It would be a great benefit to teach actual science in science class, and this would leave evolution out as it is scientifically disproved. Perhaps one day it will be taught in a history class discussing ridiculous things that people used to believe.
36 comments
""It would be a great benefit to teach actual science in science class, and this would leave evolution out as it is scientifically disproved."
I must have missed that article. What scientific journal was it in again?
"Perhaps one day it will be taught in a history class discussing ridiculous things that people used to believe."
I thought that's what theology classes were for.
Talisman,
I never would have thought of that. It's a cute idea, but frankly I'm too lazy to bother.
Besides, someone else came up with that name, and I can't recall who; I've just been running with it, since it seemed the perfect description for the foundation of a lot of fundie attitudes and strategies.
~David D.G.
Having been raised fundy, the amount of self deception fundies employ is frightening, especially when it comes to evolution and scientific evidence. As I had to endure this for years, I am not in the least tempted to feel sorry for these fools and their fantasy world. They are ignorant and dangerous, and they posses considerable political clout.
Blurb: "I've said it before and I'll say it again; THESE PEOPLE VOTE!"
Not only do they vote, they're the morons who elected Dubya and are likely his last remaining supporters.
I find it funny that these people don't believe in evolution seeing as they put a living example of a missing link in the White House.
"scientifically disproved" has been redefined to mean "disagrees with my preconcieved ideology."
I googled "Fundie Word Redefinition Project" (in quotes), and only found references on this site. So unless someone else came up with it independently before me on this site or others, I have to take the credit, at least a little, maybe, perhaps. (Not that I'm modest.)
http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=10348
(I'm a writer who's never published a single work, so I'm not really used to taking credit for anything!)
<<I find it funny that these people don't believe in evolution seeing as they put a living example of a missing link in the White House.>>
Actually, I think the Chimperor is missing quite a few links...
The best thing about this LJ is that no one reads it. heh
It gives me hope to see so few people on LJ give a crap about this community.
Especially with such poorly constructed arguments as the one guy's flagellum rebuttal. It sounded to promising until you realize, by the end, that he's not rebutted anything... only shown his own ignorance. (yes, the flagellum motor couldn't function if reduced in components by/to 40%, but _if it evolved from the original construct in the first place_, as was surmised, which does not have the same 40% reducibility issue, then that not only scores one for evolution, it also knock Behe's argument in the gutter by making it moot and irrelevant.)
The best thing about this LJ is that no one reads it. heh
It gives me hope to see so few people on LJ give a crap about this community.
Especially with such poorly constructed arguments as the one guy's flagellum rebuttal. It sounded to promising until you realize, by the end, that he's not rebutted anything... only shown his own ignorance. (yes, the flagellum motor couldn't function if reduced in components by/to 40%, but _if it evolved from the original construct in the first place_, as was surmised, which does not have the same 40% reducibility issue, then that not only scores one for evolution, it also knock Behe's argument in the gutter by making it moot and irrelevant.)
The best thing about this LJ is that no one reads it. heh
It gives me hope to see so few people on LJ give a crap about this community.
Especially with such poorly constructed arguments as the one guy's flagellum rebuttal. It sounded to promising until you realize, by the end, that he's not rebutted anything... only shown his own ignorance. (yes, the flagellum motor couldn't function if reduced in components by/to 40%, but _if it evolved from the original construct in the first place_, as was surmised, which does not have the same 40% reducibility issue, then that not only scores one for evolution, it also knock Behe's argument in the gutter by making it moot and irrelevant.)
"Scientifically disproved"? Do you even know what science IS?!?
Of course, if you mean "not in the Bible", please give me chapter and verse for a few things :
a) DNA
b) black holes
c) the combustion engine
d) transistors
Come on, I'm waiting...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.