http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/08/creationism.professor.ap/index.html

Our professor in question was a little mean spirited when referring to fundamentalists and Intelligent Design supporters. Instead of getting his opportunity to discuss Int Design in a religious setting, he had to ruin his chaces and bad-mouth his way right out of his Chairmanship. The course, called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" may have been a good beginning to move creation/int design/evolution theory discussions into a more proper arena.

I wish that this had been played a little more appropriately, as it could have worked out well.
Now, not so much.

I wish I could give some sort of intelligent response to that other than, "gee wiz that sucks" but this is a little out of my arena.

Top it off with "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" and it sounds like I'll just head on over to ESPN and read about whether or not Collins is gonna start this week or not. I don't think my noodle could handle deep of a read right now. :o

The course, called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" may have been a good beginning to move creation/int design/evolution theory discussions into a more proper arena.

The course would have presented intelligent design in the religious context in which it arguably belongs (even if it makes for bad religion). Evolution isn't going anywhere.

But this story goes from "gee whiz, that sucks" into darker territory. The guy was actually (http://www.6newslawrence.com/news/2005/dec/05/mirecki_hospitalized_beating/) attacked (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/06/mirecki_treated_after_roadside_beating/?ku_news) and beaten over this. Fortunately, the attack didn't inflict serious damage.

Well, gee whiz...that does suck!

The course would have presented intelligent design in the religious context in which it arguably belongs (even if it makes for bad religion). Evolution isn't going anywhere.



Sorry if I wasn't clear, you are correct. Evolution would not be removed from the science curriculum. I believe that this class would have included all theories, lore, and current beliefs of how the world began, from Zeus to Darwin and all religions inbetween.

I didn't know about the attack...that definitely adds to the dimensions of this.

Oh, now that does sound interesting...

This has been a pretty ugly point for me for some time. Flashcube has been on the receiving end of several rants of mine about creationism, er, pardon me, Intelligent Design. Creationism might be true (and might not), but it's not science. It fails to meet ANY criteria of the Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).
The course, called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" may have been a good beginning to move creation/int design/evolution theory discussions into a more proper arena.A FANTASTIC CLASS! I took most of the OLOGY's when I first went to ASU back in the 80's, and I think a good basis in Theology, Philosphy, Psychology and Anthopology makes for a good education.

...but keep it the fuck out of science class.

The Wikipedia article on ID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) is, admittedly, biased reading in favor of the "not science" point of view, but does provide considerable factual information.

Without the controversy, your beloved Flying Spaghetti Monster will fade and be reduced to the answer for a trivia question- "Big in '05" under SCIENCE . :D

Good reading, Max.

While I will have to read more, specificaly from a different slant, it appears to me that Intellegent Design is simply creationism with a fancy new name.


...supporters hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and Intelligent Design in schools, because teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding Creationist beliefs. Teaching both, Intelligent Design supporters argue, allows for a scientific basis for religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote a religious belief.

...and a way to get creationism back into public schools.

Personally, I think it could backfire. I see many references to "Supernatural Beings". We could be talking about aliens, for criminies sake. Hey, God could be an alien...whoa...I think I'm in a bad episode of Stargate SG1 here. :D

I see many references to "Supernatural Beings".

OMG, you mean "Candyman" might be real?:eek:

Without the controversy, your beloved Flying Spaghetti Monster will fade and be reduced to the answer for a trivia question- "Big in '05" under SCIENCE

And that's fine, it's purpose will have been served. As long as creationists strive to import their religious views into the classroom, the FSM will have relevance (and entertainment value).

Thormir, I'd appreciate it, as a Pastafarian, that you not mock my religion.

For I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.
http://www.venganza.org/images/noodledoodlewall.jpg

No mockery intended! rAmen, brother!

Since your religion is also not allowed in public schools, here are some guidlelines (http://www.adherents.com/misc/fed_guidelines.html) for FSM students everywhere.

Creative writing essays could be filled with speculation of what heaven will be like. Since this is the only heaven complete with a stripper factory and beer volcano, does each Pastafarian experience a judgement- good followers get hot, wet strippers of a preferred gender and imported beer, while non-believers get old, boil-infested pirates dowsing themselves in warm Hamm's beer- that you may only sip from their filthy toes?
:p Ok, I'm done being silly,...for now.

Here is an interesting article (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/13383139.htm) about schools in other parts of the country taking up the debate. It describes a prevalent perception from students that some creation-evolution hybrid best fits their belief system. Something more like "the process of evolution was guided by a series of ordered events (God's intervention, possibly)."

Article on CNN yesterday says the prof in question claims he was told to resign and it wasn't a choice.

These debates make me so angry. It's a sign that some people don't have enough in life to worry about. Heck, even in the educational world there are far bigger things to worry about than the teaching of evolution/creationism. It scares me a lot when, during a time of war among other things, this is a front page news story. I'd worry more about biased history books or inappropriate movies or fat kids not having to take PE.

I can't believe some people get so worked up over things like this. I learned many, many things in high school that I disagreed with, either morally or philosophically. A lot of them were different than what my parents taught me. Shoot, when I hit sex ed they were trying out that whole condom vs. abstinence stance, so I was actually told condoms were the way to go. My parents didn't agree - so after the class they told me their side of it. In essence I heard both sides of the argument, and like a big boy was able to figure out what I wanted to believe (shock! awe!).

Kids aren't as stupid as we like to think. If you teach them evolution or creationism, they'll still believe what they want to believe. Odd how some parents think a few science classes teaching evolution will ruin their children.

Shoot, from a religious standpoint it's purely an academic argument anyway. Fundamentalist groups in any religion are scary. Just say no, y'all.

This is not the first prof to attack religion. Spend ten minutes in any philosophy class, or religious studies department. Big deal. Something scary about Kansas when this is their big issue. Hello! War? Poverty? Crime?

To paraphrase Lewis Black, when speaking about the use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance, this is stuff you save to argue about when there's nothing else going on.

It describes a prevalent perception from students that some creation-evolution hybrid best fits their belief system. Something more like "the process of evolution was guided by a series of ordered events (God's intervention, possibly)."
Commonly referred to as "theistic evolution," which finds many adherents among religious members of the scientific community, such as Ken Miller (http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/storyDetail.cfm?ID=2844). This reconciliation professes the notion that a god kicked the whole process off at the moment of creation, and that evolution was the chosen mechanism by which to bring about the diversity of life (once cosmological developments allowed for it). ID, otoh, suggests that the creator screwed up the initial plan and had to do some later tweaking, sanding knots off the shop class experiment as it were.

If that's the case, Intelligent Design shouldn't work for most fundamental Christians, as they would not believe in a God who needed to tweak his finished product. Most of the Genesis creation story ends with God doing some type of QA and saying "it was good"....not "eh, it'll work for now, I'll get back to it."
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, otoh,... creation might not be so easy for a creature with both noodly appendages and mammary-like meatballs. Transgender confusion makes it harder to focus when creating midgets. ;)

You're right, ID shouldn't work for most ardent theists, but most pro-ID theists don't understand that implication of ID (much less anything else about ID, or evolution for that matter).

"Creationism might be true (and might not), but it's not science."

Creationism as a defined term (i.e. a literal interpretation of Genesis) is not science. But I have never seen intelligent design promoted as a literal interpretation of Genesis. And by literal, I mean literal (7 days, 24 hours a day, Adam and Eve, etc.).

Creationism as a theory (i.e. abiogenesis or the origin of life) should be studied under science. And I don't mean evolution which is a completely separate topic from creationism/origin of life. Intelligent design as I understand it is the counter to spontaneous/random abiogenesis. That is, did non-living matter randomly develop to become a living organism?

Where else would this question be studied except in a science class?

Creationism as a theory (i.e. abiogenesis or the origin of life) should be studied under science. And I don't mean evolution which is a completely separate topic from creationism/origin of life. Intelligent design as I understand it is the counter to spontaneous/random abiogenesis. That is, did non-living matter randomly develop to become a living organism?
ID is more than a counter to abiogenesis. It posits that a creator (really, a Creator, the "we don't know what did it" is just a facade for PR releases) intervened well after life first appeared to handle developments that evolution cannot, such as making bombardier beetles and flagellum.
Where else would this question be studied except in a science class?
Science class if for learning about science, its history, the theories, and methodologies by which we understand the world around us. Before ID enters the science class, its proponents should actually develop a scientific theory, make some predictions regarding that theory, and do the research necessary to forward that theory. They have yet to do any of this (and, if Michael Behe's testimony in the recent Dover case is to be taken at face value, they don't plan to).

The only mention of ID in science class I can see justifying is why it doesn't belong in science class, along with flogiston, perpetual motion, Lamarckian evolution and leprechauns.

IDists want the exposure, but they don't want to do the work to merit it.

Creationism as a theory (i.e. abiogenesis or the origin of life) should be studied under science.No. 100% Absolutely not. It does not meet any criteria of the scientific method.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

I don't know much about the intelligent design argument and flagella, but the argument using bombardier beetles is horribly flawed, more often than not; there's also a fair amount of evidence showing how they might have evolved. There isn't enough evidence to say "This is how it happened," but there's certainly enough to disqualify it as an argument against evolution.

That said, intelligent design simply does not belong in classroom science; it's better suited towards philosophy or ideology. Intelligent design cannot be falsified, it is not parsimonious, and it can't be observed empirically, things that are tenets of any truly scientific theory.

The assumption that an external, intelligent creator got the evolutionary ball rolling is simply too much of a jump. There's no way to collect information that supports such a statement, seeing as this theoretical creator exists outside tangible reality.

Creationism and intelligent design do have a major difference. Creationism rejects evolution, whereas I.D. accepts that evolution could have occured under certain circumstances (such as a higher power overseeing the evolution). Regardless, neither are science, Palimax is correct. They have no place in science classrooms. Take a look at the Dover case that has been going on lately. At least one of the board members who resigned over the prospect of I.D. being taught as science is a super conservative Christain who believes in I.D. but rejects it as true science.

It's a big statement that the professor was beaten over this.

Kids aren't as stupid as we like to think. If you teach them evolution or creationism, they'll still believe what they want to believe.You're kidding about that first part, right? On this planet, what percentage of people do you think are the same religion as their parents?

Lets say, for argument's sake, that the world is one third Buddhist/Taoist. What are the odds that a kid born today in Provo, Utah grows up Buddhist instead of Mormon?

For I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.
http://www.venganza.org/images/noodledoodlewall.jpg


QFE!

(see sig)

If, as you state Palimax, abiogenesis is NOT science, where should it be studied?

How does abiogenesis fail to meet the scientific method?

Oh and Thormir, ID at its most basic level simply posits that the origin of life (as we know it) did not occur randomly.

Does the origin of life belong in a science classroom? Perhaps not as Palimax argues. I think it's worth examining from a scientific viewpoint how life came into being.

LOL, gave Fildien a + hit on that photo as well as Max, just for repeating it.
Some things just bear repeating :D

If, as you state Palimax, abiogenesis is NOT science, where should it be studied?

How does abiogenesis fail to meet the scientific method?Hold on for just a second. I'm against creationism (even if you call it ID) being taught as science .


Abiogenesis <> Creationism.
Abiogenesis = Spontantious Generation = Primordial Soup.


I'm in favor of teching evolution as science because we can demonstrate micro-evolution, and we have supporting data to suggest macro-evolution -- enough to teach it as theory. Nobody here's arguing that we teach the "fact" of evolution, only the scientific theory.

So, where should we teach abiogenesis? Well, teach that in science class. We've made "life" in a jar before.

If your question, however, is where to teach Creationism (if not in science class) - then I'm in favor of teaching it in any of a number of other -OLOGY classes, or even carefully presented as [b]one facet of recorded history.

To address your question, Furtivus, most secondary school Biology textbooks don't address abiogenesis currently, at least not here in Texas. When abiogenesis is addressed in Biology texts at the AP biology/freshman college level, minimal time is spent on it, and the discussion is limited to actual experiments that have been done, such as the now ancient Miller-Urey atmosphere chamber, Thomas Cech's experiments with self-replicating ribozymes (small RNA molecules that function as enzymes, we as modern eukaryotes still use them to splice our mRNA after transcription, some can catalyze their *own* replication, which is significant), metabolic experiments done using liposomes (nonliving spheres of phospholipid which form spontaneously and are capable of self-replication and provide a protected environment in which chemical reactions can be carried out), etc. These generally avoid sweeping conclusions about how life may have originally come about, but instead discuss what we do know, based on studies that have been done, about how nonliving assemblages that have some of the characteristics of living things behave, with some speculation given as to what conditions might have been like on earth 3.8 - 4 billion years ago given what evidence we have, that might have affected the behavior of these assemblages.

There is also some discussion time spent on how fossils are dated, how extinction events have affected subsequent evolutionary history and radiation of new organisms into niches, and of plate tectonics, vulcanism, the origin of oxygen-generating photosynthesis, and how these have affected evolutionary history as well (based largely on fossil and other geological evidence), as well as evidence for the Endosymbiotic hypothesis in the origin of eukaryotic organisms.

In any case, ID doesn't pass the necessary test for inclusion into a discussion of abiogenesis in a *science* curriculum simply because it doesn't actually produce testable hypotheses or experiments that can be discussed/critiqued in a science classroom.

What I find most interesting about this whole topic is the view, held by many folks, that there is a clear line between 'living' and 'nonliving' that begs, if you like, for some Presence to have been necessary to provide some sort of animating 'spark' with its Noodly Appendage or what have you to get cellular life going in one fell swoop. The available evidence suggests that that 'line', if it exists at all, is much fuzzier than we would like to believe. Where, for example, would you put BSE (the prion protein that causes Mad Cow Disease) in relation to that line? Where would you put viruses? Self-editing RNAs? Mitochondria?

And in regards to Kanlyi and the incident which provoked this whole thread, sadly, the available evidence suggests that most children will adhere to the 'faith of their fathers', despite misgivings that they might have about it, simply because the need to belong to the herd is so strong that it overwhelms issues of personal judgement. Generally, children only leave their parents' faith when 1) they are cast out due to some issue which makes them unfit in the eyes of that faith (homosexuality, for example, which even so has resullted in enormous Metropolitan Community Churches here in the south which cater to gay Christians), 2) they suffer an act of abuse at the hands of that faith which is so blatant and egregious as to cause them to leave (sexual abuse, or in my ex-husband's case it was witnessing extreme psychological violence directed at children), or 3) they belong to a faith which *allows* them to choose freely and do so; even so, generally only children who are of rational or idealist temperment and above average intelligence will do this.

For most people, my sweet little sister included, understanding or conscious thought on issues of faith operates on the level of "Well *everyone* knows XYZ!" She simply doesn't *think* much about issues like the origin of life, or whether there might be a Presence; she simply 'knows' that there is a human male-appearing God with a flowing white beard who created the world, etc, based on her gut and the 'herd' knowledge that she has acquired in her somewhat lax Episcopal upbringing and elsewhere, and reacts rather violently when pressed on the issue. I think that most people, in general, don't *like*, and get distinctly uncomfortable, when issues of faith are challenged, and sadly, when science collides with ideology, herd instinct takes over and you get ugly incidents like the one that happened in Kansas.

That having been said, ideology is *not* science, and doesn't need to be taught in a science classroom. I think the idea of discussing the topic in a religion or philosophy course is an entirely appropriate one. Science, including biology, is not free from its own dogma and ideology, of course; but it does have the benefit of being self-correcting through empirical means. Finally, a few years ago, while I was in graduate school, one of the geneticists headed a seminar course called 'Philosophy of Biology'; in it, we read writings from different periods in history, and talked about various revolutions in scientific thought that had occurred over the centuries (sometimes rather violent ones :) ). If one is interested in the topic, I strongly recommend the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn.

Unfortunately, despite all the fascinating controversies we could have spent time on, we had a secondary school teacher (and ardent creationist) enrolled in the course who dragged the Evolution issue out for six weeks...

Ack, I've run on at the mouth again, finals are over and I'm still not quite over the adrenalin rush ;).

Regards,
Nydia

Reading all this got me thinking. If the Fundies are right then god made everything perfect, everything would be static and unchanging. Humans change their environment just by taking a step or breathing, changing what god left perfect. We all should go to hell.

I will say, looking back at the CNN article linked to this thread, that it's a shame that Mirecki went into the idea (of creating a course on Creation mythologies) with such a poor and vengeful attitude towards Fundamentalists; it *could* have been a good and thought provoking course and a useful venue as well for discussing the differences between faith and science with a largely lay audience. Perhpas it still would have, assuming that he could have kept his personal feelings out of the classroom, but his emails to *student* groups suggest otherwise, and were unprofessional and inappropriate; I think that his relinquishing the chairship was a good idea in light of them, but that forced resignation may have been a bit much.

The assault, on the other hand, speaks for itself. I think that the most disturbing thing to me *about* some of these fundamentalist groups is their willingness to use strongarm tactics (legal and physical), not to mention violate the tenets of their own faith, in their 'holy war' against the infidels...

Regards,
Nydia

There's no better way to please our Lord and Savior than to beat the crap out of a non-believer.

Amen! It has always confused me why people attack life in support of a pro-life stance... abortion physicians, university professors,... fear and ignorance are powerful things.

It seems that people are also uncomfortable with simply saying "I don't know" when in the case of how the world began, we really don't. We can document all kinds of information up to the moment of creation/big bang- but none of us can identify all the components/forces that instigated "all of this."

If being raised in a very Christian home has taught me anything, it's that even God tells us (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor++13:12)that we don't understand His ways (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055:8-9;&version=9;). Faith may be necessary to accept the things that science hasn't identified for us, or can't identify for us. The answer for me is: I don't know, so I keep researching and learning more to find out.

You're kidding about that first part, right? On this planet, what percentage of people do you think are the same religion as their parents?

Lets say, for argument's sake, that the world is one third Buddhist/Taoist. What are the odds that a kid born today in Provo, Utah grows up Buddhist instead of Mormon?In response to you and Nydia - I wasn't very clear. I actually meant just that - most kids will still believe what they're taught by their parents. Umm, I say most without numbers to back that up, better say in my experience. The point is, why freak out about one little thing taught in school when most students will continue to believe what mom and dad believe anyway, or rather what they've been taught as right.

Again, I just get irritated because it's such a minor issue, and there are much better things to freak out about/complain about.

There's no better way to please our Lord and Savior than to beat the crap out of a non-believer.


I know the above quote was meant as humor...but it does ring of a bit of truth.



Well...there was a time that those who preached the ways of Jesus actually did things and said things that Jesus did and said. I find it quite strange how fundamentalist Christians have chosen to use both the Old and New testaments as a point of convenience for there purposes. Isn't Christianity the belief in Christ? Is the New testament not the "book" of the Christians?

To me, it is shameful that there are those in any religion that will twist the teachings to fit their own, often violent and hateful agenda.


It was once fashionable to turn the other cheek...this was more in the way that Jesus taught.

There was once a saying: Blessed are the meek...for they shall inherit the Earth.

But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

One characteristic of the meek is that they desire peace. Therefore, God says that they will enjoy it forever.

I was raised a Catholic, went to Catholic school for a few years, then transferred to public school. I am definately not religious but I am spiritual.

Well...there was a time that those who preached the ways of Jesus actually did things and said things that Jesus did and said. Like the Crusades! Those were swell.

Killing in the name of <insert benevolent diety here> has always been popular.

Like the Crusades! Those were swell.

Killing in the name of <insert benevolent diety here> has always been popular.

Oh...make no mistake...I am in total agreement with your posts in this area.

It has always confused me why people attack life in support of a pro-life stance... abortion physicians, university professors,..
It's not that difficult of a leap, really. Abortion clinics kill babies on a daily basis. Someone must to stop this outrage. 1 doctor and 5 nurses vs. 1,000's of babies. I shall do it in the name of God! [KABOOM!]

Anyway, I've gained IQ points and +rep has been given. Thank you.

Yeah, I understand "bombing by numbers" and "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".... maybe even "an eye for an eye" applies. But beating up a professor out of fear of his influence, or killing a clinic employee,.... isn't that what they did to Christ? WWJD? :)

People have killed in the name of (insert your Saviour) for as long as we've been killing each other. Won't stop anytime soon. We can't just be accountable for OURSELVES and say "you stole my cow- prepare to die!"

I believe in protecting the rights of insensitive academic spout-offs as much as anyone else.

There's no better way to please our Lord and Savior than to beat the crap out of a non-believer.

Amen!

"Hey let's go bomb that abortion clinic b/c we are PRO-LIFE!"

"Hey let's smash this airplane into the WTC in the name of Alah"

"Hey let's assasinate Dr. <insert name> for performing abortions"

Well...there was a time that those who preached the ways of Jesus actually did things and said things that Jesus did and said. I find it quite strange how fundamentalist Christians have chosen to use both the Old and New testaments as a point of convenience for there purposes. Isn't Christianity the belief in Christ? Is the New testament not the "book" of the Christians?


You have to have the old testiment so you can see the suffer that justifies Jesus'. It's an answer to many fundimental quests that we have to understand as humans before we can understand the more complex issues of our existance. who are we, why we are here . . . .

Also remeber craping on gods green earth is a sin.. Oh wait he made th crap too.

I think that most people, in general, don't *like*, and get distinctly uncomfortable, when issues of faith are challenged, and sadly, when science collides with ideology, herd instinct takes over and you get ugly incidents like the one that happened in Kansas.


Fear at its best. Don't try to take away somebody's eternal life, it always gets messy.

We can extend it further; nobody likes having the basic ideas upon which they have built themself challenged, no matter what the topic. Herd mentality and hard held beliefs are very hard to change; think about the turmoil that would result if it turned out that concrete (or radio waves, or any other common "safe" item we have around today) caused cancer.

How many people would take the stance, "I've lived with my concrete driveway/house for years, and it isn't hurting anybody?"

Bah down with concrete I say, its the Devil. Seriously esbat hit the nail on the head, most folks get pissed if you even say something may not be true in teh bible torah koran <insert other religous books here>. Most people hate having thier thoughts or ideas challenged.


Rev

While the subject deserves a much longer dissertation, in a nutshell we are dealing with two basic philosophies that can not be reconciled. On the one hand you have the belief in eternal life via the soul and heaven, which all modern religion incorporates in some manner; and, on the other hand you have those who believe life is finite, which is the scientific realm of empirical data.

People are not going to stop fighting over this basic idea; on the one side it is the basic refusal to give up the belief of something else being there after death, and on the other it is the evidence available to show what happens to the body following death. All the debates and lawsuits and fights over these varied issues can be boiled down to the very basic opposing philosophies, and people's tenacity in wanting to preserve their beliefs.

I feel slightly differently about this. I think that there are plenty of folks that are trying to blend personal beliefs with field experience. That's how we got this topic in the first place, preserving one's beliefs while accepting and incorporating some factual information from the world around us.

For every Theistic Evolutionist, Gay Mormon, 'Hood made Holy Gangsta, Pro-choice Republican, ... there is a person working to balance what he/she believes from religion with what he/she has learned with the five senses outside of the fishbowl.

Sometimes the lines are not so black and white. There are plenty of people that challenge convention every day, with varied levels of success, but trying nonetheless...

Sometimes the lines are not so black and white. There are plenty of people that challenge convention every day, with varied levels of success, but trying nonetheless...

I agree completely with you on this.

The fights that we read about are most often started by those who are feeling beliefs are threatened in some way, and so they look for ways to reinforce what they believe; i.e., if courses can be included in school, and/or prayer, or inserting the word God into the Pledge of Allegiance, than there is some validation of what I believe, and I am less threatened.

I have seldom seen the science side initiate the fights. Instead, they seem to be more comfortable with the realization that they have learned what they have learned, and if others are interested in sharing in that knowledge that is good.

I truly believe that the advances in technology over the past forty years have had a massive impact on the varied religions, as people are now more easily able to share ideas and such across the globe with each other, and we have reached into space via the Hubble telescope to see things we could only imagine before. Science continues the march onward discovering the minutest building blocks of matter, and finding new applications of discoveries that open even more doors to the exploration of our universe. As a result of the faster pace and more open global communication, the church (insert religion of choice) is being threatened by lowered attendance and the fact that more young people are starting to question many of the teachings. Add the scandals that have received such wide publicity, and the church is truly in jeapordy.

The efforts to include anything of a religious slant into the educational system is a very calculated move to attempt to reach more young people who are still forming their philosophies on life, and whatever disguise or shape those efforts take will still come down to the basic need to preserve an established set of beliefs. The mere fact that the professor was assaulted tells me that some people felt threatened by what he was saying; and, as the acceptable emotion for a young male to show is anger rather than fear, lashing out at the source was inevitable.

Personally, I figure there must be something greater than ourselves to have such a unique and complex set of organisms coexisting on this planet. I just have a hard time with the whole organized religion thing, after watching and reading about all the killing done in the name of it.

I mean, there has got to be something that keeps those atoms running around in each of us from colliding.

While the subject deserves a much longer dissertation, in a nutshell we are dealing with two basic philosophies that can not be reconciled. On the one hand you have the belief in eternal life via the soul and heaven, which all modern religion incorporates in some manner; and, on the other hand you have those who believe life is finite, which is the scientific realm of empirical data.
This is a false dichotomy, or at least incomplete. The irreconcilable systems (I'd hesitate to call them philosophies) are between those who accept the scientific data and its implications regardless of its theological (or atheological) impact, and those who refuse to accept scientific data and its implications for the same reasons.

If you look at the charters for groups like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research, one thing they state outright is that any conflict between science and their inerrantist interpretation of the bible requires a modification or re-interpretation of the science. The bible is inviolate. Plenty of other theists have no such problems.

(puts on monster truck announcer voice)
SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY! The Friendlies vs. The Exotics! Faith and Science, in a cage match that can only have one win-ARRRRR!
----
This is really what it is going to come down to, as was said by Bylimet and Thormir. The two radical systems are, at their very nature, incompatable at a basic level. Unless there is an individual willingness to blur the lines and accept some common ground or contextual interpretation, this fight isn't going to go away.

And no matter how many times I look at it, "Friendlies" just doesn't look correct.

The only advantage for the 'Friendlies' is that on Sunday, they are awake, dressed, emotionally pepped-up, and (mostly) sober. The 'Exotics' are laying around, reading the paper, baseball cap/no shower,....not so ready for their big cage match!

in any case, hilarious! :p

SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY!...your ticket pays for the whole seat, but you'll only need the edge!