Religious Assault On Democracy

By Liam Fox

This is not a story of people struggling to protect and ensure their freedom and liberty.  This is not a story about people simply wanting a little more for themselves without considering the negative impact on others.   This is a report of an intentional attempt to subvert the authority of our elected representatives with the goal of limiting and removing rights and protections guaranteed to the American citizenry.  This is a report concerning the deliberate attack on democratic institutions as well as the Constitution.  I realize that such a statement sounds melodramatic and extreme.  In fact, it sounds like something you may read on the placards hoisted high, by some of the very people that support the actions I’m referring to.

The following events were well reported and recorded during this past week.  Colorado Senator, Dave Schultheis proposed a bill, SB089 (1), this past week, which would have undermined important democratic institutions.  Fortunately, poor negotiating skills made killing the bill in committee possible(2).  The vehicle for this subversion was a Religious Bill of Rights, that, in addition to being an insult to the First Amendment, was deemed generally redundant to the ‘real’ Bill of Rights.

This Bill was purportedly necessary for the protection of religious persons from attacks on their religious rights in the public school system despite the fact that there was no evidence or even anecdotal testimony to support such ridiculous claims.  The particulars of the Bill and it’s outrageous demands have been well covered (3)(4).  The two most controversial areas of concern are first, that teachers would not have to teach anything that may disagree with their religious views, and that they could openly display their own religious material in their classrooms and, second, that students could refuse or oppose course material for the same irrational reasons(1).  The part of the story that I would like to draw attention to is the resulting affect any such Bill would have on the ability of the elected officials of the school board to implement the wishes and demands of the electorate.  What is the affect on our democracy if the curriculum of our public school system is influenced by dictates from either one, or even several competing, religious theologies?

The bill is laden with tacit threats of increased and ongoing costly court challenges, even against individual board members, if the public school system refused to adopt and assertively implement its guidelines and demands.  The goal of this blatant coercion was the usurping of the authority from our duly-elected school board officials.

The individuals on the school board are the representatives of the people and are required to be responsible, to all of the people, on all matters relating to their schools, including curricula.  Although not legally binding in its initial form, this Religious Bill of Rights would have usurped that authority over curricula and placed it, indirectly as well as possibly directly, in the hands of religious leaders and clerics.  Senator Schultheis himself is a conservative Christian Fundamentalist.

The issues at stake are not whether a student or employee of the public school system can say a prayer before their meal or during lesson breaks, or peacefully study their religious text in the cafeteria during their lunch hour, or anything else as personal or benign.  Such things are well within their rights.  What was at stake is the right for a religion to use the public school system as a venue for their proselytizing and means of imposing their discriminatory theological doctrine on society by having control over the public education system’s curricula.  What was attempted was nothing shy of a deliberate move to subvert democratic institutions and the American Constitution for the imperialistic goals of religious sects and their attempt to promote only information that supports their dogma while censoring any information that may expose and challenge the inconsistencies, and lack of scientific or historical basis, of their unsupportable claims.  Although Senator Schultheis is a very vocal and evangelical follower of Jesus, the wording of the Bill only referred to religions in general and plural.  If these powers of veto or influence are applied equally to all religions, the resulting affects on the curricula would be crippling to our educational system.

Creationists often demand that their myth regarding the origins of humanity be taught along side the science of evolution, and given equal weight and credibility as an alternative explanation.  If this is similarly intended with this bill, and is applied to all religions, the resulting chaos of irrationality could boggle the minds of some of our potentially best and brightest.  We would be presenting children with a cacophony of ignorance, infusing ideas of a flat earth created in six days with stars as heavenly projectiles and the laws of physics subject to the whims of an imaginary, invisible, supernatural being.  Additionally, the social impact of Christian and Islamic doctrine against any who do not share their faith, as well as the discrimination against women and homosexuals, would destroy the more tolerant, secular environment.

The stupidity of this sort of all-inclusive influence by several religions is obvious.  I’m sure that equal access to all religions was not the expectation of this bill.  The apparent motive behind this Bill is not in the name of religious freedom or tolerance, but in the name of freedom and tolerance for one specific religion.   I’m sure that references to democracy would eventually be invoked to stave of any threat of competing theologies, ideologies, or even provable and observable truths, and preferential rights would be claimed, as a voting majority, by the most popular religion.  All, in violation of the constitution.  These sort of strategies employed are brilliant examples of political savvy and masterful statesmanship designed to erode the democracy from within by using its strengths against it.  Equality, access, respect and tolerance, and the systems and institutions that have been developed, striving towards these principles, are actively undermined with divine justification and absolution.  Christianity and Islam, and any other authoritarian theologies, are the stated enemies of democracy.

The two most common religions in America, and globally, don’t require observance by their adherents alone.  They require obedience and observance by our entire society.  They are dictatorial and tyrannical and anathema to a democracy.   Their religion requires them to evangelize, to witness, and to spread the word of god in order to convert the non-believers.  Their religion has rules and doctrines for society that they are commanded to demand.  It is the duty of Christians, or followers of Jesus and it is the same for Muslims and the devotees of Islam.  They must be imperialistic and work to convert or coerce others to follow the doctrines and dictates of their religion.  That is their role.  The public sphere is not a place of acceptance, tolerance and cooperation where they seek only to coexist, but a place to be evangelized and bend to their will.

This close call was in the state of Colorado, ranked only the forty-first most religious in America.  Texas, ranked the eleventh most religious, has already reintroduced the Christian Bible as part of their curriculum and Kentucky, ranked tenth, seems as though it will soon follow suit.  These are not isolated incidents of extremists trying to impact the American system.  Religious organizations and movements, in this case the conservative Christian Right, the followers of Jesus and American fundamentalists, are working vehemently to circumvent democratic process in America’s public and governmental institutions.  Cloaked in the guise of American traditional values and American patriotism, the Christian conservative movement works diligently to further realize its own agenda.  It will not be one sweeping event of momentous individual impact that will establish fundamental political and social change.  It will be small incremental changes building one upon the other until the constitutional coup attempted in Colorado will be the standard method of operation.  Even if it means subverting the constitution of the United States.

Citations:

(1) – http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/71A532164C3006E9872576A8002BBFF4?Open&file=089_01.pdf
(2) – http://coloradoindependent.com/47541/controversial-schultheis-public-schools-religion-bill-ends-in-a-whimper
(3) – http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/15/do-we-really-need-a-religious-bill-of-rights/
(4) – http://www.palibandaily.com/2010/02/17/colorados-religious-bill-of-rights/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+paliban/RDkF+(Paliban+Daily)
(5) – http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=504

Editor’s Note: Please follow Liam Fox on Twitter, and The News Junkie Post.

Share

72 Responses to Religious Assault On Democracy

  1. Brett G February 21, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    He writes, “What was at stake is the right for a religion to use the public school system as a venue for their proselytizing and means of imposing their discriminatory theological doctrine on society by having control over the public education system’s curricula.” Isn’t this exactly what teaching the unproven, discredited theory of evolution is doing? Evolution is a religion just like any other (except that it takes more faith to believe it than does a Creator-God). He’s just extremely worried that he will lose his monopoly on what’s being taught in the schools. -6000years.org

    • John H February 21, 2010 at 10:32 pm

      Really? Unproven, discredited? Do some real research. Evolution isn’t a theory, it’s a fact. You seem to be having some problems with the actual definition of a scientific theory.
      From wikipedia:
      A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
      it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
      makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

      From the American Association on the Advancement of Science:
      A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

      Evolution is most definitely not a religion.

      • Ironsides February 22, 2010 at 6:52 pm

        Hey, John H.! You sure sound like you “know-it-all”! Can I bow before you, oh great-one?

        What makes you the expert judge, that out of all the gas-bags who rambled on about evolution, that it suddenly became FACT?

        I’m truly impressed, that you are literate enough to give us Wikipedia’s definition of “THEORY”. Guess what! Wikipedia is just another continuously changing and growing collection of hot-air by gas-bags, who you think are so educated.

        Guess what John H.!–I’ve got a different definition of “THEORY”! My definition is alot simpler, and more accurate than yours.–And all the gas-bags at Wikipedia.

        A “THEORY” is merely an “OPINION”! By the way, John, everyone in the world agrees with my definition; it’s their definition, too.

        So, John H. you’re not doing so good at making fun of somebody else. Also, it’s about time school children got a chance to be educated again. They’ve had 30 years of evolution, Global-Warrrrrrming and Obama’s school children military.

        • Macrotesla February 22, 2010 at 7:30 pm

          Ironsides –
          Speaking as someone who would literally be proud to enrage you to the point of violence: you really really don’t understand the point that John H was making.
          He criticized Brett for misusing the word ‘theory’, and he went on to explain what scientists mean when they use the word in ‘theory of evolution’. He expanded on this by including the wikipedia definition of it, which is a pretty accurate representation of how scientists use this word in a strict, non-negotiable way. They all understand that it means this, and no one scientist tries to use it in a different way. Follow along here…to summarize:

          The word ‘theory’ has a fixed meaning in the context of the ‘theory of evolution’.
          That meaning is as described in the wikipedia entry, cited above, and will not change, no matter which ‘gas bags’ choose to try to do so.

          You, as an uneducated person, cannot suddenly lumber into view in a cloud of Silverado exhaust and Bud Light cans, and announce in a broad regional accent, that the word ‘theory’ now has a new definition, that of ‘opinion’.
          There is already a term for the concept of an opinion: It is the word “opinion”.
          Scientists use this word too, when they have an unproven notion of what something is, or how it works, but no definite proof.
          Your proposal that a ‘scientific theory’ is merely an opinion is demonstrably and catastrophically false. No one who understands the two concepts properly will agree with you.
          A theory is a whole collection of self-supporting facts on a subject.
          There are many many facts that prove evolution, and none that disprove it.
          Every time a scientist establishes a new fact about evolution, and submits it to the scientific world, who then do everything they can to disprove it, it supports the current model we have of how evolution works.
          You yourself are more than welcome to erase the last 20 years of pointless arguments, drinking and sport-watching, educate yourself for 5, 10, 20 years and finally be in a position to explore an as-yet unknown area of biology whereupon you can attempt to discover if evolution is in fact an all-encompassing, always-true method of understanding the changes that take place in living systems over generations, or not.
          Until such a time, you are, as much as it pains me to say, welcome to your ‘opinion’, as false, illusory and pointless as that is.

          Evolution is a fact.
          Wikipedia has the definition of theory correct.
          A theory is not an opinion.

          Pick up those beer cans too, y’hear?

    • jb February 23, 2010 at 7:36 pm

      no its the other stuff that comes with it….teaching kids not to think independently or critically, teaching them who is ‘godly” and deserving and who is a sinner and an object of contempt-or worse….murder in the name of religion is pretty common something we don’t need is zealots or the Amtaliban telling kids that so and so deserves death because they are not true christians or are ‘unrepentant sinners’ or ‘abominations’ to big grandaddy in the sky…Its time to work toward a civilized enlightened and forward thinking society not the buffoonery of the dark ages …..there are plenty of world religion courses to take to find out about a faith…..and one is just as provable as “true” as the other…..

  2. Pingback: === popurls.com === popular today

  3. zav February 21, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    Lian, you wrote: “particulars of the Bill and it’s outrageous demands”.

    Please remember that it’s = it is.

    Your line should be, “particulars of the Bill and its outrageous demands”.

  4. zav February 21, 2010 at 10:06 pm

    Err, sorry, I meant Liam, not Lian.

  5. Mike W February 21, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    Commenter Brett G and other like him are confused. Evolution is a theory that has been proven in the same sense as the theory of gravity. Scientists and anyone that has any intellectual substance at all can see this. Even a student taking a first year Biology course would be hard pressed not to see this fact.

    Religious fundamentalists can have their religion but stay away from science and reality please.

  6. Amused February 21, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    “Isn’t this exactly what teaching the unproven, discredited theory of evolution is doing?”

    – Link? Citations? Proof?….didn’t think so.

    “Evolution is a religion just like any other (except that it takes more faith to believe it than does a Creator-God).”

    – I suppose for some belief in a book written by people about a man in the sky who made the world is indeed easier to believe than decades of scientific research and experimentation.

    Since you clearly don’t believe in anything science has done or will do…please get rid of your computer (semi-conductors, circuits, transistors, capacitors…all science!), stop driving your car (because chemical combustion and the means to make the gas that powers it were discovered by scientists/engineers), turn off your lights (electricity was found by science!), and live as those in your bible did. Otherwise, you’d be a hypocrite 🙂

  7. Agreement February 21, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    Great article, and as per the above i am boggled by people who can write:

    “Isn’t this exactly what teaching the unproven, discredited theory of evolution is doing?”

    Saying something over and over again doesn’t make it true….

  8. Brett G February 21, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    If evolution is proven true, name one single full skeleton of a pre-human, half ape (or unknown ape ancestor) and half human. Now we will see who is “confused”. There should be millions (as we have millions of dinosaur fossils), but I’m only asking for 1. Name it please.

    • Aug February 21, 2010 at 11:00 pm

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prehuman+skeleton

      Also, all of your electronics are based around a theory of electricity and magnetism. The theory of gravity explains why you fell and bumped your head when your parents dropped you as a child. The theory of evolution isn’t and wasn’t even a radical thought at the time — Darwin was just applying social philosophical ideas and mathematics newly available at the time to create a logical underpinning for how we came to be, and the fact that you can’t grasp the concept and the overwhelmingly likelihood of its validity speaks far more about your own stupidity than anyone else’s here.

      • Brett G February 21, 2010 at 11:10 pm

        Ah yes, the usual name calling in the place of scientific facts. Just step to to the challenge please.

        • Aug February 21, 2010 at 11:16 pm

          “Ardi.”

          But since you weren’t quite able to figure out how to read any of the articles linked to by Google that mentioned this name, I’m thinking “Brett G.’s” skeleton might give us some insight to protohumans that hadn’t quite developed the more advanced thinking for which homo sapien is known. 🙂

          • Brain February 27, 2010 at 2:33 am

            I hereby submit my theory :
            These trolls come from the holier than thou species named
            HOMO STUPIDUS

    • Agreement February 21, 2010 at 11:17 pm

      Also just wanted to point out, you shouldn’t be believing in Dinosaurs based on your faith and that the world existed back then.

      Also, we don’t have a million fossils, much less.

      And, Dinosaurs died off in a mass extinction that (however it occurred) more than likely gave rise to situations that led to their fossils being preserved.

      • chrisfrenzy February 23, 2010 at 10:21 am

        Brett, you’re forgetting your Bible. Remember Mark 6: 12-15:
        12. And Jesus said “Lo, there will come to pass a new understanding of the origins of all creation.
        13. “For thou shalt be witness to evidence wondrous and strange, that shall vex the least of you.
        14. “Yet, those whom the Lord shall deem worthy shall know the true beginnings of mankind and not be afraid.
        15. “And those who would doubt that which appears before their very eyes shall be ridiculed verily.”

        See? I can make stuff up, too.

    • Mike B February 22, 2010 at 9:52 am

      Your assumption that there should be millions of proto human remains to be found is wrong and shows that you no nothing about science. If you knew anything about paleoanthropology, you’d know why. Its as if someone who never read the bible tried to argue with you about whats in it. You shouldn’t attempt to engage in discussions about knowledge you have no clue about. I can tell just by your question you know nothing about science. Why don’t you just stick to to your nice little judeo- christian myth and keep your mouth shut.

  9. Charles Darwin February 21, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    Dear Brett G, please visit the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus

    • Brett G February 21, 2010 at 11:39 pm

      Australopithecines are a group of extinct apes closely related to modern chimpanzees and orangutans. Although many evolutionists use the remains of these extinct apes to try to prove human evolution, the weight of scientific evidence indicates clearly that australopithecines, such as Ardipithecus (ARDI) and Australopithecus Afarensis (LUCY), were only primeval apes and not the evolutionary ancestors of humankind.

      The challenge stands. Anyone else?

      • Bob February 22, 2010 at 12:06 am

        Brett G, you have no proof of God or Creationism, it is a fantasy that “could be real”, which you “therefore” believe is real. It is the same with your “god”, which I am assuming you blindly believe in, much like a muslim (since the blindly religious are all the same, sadly)

        I may ask you that you have no evidence of God, and you may retort to personal moments in how God has affected your life. This is crap since that is not proof of anything, since “proof” is what you can demonstrate to others.

        You will never in your life, like any other Catholic, be able to prove, show, demonstrate a moment related to God or Jesus because the fact of the matter is you are on Earth, in physical reality, with human beings, based in an Earthly reality. Even if you think God may show his work “through earthly reality” the fact of the matter is he still only shows himself through leaves, trees, which doesn’t prove anything, once again.

        I can have a religion of 3 billion people that believe a duck laid an egg called Earth, which is how Earth started. Believing it, having a huge following, and having history doesn’t “prove anything”.

        Christians, Jews, and the long time period before noone even had an idea what Christianity was used to think the Earth was flat, or at least not even round.

        “Thinking you are right” never makes you right. It is demonstration of proof to others, which Religious folks will never be able to do.

        That is why they murder with violence non-believers, or “silence” them through politics or laws. God can only be reached through stubborn rejection of reason, and cannot be demonstrated to other people (unless equally ignorant) therefore The Religious Fundamentalists must resort to “destorying non-believers” or “non-believer FASLE FACTS” by brute force.

        This is what is happening to Evolution. Forget reason, observation, and documentation. A fiction editted 1000 times throughout history is your guide, and if you were blind you’d believe water flows upwards. Reason is useless, blind faith is everything for you. Enjoy your life of reasonless following.

        • Brett G February 22, 2010 at 12:13 am

          Again, you are avoiding the the premise of this whole discussion. I am not trying to prove to the existence of God. I am challenging you on the proof of evolution. And I am asking for reason here. I ask again: If evolution is true, name one single full skeleton of a pre-human being (half ape/half human). This is the required proof that man evolved from lower species. Can you?

          • Human February 22, 2010 at 1:08 am

            There are a couple of problems with BrettG’s demands. First, there are no full skeletons of a half ape/half human, and there never will be. But that’s fine because the theory of evolution doesn’t predict such a hybrid creature anyways. There will be no half dog/half cat, or half dinosaur/half chicken, or any other such 50/50 hybrid. Evolution is a more subtle process than implied by the kind of proof required by BrettG.

          • ChrisW February 22, 2010 at 4:31 am

            Let’s rearrange this argument and assume that you are correct in this issue, now provide us a legitimate piece of information that god exists. If you can’t proove it, your claim is rejected. Once you have some solid evidence that your selected deity of choice is a real entity, you’ll have an argument. Here are a few pieces that proove evolution: Presence of primodial tails, human’s ability to drink milk past infantcy, the presence of sickle cell dominance within areas of high malaria rates… Just look around. If all humans were made from 2 people, wouldn’t we all look exactly the same such as having been done with lab mice? Micro-evolution exists, and macro-evolution is just a long series of micro-evolutions. Even the entire catholic church is ok with the concept, yet people such as yourself still close your eyes to evidence and believe these ridiculous claims such as creationism. If there was such an event that a finite # of creatures were created by god at one single event, shouldn’t you be doing EVERYTHING in your power to stop extinctions? Nothing new will ever come up to replace it, and nothing will evolve to fill the niche within the food chain, resulting in a breakdown in our sustainability.

          • notatroglodyte February 22, 2010 at 4:29 pm

            Brett G…
            here is your proof that evolution exists. do your teeth fit in your head? i assume you’ve had your wisdom teeth removed. go ask your grandfather whether he had his removed. i think your mind will be blown by the answer.

          • chrisfrenzy February 23, 2010 at 10:30 am

            Brett, if you were “asking for reason here” you would not be so afraid to accept the possibility that evolution is real. The chances are extremely good that everyone on this blog that understands and accepts that evolution is real at one point in their life questioned it. That’s what curious minds do.

            From what I can see, you are using only what information you can shape to fit your worldview, not out of scientific inquiry, but out of theological necessity.

          • jb February 23, 2010 at 6:31 pm

            if you put the skeletons of all predecessor primates-u see a pattern of development over a long period-but if u must -take a look at homo erectus and further down the line-also genetically we are pretty close to chimps, do u believe ppl build immunities? and consequently pass it on to their children? Do u believe some diseases get resistant to drug treatment? If they do then they are evolving and ADAPTING-which is the cornerstone of evolution….There is physical evidence to examine in science not religion-whose whole premise is the believer accept doctrine without questioning and offers no foundation to support an answer to big questions like well WHY-instead like all mythologies before tells the believer of an afterlife-which of course is neither provable or not-convenient.

  10. Andy February 22, 2010 at 12:24 am

    Haha Brett G, didn’t wanna leave you hanging. Way to go with your defense my man.

    I believe that it is important that people understand the difference between their perception of “religion” or how they see church’s act, and the way that true believers and followers of Jesus Christ act and behave. There are many many many “Christians” who judge homosexuals, push their ‘religion’ on people, and promote their “churches”.

    I would simply ask that they stop. Jesus never judged, he did not go around yelling at homosexuals and telling them they need to stop or else they will BURN IN HELL FOREVER. He didn’t judge, IN FACT he specifically told us not to judge.

    Jesus spoke of other people getting to know and believe in Him through our love, and I would ask everyone that says they are a Christian (I know there are several of you reading this) to make sure they are ONLY showing Christ’s love and mercy. Judgement brings condemnation which brings hate which is not the gospel. Read your bibles, that’s why we have them.

    Now, to this article. Obviously the person who wrote this knew they wanted to have something over the edge controversial (and I knew ahead of time it would be slandering religion… it was on Digg after all). I would ask that you quit using words like tyrannical and vehement. While I will agree the word “religion” has been used in the past to create tyrants I would argue that those people had no true religion.

    If you want to use such harsh words read the bible first. The message is clear about love and peace and patience and kindness and friendliness. It is simply that some who call themselves “Christians” choose not to read their own doctrine and therefore don’t fully understand or know their core values. It is not our place to be judging or condemning, we are to love people, to spread good news, to put our hands on people and heal sickness, to spread the Holy Spirit.

    Sorry you think so horribly of my faith, but realize that what you see as Christianity and the way it is supposed to look are usually two different things. I want to go down and punch those people holding up signs that say “Jesus hates homosexuals”, “Abortions make you a murderer and you are going to Hell”, etc. They suck, they are cruel, and they are not Christians. They have agenda’s beyond the bible, beyond Jesus, and beyond love.

    In terms of what’s taught in school, if you look up the word religion it means: details of belief as taught or discussed. Well, the belief is that evolution is how we are all here, and so that is a belief that is taught and discussed in school. Aka a religion. So be careful how you use that word.

    And my only question to you would be if the “Big Bang Theory” actually happened, where did the atoms and the molecules that started the WHOLE thing come from? Were they just ‘there’? How did they get there, how were they even in existence?

    • Fenrir February 22, 2010 at 7:17 am

      First, thank you for your well-written and intelligent response to what is obviously a very sensitive and heated topic. As such I felt a respectful response, hopefully before someone trolls, would be fitting. So I will address a few areas I felt compelled to answer.

      True believers Vs. “The Church” – As with Islam, I believe that fundamentalist extremists have hijacked religion to use it as a big stick to brow-beat people into accepting their beliefs as the only answer. The problem is that the most vocal members of a group gain the perception as being the majority of said group. I agree that anyone who truly believes in the morality and acceptance taught in (parts) of the Bible would not be shouting down homosexuals or condoning murder for someone who does not share their beliefs.

      Spread through Love – Faith is not something that can be taught, it should be something you feel inside. The problem is that religion is taught in the manner of pros and cons. Believe what we tell you or you get to burn forever. Believe a man rose from the dead and you get to live forever. They use, quite simply, propaganda and promises to coerce people into believing their religion. Religion without faith is a sad thing. And you cannot force faith on anyone. Doing something because it’s right and saying why you did it should be all you need to convert someone who truly shares your faith.

      Religion as Tyranny – What I think is truly glossed over the most when the Bible is brought up is that ancient kings and rulers used religion as a means to maintain control. Religion is all about control. It gives you a list of things you can and cannot do and the eternal, unarguable punishments that await you forever. The usage of “forever” to the human mind, which has a solid grasp of our own shortness of existence in the cosmic scheme, is an amazing tool to coerce and frighten. Fear and self-preservation spurred a lot of ancient religion and its control over the population. Religion was often spread at the tip of a sword rather than an open hand.

      I applaud your stance and views on people who have hijacked a religion I was once a member of. I go to church because my fiance wants me to, but I do not feel moved by the rhetoric as she does. However, I see the morality that is preached within that message and I can embrace that. There should be more discussion and less mobs (made of mostly old, white people) picketing with hurtful signs.

      Thanks once again for posting something I felt worthy of taking time and thought to address. It’s a shame we can’t all have polite discussions more often.

  11. Enlightenment February 22, 2010 at 12:37 am

    Poll – Best way to describe Sarah Palin?
    http://poll.pollcode.com/ZwY

  12. Calvin February 22, 2010 at 1:22 am

    It’s ppl like you who believes in Christianity that makes me worried about the next generation. I want to type and argue back, but somehow i feel even if i can bring the fact to ur face, you will never going to accept it either way.

    Enjoy ur God.

  13. Human February 22, 2010 at 1:23 am

    A quick read of BrettG’s post brings a series of questions to mind: 1) What do you mean by “just a theory?” Or more succinctly, what do you mean by “theory?” 2) What do you mean by “species?” 3)What’s the difference between a belief and a science?

    As for your long list of questions; 1) humans can see at night, although cats can do so better. There are other species that don’t see as well as we do at night. However, no living being can see in absolute darkness. 2) are skin does protect us from the sun — try living without one.

    Evolution isn’t a belief in the same way belief in God is a belief. The theory of evolution is the result of an examination of the evidence as it exists at any given time. It is still open to change, as the evidence changes. That’s the nature of science. I find it more difficult to believe in God, and I don’t understand why you don’t. If you require the “hard,” unequivocal type of evidence you’re demanding to believe in evolution, why don’t you require the same type of evidence for believe in God? I haven’t seen too many Gods lately.

  14. L. Koholik February 22, 2010 at 2:35 am

    The stupidity of these people is without borders. No I am not insulting you here. An insult is unjustified, however stupid really is more of a term to describe your very existence.

    Besides being able to overlook a million issues about your own religion and not requiring an ounce of proof to believe in it (hence faith) you will attack the credibility of other beliefs as you call them, although most people call them facts instead of trying to explain why your beliefs make more sense. That is in large part due to the fact that making up a convincing fictional story is hard work. I mean, the bible had 2000 years and it’s still plagued with errors.

    I feel like arguing with you people is a lost cause since you seem to have evolved into a human-like race that is to Religious Dogma what dogs are to men. I will therefore argue simply to convince those that might be listening and not sure which side to believe.

    Evolution is not a theory. It’s called so, but it has been proven many times. One of the most obvious examples are domesticated animals. Compare a wolf with a miniature poodle and you will know what I mean. Not only that, but scientists even replaced certain species into different countries and found that after as little as 15 years they had physically and mentally evolved. Not to forget the countless skeletons of animals that were found to be the ancestors of todays species.

  15. Thoth February 22, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Honestly, I’m a little tired of this debate and I agree with the author that mixing religion and politics is dangerous, even more dangerous when mixed with public education, it becomes indoctrination. You might argue that the opposite is occurring with science being taught in public schools, sinister science wants to take away your religion…but I know people that trust both. I think it takes some mental gymnastics but they do it. Science is not a religion, not even remotely. 1. no deity. 2. no spirituality 3. its imperfect, while religion claims otherwise. 4. doesn’t require blind faith but does require peer review and repeatable test results. I’m fine with someone believing in creationism, although I do not and will argue, but I do not believe it should be taught in school. There are already institutions ready and willing to forward this idea, churches. Separation of church and state.

    “Evolution is a belief, not a science.”
    “It actually takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in Creation!”

    That a fact? Evolution is not a belief, nor is it an act of faith. A science? Part of one, Biology, and accepted by other branches of science. Actually, it is a theory that is subject to its own ideas and will continue to evolve as research and evidence are taken into consideration. That’s right, it is an idea in flux, it changes. Religion, blanket term I know, however is fairly static. How many new books have been added to the bible recently? None, unless you count LDS. Religious texts are inviolate, other than translation and interpretation. To correct you, it takes more work and thought to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation. Creation is easy, you don’t have to mess your hands with all the details. For me, it’s the difference between a black and white world of absolutes and a world of color where everything is in a constant state of flux.

    “we have these bodies because this is the way God made us”

    The reason we don’t have a body similar to an animal, strength, fur, fangs, claws, exceptional night vision, etc…is because our ancestors (notice I don’t say apes because the family tree split long ago) somewhere along the line developed opposable thumbs, the ability to make and use tools, harness fire, cook their food. Why retain claws when you can have a spear? Why keep fur when you can have animal skin clothing? Why retain prominent canines when you cook your food and no longer need to tear it raw from the bone? Why retain exceptional night vision, and we still have it to a degree, when you can huddle around a camp fire after a long DAY of hunting? Why retain extreme muscle density when you can use your brain to come up with a tool to make it easier and more efficient? Oh, your question of why we get sunburns…just because our ancestors spent a lot of time out of doors at one point doesn’t mean we’re immune to the sun’s rays. We’ve had a lot of time to pamper ourselves by building homes, wearing clothes, and shedding any need for tougher skin. I realize you address these questions already, and you answered nicely except for time. The adaptations didn’t take place over 6000 years, try billions. Just because recorded history is short doesn’t mean everything popped into being shortly before writing was invented.

    Some religions believe that a god gave us fire, or that we stole it away. Who gave us the wheel?

  16. ChrisW February 22, 2010 at 4:42 am

    Much like the “Theory of gravity”, “cellular theory”, the “theory of thermodynamics”, “electromagnetic theory”, “motor theory”, the “theory of nuclear fission”, “semiconductor theory”, “atomic theory””theory of plate tectonics”, “theory of molecular bonds”, “circuit theory”, “antenna theory”… do I really need to continue? Disputing evolution based on the name theory is as ignorant as stating that “Gravity” is “ONLY A THEORY”. Then float away, or realize that applying the word “Theory” is more powerful than calling it a “Fact”. Maybe ‘creationists’ should start referring to scientific theories as facts instead. Refer to it as the ‘Fact of Evolution’, and let’s hope that this is a little more palatable.

  17. SideByEach February 22, 2010 at 5:22 am

    Arguing with the likes of Brett G and other Christo-fascists is pointless. The believe so they have to be right. All the proof or science in the universe will never convince them they are wrong.

    I did enjoy the fact Brett G used dinosaurs as part of his counter though. Irony level: High .

  18. anonymous February 22, 2010 at 5:53 am

    check out Oregon. Just passed a bill allowing teachers in public school to wear religious attire in the classroom. Hailed by “progressives” as a wonderful thing for religious freedom. Huh??? I don’t want my child taught by someone wearing a burqua and lest you think I’m prejudiced I would say the same about any religious attire. Religion doesn’t belong in compulsory public education. If someone wants to wear a habit, yarmulke, turban, cross, or whatver in school they should teach in a private school.

  19. The Dude February 22, 2010 at 7:27 am

    There are mosquitos living in the London Underground that can no longer mate with those that live above ground, but can mate just fine with their Underground peers. They have diverged into a new species. Evolution.

    Also in England, Peppered Moths used to use their light color as camouflage to hide from hungry birds on the light colored tree trunks. Almost all of the moths had a light coloration. With the industrial revolution, the tree trunks began to be darkened by pollution. The light colored moths started getting filtered from the gene pool by the hungry birds. Today, most of the Peppered Moths are darker colored. Evolution.

    50 Years ago you might have been given Penicillan for a Strep or Staph infection. Not now. Penicillan no longer kills these infections. Evolution.

    • The Dude February 22, 2010 at 8:25 am

      While I’m at it, as Brett G trys to point out (as others have, including at least one site that discusses the Peppered Moth example), none of these produces new animals, or new organs in existing animals. Using that logic, you can then argue that humans are just ‘mutations’ of apes, since we have all the same organs. Even opposable thumbs are just a ‘mutation’. But I doubt they would acknowledge this, since their thought is constrained by dogma.

      As far as organic changes, it is true you won’t see this kind of thing in a single generation (evolution doesn’t assert that you will, or that you will see half-monkey half-man hybrids), but what you see with Penicillan across generations is as significant as seeing a species develop or lose a tail.

    • Alex February 22, 2010 at 9:52 am

      actually, adaptation. But close.

  20. DustenwithanE February 22, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Science and religion are not opposites. There is a lot of scientific evidence that the Bible was written in a historically correct manner. It includes more years of Earth than 6000, it includes dinosaurs, it can even include evolution if you look at it like that. If it is just a book full of stories, how could it have lasted for the thousands of years since it was written with no printing presses to keep it intact? Of the hundreds of copies found scattered across the middle east, all from the same time period, they were all exactly the same. What was going on in the world that was so important to everyone witnessing the events, that they felt inclined to take months or years of their lives and devote themselves to copying this text?

    Evolution is not the disproving of the existence of God. It’s the affirmation of God. We still don’t understand everything there is to know about this world or the universe that we live in. The only thing I see is the destruction of it and ourselves through selfishness and deceit. If I put a bullet into your skull right now, the spark that has been driving your heart since you were six days in the womb would have to go SOMEWHERE, based upon the first law of thermodynamics. It is fact that the human body loses 21 grams of weight upon death. Explain that please? There is more to this world than the physical realm.

    As far as the right of a teacher to wear a cross around her neck, or wear a shirt with John 3:16 on it, she should be protected from prosecution based upon her principles. Whether or not her beliefs are part of the standard curriculum is a different story. Teachers are going to say things and spread messages outside of what is required of them. Otherwise, they would be reading a script. Teachers face enough challenges just trying to meet the standards set forth by people who have no clue about what it is like to deal with children. Teaching is more than a full time job. They take it home with them. They are going to end up letting their own personal beliefs come out at some point. It is a tendency of the human mind to let those indoctrinations come out. When it happens, they should be protected. We founded our country on Christianity and should be proud that there are still people who want to spread love, in a world filled with hatred. I’m prepared to see a teacher fired for spreading the creation story. It will happen very soon I’m sure. Kids are very smart and can decide for themselves what they will believe, but they should not be denied access to every side of the story and the people allowing them access should be protected from punishment.

    May God bless you all.

    • jb February 23, 2010 at 6:44 pm

      actually indoctrination is much easier when the recipient is a child -as in child suicide bombers-and they more often trust what adults tell them…Hitler Youth ring a bell…..Religious indoctrination in centers of (public) learning=very ominous future……somebody is trying to bring the dark ages back and has an agenda for segments of society and it won’t be pretty.

  21. Caleb Bennett February 22, 2010 at 8:57 am

    While I’m not supportive of bills like this, the author is DEFINITELY sensationalizing the bill. Just because Christians want a say in public education doesn’t mean it’s an outright revolt and subversion of public authority. If the author’s rhetoric is taken at face value, this is the end of the world (pardon the religious reference). I understand you’re an atheist. To your credit, you’re one of the “tolerant” ones that settles for endlessly insulting everyone who doesn’t follow the one true path of Atheism (if you’re picking up the sarcasm, you’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg…you’re an insult to intelligent, thinking non-religious people). But you’re clearly letting your personal views on the subject cloud the real picture here. This isn’t an attempt at subverting the constitution and creating a theocracy. This is an attempt by one interest group to have its opinion heard in the education system. This kind of thing happens all the time. It’s commonly referred to as the Democratic process, whereby people are allowed to have different views than your holiness, the god of truth, Liam Fox.

    I don’t agree with what they’re trying to do. The scientific consensus is the only logical thing to teach in a science class (at least in a public institution). However, these people aren’t trying to take over the world. They’re trying to have their voice heard in government, just like every other interest group in the United States. All people like you do is further aggravate the issue.

    • BiggFigg February 22, 2010 at 10:54 am

      Children believe what they believe because they are taught to think that way, either by the church or their parents. By forcing religion in any public school you create indoctrination. First and foremost, you advocate one religion over another. That’s unconstitutional in public funded institutions. Next, you breed intolerance of other religions because you’ve selected one to teach. Finally, you blind the student to any true facts by clouding the matter by involving faith. Give these children a non-biased curriculum free of religion then give them an introduction after education so they may form an opinion that is based on education and not one based on what the church or mommy and daddy say. Yes, that may endanger or destroy the current institutions of religion but that may be for the best.

      Most people don’t know any history of the current Bible. The religious read the Bible and take it as fact when it is an instrument of man devised to explain the unexplainable and establish rules by which to govern an ignorant society. The Old Testament is the foundation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They all start off the same way in Genesis. Judaism rejects the notion that Christ is the son of God and stops at the end of the Old Testament. Chrisitanity embraces this and forges ahead with the New Testament. Islam branches early and follows Mohammed and his journey.

      The New Testament was written at the behest of Emperor Constantine who felt that the Old Testament was so gloom and doom. He invoked a college of scholars to write new books to the Bible to further define his idea of society. There are books that were written and not included. All are the basis of Christianity but were written 300-600 years AFTER Christ was supposed to have lived. Read here for more information: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/80879-forged-origins-new-testament.html.

      So which one is the one we should follow if we are to be religious? One can argue that religion also evolves when taken into this light. What is obvious is that all religion requires belief without proof. To the uneducated, this is as easy as breathing. If you cannot explain it, then God did it. Just because our minds cannot comprehend it during that day and time does not mean we will never understand it. If a modern man were to go back in time he would be looked at as a god because of his knowledge and abilities. However, that same man would likely starve to death because he would be required to use a different system of living with which he is unfamiliar. Conversely, a man from 2000 years ago would be thought as primitive until modern technology fails and his knowledge would become valuable. It all depends on the time you live as to your perspective.

      I agree with posters above about the issues of religion. I am an athiest as a result of religion and where it has gone. The hatred and judgement it breeds is wrong and not in line with the teachings in the book. I don’t need all that. I can think for myself thank you very much. I don’t deny the good of religion, either. Many great things have been accomplished as a result of a belief in a “God”. Many atrocities have been perpetrated as well such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and more recently the destruction of the Native Americans because the white man decided their religion was better than those of the natives. People die, cultures are destroyed, and truths are buried in the name of “God”. This is man at his worst: misinterpreting a good word to serve his own goals.

      I advocate humanism. Let’s be kind to each other. Let’s respect the viewpoints of others. Keep your religion to yourself. Live and let live. It’s so easy to commit atrocities in the name of “God”. It’s impossible to commit the same atrocities in the name of humanity.

  22. Alex February 22, 2010 at 9:49 am

    I would agree with Andy on this one. One of the biggest mistakes that we are making in the conversation is assuming that people of a certain religion all believe the same thing or that the bible says definitively what must be done in socio-political issues that simply didn’t exist at the time. Let’s take homosexuality for instance (since that is the hot button issue right now). The bible does speak very harshly about homosexuality but it also was written in a time when monogamous homosexual relationships did not exist and certainly not homosexual marriages.
    There are many people who will go to the bible as a handbook of facts but that way of thinking didn’t really exist in the time of the New Testament and certainly not to the extent that it does today. When the bible speaks of truth it is speaking of a spiritual understanding of things which is all connected through love, it is not speaking of the tangible facts on the way the world was made. It does say that God made it, and that is something that many people of science believe simply because the Big Bang Theory (which is definitely still a theory, despite the argument of semantics which has been wagged on this message board) has too many holes and the creator theory still stands. Philosophers have supported this with a form of truth for years it just isn’t a scientific truth, rather it is one based on logic and feeling which should not be discounted.
    To sum this up: Big Bang Theory is still a theory and at this point needs to be part of an educational discussion along with other philosophers views of creation. Evolution is a fact, at least on a micro scale, in which case it is proved by adaptation. Religion isn’t always bad and vilifying it only serves to hurt democracy even more and betray the first amendment just as this article claims all of religion is doing. This article is filled with logical fallacy, most obviously hasty generalizations, but what else would you expect from the internet. And lastly, as a Christian I love you all and hope only to find truth and understanding as we further question the ways which the world that God has created works by the science and understanding which he has given us.

  23. Jay February 22, 2010 at 10:39 am

    The comparison of evolution with gravity stems from a very foolish misunderstanding. Gravity is an observable phenomenon, evolution is not observable in the same sense. It’s true we can observe natural selection but the idea that natural selection fully explains evolution is a theory in the exact sense most people use the term.

    The theory of gravity is far from proven because the theory of gravity does not postulate that gravity exists, which is taken as a given, rather the current theory of gravity postulates that gravity results from a warping of spacetime caused by mass. While there is no reason for me to doubt the theory of gravity, only a fool would cite it as something proven beyond doubt. It expanded on Newton’s theory of gravity, which incorrectly allowed for a gravitational force traveling faster than the speed of light. The theory could easily be superseded again because it is a theory.

    Don’t you liberals feel the slightest embarrassment that everytime you talk about the theory of gravity in relation to the theory of evolution you are actually taking advantage of the public’s ignorance of what the theory of gravity really is? I can only guess that you really care nothing for science, but are only interested in feeling superior to the simple rural values of others. “The problem with liberals is they’re not really liberal” – RR

  24. Misanthropic Iconoclast February 22, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    Why are people so foolish to continue feeding the trolls like Brett G?

  25. Circus of Ideas February 22, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    Someone with such a tenuous grasp on science shouldn’t be lecturing anyone on the validity its findings, Brett.

  26. phauna February 22, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    You write pretty well but ‘affect’ is a verb, ‘effect’ is the noun you want I think.

  27. Brett G February 22, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    Not one person has yet given an example of one single complete transitional form fossil skeleton. Darwin even wrote that his theory would be dead without such fossils. So by the Great Darwin’s own validity test, evolution cannot be true. If I was a believer in evolution (like so many making posts here), I would have to question my faith given that none exist. Do you realize you are putting your faith into evolution with no actual hard evidence? Your ‘evidence’ seems be the very existence of all of the animals is proof that we evolved. Don’t you see a problem with this? If you showed me a series of monkey to man fossil skeletons, I would have to believe that I indeed evolved from lower life forms. But since there are none, I must believe that I was created as-is. Its pretty simple.

    So the challenge still stands. Can ANYONE out there give an example of a single, complete skeleton of a pre-human ancestor?

    • Evan February 22, 2010 at 7:49 pm

      You clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of the scientific method and the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry. By all means disagree with the biology departments of Oxford, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, Harvard, Cambridge, Dartmouth, Brown, UPenn, Columbia, NYU, Stanford, Tufts, Vanderbilt, Duke, UNC, MIT, Cal Tech, John’s Hopkins, Emory, etc. but do not get offended when we call you a retard. Go read some peer reviewed literature (and The Bible/Koran/Torah do not count as peer-reviewed scientific text).

      • SecularBobby February 22, 2010 at 8:51 pm

        Brett let me put it in simple terms since you obviously need it. Lets say your doing a Jig-saw puzzle. You have 50% percent of the pieces, can you tell me what the picture of it is? Perhaps you can’t but you could make a hypothesis that puzzle A is a picture of B. I don’t need a complete skeleton( wich you are right there is no complete skeleton of a Pre-human hominid). Basiacly your argument is that because that there is no complete fosil then evolution is false and God is true. The problem with that is God is an excuse for what you can’t explain. You beleive the earth is 6000 years old ( I am assuming) so I bet you think carbon dating is false, well you have to i suppose to fit what you think is truth(and yes there is an apologetic argument for this as well). Prove it, you can’t just like you can’t prove God, but I can’t prove that he doesn’t excist. The fact is that after studing to be a youth pastor for 3 years I came to the conclusion that this is all hogwash, that is my personal decision, I might be wrong and you might be wrong, matter of fact we could both be wrong. You can say I know in my heart and soul he is real. So could a Muslim or a Hindu.

    • chrisfrenzy February 23, 2010 at 10:43 am

      Brett, I have several books that say Evolution is real. You have one book that says god is real. Can you post a photograph of Adam and Eve’s skeletal remains? If not, then you don’t even have any more evidence of The Creation than you’re demanding from “evolutionists.”

  28. Brett G February 22, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    Finally we are getting somewhere. OK, so an evolutionist admits there are no complete pre-human fossil skeletons. This we know.

    But you say, “There are plenty of skulls and femur bones of homo habilis, homo erectus, etc.”. These are the fancy scientific-sounding names for pre-humans given by evolutionists. Lets focus in on skulls. Now name one skull of a supposed pre-human. (Please, let us not get side-tracked on your leap from virus mutations monkey-to-man evolution).

    Which skull are you referring to please Hector?

  29. Hector Maquieira February 22, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    are you serious, just wikipedia homo habilis they pictures. i saw one for myself in ann arbor at the museum…

    java man is a famous one too

  30. Hector Maquieira February 22, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    i just named java man a fossil of homo erectus! what is your problem man? if u do look at wikipedia you will see plenty of links to more evidence, ive given ample information for you to find it, if you dont want to look though then dont be mad when you are accurately called willfully ignorant

  31. Hector Maquieira February 22, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    im pretty sure you’re wrong in saying normal human beings…

    what mayr did was classify java man as Homo Erectus, instead of a different genus…

    anyways, mayr was one of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists, so im pretty sure he would have disagreed with you.

  32. Hector Maquieira February 22, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    and its funny that the quote you put up is only found in websites that are titled “darwin is crying” and “antidarwinism”

  33. Hector Maquieira February 22, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    koenigswald is also the guy who discovered java man in the first place, he didn’t classify it as Homo because he wasn’t sure until other skulls were found that convinced that java was indeed the same species as Peking man, or homo erectus.

    your quote must be a mistranslation or something…

  34. Hector Maquieira February 22, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    look at a picture of java man’s skull cap, it’s clearly not homo sapiens.

    anyways, lucy and ardi are EVIDENCE of evolution, even if they are just apes. actually, ardi probably wasn’t even a direct ancestor of homo sapiens, but the fossil definitely resembles something which is not quite a chimpanzee but also not quite a human, i.e. something in between.

    and no im not embarassing anyone, ive never heard anyone claim that java man was homo sapiens besides the quote you gave from antidarwinism.com

    • jb February 23, 2010 at 7:07 pm

      Good points Hector but I wonder if someone actually will ever even consider any other possibility but what they want to believe-he is completely blind…..your efforts are noble though.:)

  35. Hector Maquieira February 22, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    anyways, i feel the argument is exhausted, i dont think we have any common ground. good luck, i hope jesus saves you or whatever

  36. Astronomer Kat February 23, 2010 at 12:40 am

    Brett G is one of those people that will hold more firmly to his belief the more contrasting evidence you provide him. He “knows” that he is right because the whole world of big bad mean scientists is against him. His bible is RIGHT (or at least the parts that he has actually read) and everyone who disagrees with him is WRONG and becomes more so as you “persecute” him further. He’s a lost cause, just don’t let him teach your children.

    Science isn’t a book, it’s a method. It’s a way of examining the world with a certain amount of skepticism. We let the field evolve as we learn more, because humans aren’t omniscient. The beauty of it is that as we get more answers, we ask more questions. Evolution (and as an astronomer, the Big Bang theory) were both highly contested by the scientific community when they first were introduced (the reason it is known as the “Big Bang” theory at all is because Fred Hoyle, one of the most famous astronomers at the time was mocking it), but over and over again the new facts that we were picking up kept pointing to these pesky theories. The cosmic microwave background, the clustering of galaxies on large scales, the isotropy of the sky all point to the Big Bang Theory, and if tomorrow science finds that a different theory fits all the observations better, we would make that change (possibly begrudgingly, see Hoyle….). Science tells us to do this, because it teaches us to doubt things until we are convinced. Creationism does NOT fit the observations and it never will – sorry guys. I know you desperately want it to, but really you are not disproving science by questioning evolution, you are emboldening scientists to follow the true journey of science, and keep collecting data.

    • jb February 23, 2010 at 7:03 pm

      Absolutely right-no use beating against a brick wall of blind conviction.

  37. Keith February 23, 2010 at 12:52 am

    Let me get this straight…so just because there is no conveniently placed full skeleton of a human ancestor that means evolution is a myth? Everything that scientists studied and proved about adaptation, mutation, the differences between migrating populations is null and void unless they find a couple more bones? Really? If that’s your whole argument against evolution then that’s pretty pathetic.

    Adaptation and mutation occurring in all animals is an absolute fact. Variation among isolated groups is also an irrefutable fact. Human genome similarity with chimpanzees? Fact. Natural selection? Fact. Extinction? Fact. All of these thing and a lot more are part of the evidence for evolution. No, there is no way to fully prove evolution yet, but how in the world can you just dismiss all these facts?
    But it’s time for you creationists to provide some proof. I want to see Noah’s bones and extracted DNA to prove he is humanity’s common ancestor, and the wood he used for the arc.

    • jb February 23, 2010 at 7:01 pm

      Your point is well stated but as far as Brett G falling on deaf ears..He will never examine his own belief system critically or deign to measure it against REALITY.

  38. Mike February 23, 2010 at 8:58 am

    Easy solution; quit using the government to steal people’s money to fund government schools. END government schools.

  39. jb February 23, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    exactly

  40. jb February 23, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    my question is-what rights are they really denied? They can get legislators to shoot down legislation easily with lobbying,they can practice religion at their leisure-why do they need to display it so fervently and publicly ? Why do they feel the need to indoctrinate the young so desperately? They demanded religious schools to teach and have it why is that not enough? It starts to smack of a need to control minds.

  41. Brain February 27, 2010 at 2:55 am

    The one made in “His” image is
    Homo Stupidus. or the common name know to us as Brett G aka. Christian Taliban

  42. heretic March 1, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Where in the fossil record are the transitional fossils that prove human evolution.They are not there.The fossil record does not bear witness to human evolution.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login