GOP Morons fighting it out for the Alabama Governership

Exile 1798

I speak quite contemptuously of the modern Republican Party. I hope people don't mistake this for an ad hominem style, but rather recognise it as an acceptable and appropriate way to talk about dangerous idiots

Via http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36337_Moron_vs._Moron_in_Alabama_Governor_Race

In Alabama, the "True Republican PAC" is running an advertisement mocking Republican gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne for supporting the teaching of evolution in schools.

Yes, you read that right — these "True Republicans" are so proudly, invincibly ignorant that they're making fun of a fellow Republican for not being a moron.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJG-7s1e5eM

Except — Byrne actually is a moron too, just like the "True Republicans." And he's outraged that his moron credentials were questioned.

Byrne responds to this "despicable attack" with a statement: "I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God… I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books."

Carcharodon

What is really sad is that I am not one little bit shocked or surprised, I think I have just accepted these people as the norm now, that is really dangerous !

Memnoch

Oh God.

BluePlanet

Jeez.
Welcome to America, please set your clocks back 150 years.

Overheal

My Boss is a Creationist....

But then his kids are homeschooled.

So its not like he's going to try and mess with other people's kids. His own kids are his responsibility and I can respect that. Actually a smart guy, just believes differently where we came from.

What really pisses me off is people like these who want to impose this on others. Its fcukwitted. "God Created the Heaven and the Earth and put Dinosoaurs here to test your faith" "But teacher I don't believe in God, my family is Bhuddist/Atheist/Whatever" "Ohhhh Im sorry little girl. Here, have an F. Now you have no chance of getting to Yale."

/okay, heyperbole

Black Swan

The Republican PAC ad against Byrne sounds as if they want a Bible informed theocracy rather than a representative democracy that constitutionally separates church from state?

Mjollnir

Let's not forget that Alabama is the state that just a few years ago banned the sales of dildos and other, assorted adult toys.

Black Swan

Alabama politics? The State flag says it all.

PeakOutput

Overheal wrote: »

My Boss is a Creationist....

But then his kids are homeschooled.

thats the problem i have with homeschooling

he shouldnt get to decide to handicap his kids with his beliefs they should have a full and complete education(maybe even including peoples opinions on creationism) and left to make up their own mind

and i apply that to any belief be it creationism, religon in general or atheism or political / social views

Overheal

PeakOutput wrote: »

thats the problem i have with homeschooling

he shouldnt get to decide to handicap his kids with his beliefs they should have a full and complete education(maybe even including peoples opinions on creationism) and left to make up their own mind

and i apply that to any belief be it creationism, religon in general or atheism or political / social views

I've discussed this with him. If you go find the numbers, the percentage of Home-schoolers reaching college level are higher than that of public-schoolers.

Theres something to it.

You're basically saying a Parent should not be held responsible for the upbringing of their children?? I'm baffled.

PeakOutput

Overheal wrote: »

I've discussed this with him. If you go find the numbers, the percentage of Home-schoolers reaching college level are higher than that of public-schoolers.

Theres something to it.

You're basically saying a Parent should not be held responsible for the upbringing of their children?? I'm baffled.

i didnt say i was against homeschooling i said i had one problem with it

homeschooling is fine as long as the kids are taught to a certain basic minimum

ie maths to a certain standard science to a certain standard english etc

the parent should not get to choose to just leave out a massive part of the curriculim like science just because of their personal views

also upbringing and education are not the same things

education is one part of your upbringing

edit; and because the parent IS responsible for the kids upbringing they should be forced to provide a good well rounded education

Overheal

I agree with Standards but fail to see why Creationism or Evolutionism prohibits an education about science.

PeakOutput

Overheal wrote: »

I agree with Standards but fail to see why Creationism or Evolutionism prohibits an education about science.

evolution is probably the most important scientific theory ever

believing the earth is 10K years old is contradictory to so much science that a belief in it pretty much means you dont believe in science

and that is fine if that is what you believe but you should not force that belief on your kids

i dont mind people believeing that god created the universe but if he did all the evidence says he did it with a big bang billions of years ago and as result of the big bang he created people evolved from one cell organisms

i also dont care what the politicians believe as long as they keep it to themselves and preach tolerance and freedom of choice instead of forcing their beliefs down childrens throats

Overheal

How is preaching to people not to force Creationism down their throats any different than saying Evolutionism is the most Important Theory in the Universe and we should ram it down people's throats?

I happen to adopt the Theory of Evolution but what you're saying is contradictory.

Memnoch

Overheal wrote: »

How is preaching to people not to force Creationism down their throats any different than saying Evolutionism is the most Important Theory in the Universe and we should ram it down people's throats?

I happen to adopt the Theory of Evolution but what you're saying is contradictory.

Because the evolution is based on solid, testable science, creationism, is not, it's a belief.

Your acting like they are comparable somehow, which they are not it. It's not a choice of "believing" A or B.

One is based on fact and observation, the other is a purely made up story with zero emperical evidence.

One is science, the other is religion.

To teach religion as science is dangerous and damaging both to the individual and to society as religion encourages blind adherence to it's representatives.

PeakOutput

sorry overheal maybe i am not being clear

while personally deep down i agree with memnoch i am prepared to accept people dont agree with me

and i am prepared to accept that kids be made aware of creationism as an idea / theory whatever you want to call it in school or at home AS LONG AS it is not put forth as any sort of scientific theory that is based on anything but faith teach it as what it is dont try and dress it up and certainly dont try and put it in a science classroom beside say evolution

if there is a homeschool enviroment i think the parent is obliged to teach both there are obviously going to be personal bias's that make one lean towards the other but this will happen in the classroom aswell and i dont have a problem with that

i have a major problem with a creationist teaching his kids science and when they get to the chapter on evolution they skip it and replace it with the religous idea of creationism

Mr. Incognito

Wow.

Just. Wow.

Okay, I'm an athiest so I'll say this initially. What's the big deal about the bible.

It's a book. Written by men.

Equating Creatonism as some sort of legitimate explanation is up there with saying that God poured the milk into my cornflakes this morning.

Going on television to seek election promoting your own stupidity is just, well wow. just wow.

Einhard

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Going on television to seek election promoting your own stupidity is just, well wow. just wow.

Not if you're promoting it to a stupid ignorant electorate. Then it's clever.

Overheal

Memnoch wrote: »

It's not a choice of "believing" A or B.

.....yyyyes it is. Its a Theory of Relativity for example: Not a Law of Relativity. Much unlike the Law of Momentum. Or the four laws of Thermodynamics.

I've already told you that I don't adopt Creationism haven't I? What I am however trying to convey is that a Parent has a Right to teach their kids about the Theory of Creationism if they wish.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the Junior Cert never once said a damn thing about Evolutionary Theory; and I did not take up Biology for my Leaving. I still somehow managed to graduate and make it into College without being a PhD in Evolutionary Sciences.

Exile 1798

Overheal wrote: »

.....yyyyes it is. Its a Theory of Relativity for example: Not a Law of Relativity. Much unlike the Law of Momentum. Or the four laws of Thermodynamics.

I've already told you that I don't adopt Creationism haven't I? What I am however trying to convey is that a Parent has a Right to teach their kids about the Theory of Creationism if they wish.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the Junior Cert never once said a damn thing about Evolutionary Theory; and I did not take up Biology for my Leaving. I still somehow managed to graduate and make it into College without being a PhD in Evolutionary Sciences.

"Theory" in a scientific sense does not mean unproven. The Theory of Gravity is both a theory and a law.

There is no controversy over the Theory of Evolution in in the scientific community.

A parent certainly has the right to teach their child creationism, but doesn't have the right to have schools teach it to other people's children.

The Bible is well worth studying in school as it is an important part of Western culture, civilization, literature. I read all the stories in the Bible as a child because I wanted to know the background to the Prodigal Son, David and Goliath, the Good Samaritan ect.

However Creationism is something else, it makes Scientific claims that have no basis what so ever. Remember that it's supporters call it Intelligent Design, they put it forth as a legitimate theory. It should not be taught in schools. It's not a matter of two competing theories and both should be taught. One is Scientific fact, the other Theological fantasy.

Getting back to the original point, I find it amusing that the Republicans in the race for the governorship are effectively arguing which one of them is a a bigger idiot. I suppose who ever can convince the Conservative base they are dumber wins?

smokingman

Using the word "Theory" in both is a bit misleading.

"Theory of Evolution" means scientific theory:
In modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" refers to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it.

"Theory of Creationism" is not the same:
Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation.

Talking about them both in any comparable way, you need to drop the word to save confusion. Otherwise, poor creationists get confused.

With regard to teaching your own children creationism, it's akin to teaching them that the world is flat and when they grow up, they discover their parents lied to them......and it's not nice to lie.

sceptre

smokingman wrote: »

Using the word "Theory" in both is a bit misleading.

"Theory of Evolution" means scientific theory:
In modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" refers to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it.

Indeed. It's rather unfortunate that this needs to be explained so often when creationism and evolution are mentioned in the same topic. While this isn't a science forum (nor is it a religious one), it's important that people realise the disparity between "Theory of evolution" and "theory of creation" when comparing and contrasting the two. Unfortunately, so many appear not to do so.

The distinctions between "scientific theory", "everyday theory or basic idea or notion" and "theoretical" are both wide and important. Ditto with the distinction between a "scientific theory" and a "scientific law" but that's not part of the relevant confusion here.

Overheal

Either way, the debate stems from the Constituency of Alabama wishing Creationism to become the Curriculum.

smokingman

Overheal wrote: »

Either way, the debate stems from the Constituency of Alabama wishing Creationism to become the Curriculum.

In which case I say let them have it - seriously.
It would be a good test case for scientists to see how a populace de-evolves - sure they don't believe in Evolution anyway so they wouldn't be worried

sceptre

There will be a repeat of Kitzmiller v. Dover if they actually try it. It will be expensive, losing and will make people look very very silly. It's a cute election gambit by hopefuls in counties or states where this sort of idiocy is more popular than in other areas but all they'll ultimately end up with is a supreme court ruling that creationism is religious-based and ID is creationism in newer clothes and that's all. I'm not so cocky as to say the battle is over as there always seems to be a new wave of wannabes pimping the teaching of creationism as science in schools but there are idiots everywhere who believe that the decision in the Scopes trial was correct and are openly hankering after a return to those days. Some of those idiots run for election, that's how it is. You think these guys are all Republicans? You've got to be kidding me.

Amerika

So we live, we die, and we're gone? If so, it’s a pretty sad state of existence. Anyone here ever seen Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4

One of the best quotes I’ve read about the formation of life was from the well respected scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge, who’s opinion that the chance development of life on earth was nonsense of the highest order.

…anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 10(to the power of 50) blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers, but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the earth is evidently nonsense of the highest order.

Hearing it put that way, it sure doesn’t sound too idiotic to me.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

So we live, we die, and we're gone? If so, it’s a pretty sad state of existence. Anyone here ever seen Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4

One of the best quotes I’ve read about the formation of life was from the well respected scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge, who’s opinion that the chance development of life on earth was nonsense of the highest order.

Hearing it put that way, it sure doesn’t sound too idiotic to me.

Anyone who believes that such events or develops can themselves be quantified usable probabilitites represents the height of intellectual dishonesty and him/herself is a master practitioner of the art of nonsense.

jank

Did you ever hear of a theory that if a peice of string can get itself into a knot it will!

PeakOutput

Amerika wrote: »

So we live, we die, and we're gone?

the existence of god and creationism are not dependant on eachother

i have no problem with people believing in a god

i have a serious issue with people believing the earth is 10,000 years old, but if they want to thats up to them, idiotic, but up to them

my point is parents donts have the right choose what they teach their kids if they are going to teach creationism they MUST be forced to teach evolution so the kid can make up its own mind

If so, it’s a pretty sad state of existence. Anyone here ever seen Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4

One of the best quotes I’ve read about the formation of life was from the well respected scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge, who’s opinion that the chance development of life on earth was nonsense of the highest order.

Hearing it put that way, it sure doesn’t sound too idiotic to me.

/facepalm

with the size of the universe the chances of it NOT happening are what is small

rovert

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE

28064212

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Alabama politics? The State flag says it all.

Isn't that the same as the Irish flag when it was part of the United Kingdom?

Overheal wrote: »

.....yyyyes it is. Its a Theory of Relativity for example: Not a Law of Relativity. Much unlike the Law of Momentum. Or the four laws of Thermodynamics.

Incorrect. The 'Laws' of science can be wrong as well, they are just based on repeated observation. "A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation" (Wikipedia). Newton's law of universal gravitation is wrong, and has in fact been superseded by Einstein's General Theory of relativity

Amerika

PeakOutput wrote: »

with the size of the universe the chances of it NOT happening...

Although unscientific, I’d say about the same chance as if all of the 7 following are true: PeakOutput is actually in real life Dick Cheney, Overheal is actually Bono, Blue Lagoon is actually Sarah Palin, Manic Moran is actually Louis Farrakhan, JohnMc1 is actually Barack Obama, sceptre enjoys the use of irony in the US Politics section, and I’m Zippy the Chimp.

Here, let me respond in advance for you... "Oh my, there is a God."

BluePlanet

Actually Fred Hoyle believed that we evolved in space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
His bizarre stance has seen him quoted by Intelligent Design proponents but I don't know if he actually counted himself as one.

Interestingly, there is a debunking of his propositions called Hoyle's Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy

Amerika

All I said was I found the quote quite interesting and not idiotic. Soooooo, what does wikipedia (the end all authority on everything) have to say about the following:

"The probability of life having originated through random choice at any one of the 10(46 power) occasions is then about 10(-255 power). The smallness of this number means that it is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected." [Quastler, Henry. The Emergence of Biological Organization, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1964, p. 7.]

"To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10(-20 power) giving maximum combined probability of 10(-2000 power)." [Denten, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Warwickshire, Burnett Books Limited, 1985]

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." [R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.]

PeakOutput

Amerika wrote: »

All I said was I found the quote quite interesting and not idiotic. Soooooo, what does wikipedia (the end all authority on everything) have to say about the following:

"The probability of life having originated through random choice at any one of the 10(46 power) occasions is then about 10(-255 power). The smallness of this number means that it is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected." [Quastler, Henry. The Emergence of Biological Organization, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1964, p. 7.]

"To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10(-20 power) giving maximum combined probability of 10(-2000 power)." [Denten, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Warwickshire, Burnett Books Limited, 1985]

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." [R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.]

im not really sure what your arguing anymore so all ill say is

just because a number is big to you, dosnt mean it is big to the universe

im not saying there is or isnt a god im just saying either way the earth is millions of years old

also an answer that makes the problem more complicated isnt an answer at all

smokingman

PeakOutput wrote: »

im not really sure what your arguing anymore so all ill say is
...

With ya there - not sure if he was your typical yank stereotype who wants to marry his sister and kill the durty "eviloutionists" but sure what can ya do, stupid is as stupid does.

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

All I said was I found the quote quite interesting and not idiotic. Soooooo, what does wikipedia (the end all authority on everything) have to say about the following:

It says that you believe in "Intelligent Design" and not Evolution and that you're here to defend every redneck idiot politician that crawls out of his cave uttering Tea Party-like slogans.

Amerika

I see the bigots are all crawling out of the woodwork.

Overheal

PeakOutput wrote: »

my point is parents donts have the right choose what they teach their kids if they are going to teach creationism they MUST be forced to teach evolution so the kid can make up its own mind

Absolutely ridiculous. Next you'll insist Parents can't teach their children about their Religion until they're 18 and have been trained about 3 other Religions so they can make up their mind.

Its absurd and you have clearly not thought the idea through.

Memnoch

Overheal wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous. Next you'll insist Parents can't teach their children about their Religion until they're 18 and have been trained about 3 other Religions so they can make up their mind.

Its absurd and you have clearly not thought the idea through.

Religion is not science. A basic working knowledge of the key theories of science, such as evolution and gravity are essential for any education. Teaching someone about religion is not even in the same league. I don't care what religious values a parent wants to pass on, but in a first world country basic education with minimum standards should be mandated for all children.

You keep giving religious teaching the same level of validity as the study of science. That's a seriously flawed assumption on which to base your arguments.

Overheal

Youre still talking about taking freedom away from a parent about what they choose to teach to their child which I think is fundamentally flawed.

steelcityblues

Individual schools across the State should be allowed to teach whatever the hell it wants!

Both candidates should think about that!

PeakOutput

Overheal wrote: »

Youre still talking about taking freedom away from a parent about what they choose to teach to their child which I think is fundamentally flawed.

what about the childs freedom to not be indoctrinated?

schools in ireland teach all(alot of anyway) religons fairly equally certainly when i was in secondary school we got a dose of all religons with none taking precedence

i dont see any problem with that and i dont see why it should be any different for a homeschooled kid

Overheal

PeakOutput wrote: »

what about the childs freedom to not be indoctrinated?

You're kidding yourself. Unless we take the Spartan method and send our kids out into the wilderness until they come back with the severed head of a grizzly, they're being indoctrinated into something.

You are never going to stop Parents from teaching their children whatever the hell they want. Sure we punished a bunch of slaves for trying to make their children literate when they weren't out in the fields picking cotton; but it doesn't work long term. Nor is it all that effective.

schools in ireland teach all(alot of anyway) religons fairly equally certainly when i was in secondary school we got a dose of all religons with none taking precedence

I don't know what school you were in then. In St. Flannans of Ennis we spent our religion classes reading straight out of the New Testament.

PeakOutput

Overheal wrote: »

You're kidding yourself. Unless we take the Spartan method and send our kids out into the wilderness until they come back with the severed head of a grizzly, they're being indoctrinated into something.

i have no problem with parents influencing their kids as long as there is balance somewhere

in ireland if you dont send your kids to school and you dont educate them to the standard set by the department you get in trouble with the law

there is a standard there, if you want to teach your kids fine teach them to that standard anything over that ie creationism is up to you but evolution is part of the standard so you gotta teach them it

I don't know what school you were in then. In St. Flannans of Ennis we spent our religion classes reading straight out of the New Testament.

i was in malahide community school or scoil iosa or school of christ(i think is the translation)

and we never saw a bible in the classroom that i remember

Mr. Incognito

Where has this thread gone.

*Whistles. "Here boy".

Look Creationism is nonsense. End of.

Parents can teach their kids whatever the hell they want. End Of.

The State is not entitled to be in a loco parentis position unless parents are teaching their kids illegal / immoral / dangerous ideas. End of.

You are entitled, as I am to think creationism is nonsense, you are also entitled to think it's amazing and should come with a Happy Meal at McDonalds. It's called a democracy that we live in for just these reasons. Free thought.

The State strives to find a balance in what is taught in schools. So, the best way to control this as a citizen is vote for the guy that you agree with more. Hense, not the nonsensical GOP Candidate for Alabama.

Okay, easy. Now, cornflakes.

StudentDad

This reminds me of the story of the planet Cricket in Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. The residents of this planet were convinced that they were the universe. Then they discovered space travel, discovered the universe and because the universe disproved their little theory ... the universe had to go.

That's the problem with belief - you can logically argue that a particular religious belief is based on total nonsense and be totally correct but because it's a belief - you may as well try and stop the tide - to my mind it's a self-imposed delusion. The dangerous bit is that in order validate the delusion you have to force other people to 'agree' with you. Rather like religious fundamentalists have operated for millenia. The really dangerous bit is that the more 'the non-believers' oppose you the more 'right' you have to be.

In the end it all boils down to societal control - one bunch of religious fundamentalists who want to run society the way they see fit and the rest of us who just want to get on with life and live according to law, science and progress.

SD

Memnoch

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Where has this thread gone.

*Whistles. "Here boy".

Look Creationism is nonsense. End of.

Parents can teach their kids whatever the hell they want. End Of.

The State is not entitled to be in a loco parentis position unless parents are teaching their kids illegal / immoral / dangerous ideas. End of.

You are entitled, as I am to think creationism is nonsense, you are also entitled to think it's amazing and should come with a Happy Meal at McDonalds. It's called a democracy that we live in for just these reasons. Free thought.

The State strives to find a balance in what is taught in schools. So, the best way to control this as a citizen is vote for the guy that you agree with more. Hense, not the nonsensical GOP Candidate for Alabama.

Okay, easy. Now, cornflakes.

Just so we're clear, we're all happy with kids being taught that if they blow themselves up and kill as many westerners as possible in the process they will go to heaven and have everything they ever dreamed of as long as the parents approve of said teaching?

Mr. Incognito

Just so we're clear, we're all happy with kids being taught that if they blow themselves up and kill as many westerners as possible in the process they will go to heaven and have everything they ever dreamed of as long as the parents approve of said teaching?

The State is not entitled to be in a loco parentis position unless parents are teaching their kids illegal / immoral / dangerous ideas. End of.

Is there something wrong with your ability to read?

Most of these kids that are blowing themselves up aren't been taught by their parents btw and in some cases their parents have been killed by American bombs so lets not even get into that debate. You reap what you sow with American foreign policy pal.

Memnoch

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Is there something wrong with your ability to read?

Most of these kids that are blowing themselves up aren't been taught by their parents btw and in some cases their parents have been killed by American bombs so lets not even get into that debate. You reap what you sow with American foreign policy pal.

Right, that's the issue. Religious indoctrination. I believe that teaching people that creationism = evolution, is dangerous both to the individual and to society and it's the state's responsiblity to make sure a minimum standard of education IS achieved.

No one starts out being taught to blow themselves up or to blow up abortion clinics. It starts with indoctrination and fanaticism.

Memnoch

I present... exhibit A

Why is it still ****in legal for those cock-licking homo pigs to maintain this nazi ****ing LIE called evolution. Let tens of thousands of evil DEVILS of ETERNAL flames burns their grandchildren in concentration camps all over the planet. And if that doesn't shut down these **** morons, I shall personally rip their intenstines through their GOD DAMN nosdrils!...I just get so ****ing upset when I hear people talk about this gay **** piece of pussy EVOLUTION. I am NO son of a butt****ing God damn ape, and that's scientific enough for me! Hell yeah! We should decapitate all those bitch slapping freak loving idiots, who think God is dead and who uses the name of Jesus to wipe their infidel pedofile asses.

Sara Ahlmark, Facebook 113 Comments [2/15/2010 10:31:05 PM]

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=70373

I wonder if there would have been any benefit if the state had intervened in this individual's education and taught them the value of critical thought, logical reasoning and the scientific method.