Is Texas turning back the clock on evolution?

Published on January 22nd, 2009

Daylife/AP Photo by Matt Slocum

Proponents of an old-fashioned Texas-style education

The latest round in a long-running battle over how evolution should be taught in Texas schools began in earnest Wednesday as the State Board of Education heard impassioned testimony from scientists and social conservatives on revising the science curriculum.

The debate here has far-reaching consequences; Texas is one of the nation’s biggest buyers of textbooks, and publishers are reluctant to produce different versions of the same material.

Many biologists and teachers said they feared that the board would force textbook publishers to include what skeptics see as weaknesses in Darwin’s theory to sow doubt about science and support the Biblical version of creation.

“These weaknesses that they bring forward are decades old, and they have been refuted many, many times over,” Kevin Fisher, a past president of the Science Teachers Association of Texas, said after testifying. “It’s an attempt to bring false weaknesses into the classroom in an attempt to get students to reject evolution.”

Even as federal courts have banned the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in biology courses, social conservatives have gained 7 of 15 seats on the Texas board in recent years, and they enjoy the strong support of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican.

The chairman of the board, Dr. Don McLeroy, a dentist, pushed in 2003 for a more skeptical version of evolution to be presented in the state’s textbooks, but could not get a majority to vote with him. Dr. McLeroy has said he does not believe in Darwin’s theory and thinks that Earth’s appearance is a recent geologic event, thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion as scientists contend.

Business leaders, meanwhile, said Texas would have trouble attracting highly educated workers and their families if the state’s science programs were seen as a laughingstock among biologists.

Some might say that being a laughingstock in Texas – is not limited to biology.

74 users responded in " Is Texas turning back the clock on evolution? "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:03 am

I don’t think teach god creationism in science class is good. As far as pointing out inconsistencies in a theory goes, that’s proper science.

# 2 Dallas said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 am

Sheesh. One step forward, now two steps back.

To think our local Christian Taliban recently decided that the earth is indeed (slightly) over 8,000 years old ! Now this

We were stuck on 6,000 years for years due a Santa Claus related miscalculation. But progress is progress

# 3 roland said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 am

Why can’t they just get along? Evolution and the Bible can still go hand in hand. The bible says it took God seven days to create the universe, but it doesn’t mean “earth days” since the earth hasn’t been created. Evolution can be seens as an explanation on how God created the universe.

People who wants to force the word by word context of the Bible just doesn’t get how stupid it is to close the children’s mind on other explanations on how the world came to be. Faith and open minds are supposed to be hand in hand and not contrary to each other.

One proof for me that God “probably” exists: Space is infinite, and it is inconceivable to quantify infinity in a “real” concept as the vast amount of space out there. Mysticism/Superbeings are the only other explanation on how we can comprehend these incomprehensible concepts.

# 4 smartalix said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:22 am

Why do creationists hate AMerica? Do they really want our kids to be stupid in the face of international science competition?

# 5 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 am

# 4 smartalix said, “Do they really want our kids to be stupid in the face of international science competition?”

Actually, before Darwin’s theory was accepted in US schools the US was the #1 country for scientific invention…

So, be actual evidence, one doesn’t equate to the other…

# 6 Hyeprkinetic said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:30 am

Instead of building a fence along the Mexico border, we should be building one along the Texas border! Cut them off and let them wallow in their ignorance.

# 7 chuck said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:36 am

I don’t mind if some people believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old – or a recent geological event.

But if you want to teach a subject in school (any subject) aren’t you supposed to have more than just a belief? Aren’t you supposed to present some facts to support the curriculum?

If someone thinks they have some scientific evidence to back up their belief, then they should present it. If it’s just a theory, then it must be presented as a theory.

When evolution is taught (at least when I learned about it) it was presented as a theory. The reasons behind the theory were explained. It was shown why people believe the theory, and how understanding the theory helps with the understanding of biology.

If a creationist can come up with a curriculum that does the same thing – they can teach it. Otherwise it’s a very short class:

Teacher stands up, says “The world is only 4,000 years old. Class dismissed.”

# 8 Dallas said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 am

#3 Mysticism/Superbeings are the only other explanation on how we can comprehend these incomprehensible concepts.

Before I ask…..I really don’t mind religious types as long as they don’t interfere with my government and my rights. (which they do).

Anyway.. why exactly do you feel that nature owes you an explanation?

# 9 amodedoma said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 am

#3 Creationists are not free thinkers, they don’t want theories, they want dogma. The bible or any other religous text is a symbolic text and literal interpretation of a symbolic text is just ignorant. Something symbolic is and should be open to interpretation, unfortunately this is very inconvenient to the sociual structures that our religions have become, and so to reaffirm their hold among those that they can sway the religions take to politics. Fear not, there will always be free thinkers, even religous ones, especially among young people. It’s foolish and in the words of the Encyclopedia Galactica ‘Mostly Harmless’.

# 10 bobbo said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:39 am

Struck me as “odd” that the fundamentalist bible thumpers were called “skeptics” in the article. Gives them way to much credit I think.

#5–Paddy–never ending source of amusement. Constantly making points that defeat his own stated positions.

You see Paddy by not accepting Darwins Theory we have restricted our progress ever since then. See how your disagreement with smartyalix is hollow and inept?

# 11 Mac Guy said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:46 am

#6 – I’ve been saying the same thing about California.

# 12 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:46 am

# 10 bobbo said, “You see Paddy by not accepting Darwins Theory we have restricted our progress ever since then.”

Yes, since 1838 the US hasn’t lead the world in scientific invention.

ROFL!

You should go into stand up.

# 13 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:47 am

I run into these people all over the place…the most recent was a guy who claims biology and evolution are in conflict. huh?

Anyway, this little gem has filled my head with info to make these losers run away from me screaming. http://tinyurl.com/6p3xwe

Link points to a Scientific American article which closes thusly:
<i<Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

# 14 James Hill said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:48 am

Another angry liberal thread, and another epic fail for the left. You’re not heeding your leader’s call.

# 15 roland said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:49 am

“Anyway.. why exactly do you feel that nature owes you an explanation?”

That is SCIENCE. Everything has to be explained including nature. Concepts like infinity, chaos, darkness, life and space are inexplicable. Of course science has explained SOME of the reasons why there is life, chaos, infinity, etc. But for others, it is still not enough.

We are a curious animal that we want to learn all that we can, but we have finite memories, life, and etc., that we cannot possible map out the whole of the universe, nor explain where it ends or if ends at all. Concepts like infinity is REAL, but incomprehensible to our limited perception.

Anything inexplicable, is only comprehensible with the concept of something beyond our reality or scientific theories.

This is where some religion might explain as to how science cannot explain.

# 16 bobbo said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 am

#12–Paddy O Dumbshit==I said “restricted our progress.” We should be further along in many areas than we are==and without the help of foreign graduates.

You are a trip Paddy-OOooohhhh ! So silly.

What percentage of your posting is pure perverted humor?

# 17 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:56 am

# 16 bobbo said, “I said “restricted our progress.” We should be further along in many areas than we are”

Care to back that up with examples and proof, that it is connected to pre Scopes attitudes. Or, are you just trolling like you did earlier today when you lied about what I posted?

# 18 bobbo said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 pm

#17–Paddy==stem cell research, cloning, general scientific literacy of the population and so forth.

IQ Question: How Did I lie? At worst case, used poor sentence structure when including your antecedent.

Silly man.

# 19 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm

#18 booboo the troll said, “stem cell research, cloning, general scientific literacy of the population and so forth.”

As I thought, no proof of linkage to anything.

Troll, troll, troll you boat…

# 20 Buzz said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:06 pm

Mythology Rules!

# 21 bobbo said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Texas in fact ranks 36 in science proficiency for the kiddies. Still, they only have a short way to fall to match Mississippi.

Whoa!==look at California. They must not be throwing away the Latino exams.

# 22 Dallas said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm

#15 Well, I was with you up until the end. I’m an electrical engineer so no need to sell me on the virtues of science.

However, we part ways when a variable to a science equation gets filled with “magic happens”.

Arguably, placeholder theories are fine but I can honestly say the religious community really goes over the top on that one. Again, not so much an issue with me if that explanation was for the purpose of explaining nature, but it’s taken into the realm of morality and control.
Anyway, appreciated your thoughts.

# 23 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Wow! Hey, booboo the troll.

Texas children outperform the ultra secular schools in the states below:

Delaware
California
Hawaii

So, by your reasoning, teaching evolution impedes science achievement in children!

ROFL!

# 24 Dave W said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Do you still need a marriage license to purchase a dildo in Texas?

Neuf said.

As for “God”. I think farts, Hitler and Christmas tree sources house fires are enough to prove that “He” doesn’t exist. At least not in the Christian model. Now on some sick bastard sadistic model, I may be open to entertain arguments….

# 25 grog said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm

dear creationists,

quit acting like the gun control lobby. it’s really annoying.

seriously, if you want the bible taught in schools, repeal the first amendment and establish christianity as the official religion of the united so we tax your churches.

these so-called challenges to the theory of evolution are so transparent, its a wonder you can say them with a straight face.

grow a pair and say what you really mean.

# 26 Joe said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm

Texas should secede from the union.

# 27 QB said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:33 pm

#23 “Texas children outperform the ultra secular schools”

No one really cares about rhythmic gymnastics.

# 28 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:39 pm

# 27 QB said, “No one really cares about rhythmic gymnastics.”

Neither do I. It was performance in science.
LOL!

# 29 no one special said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:41 pm

…those very same people who freak at the sight of a swastika (a spiritual and religious symbol from WAY back) are the ones sporting a man nailed to a fence post with a spear in his side as their symbol. (speaking of sick bastard sadistic models)

Anarchy and Chaos is the only true freedom.
Rock On!!

# 30 Zybch said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:41 pm

#3 – Space ISN’T infinite, and even if it were why would mystical being be the only (or the logical) explanation for it. Where did THEY come from??
Thats the problem of the religious nutballs always answering EVERY question with “God did it”, well if God did it, then who did him? Himself?

# 31 bobbo said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:41 pm

#21–Myself==forgot to post the link:

http://putourkidsfirst.com/kidsfirst/nat_science.asp

I fell across the above while searching for the USA ranking which is here:

http://sciencecheerleader.com/2008/12/where_do_us_students_rank_in_science_and_should_we_bring_back_corporal_punishment_to_fix_the_situation/

# 32 Stephanie said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm

#24, they are referred to cake decorations here and you don’t have to be married to buy cake decorations.

There are a fair share of people in Texas that would like creationism put in textbooks. There are also a lot of liberal hippies, neocons, super rich and super poor folks in this great state. Save your generalizations and false beliefs about this state so you can go look at the places where each of you live. I enjoy not paying state income tax, the low cost of living and the healthier economy in good ol’ Texas… so shut up.

# 33 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:55 pm

# 30 Zybch said, “Space ISN’T infinite,”

Really? Not saying it is but, I haven’t seen any testable proof to back up your statement.

# 34 Benjamin said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm

Does it really make a difference? Seriously think about this. Will it make a difference to the guy inventing a new piece of technology if the earth is 6000 or 6 billion years old? Will it make a difference to a mathematician when he proves the next revolutionary theorem? Will it make the difference to a farmer when he plants a crop? Will it make a difference to a ag geneticist when he makes a new hybrid crop?

No, it won’t. A belief in creation or evolution will not make a difference in their scientific discoveries. It only makes a difference to evolutionist and creationists. An evolutionist would have a hard time writing papers confirming creation and a creationist would not likely be able to write papers on evolutionists.

I write science fiction. Does it make a difference in my writing if I believe in creation or evolution? Not really. My characters do not generally have debates on creation/evolution. When I world build, I select stars that would likely have planets capable of life. An evolutionist might say that the Hertzberg Russel diagram shows stars that would last this many billions of years, but the creation might say that it was merely a way to sort stars by spectral types and certain spectral types are more likely to support life. Both would reach the same conclusion: this is the star system I am using as a setting in my story.

Creationists are just as curious about the universe as evolutionists. The facts are there to be discovered. The disagreement is how the conclusion is reached. A diverse view on how the universe came to be is not going to change science. A creationist scientist or evolutionist scientist will reach the same conclusion on how the inner workings of the universe work.

There will always be some on both side who have an knee jerk reaction. For example I had a friend that doesn’t believe dinosaurs existed but he is sure that space aliens exist.

I believe in dinosaurs. (I saw their bones.) I am reserving judgment on the space aliens until I see one.

My point is that a belief in creationism doesn’t hold back someone from scientific discovery. My dinosaur dis-believing friend was not smart enough to do science even if he had a pet dinosaur. Ninety-nine point nine percent of creationist believe that dinosaurs existed.

# 35 bobbo said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm

#34–Benji==total FAIL. Many people are discouraged from pursuing any interest in science because of the social/family pressure to be religious. Its why our test scores are only “average” against world competitors and why the asians are out performing us. See the links at post #31.

You are right that people that GET a scientific education can ignore a belief in creationism “if” they somehow have one, but what of all the people who choose NOT to get an education because of their creationist type beliefs????

Sorry, but being antagonistic to science does have consequences.

# 36 Stephanie said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm

#35, Some could say that being antagonistic towards God could have consequences too!

# 37 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm

# 35 bobbo said, “Its why our test scores are only “average” against world competitors and why the asians are out performing us.”

TOTAL fail. States that are highly secular score worse than Texas in science. THUS, no linkage.

On logic, booboo the troll fails again.

# 38 amodedoma said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm

#29

Good to see there are still anarchists around! I’m right with you on the sacred symbolisms, I’ve always hated seeing christ on the cross. From what little I could learn about the teachings of christ in the bible (4 books matthew mark luke and john maybe 5% of the bible) it seems to me the men who chose those symbols werent concerned about christ’s values or wishes.

# 39 RBG said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Hello McFly! Anybody home?

It’s been January 18th “Adoration For Obama Cools Abroad” since DU’s posted an Obama target. Did he fall off the planet or something? Or is that the way it’s going to be around here? Then we’ll only have CNN “to keep them honest.”

I have yet to yammer on about Obama on Letterman’s Great Moments in Presidential Speeches yet. (One assumes he would be on that segment.)

“Roberts, apparently working without a copy of the oath handy, started out by reciting a six-word phrase, but Obama broke in halfway through and repeated the first three.

That seemed to throw the chief justice off stride…”
CNN: http://tinyurl.com/dzby58

C’mon, this is good stuff going to waste. The honeymoon is over.

RBG

# 40 GetSmart said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:42 pm

I’ve known for a long time now that Texas was an evolutionary dead end.

# 41 bobbo said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:53 pm

#36–Steph==not if the god is worth the worship==ie, an all merciful god.

blah, blah, blah.

# 42 bill said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm

That was proven 8+ years ago.
It must be the water! or the jean pool…

# 43 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Eideard said, “Proponents of an old-fashioned Texas-style education”

Apparently, California would do well to model its science program after Texas’.

Pretty interesting…

# 44 ECA said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 2:16 pm

D’ students in charge of the school system??
trying to make things understandable in a D’ student way..

I can see NOW, that the D’ grade is smart in its own way. They learned the BASICS needed to get into the gov. and control it..as all the C’ and better students KNOW its a hard road and dont want the job, or at least that the private sector PAYS MORE(or it did until B.jr got the job). Those D’ students got the better jobs, as SMARTER idiots were pushing them and telling them WHAT TO DO.

# 45 BernardMarx said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm

In his Inaugural Address, Obama said: “We will restore science to its rightful place”

Looks like he has his work cut out for him in Texas.

# 46 Stephanie said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm

Are we actually agreeing on something Paddy!?!?!

I got the majority of my primary education in California. I did the first two years of elementary and senior year here in Texas. Let me just say that the standards are way higher out here. “D” isn’t passing in Texas like it was in Cali. I honestly can’t do math to save my life and probably because in Cali they had a new pilot math program every year that we were guinea pigs for. Great programs (by Stanford) that didn’t even supply textbooks!

# 47 Benjamin said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 2:57 pm

EPIC FAIL to you Bobbo

Religion does not equal antagonism to science. I am religious, yet I pursued and studied science. In fact my religious beliefs made me more inclined to study science.

Our test scores are low because of the inability to read and write. Asians are out-preforming us because they value family and education more. Their parents make sure the children get a good education. If they don’t they get pulled out of school to work at Nike.

I never said anything about ignoring a belief in creation. I just said that creationist come to the same conclusion through a different pathway.

Do you really see creationists not going to school? Not at all. Creationist go to college. They can identify the parts of an electron or proton. They don’t have to give up belief in creation.

Disagreeing with one theory does not make someone antagonistic to science. Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and Einstein all believed in God. They were all scientists.

One might even argue that the Bible recorded examples of science. (Joseph genetically engineering cattle to cheat his uncle. Elijah and the prophets of Bael using the scientific method.)

# 48 Angel H. Wong said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm

The more I read about these idiots at the board of education from Texas the more I believe that a cowboy in the Enterprise was nothing but a big joke.

# 49 locomotivebreath1901 said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm

Uh, EFF YOU to any religious bigots out there using the term ‘christian taliban.’ You demonstrate a stunning ignorance of both terms.

That having been said, creationism has NO PLACE in a science class.

But, there are religious bigots in academia, as well as in blog comments, and those bigots who wish to maintain their dogma, status quo & public funds are an enemy of the scientific method.

“Many biologists and teachers said they feared that the board would force textbook publishers to include what skeptics see as weaknesses in Darwin’s theory to sow doubt about science and support the Biblical version of creation.”

As I understand it, science is open ended, ever expanding its knowledge base and should be scrutinized. Lord knows that darwinism is full of inconsistencies, errors & outright fraud. And those weaknesses have not been ‘refuted many, many times over’ – they are very much alive & legitimate.

Text books need to contain those facts to present an honest look at the theory.

The religious bigots are assuming the ‘Biblical version of creation’ in classroom B.S. (which any court would strike down in a heartbeat).

Facts & evidence, not dogma & ideology.

# 50 Improbus said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm

@Benjamin

Newton was a great scientist and mathematician but he was also a religious nutter and believed in Alchemy. Nobody is perfect.

# 51 Hugh Ripper said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 3:40 pm

Any teachings that use the literal interpretation of an ancient text who’s original meanings have been edited, obfuscated, mistranslated over many centuries are a joke. Its fine to say that evolution is a theory and that many believe that God(TM) made the earth, but to point to the bible as some sort of objective truth is just plain wrong.

# 52 4theBible said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm

I don’t know why people want to say evolution is fact, is science. Evolution has never been proven, it is not factual nor scientific. The laws of genetics, physics, and a host of other sciences all line up against it. It is a religious belief system. If evolution is true, God doesn’t exist. That is the point. If God doesn’t exist, nobody can speak authoritatively about the origen of the universe. If (1) the process of evolution is not real in our present world, and (2) nobody saw it nor could report it because they were not observing the process, then evolution is a hokey theory that is more unproven and against science than creationism.

In science you cannot prove universal negatives. Science can only make declarations about what it observes. Evolution is neither observable now, nor in the past. The “missing link” is not one single example, but a host of links between species that should be equally abundant as the fossil evidences of the present animals. Where are these millions of links? They don’t exist. Science has so many doubts when it tries to support the religion of evolution that it digs itself a deep hole that nobody can get out of.

The bloggers for John Dvorak should stay off the support of the evolution religion because it is not scientific, not true, and it promotes a belief system (against fact or science) that has no place in this blog! It is offensive to see your ignorance at every turn.

# 53 Improbus said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 4:03 pm

@4theBible

Get thee to a mental institution. I don’t think you would know science if it bit you on the bum.

# 54 Hugh Ripper said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 4:08 pm

#52 “Evolution is neither observable now, nor in the past”

I think you’ll find that it is observable. Certainly more so than creationism. How do you think that Darwin came to his conclusions. Though observation of course.

http://tinyurl.com/cstsnw

# 55 bobbo said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm

#53–good one!!! I just wish the well represented atheists on this blog wouldn’t waste our time pretending to be a nut case.

OK–we get it, but you are being too heavy handed to be taken seriously.===Seriously. Tone it back to a discussion that “macro-evolution cannot be demonstrated” or something with just a bit of justification?

Good demonstration of what “God in the Gap” types would post like if they really existed as real people.

# 56 Prx001 said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm

# 52 If only bill hicks was alive to see that comment …

# 57 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm

# 46 Stephanie said, “Are we actually agreeing on something Paddy!?!?!”

That you choose to live in Texas shows that you are more intelligent than most on this board.

# 58 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm

# 54 Hugh Ripper said, “I think you’ll find that it is observable. Certainly more so than creationism. How do you think that Darwin came to his conclusions.”

The same way many observed the sky and came to the conclusion that the sun orbited the Earth?

That was TOO easy.

# 59 Hugh Ripper said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm

#54 Paddy-O

More like the same way many observed your posts and came to the conclusion that you’re trolling.

Even easier…

# 60 Mr. Fusion said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm

#49, 1901,

Lord knows that darwinism is full of inconsistencies, errors & outright fraud. And those weaknesses have not been ‘refuted many, many times over’ – they are very much alive & legitimate.

Ok, fine. Maybe you could enlighten me and explain a few of the inconsistencies, errors & outright fraud they foisted upon my poor little brain.

# 61 Mr. Fusion said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 6:02 pm

#13, Olo,

Very good link. I have read that before but lost the link; it’s great to have it back again.

# 62 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 7:11 pm

# 59 Hugh Ripper said, “More like the same way many observed your posts and came to the conclusion that you’re trolling.”

Ah yes, ad hominem. The last resort of the brutally owned. LOL

# 63 Hugh Ripper said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 7:37 pm

#62 Paddy

Actually, in your blind haste to troll my post, you chose an unfortunate example. Now I wasn’t going to feed the troll as it is a futile and time consuming process, and only encourages the buggers, but I now feel that my honor has been sullied. Allow me to retort, sir troll.

Once upon a time here was a chap called Copernicus. Now this chap, through his observations, came to the conclusion that the earth was not the center of the universe, and that it was in fact the earth that revolved around the sun, and that the sun was the center of the universe.

Copernicus published a book about his observations, which came to the attention of the Catholic Church. It seems that it was the view of the church that his ideas were “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture”, and essentially banned the book and the ideas it contained. This position was not reversed until the around 1850.

Does this sound at all familiar?

# 64 Paddy-O said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 7:45 pm

# 63 Hugh Ripper said, “Actually, in your blind haste…”

Actually, it was Aristrachus in the 3rd century BC that discovered this and was ridiculed by Ptolemy and his contemporaries who formed a consensus (much like the Global warming cabal of today) that the Earth did not move and was the center of the universe.

But, lacking a real education, you didn’t know that…

Sorry, brutally owned again…

# 65 Hugh Ripper said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 7:58 pm

#64 Paddy-O

Your non sequitur is noted, but if you keep “owning” yourself like this you may go blind.

Were we taking about who what first to discover what? Having just scanned the posts, I see no such argument, so clearly you have imagined it.

Your trolling skills need some work, sir. Is way to easy to unravel your obfuscations.

# 66 Floyd said, on January 22nd, 2009 at 9:51 pm

#60:
#49 is a legend in his own mind.

# 67 jimbo said, on January 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 am

PADDY O = evidence that evolution does not always succeed.

Paddy-o said – “I haven’t seen any testable proof to back up your statement”.

YOU haven’t backed up anything you have stated, provided no evidence for your claims, consistently been proven wrong, ignored requests by other users for proof of things you have said, engage in childish point scoring attacks, and shown us all that you are a waste of time and effort.

None of us have seen proof for any of your arguements, you just lift information straight from other peoples websites and plant it here in an attempt to seem smarter than eveyone.

I think you’d be more at home here

http://www.gamingsucks.com/blog – maturity not required.

BRUTALLY OWNED, TROLL

# 68 Uncle Patso said, on January 23rd, 2009 at 5:31 am

# 15 roland said, in part:

“Everything has to be explained including nature.”

I’m not so sure it’s important to explain _everything_.

For example: why do we park on the driveway and drive on the parkway?

Some things are just too dumb to bother with, except when they are the chairman of your state board of education, I suppose.

Texas is definitely trying to catch “down” to Mississippi…

Here’s a Texas story for you — the friend who told it to me swears it’s true: the bright young student decided to study Greek and Hebrew to read the ancient texts of the Bible, but the student’s pastor was livid! “If English was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for you!” he explained.

Here’s another, or, rather, just the punch line: “Might as well; can’t dance.”

There are many, many learned, highly intelligent, charming, open-minded people in Texas, yet people like # 52 4theBible seem to be the majority of the voters in the state’s 254 counties.

# 69 Paddy-O said, on January 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 am

# 67 jimbo said,

Hey! You’re back. How’d your ECT session go today?

# 70 jimbo said, on January 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 am

about as well as your credibility stands up to the face of questions.

not well

# 71 Benjamin said, on January 23rd, 2009 at 6:36 am

#68 Most Bible colleges teach Greek and Hebrew. Don’t know how the guy became a preacher without going to class for it. To display that little knowledge of the Bible is alarming in a preacher.

# 72 bobbo said, on January 23rd, 2009 at 6:58 am

#71–Benji==trying to leave an impression that preachers are steeped in study huh? haw,haaaaaw! I’m surprised when I meet a preacher that can read english outside of bible passages. Most appear to be some kind of catholic.

BTW–yes, in all practical application, religion and science are competing inconsistent idealogies/mindsets regarding most issues of import. For various reasons, this great divide is covered up with rhetoric.

# 73 Mr. Fusion said, on January 23rd, 2009 at 9:06 am

#72, Bobbo,

Good point.

The religious like to call science a religion because it competes for minds. Almost all religions claim they are the true way and their text is divinely inspired.

Yup. Good point.

# 74 hazza said, on February 3rd, 2009 at 6:45 pm

Two people observe something interesting that they have never seen before and have no explaination for:

Non-creationist: Did you see that? What was it? Where did it come from? What does it mean?
Creationist: God did it! Coming to get a beer?

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!