-until I took Physics. Delaying application of disciplines you thought meaningless are a good example of where educational systems are failing our students. Unfortunately this is where many just quit learning. A creationist does the same, which is criminal and should be punished.
You know, the sad thing about living Berkeley is we can't simply have any *news*.
Whenever something happens it *has* to be "well, now in out-there Bezerkeley happened which because it happened in Berkeley is either somehow ironic or amusing or whacky or both".
Several years ago we had a serious problem of cars not yielding for pedestrians at cross-walks. So what does whacky ol' Bezerkeley do? They distribute bright orange visability flags for pedestrians. So, needless to say, here come the wacky stories about middle-aged adults carrying silly bright orange flags to cross the street as thought they were little kids. What's next? Crossing guards for middle-aged investment brokers? Gee, that whacky Berkeley! So, one week later a pedestrian using one of these flags is hit by a car and killed. "Gee, that whacky Berkeley!" came the stories "Orange flags are target sights in Bezerkeley!" went the headlines. Um, hello! Pedestrian *killed* in normal traffic! Maybe a "Berkeley has a severe traffic problem" story is due without looking for the ironic "Only in Berkeley" angle.
I thought Calculus was meaningless-until I took Physics.
No offense, but even that statement belies the idea that mathematics is "meaningless" unless it applies to something "real". That it is real and meaningful and *real* in and of itself (after all, English Literature is "meaningless" when it comes to physics too) is still an idea most non-mathematicians never consider.
To invent the differential as a "quicker division for when things are wiggling about like crazy" is a quick fix and, gosh-darn golly! it *actually* works in the real world because we can break it down as small as we need for mechanical error, just won't cut it in the world of the true mathematical monks. *We* do have to analys to validity and "reality" of the infintismal (the mathematical equivalent to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin question) and the acceptance of "limits" as a representation of real numbers.
I think is is what gingercracker meant by "leap of faith". I think that is a *good* analogy but not exactly a true description. I'll have to ruminate for about a week (and I'm tenacious enough that I probably will) about why it isn't a true description but it's a good analogy.
By the way, I was never raised to believe in Santa Claus either. Some folks find that weird. I never did.
I was - but I've been told (I don't remember) that I found the idea of an old man coming down the chimney alarming, and refused to sleep on my own on Christmas Eve! We never told my son Father Christmas [Brit for Santa Claus] was real - we just couldn't see the point of the lie. He's now a happy, well-adjusted 13-year-old atheist.
Nick Gotts wrote: "I've been told (I don't remember) that I found the idea of an old man coming down the chimney alarming, and refused to sleep on my own on Christmas Eve!"
There's actually a very good, classic story by British horror author Ramsey Campbell, called The Chimney, that is based exactly on that notion!
Scott @ 25 Having lived all over the US, I assert that Berkeley isn't the "weird" place. Anyway, since when is normal good?
I lived there for 2 years, as a construction worker, not student. It was nice place to live, certainly a bit left of center, but to quote Hunter Thompson, "It was certainly "Not weird enough for me."
I think is is what gingercracker meant
Oops. Gingerbaker. A mistake; not a cheap crack.
This "calculus" discussion is getting *way* off base but what the heck. I/was-one-of sent the article to PZ so this time I'll pretend it's okay:
Sometimes being an athiest mathematician, I feel like a minority among minorities. Just as the atheist is constantly being told by the theist majority "Well, you have to acknowledge religion makes people be better people", we mathematicians are constantly being told by the "hard" scientists "It's all very well you like to play your little puzzle games, but you do know you are really working to make our real life applications work, don't you".
Actually, in a weird way, we mathematicians are a *lot* like the mythical image of the monk. We both are *passionate* about cutting away from the "appearances of the world" to cut down to what the real, true, essence, of what things are. The difference between us (didn't take a full week after all) is that mathematicians always knew from the beginning we were searching an abstract. A very "real" abstract, self-existing, true and as expansively "real" as a landscape but an abstract. We don't expect tetrahedrons to rain on our heads, or Cauchy sequences to derail and crash into your living rooms. (Gad, what a mess! Cleaning up tracked kitty litter is bad enough but those infinite but converging fractions...) If theology had taken the same approach, it would have arrived at ... psychology.
Actually I've met some atheist theologians. They're pretty cool. But weird! Not sure how they can stand the company they keep.
Woozy @ 43
Hi Woozy, I lived right off Shattuck and Ashby, drank at the starry plough and sat in on the organ on Blues Night at the 2 AM club. I found Berkeley to be a very down-to-Earth place to live.
It's fun to hang out with your fellow beer drinkin bikers who can have a decent debate over the pros and cons of Marx or Amal Carburetors , and have the Grateful Dead as a local band.
Most of the ridiculous crystal people and all that silly New Age woo comes out of Marin County, Berkeley was the place where they came down for the weekend and got fleeced by the local merchants buying that silly crap.
At least that's how it was in the 80's and 90's when I was hanging in the East Bay. I loved Berkeley, but my girlfriend kicked me out so I had to move back to Oakland where the good weather is.
Woozy!!
Did you ever meet Steve Smale, the topologist from UCB ? I did some remodeling on his house and used to hang out with his daughter for awhile (platonic). He used to let us take his triple mast 65 foot yaught out. great guy.
The back story on that guy is wild. He's exactly the geeky math professor stereotype, but in his spare time, he's the Indiana Jones of Minerology, no SHIT. The guy has a museum in his house.
That's a task I'm happy to contribute to. Show this video to your 8-year-olds: Rare Exports, Inc.
Most of the ridiculous crystal people and all that silly New Age woo comes out of Marin County, Berkeley was the place where they came down for the weekend and got fleeced by the local merchants buying that silly crap.
Heh, heh! It originated in Berkeley as a form of open-mindedness gone loony. Then as the originaters got older and wealthier they moved to Marin County were everything was mellower.
Heh, heh. My recently deceased step-father (after my mother *finally* grew enough cajones to kick him out on his chemically addled schizophrenic ear) moved in with the owner of Llewyn's bookstore on Ashby where he became a regular fixture and became *obsessed* with the utter woo of the Mayan calander which he neither understood nor expressed in any form of coherence. (Actually the owner of Llewyn's aquired it from her nutty ex-husband and though neither went through a woo epiphany neither seemed to be impeded by rationality to question whether the believed in the woo they found themselves advocating). Oh, and people *loved* my psychotic schizophrenic abusive self-server insanely arational step-father. They utterly and completely *adored* him. And I'm talking rational logical sane people. Oh, god. The lip biting I went through for the sake of my beloved half-sister's sake at his eulogies was unbareable. I felt like Fred Grimes on The Simpsons ("Homer Simpsons an idiot! Why can't you *see* that!") Still my mother and I got our private bitch session the next day. (So much for any anonymity I may have wished with "woozy")
Berkeley's cool but the "let's illegalize non-organic coffee" and "police shouldn't use schnauzers because that's the breed of dog the Selma police used in the race riots" get a bit annoying. Still, I figure I should take it all in stride. Except when I can't.
Did you ever meet Steve Smale, the topologist from UCB ? I did some remodeling on his house and used to hang out with his daughter for awhile (platonic). He used to let us take his triple mast 65 foot yaught out. great guy.
Actually, Despite growing up in Berkeley and living there now, I never went to UC Berkeley. So no, never met him. Triple mast yacht? Man, I'm jealous.
Actually, I'm pretty much a lapsed mathematician. Not Ph.D. material apparently. But like Rincewind, the very poor wizard, I'm a mathematician (Masters-- the consulation prize from a Cracker Jack Box), nonetheless.
Um, Hey. You a building contracter? I might be in need of one soon.
#64 Woozy
Triple mast yacht? Man, I'm jealous.
Smale is a pretty famous guy, sort of ground floor Chaos Theory dude, I think he's chapter 1 in Gleik's bestseller. I believe his yacht money came from international museum mineral crystal trading. If you've ever seen the crystal collection at the little Livermore museum up Grizzly Peak, that's all his stuff.
You a building contracter? I might be in need of one soon.
Hell of a commute from Houston, that trade is for younger folks, I do the steady job thing these days, burbs, wife , kids.
I used to work for an Architect named David Ludwig, who had a contracting firm, 'Dovetail' real honest guy, he might be able to refer you, tell him 'Curt' said hi, he might remember me.
#63 Woozy I figure I should take it all in stride. Except when I can't.
Wavy Gravy for Mayor!!!
Don't eat the brown Republicans
later, gotta rejoin the human race and get to work.
One thing about California (and a lot of the west coast actually in my eexperience) is that it has lots of both leftwing and rightwing extremists, and lots of various religious beliefs -- new age, super conservative Christian, etc. -- as well as rational atheists. It's a real entertaining place.
The John Birch Society was founded in California. Wally George lived and worked in California. (At least Wally helped produce Rebecca De Mornay, but that's his only redeeming feature.) Henry Morris started the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) in California. They're hardly the only ones on the list.
Woozy,
Berkeley has better weather than Oakland, but not as good as The Sunset. (I like it cool & foggy in case you haven't guessed.)
PZ:
It seems to me that in a city as famed for tolerance and liberalism as Berkeley, it may be a positive sign that one can find a few Republicans and Creationists. Although I don't want Creationism taught in the schools and I don't think teachers should be able to promote religious beliefs of any kind, or atheism, for that matter, it seems to me to be rather illiberal to assert that any town, city or burg should be a relgion-free zone.
As for rationality, well, just about the whole Cal campus believes Obama is The One, The Messiah, the new kind of politician who will change everything the day he walks into the Oval office. I'm not sure that's much more rational than believing in God.
I feel compelled to make a case for Santa Claus. It is a way to *help* children see that there is a childlike world of fantasy and a real world that they will grow up into. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc. have all been cherished traditions in our home. But it's within a context of studying fairy/folk tales from around the world, and enjoying the fun of experiencing some of the fantasies in real time. As my children have gotten older, they've gone through a process of questioning, looking at the evidence, trying to determine what the real answer is. And then, the all-knowing tilt of the head behind the younger sibling's back to say "I'm growing up now and am proud to be putting away childish things."
Maybe I should also mention that at each of the main religious holidays throughout the year, I talk about how religions have tried to explain the cycles of nature and stolen bits and bobs from the previous religions to bolster their claims. My kids view the various holidays as quaint markers that show how far humans have come in our understanding of how the universe works.
Well, anyway, it has worked well for us.
I have a kid in Berkeley Unified, though not at Jefferson. I missed this article locally, so fancy reading about it here! Will be interesting to find out what actually happened, if it is made public. The incident occurred on the third day of school, by the way, so if the teacher had planned to do this kind of thing, she didn't waste any time.
Woozy's pretty much on-target about Berkeley, though most of the juicy woo went to Santa Cruz and Arcata about the time the wealth went to Marin County.
(Some of the good stuff too; Arcata's like a Berkeley that works, and the sewage plant is to die for. No shit. So to speak. It's a tourist attraction.)
We've got a handful of Holy Roller churches in our general neighborhood, good to hang out next to on a Sunday morning if you need a fix of Gospel music. The current church controversy, though, is about Wat Mongkolratnaram, and I hope I've remembered the spelling, where the Sunday morning brunches have apparently got out of hand. (We used to be titular members, but I got pissed off at what they did to the fenceline trees when they took over the former community garden next to the city Tool Library, so fuck 'em if they can't get a permit.)
One of the most entertaining things about living in Berkeley is the consistent performance of people who don't have a clue, including people who've never set foot here, but will nevertheless tell you all about Berkeley at the drop of a hat.
I'm gratified to see that someone else reads the Daily Planet. How do you like the Wild Neighbors column?
Isn't there at least a certain irony in what the list this idiot drew up? Harry Potter, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, and god? Indicating that at least at some level she acknowledges equvalence. I was waiting for the Chasing Amy bit:
Banky Edwards: Alright, now see this? This is a four-way road, okay? And dead in the center is a crisp, new, hundred dollar bill. Now, at the end of each of these streets are four people, okay? You following?
Holden: Yeah.
Banky Edwards: Good. Over here, we have a male-affectionate, easy to get along with, non-political agenda lesbian. Down here, we have a man-hating, angry as fuck, agenda of rage, bitter dyke. Over here, we got Santa Claus, and up here the Easter Bunny. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first?
Holden: What is this supposed to prove?
Banky Edwards: No, I'm serious. This is a serious exercise. It's like an SAT question. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first? The male-friendly lesbian, the man-hating dyke, Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny?
Holden: The man-hating dyke.
Banky Edwards: Good. Why?
Holden: I don't know.
Banky Edwards: [shouting] Because the other three are figments of your fucking imagination!
By and large, though, they're not teaching. Ethnic Studies aside, the Berkeley public school system is pretty awesome. As you'd expect, since there's a ton of academic-affiliated parents invested in the system.
UC Berkeley--particularly in its administration and student body--is far more conservative than the city itself, and the two have a rather antagonistic relationship. "Cutting class to protest whatever horrible thing the UC Regents are doing today" is a favorite pastime of Berkeley high school and middle school students.
And yes, Berkeley residents are quite aware of the problem of creationism. They're aware of pretty much everything; every baby born at Alta Bates is given a miniature clipboard so it can start keeping track of all the regressive ideologies and social injustices in the world.
The National Center for Science Education is based in Oakland, and at the last Solano Stroll, we had tons of Berkeley residents coming up to us with praise, T-shirt requests and offers to volunteer. (Lots of small children coming up to our hominid skull collection and giving each other lectures on human evolution, too, which was adorable.)
The Daily Planet? There's a real newspaper with that name?
I'm surprised the teacher even mentioned Harry Potter. Around here, the creationists consider the series Satan's handiwork.
"Cutting class to protest whatever horrible thing the UC Regents are doing today" is a favorite pastime of Berkeley high school and middle school students.
UCB graduate students, too.
I was a card-carrying member of AGSE when I was there.
It's hard for this to be a shock given that one of the leading promoters of creationism, Philip Johnson, was a law professor at UC Berkeley (now emeritus).
...and Jonathan Wells did his graduate work in the lab across the hall from me, which I would think might have also been important in your thesis.
wait, you mean that outliers do not a pattern make?
*shocker*
The IB dept. (basically, all previous bio and botany and ecology etc. depts that existed prior to 1989 were folded into this monster) was about as anti-religious as any place I've ever been.
Creationists, including Wells, were rather openly mocked and ridiculed, even when giving lectures.
Parents said that Martin had listed Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Harry Potter under fiction on the blackboard,
-- Do you renounce Santa?
-- I do renounce him.
-- And all his works?
-- I do renounce them.
-- And all his elves?
-- I do renounce them.
Parents said that Martin had listed Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Harry Potter under fiction on the blackboard,
-- Do you renounce Santa?
-- I do renounce him.
-- And all his works?
-- I do renounce them.
-- And all his elves?
-- I do renounce them.
Or, alternatively, Father Dougal's List of Things that Do Not Exist: the Loch Ness Monster, Frankenstein, Magnum PI, Non-Catholic Gods, Darth Vader, The Phantom and, of course, The Beast of Craggy Island.
This story made http://detentionslip.org ! Check it out for all the crazy headlines from our schools.
Wow, that's a bit funny to me because when I found out that Santa Claus wasn't real, I asked on some others:
"So the Easter Bunny's not real either?"
"No, he's not."
"And the Tooth Fairy"
(shakes head)
"And God?"
(freezes)
Yeah, that didn't go according to the Child Owner's Manual, did it, Mom? e_e;;
Woozy @ 59:
Woozy, I'll buy you a beer for that line, at the earliest mutual convenience.
Let me just drag this completely OT at its end to say that I really really like the idea of remodeling a house for a topologist (will it be anything like the fish house?) and that the plough was the last place I was ever carded. I was 48. I do not look young. I did not produce my driver's license. I just laughed such a laugh that that poor callow bartender scurried off and brought me my beer.
And to Sheeram in 39,
:
Booga-booga, gonna getcha!
Sheesh.
Does she mean that of all the fictional characters, the only one you should believe in is God? 'Cause I can't figure out what it means, otherwise. Won't she get in trouble with her peeps for grouping God with the other fictional characters?
They warned her what would happen if she came to Berkeley. Give her another few months and we've got her.
Well, the Berkeley Daily Planet (which comes out once a week ... *sigh* ...) has nothing new about the story but there is this letter to the editor which anywhere else would be assumed to be satire but I believe here is probably totally sincere.
However, I really dislike it when we atheist decide to pretend we'll behave the same way as religeous fanatics. We're better than that:
=====
Thursday October 09, 2008
THE HERETIC HAS GOT TO GO!
Editors, Daily Planet:
On behalf of our entire community, I wish to express shock, outrage and profound disgust that the word "G-d" (I can't bring myself to spell out that odious term) may have been uttered in one of our public school classrooms. How can we tolerate in our midst a public school teacher who not so secretly cleaves to the heresy of creationism?
It's not enough that this teacher has been allowed personal leave since this blasphemy against Science and Reason. The damage already done to these impressionable young minds by the denial of Evolution and the Big Bang (it's not a "theory") may be irreparable!
What's the school district's answer to this thought crime? To "seek some form of discipline against her." We demand a more public form of excommunication! We may have a true "witch" on our hands here and only a public "witch trial" will suffice to reestablish the purity of our community's dogma. Yes, we demand a new "Scopes Trial," "A G-d Trial" of the "Infidel Martin"!
Edna Spector
======
Maybe it is satire. I can't tell. I'm willing to believe the teacher got caught off guard and made a *really* bad judgement call.
"So Santa Claus and Harry Potter are fictional and George Washington and Harriet Tubman are non-fictional. Who else can name a fictional character?"
"I know! God!"
*ERP* ...thinking on feet. poorly...
"Well, some people believe in God and some people don't so we shouldn't put him in fictional."
"But some people believe in Santa Claus. Doesn't that mean we shouldn't put *him* in the fiction."
"Well, ... no. because when you grow up you find out he isn't real and we can know that as a fact. We can't know for a fact whether God exists and as it's very important to some people so we shouldn't call him fiction."
"But my mother says we shouldn't believe anything unless we have a reason. If we don't know whether God is real should shouldn't we *not* believe it."
".... well, God's different because so many people do believe in him so you even though you shouldn't believe in Santa Claus and Harry Potter, you should believe in God. *ER* I mean you should believe in God if you believe in God. But it's okay to not believe in God if you don't believe in God."
"Do you believe in God?"
"Well, ... um. Yes."
"Do you believe in evolution?"
"Well, ... um. No."
That may be the *best* case scenario. Anyhoo, I *really* do not believe in witch hunts, even when the witches are very real and we probably have a live one. Parents, and community, are always allowed to call the schools if they are concerned.
According to a Gallup poll, 82% of Americans believe God played a role in the creation of the world and human beings, 12% believe in evolution, and 6% were unsure. If the THEORY of evolution and the big bang THEORY are presented in science textbooks, then the theory of Creationism and Intelligent Design should also be presented.
Many of you tend to forget that CHRISTmas is a Christian holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. Easter is a Christian holiday intended to celebrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are nothing more than commercial propoganda. They are fake. Hello! Yet, you act as if it is a crime to present this truth to children.
I support this teacher wholeheartedly. I wonder what will happen in a few years. I'm sure the parents worked dilligently to repair the 'damage' the teacher did and the kids are back to believing in Santa and the Easter bunny. What will happen when the child finally realizes that the parents were lying? I'm sure this truthful teacher will come back to their minds and the seeds she planted for the belief in God and Jesus Christ will also develop as they become curious as to whether their parent or the teacher was telling the truth.
If you are a true Atheist, who does not believe in God or Jesus Christ, then stop celebrating Christian holidays such as Good Friday, Easter, and Christmas. You should show up for work on those days instead of taking paid leave for 'false' holidays.
According to a Gallup poll, 82% of Americans believe God played a role in the creation of the world and human beings, 12% believe in evolution, and 6% were unsure. If the THEORY of evolution and the big bang THEORY are presented in science textbooks, then the theory of Creationism and Intelligent Design should also be presented.
Many of you tend to forget that CHRISTmas is a Christian holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. Easter is a Christian holiday intended to celebrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are nothing more than commercial propoganda. They are fake. Hello! Yet, you act as if it is a crime to present this truth to children.
I support this teacher wholeheartedly. I wonder what will happen in a few years. I'm sure the parents worked dilligently to repair the 'damage' the teacher did and the kids are back to believing in Santa and the Easter bunny. What will happen when the child finally realizes that the parents were lying? I'm sure this truthful teacher will come back to their minds and the seeds she planted for the belief in God and Jesus Christ will also develop as they become curious as to whether their parent or the teacher was telling the truth.
If you are a true Atheist, who does not believe in God or Jesus Christ, then stop celebrating Christian holidays such as Good Friday, Easter, and Christmas. You should show up for work on those days instead of taking paid leave for 'false' holidays.
Argumentum ad populum
Ahh, such naivety. The problem with that is that creation and intelligent design are not scientific theories, they are not even scientific hypothesises. They are religious concepts that violate everything we know about reality. Evolution and the Big Bang theory on the other hand are scientific theories, supported by mounds of empirical evidence and undergone 150 years of falsification and modification.
Actually, in secular countries, they are secular holidays. Like the Christians stole Christmas from the pagans (and easter from the Jews who in turn stole it from the pagans), these holidays have changed to accomodate the different socio-political climate. Secular countries, secular holidays.
They are secular holidays, sanctioned by a government that guarantees freedom of religion. And for the record, one doesn't have to believe in the divinity of Jesus to have an excuse to spend time with the family and give gifts. We are jsut celebrating the solstice the way the Romans did before the holiday was amalgamated when Rome became united under one religious banner...Of course that is all going to go over your head though, it's a bit too much for someone who answers "Goddidit" to comprehend.
Leane:
then the theory of Creationism and Intelligent Design should also be presented.
the problem is, there IS no theory of Intelligent Design to teach.
the guy who basically invented the term says so himself:
-Phillip Johnson
(http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evoluti…)
the same Phillip Johnson who wrote this:
which became part of the Wedge Document.
who's lying again, Leanne?
you've been duped. Time to put away childish things.
If you want to teach your kids superstitious nonsense, you have these things called "churches" at your disposal to do so.
If you are a true Atheist
what would define a false atheist?
O.o
somehow, I think leanne is projecting from her specific notion of what a "True Xian" is.
For some groups of your people at various points in history, that "or" would have been grounds for killing you.
I speak only for myself, but I would be thrilled to work out for myself and with my family and friends which days or weeks we would prefer to take as holidays rather than having this schedule, with assorted travel and other logistical nightmares, imposed upon us. Or are you suggesting that "true Atheists" shouldn't be allowed any days off, as some sort of punishment?
I was checking out DonExodus2's youtube channel the other day, and on his comments section someone called TheAmazingChristian gave a post about while he was a theistic evolutionist too, he didn't think DonExodus was a "True Christian" based on what he said about the gospels. I love watching religious infighting, it's cute.
Again, since evolution and the big bang are presented in textbooks, creationism should also be presented. Maybe you could convince the overwhelming majority of people who believe God created heaven and earth in 6 days that they are wrong.
Again, creationism is not science, it shouldn't be in any science textbook or taught in science class. Creationism is not an alternative to evolution
Again, argumentum ad populum. If you look at the stats, it's less than 50% who believe the world was created in 6 literal days and if you go to countries outside the US, the number of creationists drops dramatically. But who's counting right? It doesn't matter if 100% of people believe in creationism, it doesn't make it any less false.
Is Creationism Scientific?
The accusation has often been made that creationism is not scientific. And evolutionism, of course, is. After all, today it's common to believe that most scientists are evolutionists. So, is evolutionary thinking responsible for all the great scientific advances, or can creationists take the credit?
Ironically, every major branch of science: astronomy, chemistry, microbiology, etc., was established upon the work of creationists. In fact, today's evolutionists are merely standing on an entire mountain of work built by creationists. While the evolutionist assumes his theory is true in spite of "trivial" elements of science (such as the first two laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's gas laws, and biogenesis), the creationist understands that science was established by God, and thus seeks to follow the clues in God's creation that help him better understand the natural world. To a creationist, science and the Bible were both authored by God: he therefore has no problem accepting the scientific method of observation to further validate that which he takes on faith.
The early scientists--whose ranks include the likes of Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Robert Boyle--believed in an intelligent Designer/Creator who laid down not only laws of conduct for humanity, but also for nature. With this common understanding in mind, they then set about to identify and explore these laws of nature. This search resulted in the revolution of scientific information we now enjoy and the establishment of the major branches of scientific understanding. So the idea that creationists are not scientific is absurd. It mocks the great heritage of creationists that modern science harks back to--and upon whose work modern science now rests. Evolutionists allow evolutionism to govern their exploration of the natural world to the detriment of science, while creationists continue to merely demonstrate how the God of the Bible is also the true Architect of what we call science.
Again, since evolution and the big bang are presented in textbooks, creationism should also be presented.
again, since you seem horribly comprehension impaired:
Evolution is a theory, the big bang is an hypothesis, both with lots of evidence in support, creationism is neither.
It's quite simple, really.
Maybe you could convince the overwhelming majority of people who believe God created heaven and earth in 6 days that they are wrong.
and just how would we go about convincing the terminally deluded, leanne?
If radiometric dating, geology, oceanography, coring data, continental drift, and a laundry list of other parallel data don't convince you, nothing will.
so, why even ask?
Imagine yourself trying to convince someone who has never seen the things you have that the world really is round, and you'll get some idea of the level of ignorance we are dealing with when trying to convince folks such as yourself of just about anything.
You choose to proffer your ignorance as having value. We choose to laugh at you.
The early scientists--whose ranks include the likes of Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Robert Boyle--believed in an intelligent Designer/Creator who laid down not only laws of conduct for humanity, but also for nature. With this common understanding in mind, they then set about to identify and explore these laws of nature.
why don't you detail your vast knowledge of the history of the specific achievements each was most noted for.
what's that you say? You haven't a clue, you just cut and pasted it from some religious website?
yes, we know.
thanks for playing.
"If you are a true Atheist, who does not believe in God or Jesus Christ, then stop celebrating Christian holidays such as Good Friday, Easter, and Christmas."
Har har. Easter is on a Sunday. Few people get either Easter or Good Friday off anyway. I don't know any nonreligious people who "celebrate" Good Friday, as it's rather pointless to recognize the death of a fictional character in any way, but I personally eat a big huge bacon cheeseburger every Good Friday to celebrate my liberation from pointless religious proscriptions and rituals. Mmmmmm...
"Many of you tend to forget that CHRISTmas is a Christian holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. "
So what? You Christians stole most of the themes and traditions associated with Christmas from pre-Christian pagan religions. Better take down that tree and that holly and properly represent your faith. Or you could just share the wealth and we could all have trees and pretty lights and gift-giving and togetherness. Nah, sharing wouldn't make you feel special, would it?
"Yet, you act as if it is a crime to present this truth to children."
Better learn to read, because nobody here is acting like that. We are NOT pro-Santa here. PZ and the rest of us are amused that the teacher presented Santa and the Easter Bunny as fictional characters, but blanched at the notion of Jesus being fictional as well. It's a good life lesson for kids to learn that sometimes adults lie to them, and it's a useful first step towards realizing that all that God talk that adults go on about is a lie too.
As for evolution and creationism are concerned, one of them has 150 years of scientific evidence and the overwhelming consensus of scientists behind it, and it sure isn't the story with the talking snake.
Evolutionists allow evolutionism to govern their exploration of the natural world
for fuck's sake, at least get your metaphilosophical nonsense correct.
It's all about anti-materialism, baby!
I tried to help you with that quote from Johnson, but I guess you're better at first grade cut-and-paste than actual reading.
*yawn*
Many evolutionists and atheists alike have - throughout history - shunned Scripture and the lessons learned therein by claiming that Creation Science isn't testable, repeatable, observable, and so forth. As this is true about certain aspects of Creation Science, this is also true about certain aspects of Evolutionary "Science". One cannot deny the overwhelming amounts of assumptions and un-justifiable dedications that materialists demonstrate.
Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world. This isn't a testable conclusion; they didn't come to this conclusion by science. Creationists have the philosophical position that God has partaken in the history of this earth, and that He has revealed the True history of the earth through His infallible Word.
As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also. For instance, the Bible states that earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1, in six literal days2. Evolutionism claims that the earth came into existence some 3-5 billion years ago3, over a very long and tedious process of formation. Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent. It's important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.
When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).
Now, we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them, and also testable aspects about them as well. Schools have a legal, as well as moral obligation to remain truthful to our students. Unfortunately, many schools today have veered from this path and have accepted voodoo-science as part of their curriculum. Material such as the gill slits, the horse evolution, the human evolution, the evolution of the giraffe, and so much more are still presented to children as facts.
Both Creation and Evolutionism are testable in certain areas and un-testable in others, both have been tested, and only one prevails - Creation. We were fearfully and wonderfully created, and we will soon stand before He that creates and give an account for the life we lived. Will you be ready?
I am very pleased that this teacher presented Creationism and God to these children. Maybe this will open up hearts and discussions between parents and children so they can research and explore these issues on there own.
anyone notice how Leanne's screeds are gradually getting to be longer and longer cut and paste jobs?
will she be pasting full scripture quotes next?
Both Creation and Evolutionism are testable in certain areas and un-testable in others, both have been tested, and only one prevails - Creation.
did you know you are a terrorist, Leanne?
Oh where's Patricia when there's such a nice, fat, fish to hook?
*sigh*
A lie. A damnable dirty-dog lie.
Those parts of "Creation" that are testable... have miserably failed the test.
No we weren't, and no we won't.
God is a lie. A made-up piece of fiction. Garbage and nonsense, from thousands of years ago until your pathetic regurgitation of a few moments ago.
argumentum ad verecundiam. You pick a bunch of scientists who came before evolutionary theory, call them creationists then claim that it makes creationism valid? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Firstly, Galileo was punished by the church for going against it's teachings. Newton spent most of his years working on alchemy, it doesn't make alchemy any more true. They were all before Darwin's time, evolution by natural selection was not published until 1859 then it took about 50 years to be accepted by the scientific community. Funny now that every major advance in scientific knowledge has come from people who believe that evolution happened, and if you look at the Nobel Prize winners throughout history, most of them were atheist. That doesn't mean that they are right because they are atheist, their religion is irrelevant to the science they do.To put this really simply, evolution is taught now because it's backed by the evidence. It fits the geological time scale, it fits the fossil record, it fits the genetic code inside all of us, it fits the diversity and morphology of creatures alive today. It's even been observed, we see new features on species, modification through reproduction, we've observed speciation, and we've even observed natural selection in action. The universe is at least 13 billion years old, and the earth (like all other celestial bodies in the solar system) is 4.5-4.6 billion years old. The oldest materials on earth have been radiometrically dated to well over 4.4 billion years old, as is the moon, the sun and meteorites. We don't see any life until about 3.8 billion years ago, and multicellular life about 700 million years ago. We don't see mammals to around 200 million years ago, and no humans until about 200,000 years ago. If you can explain all that without using "descent with modification", be my guest. Remember, you have to make a theory that explains all current observations as well as any new ones. Because that is science. A literal creation story is not.Creationism is wrong, it's not even remotely comparable to evolution. It's religion masquerading as a science in order to satisfy the fundamentalist Christian. Even the Catholics and the Anglicans aren't so stupid as to think that evolution didn't happen any more. But that's what happens when you believe in a talking snake; anything becomes possible.
Actually, I am a public school teacher with an MA and 7 years experience.
I am a Christian. I am in the classroom and I teach your children. I do not in any way, shape, or form teach evolution. I skip those sections and stick to actual scientific study and experiments.
I do not have to include the false theory of evolution to present true scientific study. I also do not stand on a soapbox and preach creationism either.
It may also interest you to know, Creationism is presented in my school district over a one week period during the school year. Parents receive a letter and not one child has been removed from the classrooms during this presentation.
Children are given the opportunity to accept Christ as their Savior after the last bell of the day rings! Separation of church and state, right?
I guess in Ohio we are still uneducated and backward when it comes to believing in a Divine Creator. It's also nice to see a school district where Wednesday night are reserved for church attendance therefore, no sporting events are held and no homework is given.
Thank you, taxpayers, who still give me money each week with the words "In God We Trust" printed on it. I put those words into practice each day.
I love watching religious infighting, it's cute.
what's especially notable about xian infighting is just how serious they take themselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
38000 denominations and counting!
whee!
can you say "schism"?
knew you could.
:p
If this person isn't a troll, someone should alert the ACLU or the NCSE to locate this school district in Ohio and challenge this. Thanks for the alert, Leanne.
Actually, I am a public school teacher with an MA and 7 years experience.
I say you're a terrorist. In fact, I just called homeland security.
I am in the classroom and I teach your children.
like I said, you're a terrorist.
I do not have to include the false theory of evolution to present true scientific study.
actually, Ohio Law says you do. Care to challenge that?
you're a terrorist.
Actually, it's called "family night", we must separate the church and state, remember?
You're either a liar, or your educational institution was pathetic pieces of garbage. Did you get your degree from a Christian diploma mill?
Thank you for confessing that you are also a criminal.
Pathetically stupid and criminal, indeed.
Liar, criminal, and smugly self-righteous hypocrite...
Actually, it's called "family night", we must separate the church and state, remember?
so you admit you are a liar and encourage others to lie.
got it.
good christian values there.
terrorist.
What do you think gang. Ignorant, stupid, or insane?If you have any evidence that shows creation in it's form, bring it to the table. You'd win several Nobel Prizes if it turned out to be true. You'd be hailed across the world in both the scientific community and in religious circles. There'd be no religious conflict any more as faith is no longer necessary and the one true religion is demonstratably proven...Except that you are lying. There's no evidence for creation, and every current piece of evidence puts the universe at 13.7 billion years old, with a 4.5 billion year old earth. There are several different dating techniques that all point to the same number, and it correlates with observations of relative dating of geology. We see certain species in certain stratas, it starts out with invertebrates, goes to vertebrates, then jawed vertebrates, then onto fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then dinosaurs, then mammals (from reptiles), then birds (from dinosaurs), then we see different species come and go all around the world until it finally leads to us. Hell, we even have a few transitional forms. If we look at our DNA, the last common ancestor was around 140,000 years ago. That's a lot older than the literal creation story. Hell there are living trees that are even older than the creation story. Life gradually emerged over billions of years. If you want to believe God had some hand in it, go ahead. But don't say there's evidence for creation because it simply isn't there. You are lying Leanne, bearing false witness if you will. Last I read that's a sin...
... though no "true Christian" follows the 10 commandments any more. The edicts of Leviticus are far more important than the commandments God sets. Lying for Jesus is still lying. While Christ may be forgiving, here in reality we aren't!
Whenever an old thread spikes, it's a safe bet that someone's hooked a live one - in this case, it's Reason 2,981,234 not to live in Ohio.
Actually, I graduated from public colleges in Indiana. Midwest states are obviously very different that other parts of the country.
I have had principals who pray before ball games (Indiana), Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the whole nativity scene is still presented during the Christmas program (Indiana and Ohio), the school calendar still says, "Christmas break" and "Easter break". The town parade them was "Church, Community, and School all working together for a brighter future".
So, why would a week of Creationism teaching, which is district wide not just my classroom, be strange?
As for spending money that says, In God We Trust...our country was founded by Christians and it's ironic that you want the ACLU or whoever to take those things out of our everyday lives.
I would guarantee if this Berkley teacher did this same lesson in the middle of Ohio, she would not be in the news or on leave.
As long as that's not an exclusive "or"... yes, indeed.
Actually, I graduated from public colleges in Indiana.
*looks*
did someone ask?
not that it means you're not a terrorist.
William Ayers graduated from a college, didn't he?
have you ever met/associated with William Ayers?
I would guarantee if this Berkley teacher did this same lesson in the middle of Ohio, she would not be in the news or on leave.
that depends on who noticed. You don't know your own state very well, but then that's what I expect from a terrorist.
Both ignorant and stupid. Goddamn I'm an Aussie and I know fully well that American was not founded by Chrstians, and the "in God we trust" was added to federal money just over half a century ago. There is definite and explicit separation of church and state in the constitution.
In God We Trust
tell us when that phrase was actually added to US currency, and by who.
5 bucks says you have to look it up to find out.
...exactly the kind of thing I would expect a terrorist NOT to know.
Are you aware, Ms. Teacher, that until the 1950's (when the Christianist started their offical meddling with things) the national motto was E Pluribus Unum, and there was no "under God" in the Pledge? Are you aware that "In God We Trust" was not stamped on coins until the Civil Ware, or that it was not added to paper currency until 1957? Are you aware that noted anti-American Communists such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson disapproved of the invocation of God on US currency?
No, no, of course you're not. Like most ignorant conservatives, you believe these things have always been there, as designed by The Founders, and it's only the hyperliberal ACLU who wants to destroy all that's good about Christian America.
Feh.
(I, on the other hand, am merely an idiot who can neither type nor read her own writing... meh.)
They violate the law as a matter of course?
Who cares if it's strange? It's very common, all over the Muslim world, for example.
But it is illegal in the United States of America.
And Creationism is completely and utterly a lie.
No it isn't. Money does not need any such ridiculous and false slogan in the first place.
And you may not realize it, but putting religious sentiments on cold hard cash cheapens God and religion, while not increasing the value of the money one tiny little bit.
So obviously the law-breaking middle of Ohio needs more publicity.
it's ironic that you want the ACLU or whoever to take those things out of our everyday lives.
you mean THIS ACLU, terrorist?
So, why would a week of Creationism teaching, which is district wide not just my classroom, be strange?
perhaps you might want to ask one of your own?
I'm sure John Freshwater might have a thing or two to tell you about Ohio State law.
I'm sure you've heard the name, right?
maybe you all can get some sort of class-action suit going and get yourselves all kicked out of teaching at once?
that would be useful.
Yes, I encourage you to spread the word far and wide about what's going on in your schools, Leanne. You sound very proud - surely you want to let others know that it's not really strange at all but downright American. In fact, I suggest you have some reporters from the bigger papers come on down and film you during creation week. Heck, why don't you contact the ACLU yourself and tell them where you are and that you won't stand for their interference.
Yes, it is satire. Edna has also called for everyone on Earth to commit suicide. (And note that she invokes the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which does not call for that, in support.)
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2007-09-25/article/28081
Edna just be messing around, yo.
Er, the above was aimed at Woozy in #83.
why don't you contact the ACLU
better yet, go have a yell at these guys:
http://www.au.org/
I'm sure they'll be all ears.
"anyone notice how Leanne's screeds are gradually getting to be longer and longer cut and paste jobs?"
I could swear I saw that "fearfully created" bit somewhere else in the comments here. If there was ever a two-word phrase more fucked up, I've never heard it.
I think she's bating us. I mean, seriously, Wednesday night is set aside for church? Isn't that what Sunday is for? I call bullshit. I also have to wonder how weak a faith must be if it has to be reinforced by that silly little slogan on currency and two masses a week and all that prayer before meetings and ball games, and implicitly excluding people of other faiths and traditions from community events. I mean, sheesh, must be some weak-sauce faith that would fall down under the slightest honest examination or wider perspective.
Shorter Leanne
Wrong, wrong, wrong, I teach woo, wrong.
I think she's bating us.
not to belabor the obvious, but...
duh.
:p
the trick is to troll the troll.
hook the fisherman.
burn the flamethrower
I think we were very close to getting her to bite on several things, but I also think it was well past her bedtime.
maybe tomorrow.
I think Patricia is hungry to net a troll like this for her trophy wall. If you see her, let her know there's a ripe one here waiting to be plucked.
I could swear I saw that "fearfully created" bit somewhere else in the comments here.
or somewhere...
watch the vid:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/molecular_biology_for_babbli…
sound familiar?
You are fearfully and wonderfully made. Psalm 139:14 Not a cut and paste job from a blog.
If you believe in evolution, then that is what you believe. If you believe in Creationism, then that is what you believe.
The point is, the title of article is "Berkely finds A creationist". With 82% of Americans believing that God had a hand in the creation of man and the universe, it's silly for you to think that their is only 1 teacher in the entire Berkley school district who believes in God and creation science.
You want to bury your heads in the sand, call out the ACLU, etc. because you are in a 12% minority when it comes to the average American population.
Scientific textbooks can present all scientific information, scientific laws, etc. as they are without adding in an unproven theory such as evolution or creationism.
My son attends a Christian high school where 96% of the 10th graders given the OGT (Ohio Graduation Test) passed the science portion of the exam. This is over 10% higher than the average public school in Ohio.
Approximately 1 million visitors have passed through the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY since it opened in 2007. You would like to live in a bubble where you believe all of America should be indoctrinated with evolution and statistically speaking, most people do not believe this way.
You cannot prove scientifically where the single cell came from to begin the evolutionary process.
If you want separation of church and state, then evolution and creationism should neither one be presented in science textbooks. If parents want to teach evolution, they can do that at home just as easily as they can teach creationism.
Leanne the death-cultist troll @ #129:
If you believe in Evolution, your belief is supported by evidence. If you believe in creationism, your belief is supported by mythology and self-deception. One of these things is not like the others. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the facts doesn't make them go away.
COPY/PASTE FAIL
The title, which is actually at the top of the very page you are typing on, and in the title bar, is "Bekeley notices a creationist." You used the wrong word and misspelled "Berkeley". Which wouldn't be an issue, except you can't be bothered to get it right when it's RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, and you're QUOTING. I'm sure you show the same (nonexistent) commitment to accuracy in all your endeavors.
The point is, creationists are hopelessly unqualified to teach science, because they reject scientific fact and substitute myth and dogma. It'd be like hiring a Holocaust denier to teach a history class, you'd have a nutcase lying to the students and they'd end up less knowledgable than before. You will never be able to understand this, of course, because of your debilitating fear of evidence.
Leanne still can't tell the difference between fact and myth:
Evolution is about as "unproven" as gravity, heliocentrism, or the germ theory of disease. Creationism is about as unproven as the belief that lightning is Zeus having target practice, or that fijords were carved by a Magrathean named Slartibartfast, or that the rivers arose from the semen of the Sumerian god Enki. Once again, one of these things is not like the others.
And since you stated above (#102) that YOU YOURSELF teach creationism, you are not only an admitted criminal, but a fraud.
The difference, which you would surely rather die than understand, is that evolution is supported by the evidence, while creationism is not. There is not the slightest speck of evidence for your religious nonsense. In all of human history, no one has found any evidence at all that any god whatsoever exists, much less your specific god. You have nothing. And yet you want to indoctrinate other people's children with your dogma at government expense. You don't get to do that. As much as you want to live in a country where your delusions are funded by tax money, you don't. Of course, you can always move to Iran, if you're so desperate for a theocracy. But here in America, using the public schools for religious indoctrination is wrong, and it is illegal.
Evolution is a fact. It fits all the evidence we have. It has been observed to happen, in real time, both in the laboratory and in the wild. Evolution is about as controversial as the fact that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. The fact that some people are deluded and feel compelled by their religion to lie about this does not change the reality.
Creationism is a myth. It is not supported by a single speck of evidence, it never has been, it never will be. Creationists not only don't have any evidence, they constantly demonstrate that they have not the slightest interest in looking for any. They wouldn't even know what it looked like if they found it. Creationism is utterly devoid of scientific merit, in fact of any merit at all. It's worthless, a waste of time. It's a lie. Creationists wrap themselves so tightly in delusion that no fact can ever penetrate. But denying reality doesn't make it go away. Creationism is nothing more or less than the denial of reality. It is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Take your lies elsewhere.
Evolution is based on facts, and Creationism is based on myth.
Why would anyone believe in something based on myth when the facts exist and can be demonstrated?
Why do you?
The scientific information and laws are all in support of evolution.
Creationism has no science or contradicts science. Science has the evidence; science has the facts, so obviously, science wins. Evolution is part of science, and should be taught as part of the scientific information. Creationism is religion, and should therefore not be taught in public schools.
We can show the evidence of how all multicellular organisms have evolved and do evolve; we can show the evidence of how all populations of single cells evolve, and we can show how all cellular organisms are related to one another. We can show how all cells are made up of chemicals, and we can show how chemical systems can self-replicate.
Since all of the above are scientific facts, they should obviously all be taught as part of biological science.
Creationism cannot show that anything like a God exists now or ever existed. It fails to show anything at all, except that people are very, very good at lying to themselves.
Obviously evolution should be taught, and creationism should not.
If you believe in evolution, then that is what you believe. If you believe in Creationism, then that is what you believe.
not even wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, I teach woo, wrong.
~or~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
:p
If you believe in Creationism, you are scientifically retarded. Though that's the whole point of religion, is it not?
That's not evolution, it's abiogenesis. And of course we can't prove it, it happened 3.8 billion years ago. The best we can do is demonstrate how it could have, and there are several competing hypotheses that all have the potential to explain that. If use that against evolution, you are missing the point. Evolution predicts common ancestry, and we see that common ancestry in morphology, in genetics and in the fossil record. How it all got started is a question that needs to be answered, but it's a question for biochemistry - not for biology. Evolution still happened even if we don't know the exact origins.
Little-known fact: My so-called "rebellion" was actually the first labor dispute.
God: NO NO NO!!! NOT LIKE THAT!!! You're doing it wrong!!! I don't want these fossils to be in layers like this, I want them to be all mixed up! Rabbits in the Precambrian! Edicaria and Trilobites in the Pleiocene! Put a Neanderthal with a Tyrannosaur, for My sake!
Me: ...
Me: That is not what the original work order said.
God: I don't care!!! I am telling you how I want it NOW!!
Me: So... God.... Will me and my boys be paid overtime for this extra work? Or at all?
God: YOU EXPECT TO BE PAID?!?!?!
Things went downhill from there.
Leanne @ #85 - You are a complete idiot.
The fact that you state you are a public school teacher should be turned over to the teachers union immediately. You are not fit to teach any one's child.
The "christian" holidays that you rave on about show your complete failure to read or understand history. The catholic church absorbed the pagan holidays into their own theology, and you have fallen for the lie.
Christmas - winter solstice. Easter - vernal equinox. Feast of Saint John - summer solstice. Michaelmas - fall equinox.
The eight pagan holidays are not christian or man made, they are based on how the Earth works. You are a fool.
Come on back for Beltane, you'll love Pharyngula on 'first outdoor sex night'! Waa-hoo!
Leanne thinks that her socks disappear from the dryer because of Gawd :
"Do you ever wonder why things happen? For instance, you put 2 socks in the dryer...only 1 comes out. Where did the other one go? [...]Which leads me to wonder...are these things attacks from Satan or do I just chalk it up to my own carelessness? Is it God? Is there some sort of lesson I am supposed to be learning in these situations? Or maybe it's just life. Things happen, end of story. Cause and effect. There is one last element we must consider. Faith.
Faith is awesome. Since God says, "whatsoever you ask for, believe, and you shall receive", then we do have more control over our lives than just sitting back and watching it be controlled by circumstances around us. I can live with the sock eating monster that lerks somewhere in my dryer, I think I will use my faith for something else..."
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=106…
Well, it's not clear if she believes g[]d is behind this but she seems to think that if she asked for it with enough faith, he would prevent it from happening...
Oh, btw, Happy birthday !
I forgot : stating that you have "more control over your life" because you can ask g[]d to act upon it is a rather twisted conception of control...
Yes.
Yes, they are.
Because I have absolutely nothing better to do with my time, and I can think of no better mode of attack, than to take people's socks.
Fear me, launderers! FEAR ME!
For Satan @140:
Why do they blame me for all their little failings? They use my name as if I spent my entire days sitting on their shoulders, forcing them to commits acts they would otherwise find repulsive. "The devil made me do it." I have never made one of them do anything. Never. They live their own tiny lives. I do not live their lives for them.
And then they die, and they come here (having transgressed against what they believed to be right), and expect us to fulfill their desire for pain and retribution. I don't make them come here. They talk of me going like a fishwife come market day, never stopping to ask themselves why. I need no souls. And how can anyone own a soul? No. They belong to themselves.... They just hate to have to face up to it.
Lucifer, from The Sandman: Season of Mists, Neil Gaiman
"Or maybe it's just life. Things happen, end of story. Cause and effect. "
If this is how you teach causation in your science class... that's frightening...
That's an amusingly appropriate fetish for a sockpuppet.
Do You prefer the holey ones? If so, do You darn them (to heck)?
If people put locks on their washers and dryers and dresser drawers so as to keep You out, would they have protected socks?
Hohoho. I'm sew funny.
The teacher in question has resigned.
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-10-16/article/31377?headl…