RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Christianity vs. Science: Give Me a Break!

By Pat Racimora on March 31, 2009 at 9:45 AM in Current Affairs, Religion

webdarwintoon_edited-2

For the last 8 years, science has been distorted and minimized by the radical Religious Right that vowed, among other things, to push Darwin off the plank and instill “intelligent design” (a euphemism for “creationism”) in its stead. Whereas we are all free to believe whatever we wish, forcing students to learn about creationism in science classes not only violates the intent of separation of church and state but dummies us down on global scientific literacy rankings. One hoped that when George W. left office, science would get a lot more respect.

Looks like that may not happen, and it’s a crying shame because the religious right needs to scrutinize the Bible a little more carefully. They might be in for a big surprise.

Trina Hoaks reports that new Texas science guidelines require teachers to scrutinize “all sides of scientific theories,” and that includes the creationism disguised in its intelligent design costume. Oh, you don’t live in Texas? No matter. Texas bullies all of our children when it comes to what they want them to learn (or not learn).

The [Texas] Board reviews each textbook’s content, and if they don’t like it, they can hold the book hostage until the publisher agrees to change the content. Most publishers comply with this extortion and censorship, since with an annual budget for textbooks of $570 million, Texas “is clearly one of the most dominant states in setting textbook adoption standards,” says Stephen Driesler, executive director of the American Association of Publishers’ school division. Publishers will often have their books written to appeal to the Texas market, because it is so enormous, and thus “Texas-vetted” textbooks will appear in the public schools of most other states.

So why is this whole argument stupid in the first place? Because the Bible itself is downright Darwinian! Bear with me—this is interesting. Honest, it really is.

Using the King James version of the Bible, there is not one but two stories of the creation. The Religious Right ignores Book 1 and focuses exclusively on Book 2, a somewhat muddled tale wherein man comes first and all of the animals and other living beings follow along later.

Book 1 may actually be where Darwin got some of his ideas! Here we go.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

OK—we started with nothing.

3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

OK—we have night and day, nothing else.

6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Ah ha! Firmament and water. Little stuff is…uh…evolving.

9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Yay, land and water.

11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.

OK, plants are growing on the land. No animals in sight yet though.

14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

OK, He got a little distracted here, went into the stars.

20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Back on track. Water life and birds. Coming right along up the evolutionary ladder.

24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Here they come—land critters! (But no sign of people yet.)

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And here we are—at the very, very end of the line! Evolved!

So, what’s the fuss about religion and science being at such great odds? I really never understood it since I was old enough to read.

  • Touchet

    Personally, as a scientist, I don’t care really if they teach creationism in class. Why? Because if you didn’t preach about the bible, the whole of the creationism theory would take less than 5 minutes to explain in detail.

    “Creationism is the theory that God created the earth in 6 days about 3000 to 2000 years ago. So now we will move on to the theory of evolution, that rejects creationsim based on the ample geological evidence supporting that life evolved slowly over many many millions of years.”

    There, its done. Does that mean the student doesn’t have to know Evolution and all the many pieces of evidence, nomenclature, and documents supporting that theory, no. So, I say just include it. The test question boils down to a couple of sentences on a test. Actually, most science books already include creationism theory, and actually use it as an ethical question to support “intellegent design”.

    I think, the unspoken purpose is that they want science class to teach the bible rather than the theory of evolution. That is the problem. Science class is not a religious class. And if they want to teach that religion in public schools, then that is against the constitution.

    They already have bible school available for free to anyone, its called sunday or Saturday school. Its totally free at your local church. So this whole thing is just an excuse to force religion on people using tax payers money.

    • Pat Racimora

      Ha! Love your comment, and agree that teaching creationism should not take that long.

      BUT, don’t miss my main point. Science should be science and the Bible is confused in that there are two distinct creation stories, almost opposing each other (obviously written by 2 different people). Why don’t we hear more about that?

      One of them could be written (almost) by Darwin himself, so why pick on evolution?

      I consider myself to be religious (although I do not hold to every word in the Bible by a long shot), and my day job is also as a scientist. I just don’t have any problems reconciling the two.

      • Tuppence411

        Hi Pat! I was taught, and even now as I read Genesis 1 and 2, I don’t see them as contradictory. Chapter 1 is like the executive summary and Chapter 2 focuses in on the sixth day. (Considering the whole book is about God’s relationship to humanity, we should have our own chapter detailing the beginning LOL) Sure there are some inconsistencies, but as a Catholic I don’t get hung-up on literal word for word translation. What I take away- to paraphrase one of my favorite Saints- Julian of Norwich: God made it. God loves it. God keeps it.

        I don’t understand the dogma of the literal word for word translation of the bible Evangelicals hold. It results in lots of mental gymnastics- such as 7 days is literally 7 days. And I have yet to met an evangelical who can explain to me the beginning of Chapter 6 of Genesis- Angels had sex with women and made giants? Huh?

      • destardi

        When my country ranks at the bottom near freakin’ TURKEY of the number of people who “doubt the Theory of Evolution”, I am SAD, disgusted and ANGRY.

      • JozefAL

        Well, Pat, the Bible is FULL of these “double stories”.
        The account of Noah’s Ark is another. In one telling, we’re presented the traditional simple “two by two” story (Gen 6:19-20), but then, we get a slightly more detailed version of it where Noah is to bring SEVEN pairs (male and female) of the “clean animals” but only one pair (one male and one female) of the “unclean animals” (Gen 7:2-3).
        Most serious Bible scholars (those people who spend time analyzing the book on its literary styles and its historical context, rather than just accepting it on–pardon the expression–blind faith) see these doubled accounts as later additions to the original oral traditions and tales. One of the Creation stories is believed to have been added during the Babylonian Captivity after the Jews had been exposed to the Babylonian/Assyrian mythologies (which had largely been based on the older Sumerian tales) and the rabbis saw the tales as expanding on their own earlier story while also keeping the younger Jews (who’d been born during the Captivity) interested in their own religious heritage. The second Noah’s Ark story was added after religious questions had arisen if Noah “kept kosher” during his and his family’s time aboard the Ark. (The Kosher dietary laws had only been added during the Jewish Exodus from Egypt, and while most rabbis had presumed that the pre-Moses Patriarchs had kept kosher, it was felt that the younger Jews in Babylon–who were less keen on being so “different” from the local friends–needed some “official” proof to observe the kosher diet. Notably, before the second Noah story, there’s NOTHING that defines a “clean” or “unclean” animal–that doesn’t occur until Leviticus.)
        Another major example of the multiple Bible tales is the Ten Commandments. There are actually THREE differing takes on the Commandments (Exodus 20, Exodus 34, Deuteronomy 5), and even the actual grouping of verses in the Exodus 20 varies among Christian denominations.

        • Pat Racimora

          Interesting JozefAL. I knew about a couple of them–not all that you mention.

      • Ani

        Pat — great work and great post!!

        This made me laugh out loud!!

        Little stuff is…uh…evolving.

        Brilliant.

        Thank you for this. It is a great point and something the creationists would rather ignore, I guess.

    • Diana

      My husband is also a scientist. He was a college professor. Now, along with his job he teaches and gives lectures from time to time on applied science.

      I once asked him because we’re Catholics if he thinks creationism should be removed from the schools. He said, almost all science is based on theories. In fact probably 90% of it is. Does that make it wrong? No. Does that make it right? No. Very little of it is based on actual facts. For each fact we think we’ve found in science, another scientist will come along and prove what we thought were facts were not. If you removed all but the facts there would be no need to teach science at all. Creationism is one of those theories, you can remove it, but then why would you keep the others? One man’s science does has no business in telling another man’s beliefs, that he is wrong. There have been no facts to prove or disprove creationism because no one knows what is a day to God. We don’t have all the answers, we never will, to assume we do is pompous, any scientist that thinks he does is in the wrong business.

      • elise

        Diana, You didn’t say what kind of scientist? Everyday we encounter proof of scientific theories in our lives. When we take an aspirin,it is a man made chemical made possible by the science of chemistry. When we fly, we can trace the development of the plane to physics and engineering. When labs use DNA to solve mysteries, we see the connection to biology and chemistry. There is still so much to learn and there may never be possible a complete understanding in this lifetime. If you are Christian, you believe you will be granted that understanding in the after life. The rest of us keep looking in labs, since God himself graced us with curiosity and intelligence and told us to “seek and you shall find”. I can look at the perfection of nature in my daily life and tell myself it is too perfect to be an accident. How would I even appreciate the perfection if there were not something more to ME than I understand. But these are philosophical arguments and have no place in a secular school. There is the home, the church and Sunday School for these stories, values and morality. I am have been mildly surprised anyone would deny the evidence of evolution. My parents were devout Pentecostals and my mother had no problem integrating her religious beliefs and science. “Letters From Earth” is a little book by Mark Twain which clearly lays out the contradictions in the Old Testament. No one knows for sure who wrote the book of Revelations but most biblical scholars believe it was a Christian from Ephesus known as “John the Elder.” and it wasn’t until the middle of the nineteenth century, it became a part of Biblical teaching as a prophecy. Before that time, it was approached as a written history. This is important. Because if there won’t be an Armageddon, if there will be no resurrection we are under a greater obligation for our lives and the lives of everyone else on the planet and God (assuming his existence) will hold us accountable or, as I prefer Karma will be waiting for us). I’m including the link to a paper written on this subject by Prof L. Michael White, Professor of Classics and Christian Origin at the University of Texas. It’s a little long, but fascinating and so different in approach to this Book.

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/revelation/white.html

        • andrew191

          Elise, aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) is a natural chemical that’s been around and used for centuries, (from willow bark). And every time I read one of your posts, I need to take four or five of them.

          • I’mFedUp

            OH MY GAWD….ROFLMAO.

            Andrew you need to do stand up.

            • andrew191

              Well, I can modestly claim that when I pee, I do.

            • ME

              Andrew you sure as heck are funny…bravo!

          • elise

            andrew, why don’t you just go out and eat some willow bark if you get a headache? When you get an infection, just eat some mold!!! Sarcasm is not a valid debate form.

            • andrew191

              Would you care to debate the validity of sarcasm as a form of debate?

              • elise

                No, andrew, If it doesn’t involve logic or inductive/deductive reasoning it puts me at a disadvantage.

                • andrew191

                  But then, if it did involve logic or inductive/deductive reasoning it would put you at a total loss.

                  • elise

                    Why do you always have to have the last word, andrew? You are the one who wants to debate the validity of using sarcasm as a valid form of debate and using it doesn’t validate it now does it?

                    • andrew191

                      Elise, I’m in a hurry here so I can’t give you the response you deserve, I’m compelled to leave your blather in favor of 0bama’s jibberish that he is now gushing in England. HOW PATHETIC, Brown had to interrupt him to prevent one of his endless answers. The leaders of the other G20 countries are going to walk all over the clown representing us. Damn he’s stupid!

                    • I’mFedUp

                      I’m so embarrassed that a total buffoon is representing us in the UK. What a joke.

                  • ME

                    It always does put them at a loss doesn’t it?

            • Diana

              Why not?

              Chewing on willow bark to reduce fever and inflammation dates back to the time of Hippocrates (400 BC). Willow bark was used as a medicine in China and Europe for centuries because of its ability to relieve pain and lower fever. Early American settlers even found Native Americans gathering bark from willow trees to treat the same conditions.

              http://tinyurl.com/czjnaf

              There are also ways to grow penicillin and identify it. Of course you’d have to know what you’re doing, have a sterilized atmosphere, and you wouldn’t want to be allergic to it, but it can be done. Of course you could skip the mold take an Olive leaf and suck out the inside. Or you could grow nasturtiums, chop up the leaves and flowers and add them to your food, they contain a natural antibiotic that doesn’t interfer with flora. There are many natural plants with antibiotic benefits we now know of that are used in several countries. That I personally would use in case of a disaster, before trying to grow my own penicillin. But, then again if it’s a survival thing you could just buy a freeze dried specimen that will last for years, you know is good…hmmm

              • andrew191

                I could also ride my bike like a madman through the darkened streets of Geneva, High from ergot bread mold (Lysergic acid diethylamide, LSD). Elise hasn’t pushed me that far yet though.

                • ME

                  God sure blessed you with a great sense of humor. How hillarious.

        • Pat Racimora

          Elise–I liked your comment a lot!

      • ME

        Dianna thank you for you post and your husband obviously is a GOOD scientist unlike others here who pretend to be…I totally agree with your husband and I’m and doctor of Epidemiology. Population science is riddles with this kind of attitude…that’s why after 15 years of arduous work, but many great moments nonetheless, I’m give it up. I can’t take part of eugenics projects, promoting falsehoods and trashing facts because some politicians want it so.

        Science is a process or a method…not a fact in and of itself (as I go on to describe below). A fact become one only when an experiment has been reproduced a number of times to show that the finding is reliable…even then, human interpretation of the findings meaning could be inaccurate based on bias or poor assumption. Its a never ending chaotic process subject to the whims and biases of politics.

        When you’re a good scientist you’re a humble anxious person…and never certain of anything. I call many of today’s scientist religious zealots because they ARE CERTAIN OF EVERTHING, pushy, relativistic, condescending, arrogant, and dangerous. This is not SCIENCE but SOPHISM…a quasi-religion.

        Diana, as you can tell below by the illogical, petty, obnoxious comments to my posts (which only argue for reason, moderation, respect for all good citizens, and freedom from tyrrany of thought) there is no use getting through to these people…they’ve been manufactured to think this way by 100 years of collectivist atheist propoganda….and that’s why we’re likely doomed as a compassionate and free society.

        Classical liberal thought hasn’t a chance against this beast….a beast incapable of introspection and tolerance, let alone respect.

        But I’m glad you’re not one of them at least.

  • Dawnelle

    (Before reading any other comments)

    I totally agree with you Touchet!

    Love the ART again Pat but your theory and mine are a bit different. Still love the ART! ;-)

    • Pat Racimora

      Hi Dawnelle, Because you are one of my most loyal fans (even though I don’t know who you really are) I hope I didn’t offend you!

  • SAINTIXE56

    Evolution was taught by catholic nuns since a long time in Europe. My teachers were staunch catholics and saw no problem whatsoever in giving us a scientific vision how it was made. Long before it became fashionable, God mind was simply behind the wonders of evultion, science and fact.
    Why in Heaven sakes do people think one cant be a darwinist and achristian or a deist or a theist; who God if such an awesome being is as Is , would rather deprive him/her/itself from the beauty of Mathematics, the wonders of Biology and the supposed silence of Space.
    Methinks that acroos the pond, logic got lost. And for the Bible, why should we deprieve ourselves of a wonderful divine poem because it does not please us humans.
    Just like 3000ys ago Akhenaton vision of Monotheism did not please his contemporary, yet we have vome a long way, havent we
    well probably in 3000ys from now our conception of the divine will have evolve also. Becaus elife and spirituality do evolve it is great. god is in the infinitely small et big , think of it. We are all wrong; the only difference some are at peace with it, some deny it and some are mad because we are at peace
    but so is man always evolving
    have a good darwin anniversary

    • Tony

      I attended Catholic school in the US, I too was taught evolution. But there’s some fundamentalist Christian sects that insist on a strict biblical interpretation, this war between evolution and creationism goes back to the nineteenth century. Neither side wants to yield any ground to the other so they both end up looking very dogmatic.

      It’s a shame in that it forces people to choose sides. In the end I think it hurts science by keeping some young bright minds from entering the field. Because the vocal athiest/darwinists send the message ‘We already know everything, and we won’t tolerate debate’ and ‘if you have have a religious orientation you will be ostracized among us’.

      In reality, I read that something like 60% of scientists do have religious beliefs, but they aren’t the vocal ones.

    • George Smathers

      The Vatican accepted Darwin’s theory long before most people reading these boards were even born. In the last month, the Vatican hosted a scientific conference on evolution and specifically barred any papers whatsoever being presented on topics of intelligent design or creationism, as these did not meet the scientific criteria. This past January, Benedict XVI was in Britain for another scientific conference at which he was photographed with Stephen Hawking. BOth men were quoted as stating their mutual respect and admiration for the work of the other.

      Forget Galileo, the Vatican now operates one of the world’s best optical observatories at Castel Gandolfo. Its collection of scientific data regarding interplanetary matter is considered the best in the world. Papers authored by Vatican scientists appear in the same journals as their secular counterparts form research institutions and universities.

      As Benedict XVI explains, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive concepts. Each must take from the other to achieve progress in humanity and science. Each, when taken without the other, often leads to not only wrong, but sometimes evil, results.

      • Pat Racimora

        Fascinating, George Smathers! I will have to look into that facility.

      • Diana

        I totally agree. I will never give up my faith.

        • elise

          The issue is whether or not non-scientific theories should be taught in secular school science classes, Diana. I am truly not being sarcastic, but you haven’t been asked to give up your faith. When thoughtful, intelligent people have explored a belief system and adopt it, their beliefs should be respected, but they shouldn’t be represented as fact or science.

          • Diana

            Here are some facts for you Elise.

            There have been tremendous leaps in technology and medicine over the last century, but new evidence points to the importance of religion in helping patients heal.

            Can something as simple as believing in a higher power and engaging in daily prayer or meditation really lead to a healthier life? More and more evidence is being collected showing a direct link between a patients belief system and the rate at which they heal from stress, illness, and injury. Over the past decade alone there have been more than 1,000 studies conducted, following the relationship between religion and the healing process.

            A Few Facts and Figures:
            One study showed that 2/3 of the patients healed more quickly when they had a religious belief base.

            A Gallup poll conducted in the 1990’s showed that 92% of all patients interviewed either believed in God or a Universal spirit and that 99% of all doctors feel that a patient’s spiritual beliefs greatly assist in healing.

            A study done by the National Institute for Healthcare Research in Maryland documented the health of more than 90,000 participants. The study showed more than a 50% decrease in coronary disease, Chronic Pulmonary Disease and suicide rates, and more than a 70% decrease in cirrhosis for patients who attended religious services at least once a week.

            The American Journal of Public Health did a study on religion and medicine as well, finding a 36% drop in mortality rate among nearly 7,000 patients who regularly attended religious services. The University of Texas followed 22,000 patients for nine years and found they lived an average of eight years longer compared to those who didn’t attend religious services.

            http://tinyurl.com/ckhmag

            Another:
            Hospitalized people who never attended church have an average stay of three times longer than people who attended regularly.

            Heart patients were 14 times more likely to die following surgery if they did not participate in a religion.

            Elderly people who never or rarely attended church had a stroke rate double that of people who attended regularly.

            In Israel, religious people had a 40% lower death rate from cardiovascular disease and cancer.
            http://tinyurl.com/d5zly7

            There are many more studies you can read on this topic from various medical groups, not religious groups. While you’re at it take a look at the brain studies and MRI’s of people with religion verses those with no religious beliefs. And please tell me what right you have to tell me that my beliefs are any less facts than your beliefs? I’ll share with you a few of my facts.

          • Diana

            I have to divide this into 3 posts. Two for my facts and one for the medical facts.

            Nor did I say anyone has Elise. I was simply stating a fact. I will never give up my faith. There is no reading between the lines, no question as to what someone may or may not request from me.

            Here’s a couple of so called facts for me:
            When I had my liver surgery, I got up from my body and walked around the operating room. I heard every word they said. I could tell them afterwards what every single person looked like, including the pathologist whom I still to this day have never seen. Right down to the jewelry he was wearing. Which stuck out to me becuse he was wearing a huge Star of David and he was a big man. There was a woman standing in front of the door so I couldn’t leave. I knew I could communicate with her, but something stopped me from getting close. Then I felt a shove.

            BTW I was given an epidural, then put out with gas, which is not mind altering medication.

            Once I was fully awake I began receiving moraphine on top of the epidural which they kept up for three days, but not till I was fully awake and examined. I had IV’s in my neck, my legs, my arms, my head. I had my legs tied down, an EKG, an EEG. My arms were tied down as was my waist to keep me from moving. You have to remember I was just basically cut in half from one side of my body, up the chest, then back down to the other side. I was crying when I woke up, when the most beautiful woman I ever saw came up and told me to cry no more. My husband went to get coffee. I was going to be OK it was not cancer. Then she said let’s let a little bit of sunlight in here. The next thing I knew she was gone, and nurses and doctors had flooded my room, my husband came running. Everyong asked how I had opened those blinds. I kept saying the nurse did it. My husband and doctor said there wasn’t a nurse in here. Well, I sure didn’t get up and open them. I was still tied down. So what scientific explanation can you give for that Elise?

            Now these may not be facts to you, or your idea of the truth. I could really care less I lived it. That is not the only time either. I once fell asleep behind the wheel. My husband was driving helplessly behind me. I was driving off the road, when I heard my grandfather scream. Stingbean wake up! Wake up NOW I SAID! When I went to sit up I saw the sand dunes coming at me, but the wheel turned itself and I was back on the road and stopped.

          • Diana

            When my daughter was 8 in 1991 they told me she had bone cancer. That is was bad. Both her legs were completely filled with it. There wasn’t one spot on either of her legs in any of the bones that wasn’t cancerous. We did all the tests, the biopsies.

            2 weeks later when we went to meet with the Oncologist, the Orthopedic, and the Pediatric Cancer Specialist that was going to be her primary care giver. She told me when I woke up. Mom last night I danced with Jesus and he told me I was OK to tell you not to cry anymore. When we got there they put her in the MRI, then they kept coming out and looking at her other 4 MRI’s. All her tests.

            Running more tests. Then going back in. They switched her to a different machine. Same thing in and out. Then they came out to me and told me they don’t understand it. They did a sonogram, an MRI, blood tests, a biopsy and it was gone. They’re very sorry they don’t know what happened. I told them just accept the fact that they’ve witnessed a miracle and let my daughter and I go home. There’s your factual medicine. She is now the mother of three beautiful children. So what is your scientific explanation for this Elise?

            When my brother died he was dead for 24 minutes. He committed suicide. He now has severe seizures from it and has had to have several brain surgeries. He told us all there is life after death.

            So what is it again that gives you or anyone else here the right to tell me these are not facts? That there are scientific explanations for what happened, when even the doctors had none for my daughter. These are our facts and our reality. You see I can prove my daughter’s and my brothers stories through medical records. I can’t prove mine, because it’s just what I told them, but I was there and I know for a FACT what happened.

            • ME

              You and your family really are blessed….and may you continue to be.

          • Diana

            The medical studies I quoted are apparently stuck in the spam filter so I’ll just post the links once again for you, and I’ll just suggest that you go an do a search to see the evidence on MRI’s. The brain scans of those with religious believes, compared to those without.

            Oh and BTW since you questioned it earlier my husband went to college for 6 years. His minor for 4 of those years was Physics which he loves, and his major was Engineering Science. The other two years it was Medieval Studies and Anthropology because he was interested in those area’s of study. He would like to return for an advanced degree in Physics. He was on the Dean’s list for the entire 6 years. He was an assistant professor before graduation for two years. Offered a full position after graduation which he took for about a year, but then left when he was offered another job. I’ve only gone to school for two additional years, maintained a 4.0. Plus medical school through the military, although I plan to return. Anything else you’d like to know about our personal lives? Just how long did you say you went to college for again, and what your degrees were in?
            Here are the links to the articles.
            http://tinyurl.com/d5zly7
            http://tinyurl.com/ckhmag

            • Pat Racimora

              Hi Diana,

              I don’t think anyone (and certainly not me) was downgrading the positive impact of being religious and being an active member of a religious community. (That actually describes me.)

              Religiosity has been positive correlated with so many important variables: happiness, impact of friendships and a supportive community, positive outlook, as well as the joys that come from exercising basic religoius values, such as helping others. That all of this impacts on physical health is not suprising.

              There are also some studies that confict with the results you cite, but that does not negate your point that science still has many answers yet to find. And the healing power that come directly from somewhere else besides what we think we know for sure is one of them.

              • ME

                So if you don’t mean to do it, why do it then? You portray of the “fundamentalists” as being a bunch of anti-science, irrational lunatics…last time I looked they’re as much a part of the scientific community as any other group…if not more proportionately.

                See, I think you’re parroting things about the “fundamentalist” that you learned from your illiberal buddies…yet you have no clue who these people are and what they’re really about. And that’s what you did.

                Don’t get me wrong…I’m a catholic and don’t really agree with many of their beliefs because I have my own….but I know an unfair put down when I see one.

                • ME

                  ie. You put them down by mischaracterizing the reason why they want “creationism” and ID in the text books.

  • pm317

    Excellent post, Pat. Love the toon.

    27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    Or is it that man created God and therefore, he is in his own image.. {there is not much imagination here or is it the man’s ego taking over?} Then again in Hindu mythology, you have all kinds of other animal Gods.

    May be calling Bible Darwin’s inspiration will silence the religious or it may inspire them to teach this as a fact in a science class.

    • Alisha

      Just wanting you to understand this text. When it says.. GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE, this bible isnt stating physical characteristics. GOD is a SPIRIT! So when it says GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE.. it is simply stating that we have the SPIRIT of GOD. I dont understand why everyone is really trying to knock down the WORD OF GOD. If you dont agree with what’s in the bible… then leave it alone. Lol.. this whole thing is funny to me. Have a blessed day, a blessed life, and may all good things come to you. SMILE

  • pm317

    The recent case about Intelligent Design was from Dover, PA from 2007. If anybody cares to watch the PBS documentary on it, here is the link:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

    Incidentally, the judge who decided against teaching ID in a science class room was a Republican and a Bush appointee. It is a fascinating documentary.

    • Pat Racimora

      Gotta see this. Thanks for the link.

      • trixta

        This Dover case puts a nail in the coffin to the ID argument. It is a fascinating case that shows the fallacies behind the ID design argument. This documentary is a must see!

  • Chucky

    The whole thing about science being at war with religion was originally an atheist polemic. It was introduced by Andrew Dickinson White, and has very little to do with the actual historical relation of science and Christianity – which was (and is) actually much more complex and varied than people who are trying to sell you something make out.

    It’s from this polemic we get whole collections of fallacious stories -modern myths- like for example that Columbus thought he would sail off the side of world, or that people in the middle ages thought and taught that the world was flat.

    These days it’s all about evolution, and both sides will use it any way they can. Never mind that large sections of the Christian community don’t have a problem with evolution, or that, as you point out, the genesis account seems largely compatible with evolution.

    • JozefAL

      Actually, the Columbus tale was an invention of noted writer Washington Irving in a “biography” of Columbus. Irving had incorporated it not so much as to deride religion but to enhance Columbus’s reputation as an explorer (even in the early 19th Century, Columbus was usually depicted as kneeling in prayer upon his arrival in the New World).
      It’s generally accepted that every sailor was well aware of the reality that the Earth was a sphere, as were most scholars (especially those who studied the ancients’ writings extensively). What’s usually ignored or misunderstood is that the Columbus skeptics weren’t voice skepticism about the world’s being round, but rather about Columbus’s claims of how big the world actually was–Columbus was eerily accurate about the distance to what would later be known as North America but he claimed that was the distance to China and the (East) Indies.

    • JozefAL

      I’d also note that the religious community was quite upset with Galileo largely because of Galileo’s views being contrary to the Creation story.
      The term “firmament” referred, of course, to the skies and beyond. When God “set” things in the “firmament”, those things were determined to be “fixed” in the skies. Curiously, the Church had added an ancient Greek’s theories of astronomy to the official Biblical account which led to the standard geocentric view of the universe. Because Galileo’s theories contradicted the official Church teachings (as based on the Ptolemaic-enhanced Biblical account), he was condemned and censured. (Somewhat interestingly, the only way that the Church’s official view of the universe could really work was if the Earth was a sphere, and not flat, and since most people accepted the Church’s teachings, it’s reasonable to believe that most people accepted the idea of a spherical Earth.)

    • ME

      Thank you Chucky…I’m glad that there are some reasoned and well read people out there who understand the brain washing against the Church that the western populace has been getting regarding this subject. Bravo! Well said.

  • felizarte

    I hope they use the Bible as textbook in teaching ID. That should teach everyone a lesson.

  • JohnnyB

    Nice cartoon Pat, and a great recap of the Bible’s version of how life on Earth began.

    It is creepy that Texas (and any other state) can demand what is in their textbooks. Write it as they want, or No Sale.

    This reminds me of what is History? I have read textbooks on the history of the Vietnam War, and it is not how I remember what transpired as I lived through that time. It made me doubt all the history books that I had to read in my education. How can it be believed?

    I think the human mind can not grasp how our Universe was created, how vast it is, or is it endless? We are just an ant, a speck, a non-existent second in the time of the Universe.
    Enjoy, and Peace to all.

  • clairtx

    Anyone who has been around long enough knows that people see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. It’s called ‘selective reasoning’.

    I for one, believe you are never too old to learn anything new. That’s why I can’t swallow the religious crap. It’s also bigoted and dangerous.

  • slim

    What do you mean…he? If you’re talkin’ the Bible, the closest you can come to a pronoun is…they.

  • felizarte

    The evolution of humans from a simpler form is easy to understand if seen through human reproduction: from two separate cells coming from two separate sources,interacting and evolving into a fetus. then being born and growing older.

  • Hg

    5: And god called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And the evening and the morning were the FIRST DAY.
    That first day could not be a 24 hour Solar Day based on the rising of the sun. The sun, nor the moon for that matter, was not created until the fourth (4th) day, verses 14,19.
    After Adam and Eve were put out of the garden it seems there might only be four humans on the face of the planet earth. BUT– Luke 11:50-51 says one of their sons, Abel, was a prophet. Meaning Abel was a public expounder for god. Unless Adam and Eve and brother Cain was the public AUDIENCE then there must have been some more people around at that time.
    The fundamentalists are all screwed up, just like the Taliban, and that is why the fundamentalists all treat women as second class citizens. Really not much difference in some christians and Islamics.

    God is the greatest scientist of all.

    • ME

      You have no clue of which you speak. Fundamentalists you talk about are Protestants and Protestants were THE FIRST to speak of womens equality to men in intellect and morality and followed through by permitting some women to lead politically and as clergy. The Fundamentalists you speek of so ignorantly were in fact the first to try to make amends between Protestants and Catholics and stop the fighting between the two… they also were the pre cursors of the classical liberal movement that many of America’s founding Fathers adhered to. This often was the religion of the early western settlers of the USA–who’s women were praised, respected, and referenced worldwide for their toughness, resourcefulness, leadership in creating America, and their professional ambitions. For your information, there is no religion on earth as liberal and encouraging toward women as these Protestant “fundamentalists”. You feminists owe these people everything!

      I am so sick of Western Progressive’s idiocy and ignorance…you are so brainwashed, that I don’t think it can be reversed.

      • ME

        Go on…destroy the reputation of your culture by promoting lies of this sort…but when this culture dies because of these lies and gets replaced with Islam or Buddism (who treat their women as dogs), please don’t whine to me about it.

        • Alisha

          ISLAM and BUDDISM… EXACTLY.. Please dont get the CHRISTIAN LIFESTYLE confused with RELIGION.

  • Pingback: Topics about Animals » Archive » Christianity vs. Science: Give Me a Break!

  • NoTrollZone

    Wonderful post Pat. We actually studied the Bible in college (well, actually at a couple of different colleges I went to) as part of the two strands of thought predominant in western thinking– the judeo/christian thread and the greco-roman thread.
    (well, of course we didn’t study the matriarchies or celts– you just had to take a special course to find out anything other than patriarchy, patriarchy, patriarchy.) But I do remember the dual tellings in the bible and two different versions of Genisus. Yes, pick and choose– the greatest hypocrisy of fundamn-ental religions. How many times has the B been translated? How many edits did the translators impose to promote their own agendas/belief systems.
    Countless freakin times. And then the whacked out fundies say “every word sacrosanct”– except we just don’t count all the words. Fundamentalism is stupidity entrenched in selectivism. You could read the phone book and get a fundamentalist religion out of it. Same for Islam. Actually had a class where I learned (gasp) that there are other versions of Islam — even feminists had a reading wherein M was no misogynist.
    Fundamentalist religions are really a blight. There was a reason for the separation of church and state.
    A REALLY really good reason.
    The actually funny irony here is that we have Bill Ayers injecting his poison into the school curriculums and the fundies injecting theirs and the kids– who would rather be outside playing anyway– getting caught in the middle. Perhaps the fundies and the ayeries will cancel each other out. wouldn’t that be nice.

    • Pat Racimora

      Love your comment, NoTrollZone

    • jwrjr

      Don’t forget that in the 4th century AD the Church had a priest to go through the Bible and remove all of the writings that “didn’t belong in the Bible”. The problem with the Fundies is that no matter how their reasoning would get laughed out of any real scientific organization or publication, their answer is “God made it so”. For them, the matter is then forever decided.

    • ME

      You have no clue of what you speak. Fundamentalists you talk about are Protestants and Protestants were THE FIRST to speak of womens equality to men in intellect and morality and followed through by permitting some women to lead politically and as clergy. The Fundamentalists you speek of so ignorantly were in fact the first to try to make amends between Protestants and Catholics and stop the fighting between the two… they also were the pre cursors of the classical liberal movement that many of America’s founding Fathers adhered to. This often was the religion of the early western settlers of the USA–who’s women were praised, respected, and referenced worldwide for their toughness, resourcefulness, leadership in creating America, and their professional ambitions. For your information, there is no religion on earth as liberal and encouraging toward women as these Protestant “fundamentalists”. You feminists owe these people everything!

      I am so sick of Western Progressive’s idiocy and ignorance…you are so brainwashed, that I don’t think it can be reversed.

      Go on…destroy the reputation of your culture by promoting lies of this sort…but when this culture dies because of these lies and gets replaced with Islam or Buddism (who treat their women as dogs), please don’t whine to me about it.

      PS: I’m a Catholic BTW

      • Pat Racimora

        ME–Can you please be less hostile? Comments that insult readers are dismissed, and I think you want to be heard.

        • ME

          What are you talking about?…this post is NO MORE inflammatory that the original post insulting “fundamentalist” christians.

          Perhaps you’re insulted by the fact that I actually made an cogent argument. Do me a favor…stop being so darn sensitive and address my point!

          • Pat Racimora

            Now now, if you read again I used the term radical religious right. You yourself admitted that those folks existed in one of your rants. I have no battle with consevative Christians. Most of my family would qualify and I love them all.

            I never react in kind to those who insult me or otther commenters, but again say that it is not the way to win people over to your ideas. If you just want to anonymously vent, well that is something else again. Enjoy.

  • Tony

    Intelligent Design is not Creationism. Creationism teaches that God created the world in a week just by willing it into existence.

    Intelligent Design is (or can be, depending on whose version of ID you listen to) compatible with the mechanics of Darwinian Evolution, but it has a philosophical difference on the question whether everything that exists is the result of random events and random mutations or is there a deliberate design behind it all. The Intelligent Designer does not even need to be God, it could be design by committee for all we know (shudder to think)

    That said, ID is more philosophy than hard science at this point, so Evolution shoould continue to be taught in science books, with maybe a sidebar that talks about the ID controversy

    • LDW

      Intelligent Design is not science, because it relies solely on belief, not on empirical evidence. People who believe in Intelligent Design believe there is an Intelligent Designer who created the universe and everything in it, but so far any ‘proof’ they have attempted has not held up to scientific scrutiny.
      It’s an interesting philosophical question as to whether or not an Intelligent Designer or God exists, and belief in God is the metaphysical foundation of religions everywhere, but it’s not science.

    • Pat Racimora

      Tony–REALLY good point!

      That’s sort of where I am also. When I look up into the stars and try to figure why it is all there and how far out it goes and so on I actually creep myself out. I wonder if something/someone is in charge and if I will ever know the answer. It would not be on this plane because we just aren’t capable of getting there.

      I hope we are not just some alien kid’s science experiment…

      • http://ksclematis ksclematis

        I cannot fathom the infinity in the space we cannot see, and what might be “out there”. How far out is a billion light years? I also cannot fathom the intracacies of our living, functioning, reproducing bodies, and the infinite variety of living beings, be they animals, plants, water, minerals, chemicals, et al, without a supernatural ‘god’ (or ‘God’) having created all….whether in one week or millions of years.

        The “Bible” consists of writings or stories written by those who believed in what they saw, lived, or experienced. The Q’ran is a Bible of Islam, the King James version is someone’s interpretation of an earlier version of “a” Bible; the Old Testament is anothers’ Bible.

    • Pieter B

      Intelligent Design is creationism in a rented tux. It’s not science, and ID proponents do not do any research. All it has is a marketing campaign against the Theory of Evolution. There is no scientific controversy about the ToE. There is disagreement on the details, but the ToE has withstood challenges for 150 years. Darwin’s big picture was remarkably accurate, and the knowledge we have gained in the past century has confirmed what a remarkable vision his was. Yes, he got some details wrong, but far from undermining his theory, advances in scientific knowledge have strengthened it.

      Despite the Discovery Institute’s [DI is the ID think tank in Seattle] insistence that ID is not a religious belief, whenever school boards try to bring ID into biology class, they start talking about God and specifically the Christian God.

  • lahana

    As my father (who had more books on theology than anyone I knew) noted – the bible wasn’t being poetic when they referred to the firmament. They believed that that void and “the deep” that is mentioned is water – and a “firament” was created – a big clear dome and that separated the waters above from the waters below – and the sun and moon and the stars were put on that dome – and when it rained it rained because God opened windows in that clear dome. It makes a certain amount of sense if you consider that these were desert dwellers – because in the desert when it rains it pours – and if you dig far enough down you can get water. But is always amazes me that the same people who can realize that none of this is true – the world is not some disk of land with a clear plastic lid floating in a sea of water – somehow still need to believe that every other part of the creation story has to be literally true.

  • Virginianwithoutapartynow

    I find it interesting that people who believe in an idea that at its core is based on FAITH are constantly trying to PROVE they are right. Christianity shouldn’t need to be evaluated using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

    Scientific ideas are constantly evolving. School teaches us to memorize some things but more importantly it should teach us the skills to constantly reevaluate information based on observation and repeatable experimentation. The theory of evolution is taught as fact because there is overwhelming evidence to support it – but even so it is constantly being tested and refined based on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

    As for the Bible itself, it is well documented that the canon (the list of books considered to be Holy Scripture) was codified a few centuries after the death of Jesus. Councils were convened of the most powerful and influential Christian leaders / sects where it was decided what books to include in the Christian canon. I am not calling into question the Christian faith or God or the influence of God, only pointing out that it is well documented that a group of people well after the death of Jesus decided what books / stories to include and NOT include in the religion of Christianity – and there are some inconsistencies between these books that make up the canon. Part of the issue with greatly commingling Church and State is WHAT Church / books / teachings does the State endorse and adopt.

    • andrew191

      Texas has adopted the “re-write” all the textbooks position. It makes sense, (follow the money) many, if not most, textbooks are published in Texas, so revised books mean more work for Texans.

    • ME

      My dear…you are wrong. The evidence shows that most parts of the Old testament have been in existence since at least 600BC…and is the Basis of the Torah etc…well before the Christian BIBLE was compiled.

  • Sassy

    Nice work Pat!
    The comments are interesting as well.
    I have always been an avid reader, but find the Bible to be the most complex work I have ever tried to comprehend.
    I ask too many questions I guess, for others seem to KNOW everything and it’s meaning!

  • andrew191

    If 0bama is the culmination of billions of years of evolution, Intelligent Design, or Darwinism, then the whole effort has been a waste of time and space.

    • Senneth, formerly Snickers

      Okay Andrew, I laughed so hard I cried reading your comment. You’re absolutely correct!

  • jamy

    How come no one ever tries to explain where this “God” came from in the first place? They just assume, okay there he was and He created everything.

    • Alisha

      Lol.. so you believe that you were a monkey?

  • ME

    The only reason science doesn’t get respect is that it has been totally hijacked by politics/special interests….as a result much of it has become useless, if not dangerous. I KNOW!…I’m a PhD Research Scientist in epidemiology. I quit because all too frequently important information is suppressed and irrelevenat info is massaged into significance especially in relation to population research. How many prominant academic scientists (eg Harvard Psych department Director)are bought off?…many! Why should they be trusted?

    PAT, You are beeing just plain old nasty and intolerant…as so many of you so-called progressive atheists tend to be. I am a christian and very much believe in the potential and importance of Truth that comes from science. I know that religion is completely compatible with science. In fact, when I find a “truth” it feels like God is smiling at me and patting me on the head…so I’m always motivated to do so.

    I have little respect for those scientist that mock religion, especially christianity, since Christ encouraged knowledge, as did many early christian intellectuals (read Erasmus, St. Augustine, etc)….but you guys never cite them eh?…only losers like Pat Robertson etc or incidents like the inquisition (motivated by politics not religion by the way!)….That’s totally disingenious especially since ATHEIST COLLECTIVISM (Commis) or ATHEIST NATIONALISM (NAZI, MAO) has destroyed more people in 100 years than all christian wars put together!

    The most honest and prolific scientists I know are religious or have become religious because it inspires and opens their mind, not closes it (like yours).

    I’m starting to believe that something must be wrong with your types (i.e. you’re lacking something) since you cannot seem to be able to reflect on the beauty and contribution of Christianity and of science to mankind with equal reverence.

    You also forget that “science” as you know it sprung out of a christian-greco-roman society and values. Without this influence you guys probably would be equivalent of the zealous animist shamans of pre historic times…

    You atheist behave like religious zealots out to get/ridicule/convert the NON-NON-BELIEVER. Why should it bother you so much that other lesser theories are floating around? Its certainly not impeding progress or the advancement of technology…so why? If your theories are strong enough and TRUE they should speek for themselves and not be threatened by any line of questioning.

    Your closed minds is part of the reason I left so-called science behind (because its not). To you, science is nothing more than a prop and vaccuous religious experience and system complete with zealots, priests and dogma. Your arrogance, cockiness, condescension, and know-it-all attitude is so typical of any other religious zealot–attitude certainly not conducive to finding TRUTH and its certainly not the purpose of science as far as I’m concerned.

    • ces

      Serious question (not snarky):

      Do you believe that Religion has NOT “been totally hijacked by politics/special interests”?

      • ME

        Of course where ever people are involved politics plays a role. Kings and Popes have used religion to further political goals (eg the inquisition was a political movement to unify the european mindset against the Muslims scourge). But Christian religious doctrine tends to remain constant throughout time and fad (especially the catholic church, with some exception). But the basic concepts and canons are immutable hence for the individual there is steadiness and solice to be found irrespective of political conditions.

        But I guess there is something to be said also about an argument that claims that the Protestant faith sprun out of northern european political needs and plots…and hence the evengelical movement from its inception has been agressive…and even gave rise to the first populist politics.

        To answer your question…of course politics has hijacked religion (as any human endeavor) as a means to an end or to motivate people to whatever action desired by politicians…on many occasions. But the fundamentals of christianity have nothing to do with politics and don’t need change over time or political climate because people’s emotions are the same as they’ve been for over 3000 years.

    • Pat Racimora

      ME–I am NOT an atheist, far from it. You are too quick to generalize. You seem to have missed all of the points I was trying to make.

      • ME

        Than what is this supposed to mean then…if not what it says:

        For the last 8 years, science has been distorted and minimized by the radical Religious Right that vowed, among other things, to push Darwin off the plank and instill “intelligent design” (a euphemism for “creationism”) in its stead. Whereas we are all free to believe whatever we wish, forcing students to learn about creationism in science classes not only violates the intent of separation of church and state but dummies us down on global scientific literacy rankings. One hoped that when George W. left office, science would get a lot more respect.

        My point is that you are wrong–no one but scientist are responsible for the diminished reputation of science and scientists. No one is trying to diminish the importance of Evolutionary Theory, rather only expand on other lines of thought…Don’t they teach about Communism in political science classes eventhough every single thing about the philosophy is dysfunctional and and against human nature? or I remember learning about Lamarques defunct theories of evolution, don’t you? Well what’s it to you if they teach alternative thoughts on life on earth?. Why do we need to learn it? Because in order to call ourselve educated people we need to be introduced to ALL the building blocks of our knowledge/understanding to date–what they are and where they come–from in order to grasp the true significance of todays predominant theories…otherwise our understand ends up being moulded by FAITH in some “experts” word rather than logic, method, and experience (ie like religion).

        The Religious Right Wing (as you love labelling them) has nothing to do with it. BTW, I am insulted at being put into one of your boxes. You progressives created the box and insist we live in it in an orderly manner. Its BS…like your argument. There is no religious right wing, only some ignorant religious and atheist people…you need deprogramming.

        • Pat Racimora

          Sigh–ME you are no fun at al…

        • Ferd Berfle

          Well what’s it to you if they teach alternative thoughts on life on earth?.

          You mean junk science like creationism?

          • ME

            Last I look they teach “aura reading” in university….oooh that’s some real science there!

            But if you don’t get what I’m saying, too bad for you. You obviously are the the types to pretend outrage rather than formulate an argument…don’t worry I’m used to it by now. I don’t expect much from zealots in terms of flexible and/or sophisticated thought anyway. Please don’t continue to hurt yourselves thinking…or worse, trying to address my arguments.

        • Pieter B

          No one is trying to diminish the importance of Evolutionary Theory, rather only expand on other lines of thought

          The ToE is not a “line of thought,” it is the most thoroughly researched and well-supported scientific theory of our time. Astrology is a line of thought; would you have it taught on an equal footing with astronomy? Geocentrism, the idea that the Earth is the center of at least the solar system if not the universe, is a line of thought. So is the time-honored idea that there are but four basic building blocks of our universe, earth, air, fire and water. Some would add a fifth, “aether.”

          Science has supplanted astrology, geocentrism, aether, phlogiston, humours and many other beliefs of the ancients with actual knowledge. The only reason that the Theory of Evolution is constantly under attack is that it conflicts with a literal reading of the book of Genesis.

        • Alisha

          I LIKE HOW U STAND UP FOR UR BELIEFS. IF NO ONE WANTS TO LISTEN.. THATS ON THEM. YOU STAY BLESSED.. “ME”

    • Senneth

      ME, many posters have already stated they believe in God. Why are you postulating that we’re all atheists? Religious conflicts have caused enormous suffering and death. That doesn’t mean that religion is wrong or spirituality is wrong. It means that we are finite creatures of limited intellectual/mental faculties and are not capable of understanding the mind of the Creator – should there be such a person. That’s all.

      • ME

        If you hadn’t noticed its rabid atheists that object to teaching ID etc, not christians. Pat started by insulting the “religious right wing” and you all turn on me, nice…and now you think I’m “mean” and “angry”…well yeh I am.

        Most of you don’t seem to get the fact that you’ve been programmed against christianity by radical atheists for 100 years…you don’t see it perhaps but I do and so do many many other out there. It’s toxic to the country’s discourse and it vilifies and dehumanizes a large group of decent people who simply want to preserve their culture and beliefs. So many of you here speak of them as if thier idiots or animals.

        A decent christian (as some here pretend to be) wouldn’t respond to some of my comments as these people have…they would actually address the points I’m making and realise that I’m arguing on behalf of civility and decency and respect for all. A real christian would feel appaul and worried about the overt persecution of their faith and GOD…which most of these people are NOT.

        • Alisha

          TOTALLY AGREE!!!!!

  • felizarte

    I am reminded of a line in one of the songs in “The King and I”: “. . . and it puzzles me to think that though a man may be unsure of what he knows; very often he will fight, will fight to prove that what he knows is so!”

    As for me, seeing this world and everything in it; space, the stars, the universes; I choose to believe in a super intelligent God who created everything, omnipotent and capable enough of minding me. It is the ultimate comforter for me.

  • ME

    Science will get respect when it’s scientist become more respectful, less condescending, more useful and truthful to tax payers, more honest, rigorous, impartial and professional….That’s how.

    Blaming the perseption of science on GW Bush–GIMME A BREAK! Only a poor exuse of a “thinker” would say something as vapid and groundless. Weak-minded parroting, zealots like yourself are killing respect for science if anything.

    • Pat Racimora

      MR–Again, I am not an atheist. I am very religious. I am a scientist. I do not use my real name when I do cartoons, and you might have to apologize if you knew who I am.

    • Ferd Berfle

      You wouldn’t know science if it bit you in the kiester, bub. As a scientist, I can tell you that my thought processes are a lot more rigorous and impartial than yours. As objective evidence, I call your attention to your posts, which have been on the whole, fallacious, consisting primarily of invincible ignorance.

      The only reason you think science is condescending is because you haven’t the foggiest idea what inductive reasoning is all about.

      • ME

        I guess you failed to read the previous post where I start by stating that I am a PhD in Epi and practiced for 15 years….know nothing about science eh? who’s the bozo? Don’t patronize me…I’ll alway run circles around you. Proof is in the pudding: I make serious arguments based on fact and respect for the people YOU ALL are bashing…all you can do is insult me when you have no clue what I’m talking about or you’re to lazy to formulate a decent response. Be a man and read my posts at least.

        Most curious and intelligent people who haven’t a clue would ask questions rather than posture. But hey I don’t see much intellect or curiousity here.

        This is getting to be sad…I came here for a serious discussion in opposition to this post…and this is all you guys can do?

        • heartland dem

          Wow, I thought you PUMAs were whacked in the head… but this person takes it to another level.At least we agree on that.

          $10 says this “former epidemiologist” got fired for saying malaria is caused by “the vapors”.

          • Ferd Berfle

            Agreed–Me is a true rustic in every sense of the word. Now if we could get your selective indignation treated with respect to your adoration of That One, we’d be getting somewhere.

        • Ferd Berfle

          That PhD stands for post-hole digger in your case. I have found your apparent lack of discipline with respect to science has been amply demonstrated by your decided lack of objectivity. You post as though you never took a course in anything but dogma. Nice try, bubba, but I’ll take my chemistry degree over the voices in your head which tell you that you a PhD any day.

          And if you do really have one, then shame on the University or College which conferred such upon you. They are just as much to blame for your idiocy as you are.

  • sam

    Very quickly put: Death entered the world with the fall of man. Every current evolutionary theory relies on death to cull the population.

    You cannot use the Bible to support Evolution as the method by which the world was created, even if you say “well, a ‘day’ is figurative and it was really a ‘period of time’.” It is an abuse of the author’s intent in the text to depict a historic account of how sin entered the world.

    This is something that very smart people with very big faith convictions (I’m including evolutionist folks in this because they use huge presuppositions as well) need to learn how to disagree politely like civilized folk. Let evolutionists teach their children how they believe the world works. Let christian kids learn their story. Teach them to fight and keep the gloves on, ALWAYS. Let them fight it out when they get older. There is just nothing new under the sun…

    • boonies

      sam you said…This is something that very smart people with very big faith convictions (I’m including evolutionist folks in this because they use huge presuppositions as well) need to learn how to disagree politely like civilized folk….

      Hear hear! Exactly my point elsewhere. I believe Mao said ‘let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend’.

      There is NO reason for skeptical cross-examination to end at Darwin’s door….

      • ME

        Exactly!

    • Ferd Berfle

      Yeah, yeah, yeah.

      The next thing you’ll be telling us, Dr. Science, is that gasoline works in an automobile engine because of intelligent combustion.

      • ME

        WOW. How terribly profound! You win! With such an salient argument…You win the right to humiliate and disrespect millions of good productive and reasonable religious people….who’s religious beliefs are the fundamental basis for your dimented belief system. All those people should turn to you as their messiah…you’re so much more intelligent then they are and you’re so much more wise than that silly bible of theirs. And now that its established that your scientific degree and your thoughr processess is so far superiour to anyone elses, including mine, we should all bow to your sagesse and beg for mercy. Only you know best, that’s obvious.

        Please stop talking…you may very well end up proving my initial point: because of 21st century scientific zealots like you, people disrespect science.

        After all I’m on the side of tolerence here…isn’t that what you pretend to espouse?

        • heartland dem

          Who the heck is “disrespecting” science anyway? I think science is doing just fine.

          I mean besides the Bush Administration, with great initiatives like the pro-coal “Clear Skies” and clear cutting for “Healthy Forests”.

          What’s rediculous is that orifgannly, no one was calling you out, but instead you CHOSE to take offense at the term “fundamentalists”.

          Says a lot imo.

    • andrew191

      Sam, your first and second sentences, while interesting, reveal your ignorance of the more determinate principles of evolution. It’s far more complicated than “Survival of the Fittest”, or death to the unfit. There is an infinitely complicated mixture of powerful forces and subtle forces that drive evolution, and untangling the process is as difficult as trying to forensically determine the sequence of each brush stroke that Titian used to paint the masterpiece that Pat used for her illustration. The complicated nature of the subject does not imply intelligent manipulation, but it doesn’t rule it out either. As a geologist, a biologist, and a person always surprised and amazed by something everyday, I’ve learned to hedge my bets on matters involving the interface between the material and spiritual. It’s safer and more diplomatic to respect both positions, unless someone claims that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then I’ll rip their liver out.

      • ME

        THANK YOU…Finally a real human being! Well said.

        • andrew191

          Hey, I see the rhetorical conflict on this thread like the tower of Babel, you know what I mean? We all naturally seek the truth, our hearts demand it. I’m afraid that as group of strong willed individuals we lack the common language to agree with what that truth is. We too often let that misunderstanding lead to conflict. If I were religious, I could see Satan’s fingerprints all over this. Since I’m not religious, I chalk it up to pride driven ignorance. And I pray to God it’s one or the other.

  • Stan Davis

    There’s a physical, or scientific, if you will, world, and there’s a spiritual world. Never the twain shall meet. I find it ludicrous to continue to believe a 3000-old attempt to understand the physical world before even the rudiments of science emerged.

    If you accept the duality and separation of the physical and spiritual worlds, you can take science as it is without worrying about the apiritual implications.

    Stan Davis
    Lakewood, CO

    • ME

      I guess the fact that SCIENCE proves another part of the Bible to be TRUE every other day, is not worth pondering to you eh?

      You’re just another modern “pseudo-scientist” who shoots his mouth off based on your beliefs not facts, and then turns around to mock/scorn those whose beliefs are contrary to yours. With more “scientists” like you, who needs religious zealots or science.

      • Stan Davis

        You’re the first person who’s ever thought I was a religious zealot. My ex-wife would be so proud to learn that.

        The spiritual side of us may or may not have anything to do with religion. That side of us probably gives us a sense of beauty that other species may not have, for example. If there is a God, He or She is within us, not some place “up there.”

        Stan Davis
        Lakewood, CO

        • ME

          Atheism is a belief system/religion like any other, making assertions yet to be proved. “Science” take lieu of God–it is above all and is beyond reproach. Its priests promise you Heaven on earth and you lap it up. It’s also a religion at whose center are a bundle of perfect and brilliant human beings–wise enough to tell us all how to live, or else (NOTE: bundle=fascia). Everyone else is stupid and incapable to self management or understanding your purposely esoteric mumbo-jumbo.

          All religions have their zealots…and I believe you’re one of them. Arrogant, intolerant, think-they-know-it-alls, and most of all demonstrably ignorant. Your religion, called SOPHISM, existed before. It creates nothing of ultimate value other than discord because the philosophy is based on a vapid set of principles, all of which are ultimately self-serving.

          • Solara 7

            ME–I have been reading your comments. You must have been deeply hurt by someone or something to be so angry.

            • ME

              Yeh I’m hurt by the fact that my own countrymen, who owe almost everything to the “Fundamentalists” as you call them, (including science, liberty, law, democracy, and progressivism itself), are so eager to turn around a century later and make them the enemy of the state equal to the stone- age Taliban. Yes, the insults are dispicable, not only targetting evangelicals but also classical liberals like myself (who are now called “conservative’ and “right-wing” by the collectiveists). It makes me afraid that my country is canabalizing itself over nonsense and because of ignorance.

              I’m upset…so what…I think I should be when everything I love is in peril. If you lived like myself throught Soviet scurge…perhaps you silly little people wouldn’t be pseudo-intellectualizing away your freedom. Perhaps you would even appreciate your heritage, not bashing it and misrepresenting it at every instance to the world…making it equal if not inferior to islamic culture etc.

              • Stan Davis

                May I suggest that it was Pantheists during the Enlightenment who created our democracy, laws, and possibly progressivism itself instead of Fundamentalists? And our Uncle Ben, who did a lot to further science, wasn’t exactly a Fundamentalist, either.

                Stan Davis
                Lakewood, CO

                • ME

                  You people are the ones who changed the meaning of the word “fundamentalist” fairly recently…and now your going to hold them accountable for a philosophy you gave them (you do the same to us classical liberals by calling us conservative or right wing…we’re not). The fundamentalists, originally were, in comparison to others protestants, mild minded and mannered and sought unity between faiths…based on “fundamental” scriptural principles. Atheists changed all that. Just because they disagreed with THEIR atheist dogma, they had to be vilified and made to appear crazy.

                  And If you think Pantheist created our culture…you better get back to the drawing board and start reading a heck of a lot more….and not just commi propoganda too. You are very wrong….and its way too late for me to get into it.

                  • Ferd Berfle

                    You people are the ones who changed the meaning of the word “fundamentalist” fairly recently

                    You sound as though you’re about 14. But you’re wrong, yet again, bucko. It was the right-wing Xtians who coined that particular phrase. You duds own it.

                    You must take my admonition from above and read some history… hell, read anything… but stop posting until you do, child.

              • Ferd Berfle

                Yeh I’m hurt by the fact that my own countrymen, who owe almost everything to the “Fundamentalists” as you call them, (including science, liberty, law, democracy, and progressivism itself),

                Patently absurd. You need to read some history and stop posting until you’ve finished your studies. Read about the Renaissance. Those weren’t fundamentalists at work bringing enlightenment.

        • Stan Davis

          You’re confusing atheism and hedonism.

          Not once did I say I believe in the Judeo-Christian God, nor did I say that I adhere to any religion. I developed my own belief system, the one of the duality of the physical and spiritual world, to reconcile things that I believe.

          Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre were both atheists, but they took their positions in different directions. Sartre said that there is no God–no purpose in life–and decided life was more or less useless. Camus, on the other hand, also believed that there was no God, but THEREFORE people have even a higher obligation than the religious people to help other people.

          I’m much closer to Camus than to Sartre. And you know absolutely nothing about me except from what I’ve said.

          Stan Davis
          Lakewood, CO

          • ME

            Read my post again….I am saying that atheism IS A RELIGION…with its own high priests and scriptures and dogma and rituals…and of course, followers like yourself….got it?

            • ME

              I know alot about you based on what you say and how you say it. You all sound the same, act the same, and feel the same…the irony is that you ALL actually believe you’re so unique and so profound, when you’re really terribly vapid and inhumane in your reasoning.

              Again, for the record, I’m the catholic scientist arguing among you “progressives” for tolerence and respect for your fellow evangelical man…but NO, I must be destroyed at all cost…and hence my point that most of you atheists are mean zealots.

              I think I’ll have to start arguing with a wall instead of with people on this blog…I’ll surely have more success in making it think/feel like a human being.

  • boonies

    what about Old Earth Creationists with advanced degrees in the sciences?
    How do you deal with books like those written by Dr. Hugh Ross an acclaimed astrophysicist who states that the universe is approx. 12-15 billion years old…and shows exhaustively why this is nowhere near the time needed for life to originate randomly(NOTE, not just ‘evolve’ but ORIGINATE from dead matter)
    His website for the science literate and unafraid of challenge is at reasons.org.
    A similar website is run by Richard Deem of Los Angeles CA called godandscience.org.
    Sorry Pat but there are lots of people out there NOT married to their sister nor living in backwoods Dogpatch USA who question , as I do, Evolution AS ORIGIN of complex life….not as a process within existing species, as you attempt to bait and switch us with. That doesnt work anymore.

    • ME

      Thanks for the tip. Good post.

    • Ferd Berfle

      Poppycock.

      • ME

        Take note all of this great mind at work.

        • Senneth

          ME, did you just randomly pick this site and start to criticize so many of us? Or did your evolve through reading other numerous sites? You do seem very angry to me and rather blaming.

        • Ferd Berfle

          The post to which I referred was, indeed, poppycock. Is there any part of that word which I need to parse in a more finely-divided fashion so that your miniscule brain can comprehend it?

  • teqjack

    I have had some success in silencing the more rabid Creationists with “So you are saying God is not intelligent enough to design evolution?” This may work with some of the ID groups as well.

    I also object to the “Religious Right” nomenclature, I somehow doubt that ex-Presidents Carter and Bush are all that close in their politics even though both are “Born-Again Christian” persons.

    • ME

      So what do you do to silence the RABID atheists who believe us humans are here on earth to serve as their big experimental subjects/objects?

      I say: without our christian ethic (ie motivating the American soldier) to keep those crazy scientifically curious atheist fanatics (eg hitler, Stalin, Japs) in check, most of you would be non-existant, rotting in a concentration camp, or mutilated.

      • Ferd Berfle

        I say: without our christian ethic (ie motivating the American soldier) to keep those crazy scientifically curious atheist fanatics (eg hitler, Stalin, Japs) in check, most of you would be non-existant, rotting in a concentration camp, or mutilated.

        Hahaha. And if it weren’t for science, you wouldn’t be posting now. So get off the computer; give up the medicine science has brought you; don’t use the phone, and for heavens sake, don’t use an automobile.

        Where do these boobs come from?

        • Solara 7

          Ferd to the rescue! Thanks.

          • Ferd Berfle

            Not a problem. Solara. As a scientist, I find those who want to foist junk science on a unsuspecting public to be lower on the evolutionary scale than a used-car salesman (with all the perfunctory apologies to the few evolved used-car salesmen).

            • ces

              +1

            • ME

              If you’re a scientist then prove it: tell me what “beta” and “alpha” mean in statistics (in your own words, not wikipedias)?

              After 6 years biology and 3 in epi, I do believe I can tell the difference between an intelligent, well rounded, and educated person and an idiot…I doubt you belong to the former set. You sound like a perfect imposter. If you are one then you sure as hell put the profession to shame.

              You see the hallmarks of every good scientist I ever met is Humility and Modesty…neither of which are your strengths.You never have anything of any value to say…You really do sound like you come from a trailer park. Are you having fun pretending to be something you’re not or are you really that much of an religious atheist zealot?

              • Ferd Berfle

                Wow, you are a rube, toodles.

                You see the hallmarks of every good scientist I ever met is Humility and Modesty…neither of which are your strengths.You never have anything of any value to say…You really do sound like you come from a trailer park. Are you having fun pretending to be something you’re not or are you really that much of an religious atheist zealot?

                LMAO. You stupid bumpkin, the mark of a true scientist is objectivity, of which you have none. You have already postulated a God and then are wildly scurrying about trying to find a way to prove its existence, This is an a priori argument, which is the antithesis of science. Look up inductive reasoning, you functionally illiterate fool.

                You are not only stupid but a liar and no scientist but a dogmatic POS. I’m done with you, moron.

              • heartland dem

                I thought it was 15 years in Epidemiology?

                Now its 6 in biology and 3 in Epi.

                Now I might be bowing down to the high priest of evil atheistic Science here, but 3+6….

                • Ferd Berfle

                  I have to agree with you there. LMAO. “Me” is a junk scientist, with all the name entails.

            • ME

              If you’re a scientist then prove it: tell me what “beta” and “alpha” mean in statistics (in your own words, not wikipedias)?

              After 6 years biology and 3 in epi, I do believe I can tell the difference between an intelligent, well rounded, and educated person and an wannabe…I doubt you belong to the former set. You sound like a perfect imposter. If you are one then you sure as heck put the profession to shame.

              You see the hallmarks of every good scientist I ever met is Humility and Modesty…neither of which are your strengths.You never have anything of any value to say…You really do sound like you come from a trailer park. Are you having fun pretending to be something you’re not or are you really that much of an religious atheist zealot?

              • Pat Racimora

                ME, I have to laugh. Why be so simple as alpha and beta? That’s so Stat 101. How about you talking about analyses of covariance or MANOVAs? That’s where us scientists play!

                • ME

                  HaHAhahAHAH…but if you’re not a scientist than you have no clue….and that’s why I’m asking.

                  Why should I ask something more complicated if most can’t even get this right….let alone someone pretending to be a “scientist” when they’re probably only research assistants at best?

                  • Pat Racimora

                    So I guess in your own difficult way you are conceding that I am, indeed, a scientist. (I am currently writing up the final report on an NIH grant on scientific misconduct, its causes and how to minimize the incidence of this difficult problem–which I mention because I actually think that will interest you.) And I have already told you that I am a religious person. And I clearly stated my concern was with the RADICAL Religious Right, a group you already admit exists in another comment.

                    So why are you being so insulting towards me?

                    • Ferd Berfle

                      Me is a mouth-breathing, stump-jumping, slack-jawed, clodhopper of a poster. I have zero tolerance for gasbags like that bozo who pontificate in such a dogmatic way about things they are summarily clueless about.

                      As to my science–chemistry.

                    • ME

                      I never insulted you…I did insult Fred Berfle thought because he’s ignorant pin head and pretends to be an intellectual when he couldn’t be further from it.

                      I have a problem with you because you keep insisting that there is a “religious radical right” when this is a term made up by the commis (Soviet) and promoted equally by the Dems to demonize christian people altogether….and you buy right into it….and disrespect them.

                      Also, I’m trying to make the point that there are zealots everywhere…atheists, in science, in religion…they are certainly not exclusive to conservatives, that is plain wrong since there is no evidence to suggest this.

                      I’m glad you’re looking into making science perfect…good luck (only semi-sarcastically). It sure needs an over-haul when any TOM-Dick and Harry consider themselves scientist but don’t even understand many most basic of principles (ie Berfle).

                    • Ferd Berfle

                      The only zealots are you functionally illiterate, pseudo-scientists who claim that Creationism and Intelligent Design are sciences.

                      You aren’t a scientist for if you were, you would know that science does come up with a theory and then find ways to prove it. Nope, science observes and then comes up with hypotheses to explain the observations.

                      Creationism and ID do not meet the acid-test for science. you can pull out your PhD and your never-ending claptrap all you want but to no avail. You aren’t a scientist; you don’t know the subject matter; and you are dogmatic as any preacher.

                      By the way, dumbass, I have a question for you:

                      What is the highest oxidation state for chromium in an aqueous solution and what is the pH of that solution?

                      Come on, stump-jumper, edify all of us.

                    • Ferd Berfle

                      Change: If you were, you would know that science does NOT come up with a theory and then find ways to prove it.

                    • Pat Racimora

                      ME–I do believe that Ferd is a genuine and fully trained scientist.

                    • Ferd Berfle

                      Thank you, Pat, I appreciate it.

                      Ferd.

      • Senneth

        Um, ME, most of my family were in those concentration camps; others were suffering under German occupation. We lost everything and had to start again. And it wasn’t Fundamentalists who freed my family. It was GI Joe (Jane) and soldiers from the British Commonwealth who freed my family. Now you might want to take your foot out of your mouth.

        • ME

          Oh yeh so were mine…in Russian Goulags and German Concentration Camps…so?

          My point is that it was the so-called protestant values and military tradition that even brought on the outrage that toppled Hilter, Musso, and Japs…And were do you think most soldiers in the military come from? Let me help…from the so-called Bible belt and the south. They seem to always be the ones to step up VOLUNTARILY to protect this country’s values (ie their own). Military tradition of this country is also based on protestant values of the Brits and the Dutch.

          Stop blabbing…start reading your history…you sound really dumb.

          You can pretend that this is not the fact and argue till you’re blue but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a FACT….Foot in Mouth? Who’s mouth, who’s foot? I’ll gladly take my foot out of your mouth.

  • boonies

    sir you concede too much here…if there was ANY input or design by a governing intellect in the process of the origin of life on earth, then we are not ” the end result of a random and purposeless process that did not have us in mind” as others have said,…but created beings.
    If there is any being, human or not, involved in said oversight, it is NOT random. Right or wrong?

    PS I do not believe that policy disagreements are indicative of character defects,….. so I look forward to any responses on this to be hopefully in the same respectful tone I gave you .Lets not be Obots here OK?
    Thank you.

    • boonies

      my bad, I meant the above “sir you concede &etc” to refer to what teqjack had said above…somehow while I was clinging to my Gun and Bible I hit the wrong key…. ;-)

    • ME

      I’m sorry…but I can’t seem to gleen your point from what you’ve stated above. Could you explain your position a bit further? Thanks.

      What type of gun do you have? Which Bible do you read? If you don’t mind me asking?

      • Solara 7

        ME I have been reading your comments. You must have been deeply hurt by someone or something to be so angry.

  • http://noquarter foxyladi14

    great post Pat,i loved your story.i bookmark’t it..

  • SAINTIXE56

    as Jesus said and oh so rightly keep ceasar and science to caesar and science and leave believers and faithfuls to themselves
    If you care to read, the believers- I dont say the excited have no problem with science or faith
    they keep both apart as they are indeed apart
    one is hard fact science
    one is belief
    cant put more on it but spiritual , psychological metaphysicql another realm another universe

    most of us are at peace with both
    it is only the fascits as facism is a way of handling society who have a problem with it there are fascits evolutionnists just like there are fascist creationnists

    Poor Lucy and Orrorin deserved better grandchildren

    • ME

      I can’t believe how many of you believe that science is hard fact…and the certainty with with you espouse these statements is chilling…It just shows how little you know about the process of science. Is that what they taught you in high school?

      The only thing factual about science is the measurements taken and the methods used…the rest is interpretation and hope…hope that your interpretation of the measurements are correct, hope that the project is reproducible and you didn’t make any falacious assumptions, hope that it will be read if it doesn’t fit with the political agenda of the day, hope that you will get funding to do further research into the matter to check it and/or hope that you’re not waisting your life away on something not useful to anyone. Its anything but certain…and totally anxiety producing.

      WOW!!! Wake up!!!…people do science…therefore science is fallible. Science is a process that sometimes yields facts (only if an experiment is reproduced enough times…which usually their not), not a fact in itself, and certainly not something to hang one’s soul on to get the solice of certainty. For deal with the nasty effects of certainty and uncertainty one must turn to GOD, not science.

  • cathnealon

    Isn’t teaching creationism in the schools like teaching that the world is flat? I am Catholic and the Catholics have produced some of the best scholars in the areas of evolution and theology. The Vatican has stated that the theory of evolution does not contradict Catholic teaching. We, as a species, have an obligation to the knowledge acumulated over thousands of years, sometimes very painstakingly and at great cost to those who investigated, formulated and researched. This is not something to be taken lightly and we should never revert to teaching primitive beliefs, when humans were just beginning to evolve intellectually, as possibilities in the 21st century. Knowledge is sacred and not separate from any belief system.

    • Ferd Berfle

      Isn’t teaching creationism in the schools like teaching that the world is flat?

      That’s a good analogy. Another is that creationism is like teaching that the sun orbits the earth along with all the stars and planets. It may appear that way, but is far from the truth.

  • I’mFedUp

    I haven’t been to church in 20 years. And I have never read the Bible. My family is staunchly Catholic. I went to private, non-denominational schools. They went to Our Lady of Lourdes. I always just wonder why the left is so obsessed with destroying people’s faith. What do the liberal moonbats care if someone believes in God, or that God created Man? Christ. I read articles every day where schools are destroying our customs, religion, symbols, etc. Remember the little kids who weren’t allowed to have Thanksgiving? If they were my kids, I would sue the crap out of the lunatic school.

    Well, the moonbats won’t have to worry for long. Coming soon to every corner in America…a Mosque. You’ll have fun in the Islamic faith I’m sure.

    • Ferd Berfle

      I have no problem with religion. I just think it doesn’t mix with science and vice versa.

      • I’mFedUp

        And teachers have no business undoing what PARENTS teach their children at home. Yet more socialism. If someone tried to brainwash my kids with that crap I really would sue the school. The left has this ignorance that they think they are allowed to impose their morals, values, etc. on everyone else. WTF is wrong with them? Christmas will be gone soon and there are college campuses where you can’t have Santa Claus, etc. What the hell harm is there in a Santa Claus figurine for Christmas, and who gets to decide that it’s appropriate. This is another reason our country is going to hell. A bunch of people with zero values trying to tell us how to raise our kids. This is something that really pisses me off. Like the Pledge of Allegiance. Schools making kids who want to say the word “God” leave the room. Come on. That’s pathetic.

        • Ferd Berfle

          I agree, except that Creationism is not science and places us at a distinct disadvantage vis-a-vis the rest of the world, which is teaching real science. They win; we lose.

          On this issue we do have a serious disagreement. As a scientist (25 years), I have a big problem with laymen telling me what I should believe in. In the first place, belief has no place in science and in the second, who is a non-scientist to tell me how to perform my job. Does the public do the same with Doctors, lawyers, accountants? No.

          One can either take science as it is, an objective pursuit, or can leave it and all its treasures. Yep-you don’t like science, then give up everything it has brought you. The method is the same, irrespective the outcome.

          There is no intelligent design in science just as there is no intelligent combustion running our automobiles.

    • ME

      Thank you I’M FED UP!! I get so excited when I meet up with another human being on this blog! My point exactly…why the hell do you all care so much what others believe or why do your ears burn to hear someone elses ideas on creation or the good life.

      After all if you read the mythology of many peoples around the world on this topic its all very similar…insn’t that a “scientific” phenomenon in itself which diserves attention in the class-room…are you saying that 100000 years of accumulated human existance and experience is not worthy of your respect and attention? WHAT HUBRIS TO THINK YOU’RE SMARTER AND SUPERIOR TO ANYONE…I believe its the same hubris that the early Nazi scientists/academics exibited.

      I think I’ll get back to talking to my wall now.

      • ME

        When I say you, I don’t mean you, I’m Fed Up…I mean them.

      • heartland dem

        “when I meet up with another human being on this blog”

        wow. lol. So what are the rest of us, evil demons sent to Earth to test your pure Christian faith?

        How charitable…

      • Ferd Berfle

        are you saying that 100000 years of accumulated human existance and experience is not worthy of your respect and attention?

        Real creationists and those of the ID persuasion don’t believe in anything past ~6000 years ago. That being acknowledged, you aren’t even a good as a Creationist/ID troll. As a matter of fact, Dr. Science, I think you’re just a damn obamabot trying anything to again divert attention from your idiot of a master so that you can be Dr. Feelgood again. You’ve been exposed, snookums. PhD in epidemiology, my rosy-read arse.

  • ces

    “…simple tricks and hockey religions are no match for a good blaster at your side.“

    • andrew191

      Don’t worry ces, you’re not flying “Solo” with that quote.

  • Don X

    Nice cartoon, Pat. Your presentation certainly ignited some impassioned comments. Some very intelligent and thoughtful and a few outrageously absurd and insulting. Perhaps that is to be expected when the topic involves beliefs based on religious scriptures and evolution theories based on scientific evidence.

    I have no problem with students being exposed to theories of creationism and intelligent design in addition to evolutionary theory and science in grade school if presented intelligently and if it is made clear that people around the world brought up in different religious settings have different beliefs about the origins of life.

    I think perhaps in high school and in college, courses should be offered that teach the basics of the various world religions. There should be course offerings in various areas of science. The objective in education should be to give some balance in presentations making it clear that religion and science are both aimed at discovering truth, and that there is much room for disagreement about facts as new scientific discoveries are made. Hopefully, the right balance in textbooks can enourage students to respect the right of everyone to believe what they will and to not denigrate the beliefs of others.

    • ME

      Thanks for suggesting that my comment were among the thoughtful and intelligent ones…you must be since you and I have essentially the same argument: Be respectful of religious truths as much as scientifically derived ones. In addition one can believe in both simultaneously without issue if one has a health mind.

      It is extremely easy to be dismissive and condescending of the everyday “JOE” especially when CSI and other TV shows constantly propagandize the fact that that christians are insane….and most of you LAP IT UP (and then turn around and pretend to care and respect for the “little guy”). But in reality, for the most part these people turn to christianity to find grace and beauty in everyday drudgery called life. They get inspiration, support, and a reminder to be humble….what in heck is wrong with that especially since you illiberals turn to “science” for exactly the same thing. Who’s better and who’s more sane?

      All I know, turning to an IPOD, astrophysics, or medicine etc is ABSOLUTELY NO comfort to me and most people of faith…the more you search the more chaos you find. God, on the other hand, helps put it all together quite nicely…and if you live by his rules YOU WILL increase your chances of living a safe, untormented, healthy, productive life.

  • Blue Orchid

    I find this toon refreshing and thought provoking.

    • oowawa

      Yes Blue Orchid, I agree. Isn’t it relaxing and pleasant down here at the end of the thread? Have you noticed all the turmoil going on above us?

      Pat, I thought your analysis of the biblical days of creation in Darwinist terms was indeed thought-provoking and original (to me, at least). As you note, the stars coming midway through evolution was a bit of an anomaly, but what the heck: I remember Gordon MacRae polishing stars in Carousel and that didn’t bother me one bit. Also, your presentation was very witty. I enjoyed it very much.

      • Ferd Berfle

        Creationism and ID are to science as astrology is to astronomy. That is the bottom line.

        • oowawa

          Hmmmm Ferd, I do not want to introduce dischord into these placid nether regions of the thread, but I can see that there are fields of imagination that have a validity outside of science. A validity of what? Perhaps a validity of establishing a model of reality that is comfortable for human beings to live in. Every human being feels himself to be the center of the universe, and science shows us convincingly that this is not so. And yet, in another sense, it is our reality, and it is so. It’s all very complex, and I haven’t been able to figure it out.

          • Ferd Berfle

            Oowawa: I agree. No discord from me. I just *really* have a difficult time with dogma entering science.

            My degrees were in both Chemistry and Philosophy and I love them both. That being said, I don’t confuse the the two. I love carrying on conversations from epistemology, ontology, metaphysics and aesthetics to logic, which are entirely open to boisterous debate. I draw the line, though, when it comes to science. It is a disciplined area with very tightly-held rules, which must be followed or you get chaos and junk.

            • oowawa

              I agree. No dogma. Galileo was facing the same problem. Science must remain “a disciplined area with very tightly-held rules.” It’s interesting to see how strange the ideas are getting on the frontiers of quantum theory and cosmology.

      • oowawa

        Oh yes–there is one more adjective I would like to apply to your toon & story:

        charming.

  • Peggy Sue

    Hi Pat! I meant to comment earlier but I admired the graphic [with kudos to Titian, too :0)].

    All I can say is:

    If God believes in evolution, why shouldn’t we?

    Simple really.

    Good piece!

  • ME

    I’m making a resolution as of now: I won’t reply or speak a word to another boneheaded zealot again.

    Its obviously a waste of time to speak intelligently to brainwashed people more intent on discriminating and hurting people…the Nazis were that way, so were their scientists, so were progressives like Margaret Sanger etc….I guess there’s no stopping history in taking its course again and letting evil or brainwashed zealots do their evil upon others.

    What the hell should I care what you idiots do or think?…in the end the good people always get their revenge on the evil (and evil you will and already are perpetuating it by you attitudes…soon actions). I now know you are a willing participants for the wrong side..the ignorant side, whether intentional or not.

    Don’t bother responding…I will never waste my knowledge/time/concerns etc on unthoughtful bullying zealot who can’t read or reflect on a novel ideal like yourself again.

    And Pat, I always read your stuff…never again…your weak mind has given you up. You are a disgrace if you pretend to be a christian or scientist. The other zealot isn’t even worth my time. BTW, its not even your post that makes me say this, but your replies all the supportable points I made…they say more than enough about you, your honor, and education.

    PS: PAT, I never insulted you…and you never addressed a single of my concerns…am I surprised? NOT Really! Thats how all the Obota function..that’s how most illiberals function….and thats how you function.

    WOW, I feel better already….THANK YOU LORD FOR YOU COUNCIL

  • ME

    .

  • ME

    I’m making a resolution as of now: I won’t reply or speak a word to another zealot again.

    Its obviously a waste of time to speak intelligently to brainwashed people more intent on discriminating and hurting people…the Nazis were that way, so were their scientists, so were progressives like Margaret Sanger etc….I guess there’s no stopping history in taking its course again and letting evil or brainwashed zealots do their evil upon others.

    What the hell should I care what you zealots do or think?…in the end the good people always get their revenge on the evil (and evil you will and already are perpetuating it by you attitudes…soon actions). I now know you are a willing participants for the wrong side..the ignorant side, whether intentional or not.

    Don’t bother responding…I will never waste my knowledge/time/concerns etc on unthoughtful bullying zealot who can’t read or reflect on a novel ideal like yourself again.

    And Pat, I always read your stuff…never again…your weak mind has given you up. You are a disgrace if you pretend to be a christian or scientist. The other zealot isn’t even worth my time. BTW, its not even your post that makes me say this, but your replies all the supportable points I made…they say more than enough about you, your honor, and education.

    PS: PAT, I never insulted you…and you never addressed a single of my concerns…am I surprised? NOT Really! Thats how all the Obota function..that’s how most illiberals function….and thats how you function. AGAIN DON’T BOTHER RESPONDING SINCE I WON’T COME TO ANY OF PAT’S BLOG AGAIN.

    WOW, I feel better already….THANK YOU LORD FOR YOU COUNCIL.

  • Pat Racimora

    Well, I will try to have the last word. I enjoyed doing this piece. And thanks to those of you who enjoyed it also.

    It would have been more interesting had ME been more thoughtful of others’ feelings and less hostile and spitting all over the place. At one point he got to what I think was his basic point, namely that zealots exist in every realm–not anything anyone could possibly argue with. But they don’t all force kids to learn creationism labled as science.

    I will miss you reading my stuff, ME. I like it when people enjoy what I try to do, because I enjoy trying to do it for them. But then, again, I won’t have to endure your baseless insults either.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/howtogetasixpackfast How to Get Six Pack Fast

    Not that I’m impressed a lot, but this is more than I expected for when I stumpled upon a link on Furl telling that the info here is awesome. Thanks.

  • heartland dem

    Wow!

    ok, I’ll bite. Attacking women = …..