From PZ comes word that the creationists in the Louisiana state legislature are still trying to ram teh stoopid through the system to become state educational law.
Barbara Forrest, one of the Heroes of Dover, is fighting this garbage with everything she’s got, and one thing she’s got is us. If you live in Louisiana, please please please contact your representatives and talk to them about this. Barbara has all the information you need; she’s written a summary of the bill as well as a series of talking points for you.
Mind you, this is for Louisiana residents only for now. She may need all our help eventually, but for now this is a state issue.
Man. Whack-a-creationist is a game that never ends. As Barbara herself says:
The children and teachers of Louisiana are being used as pawns by the Louisiana Family Forum and, most likely, the Discovery Institute, about which I have written so extensively. These people will assuredly not be around to clean up the wreckage they will leave in their wake if we don’t stop them. We have to stop them.
Otherwise:
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Phil, why is this happening so much?
First of all, isn’t it obvious to the legislators that behind their lets-make-our-name-sound-not-religious monikers, teh stoopid’s are just trying to wear a different t-shirt to fool everyone into thinking they aren’t teh stoopid?
Second, once they realize they just legislated using their dumb gland instead of their brain, don’t they end up changing it?
It just baffles me how a country such as the US can allowsuch cancerous thinking to even be heard!
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Brango:
Because if you don’t ‘allow such cancerous thinking to be heard’, a large number of people will begin ranting (probably quite validly) that free speech is being suppressed. Probably to take the high road, you have to allow the guy on the soap box to rant on the street corner.
The real question should be: “Why isn’t the education system sufficient to convince enough people to apply critical thinking to what they think they know so that there is never any serious danger to having people try to ram unscientific, unsupportable, illogical thinking into the schools in the first place?”
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
As a resident of Louisiana, I have to say, this is pretty said, but as a resident of Louisiana, I have to say, I’m not surprised at all. We have a very bad and corrupt government here. I will be contacting my representative though.
I’ve done my best to make sure the students at my high school learn evolution, even when the teachers won’t teach it. I go into the biology classes and give bone presentations and talk about evolution.
(BTW, you misspelled Louisiana in the title)
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Also, I forgot to mention, I attended one of Barbara Forests’ lectures not too long ago called “ID: Creationisms Trojan Horse”, which was an introduction to her lecture on the Dover trial, and it was very good. There were some creationist hecklers there, but she set them in there place, which was pretty cool.
The best line of the night was in response to the heckler (who was being very obnoxious) saying “I know god exists in my heart”, and Barbara said: “You can think with your heart, and I’ll think with my brain” followed by roars of applause.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
It just never ends. They’re like those weeble wobble toys from when I was a kid, bud not as much fun.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
WilliamAshbless:
I take your point about freedom of speech. It does allow them (IMHO incorrectly) to take a moral high road, and those riddled with cancerous evangelicalism can then preach their preachiness to thunderous support all the easier.
When though, does freedom of speech become something else? Something sinister. Something immoral. Something illegal.
I recently heard a clip of disinformationist Rush Limbaugh actually inciting people to riot at the democratic convention, which is certainly freedom of speech, but it also reveals a sinister, immoral, and illegal agenda.
There are laws that are designed to prevent such disgraceful behaviour, and all that this legislation is trying to do is remove the preaching, erm,sorry… teaching of “creationism as science” from the list of illegal things.
Creationism is quite simply NOT science, just as evolution is quite simply NOT religion, and to teach either in the others domain, whilst covered under the umbrella of freedom of speech, can only be the product of it a sinister, immoral, and illegal agenda.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“I recently heard a clip of disinformationist Rush Limbaugh actually inciting people to riot at the democratic convention, which is certainly freedom of speech, but it also reveals a sinister, immoral, and illegal agenda.”
It also indicates a certain frightened desperation from the right wing. It also indicates, that, as usual, the right is delighted to send others off to fight violent battles that they themselves wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot battle lance. Cowards.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Man, I misspelled Louisiana every single time I typed it in that post… and my spellcheck didn’t say a word about the title. Sigh. Thanks, I fixed it.
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Brangoon
…isn’t it obvious … teh stoopid’s are just trying to wear a different t-shirt to fool everyone into thinking they aren’t teh stoopid?
Okay, this could be a long rant… let me make more coffee…
Most people judge others’ capabilities by themselves. BA, most of the regulars here and I all (sometimes) assume that teh stoopids have the mental capacity and willingness to do some reading and research to get the information to dismiss the ‘demon-haunted world’ (Yes, I’m reading Sagan).
Conversely, teh stoopids find that there are subjects (Evolution, paleontology/archaeology, etc.) that they have trouble understanding. So, they figure ‘if *I* can’t understand it, no one can.. so the science is a fraud’. (I, personally have problems with Calculus, but I don’t make this illogical leap - I know there are other things I will never “get”.. certain words I’ll always have problems spelling, etc.)
So, rather than make any admission that there are some parts of the real world that some people ‘just don’t get’, teh stoopids insist that we go for the LCD - Lowest Common Denominator. This is also why some of the most intelligent children wind up being the most disruptive - they are not facing challenges. (Another personal note: my mother once mentioned that when a new school year began, I would read the entire textbook almost immediately and rarely if ever read it again during the semester).
There’s also quite a bit of ‘trust in Authority’, notably in religion.
Going off-topic a bit, there are two basic groups called “christian”:
Actual ‘followers of the Christ’ - who are usually quiet, active in helping others, compassionate, and who lead by example, rather than pushing through legislation or courts to get others to join in with them. I call them Christians (note capitalization)
The other group would better be called Pauline Yahwists - the loud negative group who try to force their beliefs on others. They are not followers of Jesus the Christ/Yeshua ben Miriam as presented in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. They follow Saul (Paul) who is very well profiled in The Mythmaker [can’t find my copy for full title - probably in one of the piles of ‘read again ‘ books].
The latter group, whom I abbreviate as “Xians”, can usually be identified by the Biblical Quotes they use: from the Epistles of Paul, and the Old Testament. Often, these disagree with the teachings of Yeshua/Jesus in the Gospels. (Personal note: the story of Paul’s conversion sounds suspiciously like an ‘undercover agent’ - any good Law Enforcement agent will tell you the best way to destroy a group is from the Inside)
So, basically, there’s a ‘dumbing down’ to the level of the least intelligent/curious so there is no ‘elite’ knowledge, save the Religious Authorities, who often present not the actual Biblical stories, but adaptations to help control the ‘unwashed masses’. For instance, we all ‘know’ that Noah took ‘two of each species(?)’ onto the Ark, but actually reading the [translated, usually] story, there were SEVEN of ‘clean’ animals,and two of ‘unclean’.
Another favorite argument is that God only struck down truly Evil people, and most of the wars that are based in Religion are misinterpretations of the many Commandments (Deuteronomy). However, in Robert A. Heinlein’s Stranger In A Strange Land, there is a reference to 2nd Kings, where forty two children were torn apart by she-bears because THEY LAUGHED AT THE PROPHET’S BALDNESS.
(I think that’s just a bit extreme, no?)
Anyhow… a realization that there are blind spots in all of us (anyone else want to confess to having them?) is one of the important realizations, it’s the person refusing to admit they are not the ’smartest, best-looking, most capable’ person in the world is where most of these problems come from.
More coffee, please
J/P=?
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
“why is this happening so much?”
Because fundies figured out a way to reverse our freedoms and push their agenda through a crack in the system and they will sysatematically try it everywhere. Because our country is set up to maintain the sep of c/s and thereby maintain our greatest freedom, they will always lose in the end; but the upshot is an incredible waste of resources.
A case in point of how our Freedom is fought and won at home (and not in Iraq, as the diversionairies would like you to believe).
“Why isn’t the education system sufficient to convince enough people to apply critical thinking”
In my experience observing public schools protocols in several states, the curriculum is basic basic: you don’t learn true critical thinking until college. Unfortunately, America has some of the most expensive university-level education the world has ever seen, limiting those who would otherwise continue. I look at how many of my friends aren’t attending college and the reason is cost.
J/P=, well evaluated. I’d like to see your description of the 3rd and largest group, which you touched on. (Those who receive their religious beliefs through absorption of cultural cues).
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
BA, the TRUE, CORRECT spelling is “Lousy-anna”. I lived there for eight years as a youngster and later worked the evil offshore oilfields, and the only thing worse than the politics is the dismal state of the educational system. Doomed they are, and quite proud of it, too!
Tom
formerly of Mandeville, Lousy-anna
Got Rational and Got Out!
May 4th, 2008 at 12:24 am
AHH, but New Orleans, Bourbon street and Mardi Gras make all that unsanity worth while and don’t forget the music. Sweeeeettt!!!
I wonder how much uncritical thinking is necessary to ensure a steady supply of non-traditional thought? Just because the reactionaries world view is at odds with reality doesn’t mean they can’t stumble on something new and interesting. Most of the musicians I have known had their mental picadillos while a few were brilliantly creative AND rational. But some of the greatest music came from those with the oddest world views,,,
I expect there must be some balance between those with an uncritical acceptance of authority vs. the rampant individualist that is necessary for the psychological health of a society. As with all such energetic systems, they will be in flux, oscillating from one extreme to another.
Yes, I’d love to have all humans with bright minds, loving hearts and scintillant souls but I’ll settle for a species struggling to grow.
Peace, what a novel idea,,,
GAry 7
May 4th, 2008 at 2:03 am
@John Paradox: A very good rant, I guess I just rant more succinctly
“there is a reference to 2nd Kings, where forty two children were torn apart by she-bears because THEY LAUGHED AT THE PROPHET’S BALDNESS.
(I think that’s just a bit extreme, no?)”
Okay, this is how that little beauty was explained to me by a fundie… The story is simply being taken too literally. It all hinges on “remembering” that god would never do such a thing, so you have to look at it closer to see where the over-literacy is being applied. What we find is that the word for “children” in the original text doesn’t transpose exactly to English, and is actually a more broad term for a youthful person ranging from infant to a man in his early twenties. Now, “remember” that god would of course never do such a thing, so obviously the word wasn’t referring to the “children” meaning of the word, but the “young man” meaning.
Seriously, this is how it was explained to me!
My response began by highlighting my lack of “memory” of god, and concluded by pointing out that this explanation doesn’t actually exclude children from being torn apart by the bears, but the precursory text describes a behaviour that is actually more descriptive of children than young men.
In the end, I was berated for being judgemental of god and told that such stoopidity would do nothing to to avoid going to hell.
The good news is though that saying hell is no biggie since it doesn’t actually exist turns out to be a great way to get prayed for!
May 4th, 2008 at 5:14 am
Brango
Okay, this is how that little beauty was explained to me by a fundie… The story is simply being taken too literally.
A funnymentalist saying others are taking the Bible “too literally”… now THERE’s a humorous image.
Also, this ties in to my reference to the ‘re-writing’ of the exact stories to a more ‘politically correct’ version, as mentioned:
Jeffersonian
I’d like to see your description of the 3rd and largest group, which you touched on. (Those who receive their religious beliefs through absorption of cultural cues).
If I weren’t about to get in the car and go to work (yes, I head in to be at work at 5A MST - and get to play two hours of ‘church programs’ at 7A)
I could do a quick view of Genesis 1 & 2 to point out certain differences or omissions from the text (and wouldn’t an omniscient through space and time ‘god’ know to make ‘corrections’ for English?). I’ve even considered doing the entire Bible -as presented in English (King James, being one of the most commonly used and shortest - doesn’t include books that aren’t ‘accepted’ by some sects). THAT would probably be a book in itself.
Okay, time for one: YHWH/God had another idea for a mate (help meet) for Adam before ‘He’ created Eve… and it wasn’t Lillith.
Who/what was it?
A: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&verse=19&end_verse=21&version=9&context=context
J/P=?
May 4th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Ah yes, Genesis, a classic fantasy example of the Jewish imagination,,,
,,,not a very good example though, as it consistently contradicts itself.
Still, I would guess that the first “help meet” was either a goat or sheep,,,something which entertains young cowboys and shepards today,,,
I always wondered why Adam isn’t recorded as having eaten of the tree of life, since he was not forbidden that until AFTER he was ejected from Eden. Shouldn’t he have already tasted everything in the garden before the snaky goof up? ,,,and I keep wondering who Cain married,,,musta been some two legged critter that was not considered human by the Jewish tribe, as is quite common in nearly every tribe on earth, ie, “Me human. You, I’m not so sure about,,,”
Most of the Jews I’ve known accept the old testament as METAPHOR. Christians seem unable to understand that. Ah well, it’s obvious from Genesis that Christians are derived from the “not-human” portion of the earthly flocks,,,
GAry 7
May 4th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Why go to all that trouble when they certainly know that any IDiot law they pass is gonna get its ass kicked by the courts? Maybe they should rename the state LOSERana.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
“Incitement to riot [or commit any act of violence]” is no longer “free speech.” It’s a violent act in itself if it can be shown to have succeeded. The rabblerouser can get in some deep $#!+ along with the rioters.
But then you can’t expect whackballs like Mush Lameball to understand that.
:-P 
:-P 
May 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Gary Ansorge
I always wondered why Adam isn’t recorded as having eaten of the tree of life, since he was not forbidden that until AFTER he was ejected from Eden. Shouldn’t he have already tasted everything in the garden before the snaky goof up?
Actually, here’s the timeline:
Gen 2:16-17 Adam forbidden to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Gen 2:22-24 Creation of Eve (not initially named)
Gen 3:5 Serpent (no indication here that it’s anything other than a serpent “more subtil than any beast of the field”) talks Eve into eating.
He says they will ‘be like godS.. knowing good and evil’. (which, BTW is true in what happens afterward.. so he did NOT lie, as is usually claimed)
3:6 Eve eats, then Adam.
3:22 after they’re thrown out of the Garden, the reason for their ejection is given: ‘lest he (Adam) put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever
J/P=?
(I love having a copy of the KJV on my Palm Tungsten)
May 4th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Gary Ansorge said:
[…] I keep wondering who Cain married,,,musta been some two legged critter that was not considered human by the Jewish tribe, as is quite common in nearly every tribe on earth, ie, “Me human. You, I’m not so sure about,,,”
Read down through “A MODERN SOLUTION.”
May 4th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Gary Ansorge said:
[…] I keep wondering who Cain married,,,musta been some two legged critter that was not considered human by the Jewish tribe, as is quite common in nearly every tribe on earth, ie, “Me human. You, I’m not so sure about,,,”
Read down through “A MODERN SOLUTION.”
Okay . . . for some reason it deleted the link. Let me try again:
“http://www.besse.at/sms/descent.html”
May 9th, 2008 at 8:53 am
i have a question, what is the big deal?
i may not be a scientist, but one thing i do know is that science has not always been infallable, that is why a scientific theory is called just that, a theory, because although a theory may have supporting facts and stands true untill a new theory may explain it better, or dismiss it altogether, an example is what was taught 20 years ago with the evolution theory is very different as to what is being taught today. so does that mean that 25 years ago our kids were being taught lies? scientific theories are constantly being changed and modified, science itself as i view it is the search for truth.
but here it seems that people are more interested in inflating there own egos, pretending that we know everything, there is nothing left to learn, and we should not be open to any new theories or ideas.
i have a question, what exaclty are we trying to prove here?
that there is no God, no higher power?
or are we actually trying to find the truth, because unfortunatly the truth requires an open mind and sometimes some radical thinking.
so again i ask why try and suppress teaching creation science in a classroom along side evolution, the base science principals remain the same, the creation scientists are not saying that the work is flat, the earth is the center of the universe or anything along those lines, they still use science to try and prove there theories (they are not modifying scientific principals) they are just interpreting data differently.
so again i ask, what is the big deal, why is it such a big issue to try and suppress different views, i remember i never got my panties is such a knot when evolution was being taught, however i had the different perspective as well. so why are we trying to suppress this, do we not want people to have there own opinions?
what happens when some creationists who think like you do get the upper hand, and start suppressing your views and thoughts? then what?
i would rather live in a world where my friend can have his beliefs, and even openly express them, than have a world where ideas are suppressed (even if i dont agree with them, PS my friend is an athiest).
“teh stoopid’s are just trying to wear a different t-shirt to fool everyone into thinking they aren’t teh stoopid?”
“It just baffles me how a country such as the US can allowsuch cancerous thinking to even be heard!”
“The real question should be: “Why isn’t the education system sufficient to convince enough people to apply critical thinking to what they think they know so that there is never any serious danger to having people try to ram unscientific, unsupportable, illogical thinking into the schools in the first place?”
“Creationism is quite simply NOT science, just as evolution is quite simply NOT religion, and to teach either in the others domain, whilst covered under the umbrella of freedom of speech, can only be the product of it a sinister, immoral, and illegal agenda.”
these are just the very same statements that you guys would attack the creationists for using, instead of putting forth a valid argument on why creationism should not be allowed to be taught you will resort to childish tactics, is this how we as intelligent men should be acting?