University Sued for Saying Earth Not Created in 6 Days

By Jennifer Barone | May 15, 2008 9:34 am

The University of California at Berkeley is being sued for statements on their Understanding Evolution Web site that some religious beliefs contradict science–like the idea that the Earth and living things were finished up in six days. The plaintiffs argue that a government-funded state university cannot claim that “some religious denominations are better than others,” though I certainly can’t find anyplace where Berkeley does so.

I suppose next under the gun will be NASA for its estimate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, or the US Geological Survey for finding the age of the Earth to be a potentially unholy 4.5 billion years

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Uncategorized
  • elliot h

    Religious types have never been fans of science or truth. These plaintiffs are’nt either. They are, however, hypocritical and ignorant.

  • andrew

    I find it interesting that some assert that an idea/concept/philosophy cannot be true simply because of the category into which it falls. These same people then assert that any statement made by persons adhering to that idea/concept/philosophy be met with ridicule and scorn. To claim that Christians/Creationists are always wrong when it comes to the matter of evolution, the age of the universe, or the way in which it came into being unless they reject the Bible as being truth is incredibly arrogant! Before the dawn of powered flight, many learned and intelligent people scorned and ridiculed those who believed flight was, indeed, possible. Why? Because they rejected the idea of powered flight. To assume that you are right simply because of the nature of your beliefs and Creationists are wrong simply because of the nature of theirs is no different, and, in the end, no less flawed. What science KNEW to be true 100 years ago is now KNOWN not to be true. What about that which science KNOWS to be true today?

    • http://twitter.com/CallMe_Meli Pepper Kenwood

      Galileo was exiled by the church for scientific facts we know today and its obvious Earth wasn’t created in 6 days

  • cyber

    UC Berkeley should file an immediate conuntersuit and make those idiots allocute on UC’s terms.
    This stupid creationist nonsense has been going on for too long.

  • oi

    ROFL

    America, meet hell in a handbasket

  • Voice of Reason

    …and you guys in the US are afraid of Iranian mullahs!

  • CodeRedEd

    Reply to andrew.
    The difference is that scientist learned. They discovered new information and changed based on that. Creationists and some fundamentalists won’t. All Christians aren’t wrong when it comes to evolution, but creationists who ignore scientific facts are wrong.

  • mr. knowitall

    Andrew, you’re an idiot like the rest of the nutjobs. Yes, I and most intelligent people will dismiss the fact that Earth was created in 6 days. You see, what you fail to understand that certain truths that we hold are strongly supported by clear and observable evidence while you and the rest of the nutjobs have found ways to demean those observations with false logic. At least it will only take one observation to nullify the original assertion but you religious fanatics continue to defend a dead assertion. For God’s sakes, even the Catholic sect believe that evolution and the Bible can coexist. I can only hope that Darwinism takes effect on you dumbasses and weed you out of the population.

  • http://www.clan-mckenna.net Cory Michael McKenna

    @Andrew:
    Ever hear of the *scientific method*? Scientists, and people that use reason, do not seek to assert that religious beliefs are false on the simple basis that they are different than their own “beliefs”. Religious beliefs are viewed as false because there is no evidence to support them versus the existence of evidence to support scientific theories.

  • stophumoringfools

    This sounds like the work of the Ben Stein crowd. It is an attack made against a scientific theory solely based on emotional arguments with no evidence to support them, and largely a straw man argument for support of their complaint. The statement on the web site makes no mention of any religion being better than any other, but by attributing a false and controversial statement to the school, they attempt to discredit them and somehow win an argument of facts when they have none to offer.

    Andrew brings up a good point – when science is wrong about something, it immediately changes in light of the new evidence. When religion is wrong about something, it immediately denies the evidence and tries to make it go away, and when it finally has to concede the point, it gets all defensive about it and starts rationalizing.

    Sentenced in 1633, Galileo spent 20 years under house arrest by the church for proving that the Earth revolved around the Sun. While science, which had erroneously held the same view, immediately corrected itself, how many years went by before the church finally admitted they were wrong on that issue? It took them until 1992: that’s 359 years. In 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger was spouting this about the topic: Her [the church’s] verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.

    The Vatican’s own astronomer has publicly stated that the Bible is not a scientific text and should not be consulted for scientific truth, yet the feeble minded use it as their only basis for rejecting mountains of evidence in favor of evolution.

  • Dean

    I find it interesting that elliot h describes ?religious types? as not being fans of the truth, yet truth is exactly what they believe in. He calls them hypocritical. An applicable definition of hypocritical would be someone who says one thing yet believes another, or believes one thing yet does another. Elliot h has not demonstrated that that is true of those protesting UC Berkley?s statement. In fact, I?d say it is consistent with their beliefs. Elliot h calls them ignorant. Ignorant means ?not knowledgeable?. I wonder how much elliot h knows of the Bible?

    I?ve heard that some diseases, such as, Alzheimer?s or Parkinson?s can not be diagnosed until postmortem. I suspect the truth of the Bible will also be understood in postmortem. If one would say, ?But, you can diagnose the disease by its symptoms?. I?d say same for the truth of the Bible.

  • Phronimos

    @ Dean:

    Dean, I fully respect your right to an opinion and to voicing it, however, there are considerable dis-analogies between Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease and a book like the bible, to make your comparison so dubious as to be entirely inadequate.

    What makes you think the truth of the bible will be discovered after death? This immediately presumes there is a state by which we, as beings, can even recognize such an event.

    Science is, at core, a process of observation without bias. While there is considerable vested interest in certain facets of science, its process is not something that is compelled to conform to a doctrine which must be upheld at all costs – aka religion.

  • AJ

    @Dean:

    Which Bible? Before King James? After King James? How about the Coversdale’s Bible? Do we include the Apocryphal, or Deuterocanonical books? If not, why?

    Trying to make the claim that just because someone doesn’t believe your version of the creation fairy tale does not mean they don’t know the bible. Perhaps they know it very well, contradictions and all.

    And I’m certainly glad that these folks have taken time away from caring for the poor – the #1 instruction from Jesus – so they could sue the UC system. Apparently they’ve got that poverty thing licked and are moving on to other matters.

    (P.S. Yes, I am aware that 98% of Christians are not like these nutballs and want nothing to do with them.)

  • Usagi Ichiban

    Imagine this omnipotent being that has been alone in the complete nothing, forever. At some point in eternity, it decides to pop a few things into existence. It starts to create living things with a DNA, but it soon loses its creative flare and just gives the same DNA to everything, with just enough changes in them so that people could be fooled into thinking all organisms are related and evolved into the diverse life we see today. It creates all living things at the same time, but it organizes the fossil record to show a progression from less-complex to more-complex over time. It does all this in 7 days, but it “ages” the earth to fool people into thinking it is billions of years old.
    Then, after going through all this trouble, it just abandons the whole thing to itself, watches lazily while his creatures kill and do horrible things to one another, destroy the planet and die by the billions.
    Yep! That is soooooo much more credible than evolution.

  • http://rationalanalysis.blogspot.com Enginerd

    @Dean:

    Ignorant would actually be a fair characterization of many religious people. Somehow they decided the Earth was about 5,000 years old, even though there’s really nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that (I’ve read it. If you disagree, point me to some verses). And how many have actually sifted through the thousands of biology papers, or even advanced biology textbooks, which presented evidence in support of the idea that life evolved gradually?

    A state funded scientific university has an obligation to report conclusions which are supported by facts. It is also an obvious truth that many religious people, and official stances, disagree with scientific consensus; origin of life/Earth/Sun in 6 days being an example.

    I’ve taken a quick look at the website, but haven’t seen any of the more objectionable things the suit names. They basically say “some religions accept our conclusions, others don’t”, which is completely accurate. Why they should be sued for saying that people disagree with them is beyond me.

  • Lockstep Liberal

    Andrew:

    Great analogy. Only one small problem: Your comparison is backwards. The situation is more like someone today saying powered flight is impossible in the face of the evidence that it occurs.

  • Biologist

    Bring it on. Young Earth Creationists are their own worst enemies. They will make fools of themselves, just like the “cdesign proponentists” did in Dover.

  • Dean

    Dear All:
    It is nice to see my post generated some civilized conversation instead of the name calling and labeling that took place earlier in this thread.

    Phronimos:
    You are right. I do presume there is a state of conscience after death. Of course, no one has come back to tell us about it. I know there are those stories about near-death, out of body experiences, seeing bright lights, etc. I’m not going to base my theology on that. If I’m wrong – I’m just dead. Dust to dust. Actually, I liked the analogy.

    AJ:
    Pick one. It doesn’t change the underlying positions of this discussion. I didn’t claim that elliot h did not know the Bible. Perhaps he does. I did raise the question because his characterization of religious types is totally opposite of Christians that I know. Maybe I don’t know the christians he has met. Maybe he doesn’t know the Lord I know. I think he is just into name calling. Ah yes, the poor. Helping the poor, sick, and widowed has been a hallmark of many individuals and groups over the ages, but few have made it a sole occupation. Some of us have to work to earn money to give to these charitable organizations. But, I’m with you on the lawsuit. I can’t see it. I looked at the links and don’t have a problem with them. Have you seen the movie, “Expelled”? It is asking for a level playing field to discuss creation and evolution in the academic environment.

    Usagi Ichiban (Number One):
    I like your scenario. You are definitely a thoughtful person and have given this serious thought. No, I’m not making fun of you. That is close to the position we take. Good observation – but I disagree with your conclusion.

    Enginerd:
    How many religious people have sifted through the myriad of scientific literature? I suppose many. In fact many of the papers are written by scientist with faith in a supernatural being. Just read the Discover Magazine. I am an electrical engineer with a masters degree, yet I can’t explain magnetism. Neither can you. Discover Magazine recently published an article about that. Having faith doesn’t stop us from pursuing the sciences. Personally, I think we are learning more and more about God’s creation and the intricacies of His awesome work. But, I can’t support the lawsuit.

    Thank you for the exchange.

  • Ugly American

    Everybody knows that Odin and his brothers created the Earth out of Ymir!

    The ‘god’ of the Bible is Loki the Lie-Smith who goes forth into the world to sow discord and strife!

    Seriously folks, it’s time to stop pretending.

    Religion is a form of mental illness and should be treated as such.

  • snoop

    Wow. Whoever is behind this lawsuit must have been looking pretty hard to be offended — After all the page is on the idea that religion and science can be (mostly) compatible.

  • Lon

    I just dont understand it. Why do some people think that you can disagree with science. Its like saying 2+2 is not 4. Some things just are. You cannot change gravity. You cannot argue away science because you dont agree with it.

    You can take a moth. Introduce it to an area that is different than its norm. Inside of 10 years, the moth will evolve to better adapt to its environment. Proof of evolution. Evolution exists. Here is a different way of seeing it. If you have a puzzle. Jig saw puzzle. If you have most of the pieces except for a couple. When you put the puzzle together, you can clearly see that its a boat, or a tree, just missing some pieces.

    Now apply that to evolution. We have all the puzzle pieces except a couple. Its a clear picture missing a few pieces. You can deny all you want, it does not change the fact of what the picture is. Then to argue that its not a picture of a duck, is crazy. It makes no sense. If it walks, and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

    The US is the only civilized country in the world. Let me repeat this. The United States is the only civilized country in the world that does not recognize evolution as the way things went down. Think about that. Billions of people accept this as fact. Hundreds of thousands of scientists around the globe accept this. Yet, here in the US, because some uneducated person that holds on to their religious fairy tail does not agree, it cant happen that way.

    We need to stop making everyone happy and accept it. Its fact. It wont change because you close your eyes and pray to god. Wont make it any less real.

  • Naturally Selected

    Where are we going, and why am I in this hand basket?

    *poof!*

  • Thomas

    While science has held many false beliefs in the past, these beliefs are at least formulated in such a way that they can be falsified. Once a belief is falsified, science replaces it with an equally falsifiable belief. Creationism, as a (pseudo) scientific hypothesis, was falsified long ago. So science always seems to be moving forward in knowledge. My question is this: Has it ever worked the other way around? Is there any example of the scientific community looking back and reevaluating a belief once falsified by the scientific method to find new evidence for its veracity?

  • josh

    @ Dean:

    Discussing something like creationism in the academic environment, when the scientific theory and data to support something like creationism is dubious at best, does not only lead to a thousand dead ends, most reached by the creationist himself when his ideas are probed, but it’s very existence is perpetuated by irrational religious belief, as opposed to good old objective reasoning.

    If you come into a field with a pre-existing conception of how you think things went, not because you spent years and years studying in the field and you came to the conclusion, but because it’s supported by your faith, then you should expect more than a few clashes with the realms of logic and reason, two things that a scientist utilises to thier fullest.

  • josh

    and just to let you know, i am an evolutionary biologist, i encounter creationist challenges all the time, and it just seems all too easy winning arguments with them.

    it’s not about giving creationists a level playing field in the academic environment, its about giving a scientifically validated claim a level playing field in the academic environment, which creationism by default bottoms out on.

    unfortauntely, i did watch the movie expelled, and many of the things said in it boggled my mind. ben stein portrays evolution in the most ridiculous and idiotic light imaginable, and it just shows his complete ignorance on the subject.

    I’m about as convinced that creationism is a valid scientific theory as homeopathy. the very field of biology rests on the pillars of evolution, which time and time again have shown to beautifully justify features of organisms that i witness constantly. it isn’t just a ‘theory’, it’s more than that, and that is more than i can say for creationism.

  • http://www.archiesarena.com archaeologist

    Though i oppose evolution i do not agree with suing a school over this matter. the courts are for more serious issues and nothing good will come from this lawsuit.

    the truth is the truth and it cannot change. if it does then it is not the truth and this minor fact exposes evolution for what it is–lies and deception. you cannot believe one thing and proclaim it to the world then 10, 20 or 30 years later go: ‘ooops. sorry but we were wrong, the real truth is …’ truth has to be the same or it is unfair, unjust, and unstable and subject to the whims of those who want something more popular or just do not like what someone else says.

  • Frank Sellers

    I love zelouts–they think for us, they tell us what we can believe, they censor us and stifle free speech and they blow up our skyscrapers without anyone asking.

    Why, they’re just great. >:-P

  • Len Rosen

    It is amazing to see how many backs go up on both sides of this debate. Who is right? Was the world created in 6 days? Remember the Scopes trial and Clarence Darrow’s cross examination of William Jennings Bryan. If the literal interpretation of Genesis is applied to the creation of the world then we need a lexicon of new definitions to figure out what a day is considering the fact that light preceded the creation of the Sun. Pretty hard to define what a day was under such circumstances. Science and religion both seek truths. Religion does it through absolute faith and belief regardless of observable fact. There is no skepticism in faith. Science bases its conclusion on observable data. Religion claims that humans are limited in what is observable. Science develops technology to observe what is not observable. Keep the subject separate. I have read the report on the suit. I have read the pages on the website that are supposedly pointing out religious belief incompatibilities with observations of science. As a humanist and atheist I find the suit to be silly and the jibing back and forth to be unproductive. For those of you who want a better understanding of the science of evolution, read “The Blind Watchmaker” if you do not care to read the primary source “The Origin of the Species.” For those of you who believe in the word of the Bible, read the original Aramaic text, the Gnostic Gospels, and as many of the primary sources that led to the assembly of the modern Bible. I think you will find it eye opening. And for those who feel left out of this conversation because the Bible is not your primary religious text, read the Koran, read the Eastern philosophies, the books and ideas behind Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, and then revisit waht are “universal truths.” The great thing about human beings is we think about things. We seek answers to unanswered questions. Some see religion as the path to get answers. Some see science. Some go down both paths. But a law suit over what is on the Berkeley site. Please!!!!!

  • levek

    God made the world just like it is,
    He made the fossils just to tease us. (Roy Zimmerman)

    How could have God created the world in only six days? No unions! (Anonymous)

  • Willi D. Wilke

    My goodness, everybody knows and it is proved: World was built in six days and earth is a flat plate in the center of the Universe. Good morning America! – Sorry, India of course.
    Greetings from the conservative Bavaria: Willi D.

  • jasonabdon

    I’m with ugly American. Religion is a serious mental disorder.
    Last night I watch, “Jesus Camp.” It should have been called consentration camp to make children more mentally ill. I didn’t watch it all because it made me ill that people can abuse children
    in such a way. All in the name of Gawd almighty, Jesus will abuse your child.

  • engineertroy

    As an engineer and scientist, the more I learn about science and our universe, the more I am convinced that GOD (EL, Eloha, Elohim, Jehovah) is real. I do not think the Bible and science disagree about evolution. In fact, science supports the Bible. In Gensis, it says the Earth was REPLENISHED and that Man was created in GOD’s image (read as intelligence, speech, spirit, soul, and free will). To me, that coincides with how Homo Sapien suddenly appeared in the evolutionary chain. The Bible also talks about the “others” who came before Adam (Ancient Hebrew for Man). Couldn’t those “others” be the hominids that existed before H. Sapien? I just don’t think that faith (belief in EL) and science are mutually exclusive (notice that I say faith and not religion). Let’s face it, there were physicians, scientists, engineers, businessmen, and politicians in the Bible who were faithful to GOD. These were learned men such as Moses (a general and scholar), Joshua (a general and engineer[builder]), etc.

    I do agree that suing UC Berkeley is ridiculous, but note that is not how all or most Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims behave.

  • The Doctor

    6 days? lazy bastard.

  • Jeff

    Why do people still think that time is a constant?

  • http://@centurytel.net Michael J. Schmitz

    THE UNIVERSITY IS CORRECT. THE WORDING COMES FROM A FALSE BOOK PEOPLE IN RELIGIONS HAVE BEEN MISGUIDED IN BELIEVING IN. THE EARTH TOOK A WHOLE LOT LONGER. SUBTRACT THE RELIGIOUS FALSE BOOK AND THERE’S NO CONTEST. IN ANOTHER COUNTRY HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO. A ENGLISHMUN SAT DOWN AND WROTE THE FIRST BOOK. THE INTENT WAS TO STOP BLOODSHED IN HIS OWN COUNTRY. HE THEN PUT 2 HARD ITEMS ON BOTH SIDES TO CARRY THE BOOK TO HIS QUEEN. SHE READ IT TWICE AND GOT A DIFFERENT MEANING EACH TIME SHE READ IT. SHE HAD IT PUT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS FOR ALL TO READ . THAT STOPPED THE BLOODSHED. ALL THAT COPIED FROM IT CHANGED IT FOR THEIR OWN HUMAN PURPOSES AND LATE THROUGH THE YEARS OF CHANGE, IT BECAME A BOOK OF FALSE WORDS. (for instance the muslim book says all female are slaves), BUT NO SLAVES IN ITS ORIGINAL COUNTRY.

  • Tyler

    Personally, I think people should be able to believe what they want to believe as long as they do not try to force their beliefs on others. The misconception that religion is a bad thing is only harbored because a very small minority of religious nut-jobs are trying to ruin it for the rest of the spiritual community. As someone who has not made a choice regarding religion, but fully embraces science (especially at it’s core), I am saddened to see these fools give religion a bad name. What one believes to be true after death or before time is a deeply personal matter and should never be forced or impressed upon another. Science and religion are simply two sides of the same coin. They should be discussed peacefully instead of polarized with hate.
    Today is a sad day.
    I’m going to go home now.

  • Morgan

    @ archaeologist

    you mean that because scientists change their mind when they discover new facts mean they are lying and deceiving?
    Yes, there are only one truth, which doesn’t change. But science doesn’t claim to know the whole truth. Some things are proven through logic and observation to be true, like evolution, while other parts of that one Truth are not known. But science is not only about proof, it is also about developing theories about those subjects where science does not have any definite proof. These theories are also based on observations and logic, but in some way rests on an assumption. And when these assumptions later on are proven to be true or false, the theories are revised to fit with these new presumptions.
    Compare this to religion. A theory about how the whole world works based on the knowledge of the time when the religion were founded. This theory is then hold as absolute truth for thousands of years, no matter what new contradicting discoveries and facts that are revealed.

    You must make a difference between scientific theories and scientific fact. With valid argument you can argue about the validity of a theory, but if you use religion to question the big solid scientific facts, it will only result in justified ridicule.
    If some religion wants to argue pro or against string theory, well, go ahead. But leave the Evolution alone.

  • Respect&Peace

    The means to resolve all of this is very simple. Respect. It would do the world a lot of good to realize that we all have different reasons to believe what we do. The fact of the matter is this, science IS unbiased. We say the earth rotates the sun because, so far, all evidence points to this. Science does not say that the earth rotates around the sun because god is wrong. Secondly, any school or institute of learning is REQUIRED, if not by anything but good morals, to teach things that are unbiased, and can be proven as best they can by human means. So with that said, my fellow men and women of science, lets give the religious minded their ‘room to breath’ and believe as they wish.

    HOWEVER from my point of view, it is not science that is determined to continue this war. Religion needs to ‘step off’ a bit with the whole ‘I’m right, period’ nonsense. As much as I respect religion, Christians in general, I am not one. I think they have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Saying that, It seems that that is not enough for them. They not only want to believe something, but want everyone else to do so, regardless. And if they cannot succeed in doing that, they want any disagreement expunged from the record. As much as you have the right to believe what you want to believe, so does everyone else. You may not agree with what this institution says, but the fact is they say it in the means to get to truth, not to prove you wrong or ‘convert’ others. Facts are not Faiths, and vice versa.

    And as someone mentioned earlier, this is a small handful of people we are talking about here, but alas, as anything can be represented by its small handful of fanatics, so can religion. Fanatics make everyone look bad. Lets be serious for a moment, and realize that generalization is not going to make anyone agree with anyone else. Stereotypes are just that, and very, very unreliable. Please do not bother to respond to me, as I have said my peace, and like everyone else, must move on to the next thing. Cheers to both sides! :)

  • Rodin’s Subject

    As a scientist and engineer (which has only equipped me to think critically, not to be an expert), I have come to understand with each thing I learn about this universe that a god of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence is infeasible and patently absurd. Never mind the sophomoric attempts to prove that a god that is able to do anything should be able to do evil, or kill itself, or whatever stupid thing–it is not possible that a god could be of this universe (omnipresent) and know everything about everything, past, present, and future (omniscient).

    This is only one argument of dozens for the impossibility of a god: The capacity, for example, to store data about the nearly infinite number of items on the practically infinite number of planets orbiting the essentially infinite number of stars in the universe would require the sum of the mass of this universe many times over. So believers are forced, of necessity, to either alter their definition of their god, or make it not of this universe–of course it would be supernatural. At this point, supernatural becomes a very close facsimile of imaginary. This means that god is either something less than god, or is imaginary, your choice. I favor imaginary. There is no god.

  • no qualms

    SO, if you read the article, science has conflicting arguments just as religion does. Just because one is incapable of higher thought doesnt mean that he or she is right. if you think about it science is as amuch of a religion as hinduism, christianity, or islam. people live by it. so dont go bashing peoples religions, you have your own, let every man have his own.

  • eoin

    for f**k sake religion is wrong. stop going on about what science knew and now knows, science is learning and developing religion has its hands over its ears going la la la la not listening to you.

    true science doesnt get it right all the time but religion never gets it right so f**k all religion its bulls**t i’ll take fact and the real world over fantasy and bulls**t stories any day

    [Moderator’s note: edited out the cuss words.]

  • caseywollberg

    “(P.S. Yes, I am aware that 98% of Christians are not like these nutballs and want nothing to do with them.)”

    How did you determine this figure? Would you provide a peer-reviewed study to back it up?

    “…a very small minority of religious nut-jobs are trying to ruin it for the rest of the spiritual community.”

    Please define your terms “small minority”, “religious nut-jobs” and “spiritual community.”

    “SO, if you read the article, science has conflicting arguments just as religion does. Just because one is incapable of higher thought doesnt mean that he or she is right. if you think about it science is as amuch of a religion as hinduism, christianity, or islam. people live by it. so dont go bashing peoples religions, you have your own, let every man have his own.”

    The difference between science and religion, as if it hasn’t been said enough, is that the observations of science are capable of being falsified and independently verified. In the cases where supernatural claims follow this model, they are invariably shown to be false; otherwise, they are mere fantasy predicated on nothing but the whims of those who hold them–no submission to evidence or data, no reliable way of ascertaining their truth-value, nothing. I wish it could be gotten across to fantasists that there exists this important distinction between their baseless fantasies and observations of external reality hard-won through the scientific method.

    The uneducated assertion that the “findings of science” are constantly changing, or that scientists disagree on some technical explanation for some theory you don’t understand, does not in any way support the ludicrous position that “science is as much of a religion as hinduism, christianity, or islam.”

    And what is this “higher thinking” you assume the non-religious are incapable of? Do you mean “faith?” Faith is the opposite of thinking. Faith is a closing down of rational thought, a casting off of curiosity, an unexamined acceptance of what cannot be true unless it is declared true by fiat, or based on some appeal to authority or emotion. If one is to call this “higher thinking,” then we may as well throw out our dictionaries.

    “…so dont go bashing peoples religions, you have your own, let every man have his own.”

    Only a brain crowded with irrational cognitive structures, or one with a duplicitous agenda, could equate an argument against religious belief and/or practice with an argument against religious freedom. Do you not appreciate that one may champion freedom of religion politically while arguing academically that religion is a trap for fools and a paradise for charlatans? As Voltaire put it, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

    The persistence of foolish claims and retorts such as these means that we must never tire of countering them. Thankfully we have in English a singularly expressive and prolific vocabulary with which to make the repeating of arguments a somewhat less than monotonous experience.

  • caseywollberg

    “…?religious types? as not being fans of the truth, yet truth is exactly what they believe in.”

    You’re going to have to give us a definition of “truth” to go along with this claim. If it’s anything like the correspondence theory of truth, then “religious types” typically live their daily lives as though they “believe in truth,” but when it comes time to discuss theology or science, they switch to the team that says, in essence, Truth is whatever we want it to be, regardless of observable facts.

  • Scott Jones

    As a so-called ‘religious’ type I will give you a definition of ‘truth’: truth is conformity of mind to reality. Yet, it seems to me this is precisely the condition the so-called ‘science’ types are ignorant of. At lest Nietzche was bold enough to realize the natural consequence of science – if the Big-Bang is true, and the universe is based on an eternal return scenario of expansion, collapse, re-creation, then even the laws of physics are not eternal. They would be randomly re-written at each new moment of creation. Therefore, there would be nothing to base truth on. Likewise, for real truth to exist the highest of all truths cannot be based on paradox and contradiction. Yet, this is precisely what Einstein has given us: the highest of all scientific holy truths is one based on absurdity, paradox and contradiction. The modern cosmologist has thrown away his instruments of observation long ago in favor of the mathematical equation defying all observational evidence. As absurd as a 6 day creation event is, it still falls within the domain of the possible, all be it remote. However, no amount of of self-esteem, grandiose statements, and high brow demeaning rhetoric can make a system that necessarily ends in contradiction ‘true’.

  • Gabriel ArKangel

    Who dare to said creationist Christians doesn’t change their beliefs based in new facts or evidence? .They have evolved and I can prove it!!!.

    Back in 1633 if someone dare to believe in something that contradicts the bible he or she must be burned to death in public after physical punishment and torment so they go to hell and keep burning and suffering forever and ever.

    This is a proven Fact, hundreds of historical documents support this. Hundred Thousands where burned in the name of god.

    Today they have evolved, now they don’t believe that someone must die, now they behave like civilized people they take you to court!!!!

    But they still believe that your soul will burn until the end of times…

    I wonder which of the hell circles is the one for secular organizations and Universities ( the eternal punishment is to read stupid creationist blogs and web sites)

  • Greg

    “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” – John 8:32

  • tom

    Science is the cultivation of ideas that describe and predict measurements, with an aim to maximize the predictive strength of the ideas. Thus for an idea to be scientific one it must describe and predict very precisely, so that one can decide it’s predictive strength.

    Religious ideas on the other hand are viral, emotionally manipulative, and usually untestable. When they are testable, believers are so confused that they ignore direct counterexamples, in other words they ignore the fact that their ideas do not even describe phenomena correctly, much less make testable predictions.

    Science good.
    Religion bad.

    http://whatstheharm.net/index.html

  • Scientology101

    Hail Science!

  • Dharma

    i rarely comment on these because i find them depressing. congratulations-the animosity on this site has broken me to respond. what the majority of the public seem to fail to recognize is that religion-whatever sect, persuasion, or structure one adheres to is a belief system and only that-a belief. no one can disprove the existence of some precursory event to the creation of the universe and i dare you to try. academics acknowledge the “creationist” thought of the prime mover argument which simply states that whatever occurred after the big bang was left to the universe to sort out, but the fact that something IS here and that there IS a system of laws to which the universe adheres to is an astonishing find and leads to the thought that if all causes are the result of previous causes, but not all causes necessarily require a preceding one (that is an originating causality) then there is an inherent initial causality to all moving systems. now taking the isolated case of the universe and going all the way backward to time stamp 0:00:00:00 one finds an immensely dense, highly volatile state of matter. an instant later it erupts in what we call the big bang–now what the **** caused it? science-logic can empirically disprove claims in whatever belief structure they desire. but in the end there is a grain of truth to many of them. in the end the big bang theory is a form of creationism! not being one of any particular faith and having a deep-abiding respect for many great minds of science, being theist and atheist alike (Newton, Darwin, Galileo, Einstein, Schrodinger, Copernicus) i find it deplorable when persons of faith are attacked for their beliefs by those who believe they are doing the world good by defaming them using what they believe to be logical arguments citing others for their argumentative positions and tearing apart faiths that may not even belong to them! christians do not possess the sole doctrine on faith–saying those of religion are ignorant is both deeply offensive and the sign of a poor intellect. as for theists who attack well established theories in science–don’t, it’ll work itself out eventually. do you have any idea who attacks scientific theory more than theists? scientists. they are a deeply skeptical bunch and admit no new ideas without the stringent testing and years of defamation–most don’t live to see their work ever published. so the fact that you call into question these ideas is both painful and unnecessary. through its own evolution the theories and hypotheses will be routed out or confirmed, so please quit attempting to deny what is progressing at a prodigious rate. now that we have settled these two aggressive tactics, i think a reconciliation is in order. here is possibly the best i’ve ever heard of it…are you ready? science explains HOW…but it is left to religion to explain WHY. science explains how things work, how all the universe came to be in all its myriad splendor (no it was not made in seven days so quit harping about it), it is left to religion to explain why though. religion is there to give it meaning. science has no moral code by which to guide it, it is the people who utilize science that must direct its purpose–the same technology that powers most of modern france annihilated the cities of nagasaki and hiroshima in an instant. i’m not saying that those of science are immoral, just that they cannot explain to me why there is something here instead of nothing, why we exist at all and why we must act as human beings and why we think the way we do and why we must be moral people. that is left to the human element of the equation and i hope that is kept in mind. the two faiths-in religion-and in science are not mutually exclusive or inclusive, but rather may run parallel if we allow them to.

  • Pointless

    People read these comments, post their own poison and move on. This is not a discussion, a debate, or any kind of communication that will accomplish anything useful. Why bother?

  • Jeffrey

    The main issue with this whole debate is that both deal with things that happened too far in the past to be experienced.

    In the present, neither creation nor evolution can be seen with one deemed a religion and the other, a theory.

    So the questions for the most part, will never go away.

    Did a divine being really come down on Earth about 2000 years ago?
    Was the world really created billions of years ago along with evolution?

    Side notes:
    natural selection is not evolution
    similarities do not prove relationships

  • Richard

    God does not exist- now go enjoy the rest of your life

  • Slip

    Quoting Gabriel:
    “Today they have evolved, now they don’t believe that someone must die, now they behave like civilized people they take you to court!!!!

    But they still believe that your soul will burn until the end of times…”

    Tom Robins labeled Christianity as “The death cult” (Source: Skinny legs and all). I’m inclined to agree.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ6ficvJODQ&feature=related MoonRose

    What always surprises me about those who choose to think that the Bible (again: Which Bible?) is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, obviously have not actually studied and compared the history of said writings. Oh, and really looking at and considering the contradictions. Yes, boys and girls of the creationist movement, a whole lot of things are contradictory, if you just take the time to line them up and think about them. Most of all, read some actual histories of the Bible. If you don’t understand how the Jewish looked at the scriptures and what they meant, you also are missing important components of history. Find out what the culture was in the middle east, Greece and Rome during the time of Paul and what were the basis of the religions existing at that time and you will see it reflected in Paul’s writing. Read a biography of Paul, not written by a sect. Do you dare to step outside your parameters and just look at the what’s on other side. It’s not letting yourself be tempted by the Devil. Your God is all powerful and can protect you from evil. He’s not supposed to get mad at you for exploring, either. Right? Yes, I have read the Bible, and once participated in a fundamentalist belief system.

  • zwenkwiel

    @andrew

    that’s where you’re wrong
    science doesn’t teach the truth
    it teaches theories and how people formed them.
    the very fact that science now is radically different from science a few centuries ago shows this.
    and what has religion done in those centuries (except lose members)
    exactly.

    don’t go around calling people (or something) narrow minded when YOU (or religion) are the one reluctant to change.

  • Anonymous

    This is perfectly legal, when the student agrees to go to a government funded college, he agrees to the “separation of church and state”. Stating anything other than that simple fact would be crossing the two, which would be unconstitutional in the first place.

    Religious People:
    If you are so harmed by a fact which has been concluded by scientists around the world, then perhaps you should live like the Amish, without influence of governments and science.

  • Reload2112

    What spastic judge actually allowed this BS case to even enter his courtroom? The medical and scientific community are sanctioned by the government to provide scientific FACTS based on years of research so that policies can be set according to their findings. Perish forbid that the FACTS found in careful research contradict existing policy. You are either asked to resign, fired outright and now even sued. One recent example of this is Professor David Nutt’s comment to British lawmakers. “Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco and policies should be reviewed to co-encide with these findings.” This was based on what..12 years of scientific tests and research and what did they do? Asked him to resign and accused him of attempting to undermine and overthrow the government. Yet, Americans aren’t scarcely aware of this because NONE of the leading media/news outlets have even mentioned it. Let’s see how our government reacts to the American Medical Association’s recent reversal of their stance on medical marijuana and that it should be opened up for more studies on it’s apparent use as an ANTI-CANCER agent.

    Notice this hasn’t been reported on by our media either. Welcome to a world controlled by the elite lawmakers. It’s becoming more and more obvious that we are being shammed on our very way of American life and our civil liberties died a long time ago.

    What’s it going to take for the public at large to wake up to this? Just because they dont agree with medical marijuana they turn a blind eye. What’s going to happen when your religious freedom, your right of free speech and your right to bear arms all have tax payer funded wars on them? Will you take notice then? It will certainly be too late. I love my country and I abide by it’s laws but there is no such thing as liberty anymore.

  • Deadshoes

    I can understand why this has generated so much discussion in this forum. America was founded by religious zealots and they still run the show. Most of the early setters of the good old US of A were running from religious persecution in the British Isles – see the Mayflower etc and Thanksgiving. Church has always been a big part of America mostly, I think, because it is still a young country in which the people still believe in ideals. Religion plays a big, if legally unrecognized, part in American politics see the Moral Majority, Sarah Palin, etc. There was more concern over Obama’s religious views than his politics or his colour. I note, with interest, that one of the first things he did was go to church!
    The myth of religious freedom. Christian/Jew vs Muslim. It’s time America grew up and got over it.

    Thank you for the discussion. Many of these bit and pieces appear when I have chitchats with the JWs who are trying to convert me.

  • Josh

    To assume that everything science says is a fact just because it’s in the name of science is just as ignorant as ridiculing creationists for their beliefs in something that is also taught as fact. It all boils down to evolutionists expect EVERYONE to accept that it is right, and when another group presents another idea, they are wrong for it simply because “fact” does not allow for it. If you can’t tolerate equality in the classroom, then drop out, and ignore articles like this. Simple as that. As a government funded school, I find it nonsense that they would teach one thing as fact without mention to any other THEORIES.

  • Nicolle

    It’s ‘fact’ because there is empirical evidence for it.

    Also, please learn what scientific theory is. The ignorant, or simply annoying are driving me crazy with this one.


    By the way, I thought that it was intelligent design that conflicted with evolution (more so than creationism)… am I wrong?

  • Alex Mullroney

    OMG

    Every other reigning monarchy, country, military power, economic power, fashion/style power, throughout history has come and gone. Sadly, now, these sounds in the distance are the falling of America from her iconic status. Embarrassingly, it won’t come at the hands of another country, but it’s very own ignorance & greed. Self-righteous and blind, they attempt to bend others to their comedic will.

    It’s laughable, really. Sheer comedy. A divine comedy one might say.

  • http://members.dslextreme.com/users/account6/ALL/3ndx.html marvin nubwaxer

    why don’t we label religion what it is, a mental disorder, as it is not rational. i don’t say make it illegal. no, it is only a warning to rational people to beware of zealots as it seems the more zealous the proponents of religion are the more likely they are to lead others to disaster.
    thank god for hindus. you never hear of them blowing things up and raising hell. thank god for that.

  • Mark

    The bible was compiled by a bunch of rich white guys with political agendas. One thing is for sure, all of these religions can’t be right, but they can damn sure all be wrong. The problem is that none of them will admit it. At least science will admit when it’s wrong and make the necessary adjustments.

  • Lloyd Miller

    ” A bunch of white guys with political agendas” You gotta be kidding, I hope, Mark, that you are not a spokesman , in any way for those of us with enough sense to read and see truth. That political agenda comment shows some, uhh fanatic-type tendencies.
    Anyway the story is ridiculous. No University worth it’s salt would teach anything else. I see a real need to pay close attention to this and any other of these types of litigation’s. I think though that we, as a species are headed in the right direction, change is hard but it is guaranteed. The day will come, probably in my own lifetime, when common sense will start to look a bit more sensible. all of us need to continue to seek knowledge, seek reality, teach our children and grandchildren what we learn, then, if ever confronted, ever, be prepared to debate calmly, sensibly, and effectively. Having the truth on our side will eventually, I’m sure stop the dull aching stupidity of this whole idea of an external Santa Claus type God Dude.

  • James Allie

    The funny thing is one of the biggest things that Christians like to point out is how God is in-fallible and man is obviously fallible.

    So using that thought process than would you not say that the interpretation of the bible could be let’s say wrong? Not to mention the translation itself! Oh and last time I checked it was written by man. Do not even get me started on how the New Testament and the Old Testament contradict each other.

    If there is a God and there may very well be one, he would be so much larger than life that if he stepped on us it would be like us stepping on an ant only a billion times smaller.

    Faith is a great thing to have and an important thing to have as it is kind of like that “blanky” that keeps many safe at night. However sometimes you need to make sure you wash it to get the stench out.

  • Richard N

    Yo, Lloyd,
    Religion has, almost always, been a tool of the powers that be (the king, emperor, whatever) as a means to pacify and control the populous. It gives the people false hope that, no matter how much their life sucks, that there will be a reward for it in some afterlife scenario. Also, it gives people an awareness to ‘not mess with authority’. In medieval times, the king was (usually) seen as a direct representative of divinity. His power was absolute. There was almost always collusion between the king and the pope, for an example.
    Yet, even back then, it was a strained system that others wanted to bring down and/or modify to ‘their’ agenda. (New boss; same old policies). Martin Luther shook Europe to it’s core, but the net result was- more religious control than ever…. it just started getting more subtle and sneaky.
    By and large, religion, as it is practiced, is nothing more than groups of folks wanting to exercise power. They want to be the exclusive leaders of how you think. They want obedient sheep.

    Uh, someone out there was saying that science only deals with theory and not truth. Uh… the sun rises in the east. This is truth. This is science, as well. Study up on astrophysics. There is no theory involved here… just simple orbital mechanics. All about truth. Mathematics is not theory, in everyday use. 2+2=4 is not a theory. Sure, there is math that does involve theory, but those areas of science have little to do with reality as most of us see it. I tried to follow some stuff about quantum physics the other day. Just because I couldn’t grasp the math doesn’t mean much. Looks more like magic to me. But that doesn’t relegate it to some level of meaninglessness (hmmm, was that a real word ?). Just means that it’s a work in progress.

    I think that a lot of this science/religion debate stems from the average person’s inability to grasp science. It takes a huge amount of education to even keep up anymore. I think that maybe these religious folks just plain disrespect science because they don’t understand it. Kind of like: implied ignorance.
    So, they lean on religion to answer their questions. Dumb move. Explain orbital mechanics, to me, based only on passages in the bible. If you cite anything in Genesis, then you didn’t understand the question.

  • WTF

    Separation of church and state?

  • WTF

    @James Allie: In my experience the blinkered religious claim that when they are infused with power of *The Holy Spirit*tm they are infallible, and as all who had a part in the shaping of what the book has evolved into were had the holy spirit throbbing inside them, the book is also infallible.

    Any reasonable being can see the flaws in this argument, but they don’t. This “holy spirit” must be very similar in may ways to cocaine.

  • Um, no.

    “Who dare to said creationist Christians doesn’t change their beliefs based in new facts or evidence? .They have evolved and I can prove it!!!.

    Back in 1633 if someone dare to believe in something that contradicts the bible he or she must be burned to death in public after physical punishment and torment so they go to hell and keep burning and suffering forever and ever.”

    They haven’t changed one little bit. If they had, you’d never see them picketing gays or abortions or video games or anything else. They wouldn’t be burning books and all the other violent things they do. The LAW has changed, that’s the only difference. I guarantee if the law changed tomorrow to allow christians to do whatever they wanted in the name of their religion you’d see a pile of burning gay people in every city faster than you could say barbecue.

  • Living the Dream

    First, I would like to say Merry Christmas, seeing how nobody posted on the 25th (or so it said)

    When people look at the debate of “which is right, science or religion”, there starts to be fair amount of assumptions made. First, in regards to religion, that is assumed as Christianity. To have an argument including religions, we must realize that there are literally thousands of different belief systems out there. That means thousands of interpretations of the Bible, Koran, or any other religious doctrine. What we then see is that where one religion believes that the Earth was created in six days, another group of people believe that the Earth was cast out of a fight between their gods. Ultimately, each religion believes, with 100% confidence, that their religion is correct.

    Second, in respect to how Science is correct…What we know now is all near truth. In other words, we have the technology to back up and support all scientific findings. There is not debate among that, because facts are facts. Thus, if a religious book states one thing, but science proves otherwise, then science must be right, and religion must be wrong…however, what happens when there is something that is proven in religion to be true, but science can not prove against it. Whether it is the miracles of Jesus, or how Joseph Smith claimed that God spoke to him. There is no way, at all to prove or disprove it, however the scientific community says that these events are impossible. It is in the instances that science can not prove against a religious statement that they fall back on arguments that support science disproving other statements. There is no way to show that Mary was in fact a virgin who gave birth to the son of God, but at the same time, there is not reason to assume otherwise if it is truly what one believes.

    Now, some religions understand that the Earth was not created in six literal days, and it was more of symbolism than truth, and in that way, Science is back on track…..but there ARE groups that do believe it was created in six days. And there is no way with 100% absolution to say that it is not true…and that is religion, believing what you want to believe, as long as it makes your life better and positive.

    My last comment is how not all science is “fact” for sure. Take Global Warming. There are many scientists that show that it is indeed happening and is going to destroy the world….but then there are many scientists that say that it is NOT indeed happening, and will NOT destroy the world…One can debate all they like about the issue, but then that shows that even in the Science community, there are issues that divide people. It is at that point where it is a census, and no longer science……THAT is what religion is, only with more faith, and less science.

  • angry european

    you americans are all the same. not happy with something really minor and what do you do…? sue. thats right. not enough to contest the point in the media, you have to try to get rich from the arguement too. makes my blood boil.

  • GMNightmare

    You guys need to stop referring to the past as if it actually existed!

    god created everything last Tuesday! Earth is only 8 days old! I think I’ll sue everybody who says otherwise simply because they shouldn’t be able to say nonsense like Earth is older than 8 days!

  • Dale

    I have seen similar things happen at fossil research sites. Where a local church deemed to give a chunk of land a fossil bed was located, if the scientists at the local university would maintain that the fossils were no more than 6,000 years old.

  • TheOpenPalm

    @angry european:

    Not to contest your argument that we sue for monetary gain all too often (we certainly do), but in this case the suit is not for money, but to get the college to take down what they have written. Suing (at least in this country, I am not sure about others) does not necessarily mean for monetary gain. It is simply our legal terminology for contesting something.

    Also, this is stupid. Universities teaching science must teach verifiable theories. Leave fairy tales to lit majors.

  • Pita Lupita

    The Creationist story is -and should be treated as- an allegory to the greatness of God. In other words, it’s a story. So let’s appreciate it as such. A story will not diminish the greatness of God, if you are a believer.

    Why fundamentalist idiots take Creationism literally is a sad testament to our educational system.

  • Kydee

    Funny, as a medical person it floors me when I hear Some folks say that their religion is fact and that science is fake and that only the Bible tells the truth.
    Then I wonder why is it if those folks that hate science come into a hospital and demand all the science we can give them to heal their ills, rather than letting GOD do his work on them.
    Funny how fast the bible is forgotten when they are hurting, they let us do all the science on them and then they turn to the Bible to heal them after they are stabilized and out of PAIN on scientifically made drugs!!!

  • jack

    To DEAN regarding your reply to usagi…

    So that means that you do not believe in the book of Revelations? …. yet you believe in the bible??

  • drunk

    To TheOpenPalm on what he said to angry EURO

    WHAT THE FIVE FINGERS SAY TOO THE FACE!!!!! SLAP…. i like your remark lol

  • Ellen B

    What is interesting to me is how religious people lust after the credibility of science. Science culture and the scientists in it have no interest in marching into places of worship and demanding that science be taught. Scientists, real scientists, understand the robustness of the scientific method. They use logic and parsimony. They are rigorous in their discipline. When you are learning science, when you are becoming a scientist, you find yourself catching your tongue all the time. You stop making bold statements. You think more, and you react less. Make no mistake, the emotions are there, but they are no longer allowed to run the show.

    The public impression of scientists is that they are distant and emotionless. In truth, they are some of the most joyful people you will ever meet. Scientists are curious. Science pushes up against the edge of what is known. This is perceived as dangerous to religious folks of a certain bent. Religion has, historically, shut down inquiry and punished those who dare to ask questions.

    I don’t visit religious websites. I’m not ignorant of religion. I was raised a catholic. I’ve read some versions of the bible, but not all of them and I’ve met a few theologians in my time. I’ve also studied Buddhism.

    I don’t agree with most religious thought or teachings. Religious people talk a lot about love and joy. But their actions show much more fear and even hate. Their terror can be palpable. They want to control. I’m not interested. I prefer altruism, thank you.

    I don’t agree with them, but I don’t go to christian websites and pick fights about their teachings. Religion is religion. Science is science. I really don’t care if you teach religion in school or not. Go ahead, teach it in public schools, do it on my tax nickel (though I really think religious organizations should NOT be tax exempt). But teach it in religion class, not science class. And then you’ll have to figure out which religion to teach as the official one. And then all you religious types can get off our backs and fight with each other, which is what you love to do. Scientists don’t war with each other.

    Religions have war with other religions. That, despite all the lip flapping about peace and love is what it boils down to and why the founding fathers insisted on separation of church and state. They didn’t want the US involved in the century after century of wars and bloodshed that they observed in Europe.

    Still the religious wish to intrude. They wish to argue the validity of their sacred texts. Tell you what, when all of you religious people can decide which religion is the right one, come back and talk to us. Because right now, the conversation is premature. Jesus? Allah? Thor? Cthulu? Come to a consensus. Clean your own house first.

    In the meantime, stay out of our labs, out of our research sites and stations,o ut of our science classrooms and our websites. Stop using the term science in the names of your sects, or to describe beliefs and narratives that have nothing to do with the scientific method at all. Stop being so jealous of science, a functional way of exploring the world, that you try to steal its credibility for your own dysfunctional systems.

    You are wasting our time.

  • Fred

    Like I saw this quote attributed to the fictional character “HOUSE”. He States “If one could reason with religious people, then there would be no religious people.” I think this says it all!

  • worthruss

    The people who wrote the Bible believed that the Universe turned around the Earth in a day. Pretty crazy idea for people to come up with on their own. I believe in a God that sometimes has to limit what he tells man.
    Since we still don’t know how long it takes for the Universe to rotate, we might only be a few seconds into the eighth day! Which thank the Lord or dark matter, which ever you believe in for keeping the universe spread apart far enough to keep some of us out of the way of all the hell fire/or radiation out there in the universe. Many of the threats in Revelations are similar to the astronomical obvious threats to us now, to our planet, star or solar system. The whole Heaven premonition is quite similar to the catered utopia of space travel. Ever heard of the Templeton Prize for relating Christianity to reality? Just because some cults still believe the planet is flat doesn’t mean the rest of us have to live like the Amish. Nothing personal against them, glad they’re free to act out their beliefs in this age. Being born of sin could be because some of our heavier atoms we’re probably shot out of a vaginal looking black hole, the greediest force in the universe? If the Lord is trying to spark life in his image in the Universe, singularities sucking in whole solar systems could be his biggest problem.

  • HAL

    THE POOR AND THE SICK WILL ALWAYS BE WITH US. BUT THEY CAN BE CURED AND RELIEVED. THESE STUPID AND MENTALLY DISORDERED FUNDIES ARE PERPETUAL AND INCURABLE AND MUST BE SIMPLY IGNORED. FLAGRANTLY USELESS LAWSUITS LIKE THESE MUST BE DISMISSED OUT OF HAND BY JUDGES WHO HAVE AT LEAST A MODERATE UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY. THE “BIBLE”, HOLY AS IT MAY BE TO SOME FUNCTIONAL ILLITERATES, IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A SOURCE OF LEGAL FACT, EVIDENCE OR JUSTICE. MOSAIC AND KORANIC “LAW” HAVE NO PLACE IN AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE ALSO, LAWSUITS MUST BE BASED ON RECOVERABLE DAMAGES. CLAIMS OF DAMAGE TO ONE’S OPINION OR BELIEF CANNOT BE ADJUDICATED IN ANY CIVIL COURT. PETITIONS FOR RESTRAINING ORDERS MUST BE BASED ON REASONABLE POTENTIAL FOR INTENTIONAL PHYSICAL OR BODILY HARM. THE MORE WE LISTEN TO THESE DOLTS, THE MORE WE RISK OUR SOCIETY. IF WE DON’T LISTEN TO THEM, THEY WILL GO AWAY. SO LET’S STOP GIVING THEM AN AUDIENCE, AND LET’S GET BACK TO REALITY!

  • J. Anthony Carter

    When are we going to line these brain-dead, bible toting, neanderthalian twits up against the wall and SHOOT them? Just askin…

  • DiKk HedD

    Most Americans are decent people, but visit the ‘bible belt’ and you will find way too many people are total fanatics and are not in touch with reality, it’s hard to imagine that so many people in this modern nation are still living so far in the past !! It would be funny if the US wasn’t such a dangerous country.
    – I long for the day when religion is moved permanently into museums where it belongs and humanity is finally freed !!

  • Chris

    Ever notice how the idiot right-wing nutjobs like TO type certain words IN all-caps IN ORDER to emphasize their idiotic points? It seems that, IN the viewpoint OF the faith-based crowd, the caps-lock key has replaced reason. FOR me, it has ONLY replaced prepositions.

  • ejes

    @Andrew:

    you’re an idiot. Proof that powered flight has ALWAYS been available. No learned or intelligent person ever said that powered flight was impossible. You’ve been watching too much Planet of the Apes.

  • MothDude

    To the guy way up talking about putting a moth in a new location and it adapts — that is not evolution — that’s adaption — it is still a moth. It did not change into a new species in 10 yrs — matter of fact from day 1 it adopted — that’s like saying — put a human in the wild and because the som a bitch is alive 5 yrs later — oh look it adapted to it’s environment — EVOLUTION !! NOT.

    Now I don’t know why everyone calls the cristians nutjobs etc — just because they have a different belief structure — that’s fine — I see nothing wrong with that — perhaps the ones calling names are a tad fearfull that perhaps the cristians are right??

    Fact is you can not create something from nothing — so put aside evolution and religion — where did that first cell life form come from??? And then your gonna say boilg soup crap — well where did the boiling molten stuff come from. Well the Big Bang — okay where that come from or what caused that and so forth and so forth — there has to be a starting point — but then what started the starting point — it is never ending — boogles the mind so screw it — I am alive and I will die — everything in between is bulls***.

    [Moderator’s note: Edited the cuss word.]

    • Robbo

      I know one thing for sure it didn’t come from some cunt floating around space trillions of years before humans even evolved. It is just so mind bogglingly stupid, that anyone would think god made this place. the ironic thing is, us as humans made god, thousands of years ago, when very simple people lived in mud huts and couldn’t explain this place. but now we can in great proven detail and it turns out what actually happened, the series of events and coincidences leading to to the 1 in a trillion chance of us actually being here is so, so, soooooooooooooooo much more fascinating than the 6 day fairy tale. its truly tragic idiot christians believe that instead of what really happened and appreciating how lucky they really are to be here.

  • Justin Eames

    This is missing some pertinent information. Who is suing Berkley? Who cares if it is just some random fundamentalist… without the ability to have protracted legal battle. Also we’re suing over websites now? We seriously need to do something about nuisance lawsuits in this country.

  • Big R

    Personally as a practicing Roman Catholic, it is nut jobs like these that give all religious people a bad name. I firmly believe in Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit, Heaven and Hell. However I also believe in evolution, the big bang theory, and science in general.
    And this does not contradict my religion at all. The Bible is not a scientific text book, you do not consult the bible to fine the formula for work, or the speed of light. The bible is a book that is supposed to help teach us morals and how to live our lives. Not one to be taken at face value but at the underling themes and morals throughout the books.
    And yes the Vatican can be a bit crazy at times. However they have gotten much better at accepting new scientific theories and ideas, and seeing how they can fit in with the bible and our understanding of the universe.

  • oldsocksinagymbag

    The Religious Right. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. – unknown

  • Kenneth

    Really Andrew.  Creationists are a joke. I tend not to believe anyone that just makes up stuff without ANY research, no hypothesis. Scientists dont just make up evolution. They actually have data to back up all of their claims. Anyone who believes that the earth was created in 6 days is delusional. Anyone who believes the Earth is only 6000 years old is delusional. Anyone who believes that the Earth is flat is delusional. Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven.  Anyone that hears ” the voice of God” needs to head to the doctor for a PET Scan because they are showing signs of  schizophrenia.

  • Joseph

    what a silly law suit. i.e. millions hard scientific physical proof evidence for evolution vs zero, zippo, nada, “just a hunch” for the god fairy tale. wake up christians you stupid, stupid fucks.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Discoblog

Quirky, funny, and surprising science news from the edge of the known universe.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »