The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    crazedandconfused's picture

    Joy Behar advocates child abuse charges for teaching creationism over evolution - I take it one step further

    By crazedandconfused on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 12:14pm |

    I saw a clip of "The View" yesterday where the hosts were discussing darwinism vs creationism and what should be taught in our schools and to our children.  First of all - good job to Joy Behar - for not being afraid to stand up to the right wing screech in Elizabeth Hassleback, and for not beating up on Sherri Shepherd, because it would have come across as picking on the mentally challenged.  But that insults the mentally challenged - as they often have the ability to put together rational thoughts, and Sherri Shepherd is a walking ad for forced sterilization. 

    So - there was an argument about whether evolution (or "darwinism" in this argument) should be taught to our kids in school instead of creationism.  You'll never guess which two geniuses were coming down on the side of teaching creationism to our children.  Now - for those of you who are a little shaky on exactly what that means - here's quick breakdown:

    The Universe (including the Earth and all life upon it) was created by God in seven literal days, sometime about 6000 years ago. 
    All of the supposed "scientific" data about the Universe being between 13.5 and 14 billion years old are really just tricks laid out by "that ol' devil" to test our faith in the Lord.
    The science of carbon dating and radiometric dating - which has been used to date dinosaur bones and other fossilized materials, as well as rocks, etc. is really just a trick used by - you guessed it - "that ol' devil" to test our faith in the Lord.
    Dinosaur bones were planted by the Lord to test or faith, or were planted by that tricky rascal the devil to make us reject God when we questioned things - or Dinosaurs lived peacefully alongside man, even being brought on Noah's Ark
    God made Adam and Eve - and they gave birth to brothers Cain and Able.  As we know from the bible, Cain killed able.  So, it stands to reason that if Cain took a wife out into the desert when he was banished to the land of Nod, it would have been a sister of his.  OR - since he and his father were the only two dudes around, they could have pulled a train on Eve and he could have been the father of his own wife.  But as the bible is the inerrant word of God, and there was no mention of other peoples on the Earth, we must accept that there were none.
    Now - this is "Young Earth Creationism" - which is the form that I'm certain Sheri Shepherd believes in.  As much as I'd like to take on that shrieking shrew Elizabeth Hassleback - I only have time to take on the complete imbecile today.

    So - Sheri believes that the World is Flat, that no people on the Earth predate Christians, and that Evolution is a demon scientific theory given to us by -- one more time -- yup -- "bad ol' satan" to make us believe we came from monkeys. 

    Joy Behar stated that if you teach your children that creationism is real, and that evolution is false - you are doing such a disservice to them that it constitutes Child Abuse.  Sure - your first thought is NO WAY - A PARENT CAN TEACH THEIR CHILD WHATEVER THEY WANT.  

    Well - if you take that position - do you feel that the child should be able to sue the parent for the disadvantages they will suffer when they have to go out into the World and compete for grades in college or jobs in the workforce? 

    The bottom line is that we should be a Country that keeps the M.F. Creationist views, and their bastard stepchildren Intelligent Design as far away from our Science classes as possible.   Don't teach a controversy just because you manufactured one to give your ignorant beliefs credence.  And if you do - I think CPS should have the right to pay you a visit.    If you can't be adult enough to understand that the Universe and the Earth are older than 6000 years - perhaps you should be sterilized so that you can't screw up anything else.

     

    Comments

    what a small mind you have


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 7:58pm

    So, the insinuation is that because he finds the idea of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark (or possibly the idea of the ark, full stop) ridiculous, he's the one with the small mind?

    Who says irony is dead?


    by Orlando on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:09am

    The best course of action is to just not ever watch The View.  Ever.  It's a perfect example of the sort of "fair and balanced", "teach the controversy" crap that passes for discourse in American culture.


    by DF on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 9:23pm

    I debated putting this post on here - not because of the condmnation of the fools in Sheri & Elizabeth - but because I didn't want to admit I even knew their names.

    I just can't wait until they start talking about "the gays" again on there.

     


    by crazedandconfused17 (not verified) on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 4:03am

    1. Macro-Evolution is not a fact it is a theory

    2. Intelligent design is not a fact it is a theory

    Which theory is true? NO ONE KNOWS!!! that is why it is called a theory. Should one theory be taught in schools over another? Absolutely not.

    Can you honestly say with an open mind that the Theory of evolution is infallible and that there is no possible way that something else could be true.

    Again for those who follow blindly that Macro-Evolution is a proven fact please do a Google search, it is not. That is why it is called "The Theory of Evolution" not the "Fact of Evolution".


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 10:52am

    I agree. I have a theory that the world was designed by incredibly industrious flying squirrels. I call it the Magic Flying Squirrel Design Theory. The Texas Board of Education is considering incorporating it into their curriculum. A couple of other theories that I'm promoting:

    • The Big Vacuum Cleaner Theory of Gravity
    • The Electricity Is Our Imagination Theory
    • The Atoms Are Just Tiny Boogers Theory

    Coming soon to a textbook near you.

    PS I'm looking for accredited scientists, or at least someone who passed physics, to validate my theories and provide intellectual cover. I think that will really help me to convince the Texas BofE. Please contact me.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 11:57am

    1. Macro-Evolution is, indeed a scientific theory.
    2. Intelligent design is neither a fact, nor a scientfic theory. As Wolfgang Pauli would say about such quackery, it's not even wrong.
    3. Perhaps you should educate yourself about what a scientific theory is.

    Here's a clue (as Genghis was suggesting): there's also a theory known as the "Theory of Gravitation". It is distinct from (and superior to) the Law of Gravitation in that it is explanatory instead of merely descriptive. (Similarly, there is also a Law of Natural Selection, related to "Macro-Evolution", but it is inferior to the Theory of Evolution.

    We're always welcome to comment on things that we know little about, as it helps us to learn about the topic when others correct our mistakes. I hope you take advantage of this correction to learn more about science.


    by Nebton on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:41pm

    Show me your scientific fact on Macro-Evolution. There is none!! The scientific theory is a process in which what is currently (and remember the earth was once flat) known is turned into an idea about what the theorist thinks it is. There is no proof of spontaneous life generation from non living matter to living matter. For Macro-Evolution to be a “Fact” and I use the word fact because that is the words that Joy Behar used there would have to be proof. If you can show me this proof I will be more than happy to drop all my arguments against Macro-Evolution theories and jump on board. Of course you can’t so I will continue to have an open mind. I suggest you do so as well.

    BTW

    It is actually easier to believe that some form of Intelligence seeded life onto this world whether that intelligence is God or aliens.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 1:51pm

    remember the earth was once flat

    Really? When was that? Please provide the name of a scientist who thought that. Not since the scientific method was invented has "science" thought the Earth was flat. (That the Earth was round has been known since antiquity. If you're under the impression that Columbus was challenging a flat Earth idea, that's a mistaken impression. The problem is that most scientists at the time thought the Earth was much larger than Columbus thought it was (they were right), and that he would run out of supplies well before hitting Asia. Luckily for Columbus there was another continent along the way to Asia.)

    There is no proof of spontaneous life generation from non living matter to living matter.

    Depends on what you mean by "spontaneous", but regardless, that has nothing to do with "macro evolution", unless you're somehow using a unique definition for "macro evolution" (which most of us just call "evolution").

    For Macro-Evolution to be a “Fact” and I use the word fact because that is the words that Joy Behar used there would have to be proof.

    1. Please define "Macro-Evolution", as I suspect you're using it in a way that's not typical. (Unfortunately, even "typical" is unscientific, as this word combination is quite rare in actual scientific circles. It's use is often, but not always, a red flag that the user is aware of evidence of evolution, but any evidence they accept for evolution only applies to "micro evolution", which ultimately gets defined as evolution for which there is evidence. Thus the circular logic is complete.)
    2. What do you accept as "proof"? Do fossil records count, or do you consider these planted by Satan?

    I have a very open mind with regards to evolution. If someone ever came along with a more parsimonius explanation, I'd be very open to it. So-called "intelligent design" merely pushes the problem back a level, because now you have to explain how the designer came to be.

    It is actually easier to believe that some form of Intelligence seeded life onto this world whether that intelligence is God or aliens.

    Only if you don't ask how God or the aliens came to be.


    by Nebton on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:02pm

    Fossils are not proof of evolution they are only proof of extinction

     

    So are you leaving ID open as a possibility?


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:13pm

    ID is not a theory. As I've already said, it's not even wrong. If it is every presented in a scientific framework, I'll take a look at it.


    by Nebton on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:14pm

    You have to wait for someone else to tell you it’s a scientific theory before you will look at it? Shouldn’t you always pursue knowledge even if it does not fit with current thinking? If that was the process then Einstein would never have reworked Newton’s theory on gravity and we wouldn’t have general relativity.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:24pm

    You have to wait for someone else to tell you it’s a scientific theory before you will look at it?

    No, I don't. I'm quite capable of telling that it's not a scientific theory on my own.

    Shouldn’t you always pursue knowledge even if it does not fit with current thinking?

    Absolutely. However, there's no knowledge there. Just faith pretending to be knowledge.

    If that was the process then Einstein would never have reworked Newton’s theory on gravity and we wouldn’t have general relativity.

    Einstein presented his theories in such a manner that it could be refuted. He didn't start redefining things like "macro evolution" in order to prevent people from challenging his theory. He also didn't disregard evidence he didn't like, as the ID'ers do with the fossil record and genetic analysis (not to mention radiological dating).


    by Nebton on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:49pm

    Fossils are not proof of evolution they are only proof of extinction

    That's mighty convenient. So, given that what you probably consider "macro evolution" requires millions of years or more to happen (I'm assuming that the creation of new species or genera is now considered "micro evolution" since it has been observed in the field, and that macro evolution is now constrained to the creation of new familes or orders, right?), and given that you don't consider fossils to be proof, "macro evolution" is by your definition not "provable". (I'm assuming that you also don't consider genetic analysis and other well designed scientific tests to qualify as "proof" either since these are more complicated than the fossil record and are not easily understood by the lay audience. After all, if the lay audience can't understand it, then it must not really exist, right?)


    by Nebton on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:40pm

    Macro-evolution is a fact. You seem to believe in micro-evolution, But what you don't realize is that they are the same thing. Macro is micro over many generations. (Micro = change occurring as an adaptation without a new species being formed. Macro = where a species has split into two or more distinct species.) Ex: If groups of the same species are isolated from one another over many generations, food sources will change, mutations and genetic drift (as occur in micro-evolution) will occur and adaptation will ensue. If the species are re-introduced to eachother they will have become different species. They may have developed slightly different colours, mating rituals, or their genetic material may be slightly incompatible (like horses and donkeys) due to drift and adaptive mutations. In any case, they are different species. Hence, macro-evolution. Now, you know.

     


    by Tellingthetruth (not verified) on Sat, 05/09/2009 - 6:59pm

    I also take it that you think of yourself well studied in the field of science. Can you really be that arrogant to not leave open a chance that today’s information could be wrong? I thought science was knowledge attained through study; unless you know everything already you should never dismiss anything as “quackery”. Perhaps you should educate yourself a little more about science before critiquing other views.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:09pm

    Can you really be that arrogant to not leave open a chance that today’s information could be wrong?

    Sure, I could be. Arrogant or not, however, I'm quite confident that today's information is wrong. Pretty much everything we "know" is at best an approximation. I'm also quite confident that ID is not a theory. Hence, when discussing scientific theories, it has no place in the discussion.

    I thought science was knowledge attained through study; unless you know everything already you should never dismiss anything as “quackery”.

    I dismiss as quackery that which is not formulated in a scientific manner. Basing a world-view on faith is all fine and dandy, but it does not qualify as science. Pretending it does is quackery. Hence, Creationism is not quackery as it is (usually) honest about being based purely on faith, but ID is quackery as it pretends to be science.


    by Nebton on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:19pm

    Just answer me one question. From your scientific definition how did life start?


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:30pm

    To answer that question requires leaving the theory of evoution and looking into hypotheses regarding abiogenesis. There are multiple competing hypotheses about how life began, and there is little evidence to support one over another. I should qualify that I am no biologist. I have advanced degrees in astrophysics and computer science and do research in the field of neuroscience (models of the hippocampus), but have never studied evolution in a professional manner, so my explanations should not be given much weight. Nevertheless, I do have a solid scientific background and know the difference between a scientific theory and things pretending to be scientific theories, with String theory being a notable exception. It's somewhere near the boundary, in my opinion. (Again, although I have written papers on astrophysics, my expertise is in general relativity, not String theory, so there's a bias there.)


    by Nebton on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:46pm

    Thanks for your definition. So we come full circle back to no one knows.

    Have a nice day…


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:52pm

    So, are you saying that your whole argument was about abiogensis in the first place, and that you have no problem with the theory of Evolution? Were you defining "macro evolution" as abiogenesis? If so, that's a pretty unique definition of it.

    Also, don't take "I don't know" as "no one knows". I might be arrogant, but I'm not that arrogant.


    by Nebton on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 2:54pm

    I have found that it is quite common for ID proponents to confuse the theory of evolution with teleology, perhaps because their purpose is teleological.  Evolution doesn't say anything about how life began, so the criticism that it doesn't deal with origins is, as you've said, "not even wrong".


    by DF on Sun, 05/10/2009 - 8:03pm

    "1. Macro-Evolution is not a fact it is a theory

    2. Intelligent design is not a fact it is a theory

    Which theory is true? NO ONE KNOWS!!! that is why it is called a theory. Should one theory be taught in schools over another? Absolutely not"

    Wrong!!! Figures you'd get something like that wrong since you believe in creationism, a belief in which also requires bad logic.  To simply say that they are both theories and thus equally valid is like saying a plane is the same as a bird because they both fly in the sky.  Intelligent design is not a theory.  A theory is based on something, an observation (can be tested), math or inferrences based on past observations.  ID is based on nothing, literally.  It's supports say "well evolution lacks this or that", they never say what physical evidence supports it aside from "Well gee this looks complex! Someone must have made it!".  That's not evidence, a little signature or something inside a cell that says "GOD" would be evidence.  Evidence is something physical that would lead to a supposition, ID does the opposite, starting with a supposition that because we create things and we're intelligent everything must have been by something intelligent.  There is nothing physical that shows that animals or humans were created by intelligence (if there were then science would've accepted it), complexity does not denote intelligence, patterns are as likely to occur as are "non patterns".  If you look at any weather beaten rock under an electron microscope it looks complex.

    A theory says that something is possible, that is the only way in which ID is a theory.  Even if you give it that, "because I think you're not entirely right that makes you wrong and me completly right" is not good logic or scientifically valid.  Precisely why ID/creationism should be kept out of the science class


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 2:44pm

    "...But seriously, dagblog is five guys and a woman who don't get enough attention in their personal lives and want to post anonymously about issues of common concern, to get your attention...."

    The creationism/evolution debate is medieval, thoroughly incompetent at both ends of the debate spectrum ("6,000 year-old-Earth" at one end; "design is indicated throughout the natural world, but it's non-falsifiable so we refuse to discuss it" on the other), and obsolete, since a great design of the Earth's surface has been found and verified as fact:

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com,

    http://www.lulu.com/hdhsciences.

    "Our world is quite literally a jigsaw puzzle, on every level of observation"-                ----from the introduction to "The End of the Mystery"


    by Harry Dale Huffman (not verified) on Sat, 05/09/2009 - 9:08am

    This guy is slick. First of all he does his research, becoming the first person in the history of the internet to quote from our about page. (Ding, ding, ding, give that man a half-eaten bagel.)

    Second, he has cleverly staked out a reasonable middle ground between the extremist ideas of fundamentalist theologians and incompetent modern scientists. Where do I sign up?


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 05/09/2009 - 10:42am

    All the religious symbolism aside (or idolatry if that's how you see it), debate over evolution vs creationism at the limits of either argument boils down to whether the force that sparked the big bang had agency. Was the Big Bang a wilful act by some force we witlle peeps naively describe as God, complete with a baby son, a manger and adoring donkeys? Or was it the cosmic coincidence that atheists allege? Maybe even a figment of our imagination as your local Tarot card reader might claim? (Never mind that Common Core graduation tests will soon require rewrites to accommodate modifications to evolutionists' creation story in light of physicists recent discoveries that cast doubt on the Big Bang theory.)

    No matter how much you express hatred of depublicans in an effort to look cool to your hip friends, you are probably not smart enough to have more than a guesswork opinion about that cosmological question.

    And those people who describe creationism as the seven day, 6,000 year story line espoused by only the a few members of the most magical thinking sects are probably the same ones who say it is culturally condescending - read "racist" - to criticize canibalistic cultures or those that practiced ritual human sacrifice. Those anti-christian-mythology opions most often come from speakers who idealize some past time where aboriginal Celtics or (insert ethnic group here) lived in perfect harmony with nature, only to be victims of genocide by gluten-intoxicated Anglos bent on colonizing all that is good in the name of a racist patriarchy.

    They would have us believe none of these idealized pastoral cultures from the past had their own improbable creation stories, and their own oppressive habits, or discredit us from comparing them with those of our time because racist patriarchy so blinds us, we are disqualified from any valid historical analysis unless we repent and join the ranks of those who have seen the light in neo-Marxist critical theory.

    As for that morning show named to evoke ideas of female genitalia  (the V), if you think it is anything other than producers' efforts to pander to midmorning female audiences, largely comprising stay at home moms, on behalf of advertisers pitching products to the gender that controls a substantial majority of consumer spending, you might discover you have embraced a few implausible myths of your own.


    by Darwin Eyeinstien (not verified) on Sat, 02/27/2016 - 4:19pm