Skip to main content

Photo of Steve Daines in front of hay bales in a stable
Hi. I don't understand how science works.
This guy is already a member of the House of Representatives, you know. He's in charge of our laws and stuff.
In a little-noticed 2012 interview, Rep. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), the front-runner in Montana's open 2014 Senate race, expressed support for teaching creationism in public schools.

In an interview that aired on November 2, 2012, Sally Mauk, news director for Montana Public Radio, asked Daines, who was then running for Montana's lone House seat, whether public schools should teach creationism. Daines responded, "What the schools should teach is, as it relates to biology and science is that they have, um, there's evolution theory, there's creation theory, and so forth. I think we should teach students to think critically, and teach students that there are evolutionary theories, there's intelligent-design theories, and allow the students to make up their minds. But I think those kinds of decisions should be decided at the local school board level." He added, "Personally I'd like to teach my kids both sides of the equation there and let them come up to their own conclusion on it."​

At this point, I have no words left. There's no way to make a certain segment of our society, by which I mean the stupid segment, understand the difference between science and a belief. There's no way to convince them that something with evidence behind it is far more likely to be true than something with no evidence behind it. It's not just science vs. religion, it's science vs. propaganda, and plain facts vs. ideology, and all the other conflicts that make otherwise supposedly functional Americans get all pudding-brained when the obvious facts are irritating to their "core beliefs," where "core beliefs" are whatever they've cobbled together from watching television or family oral tradition.

Please read below the fold for more on this story.

We can believe that the earth is balanced on the back of a giant space turtle. After we go to space and take pictures that show no turtle there, however, we can no longer "believe" that with any credibility. We don't (most of us) suggest that the turtle is simply invisible. We don't (most of us) say that the turtle only exists when nobody is looking at it. We don't (most of us) suggest that scientists have spirited the turtle away because they don't want us to know the truth about the giant space turtle, or that they are involved in the lucrative cash business of pretending there are no turtles in places that there are turtles. We don't (most of us) do that.

But some do. If the thermometers say the temperature is rising, they assert all the thermometers in the world must be wrong. If we can measure certain pollutants being output by smokestacks and can measure an increasing number of those very same pollutants throughout the rest of the atmosphere, they claim the two things must of course be disconnected, and that the increasing measured levels of pollution in the atmosphere at large must be because the invisible space turtle is farting. If we can find bones in the ground and determine via the known properties of radioactive decay that they have been there for one or two or ten million years, it is because all of the parts of science that are required to be wrong in order to reach that conclusion are, each and every one of them, coincidentally wrong, and only when applied to fossils—not less controversial things. Then that same science can be right again.

So we've got yet another actual maker of our laws and decider of the rules of our civilization saying that the space turtle theory must be taught, because while there is no actual evidence of the space turtle so far, students whose parents believe in the space turtle must not just be accommodated or treated politely, but given public validation, under rule of law, as "scientists" themselves. There is no equal demand that the government go into churches and forcibly explain to the congregation that their beliefs in the space turtle are only one theory, or that scientists be allowed to give slideshow presentations in those churches showing that clearly the Earth does not rest on the back of a space turtle, because that would be offensive. The demand is always that the unprovable be taught along with the provable, never the reverse.

What is there to say? This stubborn insistence on treating personal belief as exactly equal to known, demonstrable facts may be hardwired in certain people. If only we could keep them out of our government.

Originally posted to Hunter on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:02 AM PDT.

Also republished by Montana Kossaks, Progressive Atheists, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  All those coal fields he loves are found by (24+ / 0-)

    scientists who use this crazy thing called "science" that tells them where to look for coal. Like places that were once vast swamps near an ocean shore. Are there ocean shores in Montana? No? Hmm, I wonder what happened to them.

    GOP 2014 strategy -- Hire clowns, elephants, and a ringmaster and say "a media circus" has emerged and blame Democrats for lack of progress. Have pundits agree that "both sides are to blame" and hope the public will stay home on election day.

    by ontheleftcoast on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:10:22 AM PDT

  •  Oh look (7+ / 0-)

    He took the picture sitting next to his dinner.

    Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

    by The Termite on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:10:55 AM PDT

  •  What they SHOULD teach... (20+ / 0-)

    Everybody knows the World is flat, resting on the backs of 4 giant elephants that stand on the back of an even more humungous turtle that is swimming through space.

    Teach that. And pay royalties to Terry Pratchett.

    It's every bit as realistic.

    "Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Gentle Giant on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:13:33 AM PDT

  •  Hunter, I enjoy your diaries, but I can't rec this (3+ / 0-)

    one. I agree with you that this idiot in Montana is, well, an idiot. I agree that weird notions about Biblical literalism are, well, weird.

    However, I am deeply concerned with the official dismissive tone here on the front page about people who practice liberal religion. Like me.

    Not every religious person is devoid of reason. In our church, the Episcopal Church, we stand on a "three legged stool": Scripture, Tradition, and REASON.

    I am increasingly sad about the fact that Daily Kos allows the bullying of liberal persons of faith. The Democratic party is a broad party, and includes people like Bill Clinton, who is a Baptist, and his wife, who is a Methodist, and the President, who is a Congregationalist.

    Not every Christian is a fundie nut, just like not every Jew or Muslim is a fundie nut.

    Please, let up on the religion-bashing. Men like Martin Luther King, Jr led the Civil Rights movement from the pulpit, and my buddy V. Gene Robinson, retired Bishop of New Hampshire, has helped lead the LGBT rights movement. Please, let's let up on the front page.

    SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

    by commonmass on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:24:01 AM PDT

    •  I didn't read it that way (30+ / 0-)

      Or re-read it that way.

      What you say is true: there are Christians and other people of faith who honor and practice reason.

      I am pretty sure he was being critical of those who do not.

      Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

      by The Termite on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:38:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  commonmass, I have told you before ... (24+ / 0-)

      that you seem to be one of the more reasonable Christians.

      What I, and what I suspect Hunter feels, is that your religious beliefs do not belong in Public Schools, in Government, or codified into our Public Laws. The amount of overreach that individuals engage in for the sake of their particular religion is a violation of my Constitutional Rights. Who is bullying who here?

      I choose to push back against this infringement, and hard.


      In the interest of fighting global warming, I push my car to the grocery store and back.

      by glb3 on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:45:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I feel very strongly that there should be no (3+ / 0-)

        marriage of church and state. Very strongly.

        What irritates me is no "disambiulation" for Christian sects and an overall broad brush which is, frankly, deeply ignorant.

        SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

        by commonmass on Fri May 16, 2014 at 12:09:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree. Many people do not seem to understand (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greenbell, smartalek

          that not all Christians think alike.  I left a comment on another diary where I elaborated on this more fully:

          Speaking of Jesus ...

          I often think that those who are not Christians don't realize that my kind even exists, Christians who don't share the same beliefs of Sister Sarah and company.  We liberals don't all think alike of course (I can only really speak for myself), but in general we seem to value the teachings of Jesus much more highly than the right-wing crowd do.
          In painting all of us with a single brush, I find non-Christians (who I admire in so many ways, for example Hunter) to be guilty of throwing the baby (the teachings of Jesus, which seem to be ignored by many right-wing Conservative Christians) out with the bathwater.

          I have compassion for such behavior because I believe these good people simply do not understand, but I agree with your comment that such behavior is "frankly, deeply ignorant."  I also believe that liberal Christians have a responsibility to speak up and make our unhappiness with the stereotypical "professional Christians" and their impact on the perceptions of Christianity more widely known.  Folks like this Steve Daines character make Jesus look bad, even though he does not appear to be making it a priority to actually follow the teachings of Jesus himself.  

          “Now folks, by going on that web show, Barack Obama undermined the authority of the presidency. And that is Fox News' job.” - Stephen Colbert

          by Older and Wiser Now on Fri May 16, 2014 at 02:35:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I should clarify that by "your religious beliefs", (7+ / 0-)

        I was referring to no one's religious beliefs belong in Public Schools, etc.


        In the interest of fighting global warming, I push my car to the grocery store and back.

        by glb3 on Fri May 16, 2014 at 12:12:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have heard some comments here ... (11+ / 0-)

          that we should not use the term 'religion', as it is too broad of a brush. Then we hear that we can't use 'Christian' or 'Islam', as it is too broad of a brush. Then I use 'Christian Fundamentalism' or 'Islamic Fundamentalism', and the hairs stand up still.
          I don't want to single out any particular religion as to being the problem. I see it as a problem with ANY religion wanting to infringe on my rights to be free of religion. I will use my preferred word, religion, from now on.
          It's not my ignorance that is the problem. I'm quite aware of what is going on.


          In the interest of fighting global warming, I push my car to the grocery store and back.

          by glb3 on Fri May 16, 2014 at 12:25:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  An important distinction here in America ... (5+ / 0-)

            is the fact that it is Christianity, or those practicing that particular religion, that has the most power and influence over our public entities. Therefore, they are getting the most flack, compared to any of the other religions here.
            There are radical elements (God, guns, and gold crowd) within Christianity that are causing these problems, and are the biggest threat to our democracy. They deserve to be mocked and ridiculed and STOPPED, just as we do with politicians that are equally destructive to society.


            In the interest of fighting global warming, I push my car to the grocery store and back.

            by glb3 on Fri May 16, 2014 at 12:45:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They aren't the ONLY threat to our democracy (0+ / 0-)

              If you think ridicule is a way to build a cohesive democracy, I'll refer you to the various religious wars past and present.  

              How is your intolerance any better than theirs?  You just think it is.  Zealots of all types ALWAYS believe they have a monopoly on wisdom and truth and that others should be mocked and ridiculed.  

          •  I fully agree (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ahianne, Wee Mama, smartalek
            I don't want to single out any particular religion as to being the problem. I see it as a problem with ANY religion wanting to infringe on my rights to be free of religion.
            What is being done in the name of Christianity is awful, and I fully support and am grateful for your efforts to stop the abuses.

            I believe the "ignorance" that commonmass speaks of is related to the fact that not all Christians are right-wing conservatives.  Just like it is wrong to blame the religion of Islam for the actions of the terrorists on 9/11, it is wrong to blame "Christians" as a group for the actions of folks like Steve Daines.  

            But to truly understand that, you would have to be more educated about the beliefs of the many Christians who disapprove of folks like Steve Daines.  Liberal christians do exist; we are just not as media-worthy as the other side consistently seems to be.

            “Now folks, by going on that web show, Barack Obama undermined the authority of the presidency. And that is Fox News' job.” - Stephen Colbert

            by Older and Wiser Now on Fri May 16, 2014 at 02:47:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I prefer "Belief" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cedwyn, dewtx

            That's what His wavily appendages semaphored to me.

            "the northern lights have seen queer sights, but the queerest they ever did see. Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge, I cremated Sam McGee". - Robert Service, Bard of the Yukon

            by Joe Jackson on Fri May 16, 2014 at 07:53:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Then oppose the policy (0+ / 0-)

          No one objects to opposing these policies and addressing them as educational issues.

          You don't have to trash people because they are believers.  And there seems to be a particular ZEAL to go after the believers and NOT the policy,.

    •  thank you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe Jackson

      While I personally have no use for organized religion, I very firmly believe in a Higher Power and a set of morals/principles by which I try and live.  The dismissive (and arrogant) way my beliefs are treated by a growing number of "liberals" makes me uneasy as hell.  I don't ask anyone to believe as I do, and I don't think I'm in any way superior to anyone not sharing my beliefs.  I'm not sure where this arrogance comes from.  I would hope it's not from the belief that since I have no proof that my beliefs are false.  If this is the measure of "evidence", it's hardly scientific.  If empiricism is a real measure of truth, love, honor, loyalty, etc. are all fairy tales.  If these people believe that God does not exist because there is no proof, and they believe that what is known now is all that will ever be known and that we are now at the pinnacle of human knowledge, then I really fear for the children of any of these people.  Their beliefs are simply another kind of extremist proselytizing masquerading as liberal thinking.

      •  My feeling is that the push-back is primarily from (15+ / 0-)

        those who want to insist upon their beliefs being taught in science classes as science, which is how Intelligent Design is intended to be a circumvention of the separation of church and state.  As an agnostic, I want kids to be taught science in science classes and if they want religious ideology, they can take courses in that (not required - optional, because ideology isn't necessary to understand the world around them in the same way science teaches them biology, geology, physics, health and the like) and they're free to study every evening and all through the weekend without taking up the time of children who may not ascribe to their religion or any religion at all.  There is no reason to give equivalence to "Intelligent Design" in a science class, and that's what I'm against.  

        If you want to practice your religion as you see fit in your personal way and you're not harming anyone, I'll bet 99% of Kossacks will say you should be able to without interference from government or private entities.  Where I see the protests come (and I protest as well) is when I see someone want to force others to listen to their beliefs and have it presented equally to science from a government source, like a teacher.  Kids in schools are not able to fight this off the way they could if they were older and had learned proper ways to scientifically evaluate facts.  The ID people are trying to get the kids before they've learned how to evaluate facts properly.

        •  It's all arrogance and condescension though (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim, Ahianne, Smoh, Arfeeto, Wee Mama

          I mean, evolution is a scientific fact.  It's been proven scientifically.  It just IS.  Creationism flies in the face of scientific fact.  It has no place in schools:  Institutions that are supposed to be dedicated to fact.

          But belief in God is another matter altogether.  It has never been scientifically PROVEN  to be  either true or false.  The preponderance of evidence IS on the side of God not existing, but that's just not proof.  Scientifically, both the idea that God exists and the idea that God doesn't exist are theories.

          But a LOT of self-proclaimed liberal atheists talk down to anyone who believes in God.   And while I, personally absolutely hate the obnoxious way that "true believers" and other religious zealots preach and proselytize, I absolutely HATE the way those liberal atheists do their own brand of arrogant (and illogical) proselytizing.  

          Lack of proof does not equal proof of lack.  Science is advanced by search and research - always with an open mind.  No zealot - either religious or atheist can even be laughably considered to have an open mind.  

          I really DO understand that the arrogance and condescension many atheist liberal display is simply a reaction to the obnoxious religious zealots, but liberals are supposedly open to ideas - they should at least be tolerant of them and really, an arrogant and obnoxious reaction to an obnoxious idea or person is just stupidity as a reaction to stupidity.

          •  My point was completely undermined by the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Smoh, Wee Mama

            poster a few down who got HR'd by many posters.

            You're at least civil and thoughtful in your discourse.

            •  Thanks. I DO try. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Smoh, Wee Mama, ColoTim, smartalek

              No discussion or debate can be fruitful or even educational if it devolves to insults and/or a shouting match.  I think a great many of the problems in the world, in this country and even between the political parties would be lessened greatly if people just treated each other with respect.

              •  Or the Golden Rule - not he who has the gold rules (0+ / 0-)

                but the one that talks about treating others as you would like to be treated yourself.  These days lots of folks project how they believe the other person is, often projecting their meanness and shortcomings onto the other person and then attack those points because they believe that's how the other person is.  I usually see that from Republicans but they're very fearful now feeling backed into a corner.

          •  I agree with your points (4+ / 0-)

            Though as a Christian I might argue about this "preponderance of evidence", or even whether "proof" is something that even makes sense when talking about God.

            This bothers me about fundamentalists: religion is supposed to be about faith, which is belief in the absence of certainty.  Jesus delighted in tripping up the people who were most certain of their relationship with God: Pharisees, scribes, "the wise".  But the fundamentalists thump on the Bible (and their interpretation of it) as if it's meant to be some sort of proof that they're right, as if that's even the point.

            It's like two people playing cards.  The fundamentalist smugly lies down a 10, J, Q, and K of hearts, and an ace of diamonds, and declares "Royal Flush!"
            His companion says, "First of all, a royal flush has to be all the same suit.  And second of all, we're playing Go Fish."

          •  We talk about outmoded or incorrect theories (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim, DQKennard

            all the time in Science classes. I don't see why Creationism, just like Lamarckism, shouldn't be the subject of critical discussion in schools. A pretty big portion of the American public believes in Creationism. Using the classroom to delve into the twisted internal logic of Creationism and explaining how it doesn't accord with verifiable facts doesn't seem to be a problem to me. The problem is that Science is under attack and is being unnecessarily defensive. I support critical discussion of Creationism in schools as a way of talking about the scientific method, of how we know what we do about the world, and the limits to knowledge.

            Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

            by Anne Elk on Sat May 17, 2014 at 10:01:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Creationism or ID (0+ / 0-)

              has no place being taught as SCIENCE.  If the discussion you want to have takes place, try a comparative religion class (we had those when I was in high school).  

              We don't teach kids that 2+2=4 and then turn around and teach them that 2+2=6, assuming that they will make the correct decision as to which is the right answer.  We teach them the right answer to start with.

              The same thing applies to creationism or intelligent design.

              "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

              by rwgate on Sat May 17, 2014 at 03:14:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You missed the point. (0+ / 0-)

                Maybe you should read what I wrote. Science is not only about the distribution of things we agree are facts. It's about a way of investigating the world and investigating even unsound claims about the world is an entirely reasonable approach to teaching science. In my view, one could easily take a creationist claim and subject it to the same scrutiny we do everything else. Dogma from any source is bad science.

                Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

                by Anne Elk on Sat May 17, 2014 at 06:10:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Scientifically, neither is a theory (0+ / 0-)

            Both ideas are random speculation, much like ideas about the existence of ghosts, FSMs, and Qipu.

        •  Yes, my reply to people like this is to send (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FloridaSNMOM

          their kids or grandkids to christian schools then. There are tons of them everywhere, even in deep blue states. As my longer post says below...it is mind boggling even in small towns and rural regions, more and more christian and private schools are popping up.

          Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

          by wishingwell on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:41:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I just don't like them taking public monies to (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            smartalek, BigDuck

            teach children religion.  I wouldn't want my tax money to go towards teaching any religion - not just certain ones and that's the slope the "Christian schools" refuse to accept.  They wouldn't want their money to go towards a druid school or a satanic school, but they insist that their money be allowed to be used for a "Christian school".

    •  There was a time when mainstream theology (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FloridaSNMOM, Wee Mama

      went against a literal interpretation of the Bible and tried to understand it in the historical and linguistic context in which it was written.

      Then we got a big shift to the view that every word is true, literally as it is written (in English of course). That really does defy common sense, starting with the two different creation stories in Genesis.

      Not every Christian and every denomination goes that way, but many do now.

    •  I agree and it disturbs me that after (0+ / 0-)

      a considerable amount of genuine concern expressed yesterday on the part of those of us who take religious expression seriously that we get an "in your face" front page diary again today mocking the religious.  

      I mean fine, oppose the policy.  Address the educational issue.  

    •  Maybe I'm missing something... (12+ / 0-)

      ...but I don't see any broad brush where the diarist is portraying all Christians or people of faith as being supporters of the nonsense that this particular politician is spewing.

      Instead, he makes what appears to me to be two valid points.

      The first is that espousing creationism in public schools is essentially pushing an attitude that we should treat opinions and beliefs as being equal to scientific evidence in science classrooms -- something which is both dangerous (it corrupts a basic understanding of the scientific method) and ignorant.

      The second is that people like this politician are elevating ignorance and anti-science viewpoints to a position of respect.  And young earth creationism, in particular, is anti-science and pro-ignorance, as it requires dismissing a vast body of evidence about the age of the earth in favor of hanging on to an unsupported belief.  Nowhere does the diarist seem to suggest that all (or even most) Christians share these beliefs.  And his point about young earth creationism is valid, and I think that the comparison with the space turtle is entirely fair, because young earth creationism requires ignoring vast bodies of information and fact in order to maintain a particular belief set.  And while people are certainly entitled to do so, those opinions and beliefs are ignorant and can be treated as such.

      If Democrats proclaim the the Earth is round and Republicans insist it is flat, we will shortly see a column in the Washington Post claiming the the earth is really a semi-circle.

      by TexasTom on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:21:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not a matter of beating up on religious (5+ / 0-)

      people--

      By all means, worship the God of your choice.

      But don't teach religion as an alternative for science or reality.  

      Everybody is free to believe what they want, no matter how misguided.  What they do not get to do is to specify non-facts to be taught as equivalent to facts in public schools.

      No matter how cynical you become, you can never keep up.--Lily Tomlin

      by MadScientist on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:48:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Committing Satire is not bullying in my opinion. (0+ / 0-)

      You are a reasonable Christian and not a good subject for satirical treatment.

      Putting the fun back in dysfunctional.

      by hawkseye on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:54:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  With all due respect (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rwgate

      I don't care what denomination believers are or how soundly grounded they expect their faith is, if two of the three legs of your stool have a structural weakness its unstable.

      Most people have no idea of what parts of the traditional respect they grant their scripture equates to driving over the crumbling infrastructure of a rotten bridge. Reason would suggest that from time to time it requires some renovations.

      Most people of the Book; Christians, Jews and Muslims have no idea of where what its really saying came from.
      Its wisdom literature or scripture is essentially pagan, polytheistic, and a well plagiarized attempt to build a consensus to be law abiding.

      When you talk about civil rights ask yourself whether your religion would be comfortable with a guest speaker who wanted to contradict what you take for scripture with a different perspective. If not toss away the leg of your stool you call reason.

      When you talk about people being dismissive, lacking respect for your perspective, do you respect their perspective enough to give it equal status with your own as a voice of authority regarding tradition?

      "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

      by rktect on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:58:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This diary is simply about one person. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dancing Frog

      This is a diary about one politician and what he is saying. I think it is important to expose his words.
      I don't see anything wrong with this diary; in fact, I think it is important to talk about such politicians.

  •  You hit upon an interesting idea, Hunter. (15+ / 0-)

    Tell people that they can have equal time for creationism in schools if they allow equal time for science and other faiths in Church. See how fast they back down.

    Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

    by Matt Z on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:29:30 AM PDT

  •  I wonder what would happen ... (6+ / 0-)

    if this empty header got his way, creationism was taught in public schools, and the 'critically thinking' students rejected his creation theory as total hogwash.

    "Personally I'd like to teach my kids both sides of the equation there and let them come up to their own conclusion on it."​
    As to your kids? The Constitution says you get to brainwash them at home and at your church...God help them.


    In the interest of fighting global warming, I push my car to the grocery store and back.

    by glb3 on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:33:59 AM PDT

    •  I don't know. I was never "brainwashed" (6+ / 0-)

      at church as a kid. Imagine that!

      SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

      by commonmass on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:35:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then you really missed out (5+ / 0-)

        You probably have no idea what it was like to be in Southern Baptist church as a youth. Combine the SB teachings (rantings really) with rational thought and evidence and, VOILA --> Atheist!

      •  I was, constantly. (0+ / 0-)

        My parents church was called "holy-roller" (not So. Baptist), very religious, very conservative. No movies, no circus, no dancing, only books were religious books, only music was religious music. Sunday school, Sunday service, Sunday evening service, Wednesday evening prayer meeting, religious school once a week. I haven't been to church since I left home at 18.

        All religions are started by humans (not God, Allah, Jehovah, whatever) to assert a particular set of rules for becoming one with God, Allah, Jehovah, whatever). The various sects of religion interpret those rules because their followers want a "new way" (easier, harder, stranger, different, who knows).

        So we have the cult of the single god (in Eqypt which had multiple dieties), we have the cult of the new and different god (instead of the Jewish way). We have the cult of Jim Jones, or David Koresh or Joseph Smith.

        Most people pick the one they personally agree with and put their energy into believing that their god will accept them and not others who don't believe that way.

        I've had more experience with so-called Christians and how evil/awful many of them are, so I am more inclined to disbelieve anything a so-called Christian attempts to tell me than others. I have usually been proven right in not believing what they tell me.

        I reject your reality and substitute my own - Adam Savage

        by woolibaar on Sat May 17, 2014 at 12:14:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  These totalitarian Christians should learn from... (19+ / 0-)

    ...the Catholic church.

    In the 90s it became clear that the Catholic creed did not require "special creation".  Back in the 60s I broke away from the Catholic church over an argument I had with a priest who argued against Darwin by going ad-hominem.  This happened during catechism towards Confirmation.  I won the argument but a group of bullies tried to beta me up after class.

    The thing is that creationism doesn't just deny Darwin's evolution, it also denies most of plate tectonics, radioactive decay, relativity, cosmology, genetics and many other scientific disciplines that were not developed or well known when, typically American, young earth creationism started in the early 20th century.

    What is pathetic is how successful these totalitarian Christians have been.  We are now 2nd only after Turkey in evolution denialism according to this study;


    Views on evolution photo ScreenHunter_99Apr261615_zpsafc9de7f.jpg

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:37:47 AM PDT

  •  There are no I.D. or creationist theories. (12+ / 0-)

    Now, they do have some wild-assed assertions without any supporting evidence, but there are no scientific theories behind either of them.

  •  Heretic!!1! (10+ / 0-)

    The world does not rest on the back of a turtle! The world rests on the backs of four enormous elephants who themselves stand upon the World Turtle, the Great A'Tuin.

    If we're gonna' teach A'Tuinism in school, let's get it right!!1!

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:42:11 AM PDT

  •  How does one teach a fiction? n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Cedwyn

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Fri May 16, 2014 at 11:44:24 AM PDT

  •  Stupid & evil are winning in America (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybersaur, OldDragon

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Fri May 16, 2014 at 12:16:34 PM PDT

  •  Of course Science class should teach creationism. (3+ / 0-)

    You just need to have a scientific theory of creationism to teach.

    Oh, well.  Your shit out of luck then.

  •  This is a FauxNews affiliate? (0+ / 0-)

    As much as I've enjoyed the news articles coming from the Daily KOS, I've noticed an alarming trend of late.  And, as repugnant as I find the beliefs of Rep. Steve Daines and as horrifying as I find the idea that he's actually a lawmaker in this land, for the DK to publish an article that creates a "pretend fact" of a giant space turtle" for the purposes of an argument and then to imply repeatedly that Rep. Steve Daines actually believes in this giant space turtle, and then to have this article create an elaborate fantasy involving the belief of this turtle is EXACTLY the kind of cheap, sensationalist and disingenuous ranting passing for journalism that makes me feel ill when someone in my vicinity turns on Fox Spews on a TV.

    •  I think you should reread the diary. Hunter (10+ / 0-)

      was not suggesting that this is Rep. Daines' belief, only that his belief might be equivalent to the "giant space turtle" theory.

      In one fell swoop he provides a scenario (not theory) that is even less probable than the current ID scenario and avoids treading on a multitude of toes.

      I'm guessing that you signed up today for the purpose of responding to this diary, since all your comments, so far, have been here. Welcome to Daily Kos. And enjoy reading the DiskWorld series by Terry Pratchett, should you decide you want further background in this area.

      I'm not at all sure, even after reading your comment twice, where you got the "cheap, sensationalist and disingenuous ranting passing for journalism" bit from. This is, as much as anything, an OpEd piece.

      Metaphor is not barred when doing a righteous riff on current news, though it is frowned upon in straight reporting. That Fox cannot be bothered to make the distinction is a separate question.

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:57:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK. I re-read the diary. (0+ / 0-)

        And, amazingly enough, although I can't find where I said that the diary SAID Daines believed in the giant turtle theory, you honestly think

        "We can believe that the earth is balanced on the back of a giant space turtle. After we go to space and take pictures that show no turtle there, however, we can no longer "believe" that with any credibility. We don't (most of us) suggest that the turtle is simply invisible. We don't (most of us) say that the turtle only exists when nobody is looking at it. We don't (most of us) suggest that scientists have spirited the turtle away because they don't want us to know the truth about the giant space turtle, or that they are involved in the lucrative cash business of pretending there are no turtles in places that there are turtles. We don't (most of us) do that.

        But some do. If the thermometers say the temperature is rising, they assert all the thermometers in the world must be wrong. If we can measure certain pollutants being output by smokestacks and can measure an increasing number of those very same pollutants throughout the rest of the atmosphere, they claim the two things must of course be disconnected, and that the increasing measured levels of pollution in the atmosphere at large must be because the invisible space turtle is farting. If we can find bones in the ground and determine via the known properties of radioactive decay that they have been there for one or two or ten million years, it is because all of the parts of science that are required to be wrong in order to reach that conclusion are, each and every one of them, coincidentally wrong, and only when applied to fossils—not less controversial things. Then that same science can be right again.

        So we've got yet another actual maker of our laws and decider of the rules of our civilization saying that the space turtle theory must be taught..."

        isn't inferring it?  The wording is disingenuous.  It's dishonest.  It's deceptive.  And it's unworthy of being called journalism.  Calling it metaphor or "a righteous riff" is cute word-play, but that's really all it is.  Hunter has a perfect right to write that way.  Absolutely.  It's just the kind of writing I expect from Fox.  I would have hoped for someone setting their sights a little higher.

        •  Steve, it isn't journalism. It wasn't intended to (10+ / 0-)

          be journalism. Editorial opinion has never been journalism, though Fox has tried its level best to blur the distinction for years now.

          The distinction, or at least what I hope is the distinction, is that the audience that Hunter is writing for knows that there is a difference, and is not going to get caught up in any attempt to conflate it with "fact".

          And no, it isn't inferring it. Only inferring that the "space turtle" scenario is just as reasonable as Intelligent Design or Creationism. That's an inference with which I would agree, actually.

          At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

          by serendipityisabitch on Fri May 16, 2014 at 04:46:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Look at the second word (0+ / 0-)

          in Hunter's statement.  The word is "can".  We CAN believe (but we don't) that the world is balanced onthe back of a turtle...  That pretty much tells me he's making a comparison, not stating a belief that Daines actually said such a thing.

          "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

          by rwgate on Sat May 17, 2014 at 03:31:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Belief and Political Expediency are hard to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, serendipityisabitch

        separate in Montana. Neither have anything to do with truth.

    •  It's called "snark"... (11+ / 0-)

      and Hunter is one of the masters of snark here, appealing to the same satirically absurdist streak within many of us who likewise enjoy Monty Python, Mel Brooks, Terry Pratchett, Carl Hiaasen, Christopher Moore, Tom Sharpe et alii.

      You don't have to "get it," but railing against it and pushing some sort of equivalence between this and FOX? That's as effective as standing in a bowl of treacle going "SQWAK SQWAK SQWAK!"

      Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

      by angry marmot on Sat May 17, 2014 at 05:00:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope, I don't have to get it (0+ / 0-)

        and my objection wasn't to his opinion or even the writing.  My objection was simply to the DK publishing that writing without some kind of header or disclaimer stating exactly what the article was.  But calling it "snark" or "metaphor" or anything else instead of saying that it's opinion (humorous) but opinion is word play.  The DK published it.  The DK made no mention that it wasn't journalism.  That just means that I, and others like me, will be a whole lot less likely to treat anything else coming from the DK as reliable or journalism in the future.   .  That should only matter if the DK had any illusions of being a journalistic entity.

        •  Your concerns... (5+ / 0-)

          will be given all due consideration.

          Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

          by angry marmot on Sat May 17, 2014 at 05:45:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What I'm not sure of is why DK (not the DK) (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DLWinMI, angry marmot, rocksout, JG in MD

          should have any illusions of being a "journalistic entity", or indeed why you would think that it was. I don't think Kos ever said it was. It's a site dedicated to electing more and better democrats, not a news site. As such, most of the diaries here are opinion pieces, not reporting.

          Many of us may come here for news in addition to opinion, but that's not from the diaries themselves, but from the links that many of them are based upon. Over the course of a day, an incredible number of different topics are discussed, and back referenced to current news.

          If you want reliable journalism, there are a whole raft of sites to choose from. If you read enough of them, you may even get some consensus as to what "the news" is for a given day.

          At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

          by serendipityisabitch on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:49:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Flying spagetti monster (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      serendipityisabitch

      Pastafarian's know that the only true deity is the flying spaghetti monster

      Nothing wrong with Reductio ad absurdum

  •  ...to Montana soon, gonna be dental floss tycoon (13+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Fri May 16, 2014 at 12:50:54 PM PDT

  •  Teach the f'ing controversy! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    angry marmot, dougymi

    If you take the square root of negative shit and square it, does shit get real?  Maybe there's more than one opinion!

    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

    by ivorybill on Fri May 16, 2014 at 01:16:24 PM PDT

  •  Daines is no fool (6+ / 0-)

    I don't really believe that he supports creationism or ID in schools.

    I think his comments are another example of the cult mindset of the right. It's similar to what Krugman wrote regarding climate science. If a person wants to be a successful Republican there are certain things they have to go along with: guns of all kinds belong everywhere, climate science is a vast conspiracy, the free market is always the answer, tax cuts are always the answer, abortion should be illegal, and evolution is just a theory on par with creation theory. If a Republican doesn't tow the line on all of these issues they are excommunicated from the party. They are branded a RINO. There is absolutely no room for moderation in the Republican party. Daines is just towing the line.

    •  Nicely said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SuWho

      And taking the concept of "cult mindset of the right", I would add that the cult is primarily right-wing conservative Christian, folks who have been taught to think of those who disagree as heretics, blasphemers, and false prophets.

      Those who disagree with the cult are cut-off and shunned.

      When you say "If a Republican doesn't tow the line on all of these issues they are excommunicated from the party," not only do I think you are speaking the truth, I think the consequences of that truth runs deeper than many non-Christians even realize.

      In days gonie by, folks who had committed serious crimes against society were sometimes given a choice of death or banishment.  Many chose death, because they viewed it as a "lesser sentence."  Food for thought.

      “Now folks, by going on that web show, Barack Obama undermined the authority of the presidency. And that is Fox News' job.” - Stephen Colbert

      by Older and Wiser Now on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:13:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, let's teach debunked myths as truths... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hamtree
  •  There's something to be said for space turtles, (3+ / 0-)

    you know, especially supporting four elephants and this silly disk on top. It's really hard to keep to narrowmindedness after you get hooked on Terry Pratchett. So by all means, let's teach space turtles. Just not in the science curriculum.

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:31:20 PM PDT

  •  Go ahead (0+ / 0-)

    I would allow it only if it were taught from the Muslim viewpoint. Not likely to happen in Looneytuneville.

  •  The noxious mixing of Church... and School! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    The whole POINT of education can only be lost where part of the curriculum is to teach that Jesus played with dinosaurs.

    ÆL

  •  Was talking to someone out there last night..... (0+ / 0-)

    For a Tea Party Member, and they ALL don't think alike, this guy hates Obama, hates organized Religion; feels it would be good to have healthcare for everyone, yet is the most obstinate, stubborn, Conservative I have ever had the misfortune to have as a friend.  I try to talk anything BUT politics with him; but it always tends to come up.  I need to go back to bed now, and rest from all of his thought provoking lunacy.  

    And on this one, we have Creationism.  It takes all kinds to make up a Tea Party.

  •  I just donated (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell

    to his opponent John Walsh, of course.

    Censorship is rogue government.

    by scott5js on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:13:52 AM PDT

  •  just stick with chemistry. (0+ / 0-)

    it's more fun, and stinkier.

    TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes? -- Addington's Perpwalk.

    by greenbird on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:17:54 AM PDT

  •  I have not seen the tradition of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VeggiElaine

    allegory discussed here.   Surely the diarist understands that the Turtle Island story is an allegory, and not a threat to scientific perceptions.  Why was that turtle conception dropped into this diary?

  •  Sounds like someone doesn't want to be primaried (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    Rep. Steve Daines is clearly trying to skate between Tea Party Far Rightists ("Only GOD'S WURD can be tawt in skools!!") and the Republican establishment ("Can we please tone down the stupid by a smidge? Like 10%? We'll settle for 5%. Hell, 2% is better than nothing...")

    This is the only kind of civil war I like: completely bloodless with GOP-ers losing and getting humiliated in the process.

  •  If those who favor teaching creationism in public (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SuWho

    schools, particularly as science or even as a theory, need to consider enrolling their kids in a christian school. There are plenty of religious schools and private schools most everywhere across the country.

    I noticed with the bad weather this winter...all of these school closings happening frequently. So one day, I took notice of the names of the schools scrolling on my tv screen.  And most of the areas around here are small towns, rural regions, and one or two small cities....and there were so many parochial schools iisted.
    It was mind boggling how many evangelical christian schools there are in my region, how many catholic schools there are , how many private schools there are..  I did not realize that in every small town, there is usually at least one christian school of some sort..even a small one.

    So if parents wish for more religion in the public schools, always wanting prayer back in schools, more christian subjects taught......enroll their kids in a private school then.
    Pay the tuition or apply for a scholarship at these christian schools and just get their kids out of public school. But No, they want public schools to operate like christian evangelical schools. To me, that is being Cheap....they call Liberals Cheap. well they need to put their money into private schools and quit telling public schools what to teach.

    Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

    by wishingwell on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:38:20 AM PDT

  •  He has two constituencies (5+ / 0-)

    Money Republicans and Bubba Republicans. Bubba Republicans believe Jesus rode dinosaurs. Money Repubicans want their kids to go to college and become professionals like their parents. They can't all afford to send their kids to private schools, but they live in well-off areas with good public schools. They don't want state-wide initiatives to Bubbaize all the public schools. But they don't care what happens in the schools in the Bubba areas.

    Hence "I think those kinds of decisions should be decided at the local school board leve.l" In other words, "Money Republicans, I won't interfere with your kids' college prep education. You can send me your campaign contributions without worrying whether Junior's SAT scores will be lowered. And Bubba Republicans, I've got your back: you can tell your local schools to teach that Jesus rode dinosaurs, and I'll support you."

    He needs both constituencies: the Money Republicans for money, and the Bubba Republicans for votes.

    American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

    by atana on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:40:28 AM PDT

  •  What else would we expect.... (0+ / 0-)

    from a "hayseed."

    The South has been devastated by decades of brainwash propaganda and lack of education.

    If you like bicycles, check out the newest and coolest products at my site, "ZiggyboyBullet.com." You can also find my products at e-Bay under the name, "Ziggyboy." See all the products on my "See seller's other items" link.

    by JohnnieZ on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:46:58 AM PDT

  •  In some respects, I wouldn't oppose (4+ / 0-)

    the inclusion of Creationism in Science classes. It's really a matter of context. After all, we discuss the Ptolemaic model of the solar system and then use critical thinking, as the Representative suggests, to show that the model is incorrect. I remember also learning about early thinking regarding combustion. Phlogiston, anyone? So, by all means, let us discuss the implications of Creationism.

    Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans, and Eve was created from Adam's rib. All humans are descended from those 2 individuals. Can anyone explain genetic diversity from that hypothesis? If Eve was created from Adam's rib, does that mean Eve was Adam's twin sister? Does this story mean that cloning humans is actually a good thing and does it mean that incest is OK?

    I mean, if the Representative is sincere, let's get into it, but let's turn the piercing searchlight of logic and science onto Creationism. Explaining why a theory is wrong and internally inconsistent is actually a great way to teach Science. Let's go!

    Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

    by Anne Elk on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:49:13 AM PDT

  •  I can handle Daines' request. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VeggiElaine

    This is science, which is based upon observing reality, creating theories to explain how nature works, and testing those theories.  Any theory which fails the test is deemed to be wrong, and all scientists are urged to test whatever results other scientists get to verify the accuracy of one another's tests.  Science has come up with the theory called evolution, and later we'll talk about that theory and the tests which have verified it.

    This is religion, which is based mostly on inferences a few people have drawn from their personal experiences and managed to get written into a book considered holy.  The book generally, and more emphatically many of the people who teach it, tell people not to question anything in it.  Most of the ideas expressed in it cannot be tested anyway, along with a few details which are still in question.

    Creationism comes from an interpretation of some conservatives of a passage at the beginning of one of those books considered holy.  (By the way, nobody knows who wrote that passage.)  To be fair, many people don't follow this way described above of viewing religion in general and the holy book specifically, and in fact most religious people don't believe in creationism.  But the ones who do are very loud and like to make everyone think they express the majority, or at least that their view is the only acceptable one.  In a bit I'll talk about the ways that creationism doesn't match with what we know about nature, until the Daines gets me removed from your classroom.  Oh, and if your dad believes in creationism, Daines says to feel free to either stick your fingers in your ears or start shouting and disrupting the class.  

  •  Science Illiteracy is Literally Killing Us (3+ / 0-)

    I simply can't express my chagrin, consternation, and utter frustration with people who choose to ignore the findings of science.  Perhaps the problem lies with use of the term "theory," which (they seem believe) gives them license to disagree with the science without offering reason-based argument.  Yet in science, a well-confirmed theory like evolution is akin to what the nonscience world calls fact.

    Ignoramuses like Daines, who summarily reject established science, are fueling our inexorable march toward self-extinction.  Last week, the world learned that global warming has reached a tipping point; it is now irreversible.  This is catastrophic news for which we can thank unenlightened, manipulative, greedy politicians like Daines.

  •  ALL religion's creation theories is fine by me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VeggiElaine, DQKennard

    Teach them all. A comparative religions course in high school is  part of a well rounded education.

    But I'm guessing he only wants the one.

    O great creator of being grant us one more hour to perform our art and perfect our lives. ::: Jim Morrison :::

    by Kevanlove on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:57:42 AM PDT

  •  Teaching religion in schools has a place: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly

    It's called World Cultures/Social studies. It doesn't belong in science. It could possibly be part of a debate course. I don't see this diary as bashing all Christians, just the anti-science, wanting to teach religion in science class Christians.
    Heck, I taught religion in home school this year.. as part of World cultures. I taught Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Egyptian, Chinese, Roman, Greek, and ancient Celtic/British cultures this year. Next we're covering Indian/Hindu and Viking/Norse before we move on to general Historical progression.
    Interesting all the similarities you find amongst the various creation beliefs this way, which is probably why the "teach Christian Creationism as Science" people object to it being taught as World Cultures where it belongs.

    I was raised Christian. There are a lot of Christians I respect. Most of those also respect science, or at least understand why Science is taught in Science class and beliefs are taught appropriately as Social Studies.

    "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

    by FloridaSNMOM on Sat May 17, 2014 at 10:18:05 AM PDT

    •  In ancient days when I was in school, we were (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FloridaSNMOM

      taught Greek myths.  I guess the school got away with it because they used the word "myths."  That information was a great way to compare Greek myths with other stories that very likely also were myths (i.e., the world on the back of a giant turtle).  

      When one child brought up the "clearly the world was created in 7 days" theory, our teacher responded with the question, "How long is God's day?"  

      There was a lot more leeway then.

      In Georgia, acting the fool with a gun is not only legal, it is encouraged by the governor and the state legislature.

      by Mayfly on Sat May 17, 2014 at 12:44:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why is it always A or B, what about C? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joegoldstein

    This article implies that there is only two alternatives... Darwinian Evolution and Biblical creation. That is like saying that our only two options are Republicans and Democrats. The reality is that those are the only two parties out there that are discussed by our media and funded by our corporate elections. The system is rigged against other options.

    Regarding the origin of humanity, there are only two general options; we evolved independent on outside influences, or there was an outside influence. Darwinian Evolution teaches that there was no external influence. Biblical Creationism teaches that the external influence was the supernatural hand of god.

    But like in politics where third parties are buried by the establishment, so is the more likely origin of humanity. That there was an external influence, but it was not supernatural. For those that understand biology, archaeology and statistics, there is no evidence (fossil records) to account for the rapid and recent development of homo erectus into homo sapien. That type of change was statistically impossible (i.e. extremely high sigma) from happening naturally.

    Progressive, Independent, Unitarian, Vermonter.

    by Opinionated Ed on Sat May 17, 2014 at 11:35:26 AM PDT

    •  Ed, the universe is statistically impossible. So (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joegoldstein

      am I. It doesn't fly as an argument that there is some undefined "external influence". External to what?

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Sat May 17, 2014 at 12:08:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Alternative C (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Opinionated Ed

      currently, History has "Ancient Aliens" on so here's a nice alternative C: That external force was a race of ancient aliens who made homo sapiens a slave race - do the work so the aliens don't get their hands dirty.

      Works as well as anything. From menials to bigger brains in only a few thousand years. Works for me.

      I reject your reality and substitute my own - Adam Savage

      by woolibaar on Sat May 17, 2014 at 12:25:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  More scholarship is needed (0+ / 0-)

        The show does present an alternative solution, but it is still a lot of speculation. It needs to be mainstreamed and investigated more. Unfortunately is is still labelled as conspiracy theory.

        Progressive, Independent, Unitarian, Vermonter.

        by Opinionated Ed on Sat May 17, 2014 at 01:01:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They're quite sure. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, DQKennard, waterstreet2013

    They're quite sure the Earth is only 6,000 years old; that six days means six 24-hour periods, and that was how long it took for all this Earth/earth thing to come into being. They're quite sure that more guns is the answer. They're quite sure that women would be better off living with an abusive husband than making a good living wage. They're quite sure that things were better when people of a dark skin tone were happy and loving life on the plantation. They're quite sure that women need to be protected from their own decisions and those of their doctors and allow the politicians to decide these body things. And they are certainly more sure that their money is better off on some remote island than here in the United States.

    We liberals will pray for your ignorance to be thwarted.

  •  I would encourage (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    waterstreet2013

    science teachers to simply teach what "theory" means as a scientific concept.

    Evolution holds up to the definition of theory.

    Intelligent Design does not meet the criteria to be considered a theory. It's hogwash, it's a predetermined end full of excuses and bendable logic to support that end.

    That's not a theory - it's fiction.

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. [3][4]

    We've been spelling it wrong all these years. It's actually: PRO-GOP-ANDA

    by Patriot4peace on Sat May 17, 2014 at 05:26:11 PM PDT

  •  Compete w/China by destroying science! WCGW? :) (0+ / 0-)

    After all, mastery of the 'economy of the future' clearly lies in the 5000 year old ramblings of desert wanderers.

    And how dare you suggest otherwise, you commi(scie)ntist.  'Course, when the Chinese land on the moon, these clowns will demand we cut education to 'win the space race!' with huge military expenses, meanwhile killing NextSpace bc Obummer wants it.

    Ah, the genius of the Heartland.

    Smells like manure.

  •  We need a pro-evolution graphic (0+ / 0-)

    that fits well with single-side flyers.

    "The soul is not the body.
    All living bodies evolved from earlier life forms."

    "Bodies die.
    What happens to souls is a matter of Faith."

    We need something that fits elegantly between these two pairs of sentences.

    "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

    by waterstreet2013 on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:08:38 PM PDT

  •  "If only we could keep them out of our government" (0+ / 0-)

    How's that working out?

  •  Where is the scientific evidence? (0+ / 0-)

    I have a question.  With regards to naturalistic origins for life, what is there to believe? Science has absolutely no idea how life began.  None!  They speculate that it did somehow begin spontaneously and without any direction, but there is no evidence to support this speculation.  If they are correct and life did spontaneously begin, they are then confronted with numerous problems.  How did chemicals develop without direction into the complex machines that are living cells?  Again, not one scientist has a clue.  Not only that, but every discovery about the complexity of life presents even more obstacles to the spontaneous development of life.

    I just shake my head in wonder when I see the statement in the article, “There's no way to make a certain segment of our society, by which I mean the stupid segment, understand the difference between science and a belief. There's no way to convince them that something with evidence behind it is far more likely to be true than something with no evidence behind it. It's not just science vs. religion, it's science vs. propaganda, and plain facts vs. ideology, and all the other conflicts that make otherwise supposedly functional Americans get all pudding-brained when the obvious facts are irritating to their "core beliefs," where "core beliefs" are whatever they've cobbled together from watching television or family oral tradition.”

    The real propaganda is being perpetrated by those that would have us believe that science has any idea whatsoever about how life began!

    •  ...well you are actually wrong... (0+ / 0-)

      ...there have been countless experiments in which inorganic molecules are placed in containers that have the atmosphere of billions of years ago. In these containers they create lightning. After weeks, the inorganic molecules start forming organic molecules. This has been done repeatedly showing how this occurs.

      The good thing about science is whether you believe it or not, it's true.

      You should go back to Kolob or visit Xenu...or what ever it is you believe in because you don't believe in science.

      You're in LUCK. Two weeks ago FOX NEWS declared "All science is wrong."

      pfffft...

      Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

      by paradise50 on Sun May 18, 2014 at 09:51:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Somebody, PLEASE! Interview HIS teachers (0+ / 0-)

    Did they try to teach him science? Did he fail? Not pay attention? Did he think he knew better?

    What is his problem and what does it mean for governing.

    Pull him aside and give him a crash course in science, starting with the scientific method.

  •  Just when.... (0+ / 0-)

    ..... you think the GOP have reached the zenith of stupidity, they go and pull another even stupider candidate out of the bat shit crazy RWNJ bag!!

    Rep. Steve Daines - Montana's candidate to enable Montana to be even more stupid than Texas!!

    Yee haaaa!!!!

  •  Where is the proof? (0+ / 0-)

    I have a question.  With regards to naturalistic origins for life, where is the proof?  Science has absolutely no idea how life began.  None!  Supporters of naturalistic origins speculate that life did somehow begin spontaneously and without any direction, but there is no evidence to support this speculation.  We hear about the primordial soup, but where is the evidence?  Sir Francis Crick proposed Panspermia, i.e. aliens planted the seeds of life; is that idea any better?  How about volcano vents at the bottom of the sea?  This is just more speculation.  If atheist scientists are correct and the building blocks of life did form spontaneously, there are then numerous additional problems.  How did chemicals develop without direction into the complex machines that are living cells?  Again, not one scientist has a clue.  Not only that, but every discovery about the complexity of life presents even more obstacles to the spontaneous development of life.

    Are any of these unproven ideas any more or less fantastic that the notion that a loving God created all things?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site