Comments on: Some people can't bear clarity

Some people can't bear clarity

orthogonality — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 04:55:24 -0800

Before the class, Crocker had told me that she was going to teach "the strengths and weaknesses of evolution." Afterward, I asked her whether she was going to discuss the evidence for evolution in another class. She said no.

A "Biology 101" class turns into a gripe session for creationists at a state school, the Northern Virginia Community College. The lecturer then whines about being discriminated against when she fails to teach the subject she's hired to teach.

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 05:06:56 -0800

I'm curious about the experiments she mentions at the top of page 2 — the one with the "primordial soup," and the one with the moths. Sure enough, we did hear about both of those in my bio classes, and if they've been discredited it's news to me. What gives? Does anyone know? I mean, I still believe the evolutionists are on the right track, but that won't stop me from being a little irked if my high school science teacher lied to me.

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 05:12:36 -0800

~~The idea that we were all evolved from other organisms is too coincidental ever to be possible.~~ The idea that a deity created everything on the planet all at once, and that nothing ever comes from anything else is too supernatural ever to be possible. . . . Jokes aside, I'm really tired of the ID crowd. If they want to get in the way of science, they should star their own schools. I don't know, some kind of "private" "church-based" schools. Nah, that could never be possible.

By: eustacescrubb

eustacescrubb — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 05:21:22 -0800

I'm curious about the experiments she mentions at the top of page 2 — the one with the "primordial soup," and the one with the moths. Sure enough, we did hear about both of those in my bio classes, and if they've been discredited Buried in the end of the article is the important info: The Miller-Urey experiment was not intended to be evidence for evolution but part of a research program into how biological mechanisms might arise from nonbiological chemical reactions. As for gluing moths to trees, Gishlick said, researcher Kettlewell affixed the moths to trees to determine how birds spot moths of different hues. The photos were illustrations and never meant to be depictions of real life. In short, Crocker is a liar. She's presenting talking points to her class instead of teaching them science, which is not an ideology, but a process for figuring out how the world works. In long, neither experiment was intended as proof of evolution. If a textbook presents them as such, that's not surprising, since textbooks are notoriously simplistic, but demonstrating that the experiments didn't prove what they did not set out to prove doesn't, er, prove anything. Except that Crocker's pedogogy is, well, a crock.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:08:08 -0800

Wait, so ID people suck at teaching science, and Biologists suck at teaching biblical "truthiness"?

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:15:02 -0800

TFA: It occurred to me as I listened to Dawkins that there is a parallel between the public's fear of selfish genes and the blockbuster science fiction movie "The Matrix," *spits coffee*

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:27:07 -0800

How could anyone think that new books get written because of typos in old books? Don't typographical errors in various editions of the Bible account for several schisms in Christianity?

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:33:52 -0800

Would this be the same Caroline Crocker, highly trained scientest, without a single publicaiton listed in GMU page? She does okay on Rate My Professor More details of her problems at GMU - via an ID proponent website

By: Tullius

Tullius — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:53:45 -0800

It's great how the ID proponents eventually turn to eugenics. Yeah, because some fucktards attempted to derive a a moral code from inferences about nature, and behaved beastly, we should deny those inferences.

By: sour cream

sour cream — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:56:32 -0800

Carolyn Flitcroft, a student in one of the front rows, said: "So far, we have only learned that evolution is true. This is the first time I have ever heard it isn't." In what cave have you been hiding, Carolyn?

By: 445supermag

445supermag — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:58:50 -0800

A theory is a tool. A tool expands your capabilities. Theories don't have to reflect reality to be useful. For instance, no chemist really believes that electrons orbit the nucleus like a minature solar system, yet we are all taught the Bohr model. Why? Because you can calculate a lot of spectrscopic properties with it. As a biochemist (well, a physical chemist studying a biochemical problem), I use evolutionary theory as a tool, ID may be true, but doesn't allow for prediction. I am studying the prion protein, a protein that is expressed by most (all mammals and birds, possibly all vertibrates) animals (even a yeast version has been discovered). In trying to discover the native (non-disease causing) function, I want to find out what amino acids are important. As a first step, I can look at all the different sequences in the database and look for similarities. For instance, amoung placentals, there are a number of amino acid residues that are universally conserved. These must be very important for function. I can now make peptides with mutations at these points and look for a difference in structure, metal binding, etc. Now sure, I could assume an ID designed these sequences. But to match reality, I'd have to assume that the ID would keep sequences the same in related animals (even though the sequence from distant relative would work) and that the ID put in random changes at unimportant points. And that these changes build on one another from simple species to the more complex. And pretty soon, the two theories are the same, just different names and motivations.

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:59:49 -0800

Perhaps part of the problem is that schools are not adequately listing the concepts and approaches they wish for their teaching staff to impart to their students. And so then we get teachers with beliefs that go counter to those intended by the school causing this sort of ruckus, instead of teaching in schools where their views are more positively received. It seems a little sad to say, but maybe schools do in fact need to state in no uncertain terms what their classes should be about before hiring teaching staff.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:01:35 -0800

I know that most of the history teachers lied to me in school, too. I've learned more about Lincoln, the Civil War, the War for Independence, and the Boston Tea Party, lately, on my own, than was ever taught to me in school. Contradictory things.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:02:29 -0800

You know, yesterday I met a nice girl I used to fantasize about in all the dirty 69 ways of possessing her vehemently..then suddendly during an acrobatic position her voice suddendly changed to a low masculine voice "it's ready, come on".... whaaa ? A distinct smell of coffee invaded the scene and suddendly I was half nude behind the bar, for some reason I was fucking with her while she was serving coffee and everybody was smiling or minding their own. Then I woke up..damn it is only a wet dream ! I actually really met the girl exactly the same day, I still like her , yet internally some sentiment mounted in me "damn that little hoar why doesn't she want to fuck with me ? " I later realized this little anger was completely misplaced..I blamed HER for not realizing MY wet dream ? SThe theory of intelligent design holds that while the evolutionary forces of random genetic mutation and natural selection may shape species on a small scale, they cannot account for the kind of large-scale differences between, say, chimpanzees and humans. So some scientist, similarly, have a wet dream of proving that this complexity can't but be explained by the existence of some supernatural omnipotent smart being...YET they blame darwinism and other theories for NOT realizing their wet dream ? Also, there is a clear logical fallacy that is as follows : given that you can not prove your theory to be right and I can poke holes in it, therefore mine must be right by exclusion. They're fantasies..they can have as many as they want, that doesn't make me guilty of not wanting to have anything to do with their illusion or guilty of saying I don't think these theories are based on confirming evidence. Indeed I could have tought the girl really wanted me..and maybe she wants to bang me, yet I can't know that...I must ask her or have somebody ask her or stick sensor on her to gauge her temperaute etc. Now how do I measure, stick sensor and ask God ? Ask some priest ? You gotta be fucking kiddin me.

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:03:07 -0800

Balisong, whoa nellie, don't open up that can of worms on top of the already flame-enticing topic we've already got going here.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:04:02 -0800

OK, sorry... maybe some other time.

By: Roger Dodger

Roger Dodger — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:11:37 -0800

Buried at the end of the article: "Just like they say you can't discriminate against black people, or against gays, maybe they will say you can't discriminate against Darwin-doubters," Crocker told me. She is SO oppressed.

By: sriracha

sriracha — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:11:41 -0800

What I'm dying to know is: does Crocker understand the methodology of the moth experiment? Does she understand that the fact that some moths were glued to trees (in order to take a picture) has nothing to do with the way the experiment was conducted, and in no way invalidates the results? If she doesn't understand the experiment, then she really has no business teaching even intro-level biology (or science of any kind, really). If she does understand the experiment, then she is in fact lying to her class when she presents the 'glue' as evidence of fraud. More info here

By: caddis

caddis — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:13:45 -0800

The articles subheading: "Religious critics of evolution are wrong about its flaws. But are they right that it threatens belief in a loving God? Not according to the Catholic Church.

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:28:28 -0800

Thanks, sriracha. That link was exactly what I was looking for. I will reduce my level of irkment by an appropriate amount.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:29:01 -0800

Don't typographical errors in various editions of the Bible account for several schisms in Christianity? No. Denominational separations arise from differences in interpretation of gray areas, but varous editions of the bible are nominally drawn from pools of early manuscripts in which translational discrepancies are nearly nonexistent. And that's not really connected to "Intelligent" Design silliness.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:34:20 -0800

caddis: uhm not according to the official doctrine allright , but what about Joe Preacher ?

By: bevets

bevets — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:42:27 -0800

Darwinian Thought Police are on the march. Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

By: sohcahtoa

sohcahtoa — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:43:33 -0800

It's fun, for sport, to see her talking points broken down and refuted, but generally I'm quickly bored of reading about these assholes. At one point in time I loved listening to Bob Larsen too. The whole class tale reeks of set-up ... why was the reporter there?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:43:49 -0800

A theory is a tool. A tool expands your capabilities. Theories don't have to reflect reality to be useful. For instance, no chemist really believes that electrons orbit the nucleus like a miniature solar system, yet we are all taught the Bohr model. Only in elementary school, and even then students are told that it's a metaphor, and that electrons actually occupy oddly shaped 'shells'.

By: sohcahtoa

sohcahtoa — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:44:14 -0800

posted by bevets at 10:42 AM EST on February 5 Oh yay.

By: wakko

wakko — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:46:45 -0800

BEVETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A+++++++++ WOULD READ AGAIN

By: caddis

caddis — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:47:42 -0800

Bevets is just a religion bot. Why argue with a machine?

By: 445supermag

445supermag — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:56:36 -0800

Only in elementary school, and even then students are told that it's a metaphor, and that electrons actually occupy oddly shaped 'shells'. posted by delmoi at 7:43 AM PST on February 5 [!] Actually, it is often taught or discussed all the way through graduate level quantum mechanics. And as a model, not a metaphor. And I've got news for you, those shells are also model dependent, you're probably seen pictures where the orbitals are solved for in x,y,z coordinates, but spherical coords can also be used. And the shells are usually the boundaries of the 90% probability area. And those shells were calculated for a "hydrogen-like" atom. Layer upon layer of "metaphor" as you call it, yet these models make useful predictions.

By: A189Nut

A189Nut — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:57:19 -0800

"I gradually came to realize that evolution's advocates and critics are mostly talking about different things. While the controversy over intelligent design is superficially about scientific facts, the real debate is more emotional. Evolution cuts to the heart of the belief that humans have a special place in creation. If all things in the living world exist solely because of evolutionary competition and natural selection, what room is left for the idea that humans are made in God's image or for any morality beyond the naked requirements of survival?" Why gradually? Surely this should be obvious in nation where so many still believe in God, the Devil, Heaven and Hell?

By: A189Nut

A189Nut — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 08:01:28 -0800

Rate My Professer on her

By: slatternus

slatternus — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 08:10:40 -0800

Creationists are stupid. There, I said it. And that my friends, is no "theory".

By: A189Nut

A189Nut — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 08:14:52 -0800

From GMU webpage (archive) Crocker, I. Caroline, Term Assistant Professor of Biology. BS 1979, University of Warwick; MS 1993, University of Birmingham; PhD 1999, University of Southampton. Strange - is she British? A history entirely in UK education back as far as 1979 would suggest so.

By: A189Nut

A189Nut — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 08:20:17 -0800

Here she is on Rate my Professor (spelling right this time) , this time from George Mason

By: nkyad

nkyad — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 08:35:42 -0800

Anyone who chooses not to believe in evolution is ignorant, stupid or insane - Richard Dawkins Yeah, that mostly sums the discussion up. Does anyone have anything else to add? I thought "dishonest", but I realize "stupid" may act as a catch-all for anyone not ignorant of the facts or simply insane.

By: StickyCarpet

StickyCarpet — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:03:18 -0800

Anyone who chooses not to believe in evolution is ignorant, stupid or insane - Richard Dawkins So can someone just come up with a two character emoticon that we can agree says this? Then we can save all these wasted keystrokes.

By: ktoad

ktoad — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:21:47 -0800

My favorite part: I went up to this last student after the class. She initially agreed to be identified, but moments later, remembering what Crocker had said about the scientific establishment's intolerance of dissent, she begged me not to publish her name. The fear on her face was palpable. She wanted to be a veterinarian and was convinced that dream would be smashed if powerful scientists learned she had dared to question evolution. Bwahahaha! Yes, that powerful, secret cabal of scientists is going meet under cloak of darkness and use their influence to keep you from becoming a veterinarian, all because of a comment you made when you were a student. This whole "news article" is mind-boggling.

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:22:11 -0800

So can someone just come up with a two character emoticon that we can agree says this? Then we can save all these wasted keystrokes. I don't know about emoticons, but how about a brain in a jar? I figure if you're going to deny everything we know about history, biology, geology and physics you might as well believe you're a brain in a jar created last Thursday by Marmaduke.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:30:19 -0800

"Just like they say you can't discriminate against black people, or against gays, maybe they will say you can't discriminate against Darwin-doubters," Crocker told me. She tipped her hand here. "Just like they say you can't discriminate..." has the wrong pronouns to share this sentiment and shows a sophisticated stealth victimology at work.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:30:21 -0800

The root of the problem is simply this: we are too tolerant of stupidity in this society.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:34:25 -0800

brain in a jar: ([#_]

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:37:21 -0800



 |-----|
/&nbsp  &deg   |  °  &deg |
|°brain |
|_______|

By: newfers

newfers — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:37:38 -0800

fff, wow, you got it abolutely right, and said it far better than I would have been able to. We are too tolerant of stupidity in this society. Bravo!

By: papakwanz

papakwanz — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:39:03 -0800

How did this woman ever get a job without a single publication? I mean seriously, even adjuncts usually have SOMETHING. And how did she get out of school with a PhD and no publication? For all you science grad students/professionals out there: Isn't it pretty common practice while a graduate student to get your name on at least a couple articles as part of a research team?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:40:08 -0800


  |----|
 /   °  |     °  |
|°brain °|
|________|

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:40:24 -0800

Well, close enough. You get the idea.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:41:06 -0800

The jar mutated over time.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:43:38 -0800

That Rate My Professor thing was fascinating. eg: Awesome teacher helpfull web site ///Strongly recommend for med. students//// If you do all the asighnments you will pass !!!!!! Do med. students in the US usually spell like this? Can anyone be a med. student there if they have the money?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:50:03 -0800

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

By: papakwanz

papakwanz — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:51:37 -0800

Peter: I used to tutor pre-med students on the verbal and writing sections of the MCAT (standardized admissions test for medical schools), so to answer your questions... 1) a lot of them do 2) kinda, yeah.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:14:41 -0800

Thanks, papakwanz. Because such a large proportion of tuition in the UK is paid for by the state, we ration by ability it's really just the best of the best who manage to get accepted to med schools. Spelling like that among prospective candidates would be pretty well unthinkable. Of course, spelling is no guarantee that a person is smart, but I have to say I'd be a bit worried if I thought that the surgeon who was about to replace my heart valves couldn't spell 'assignments'.

By: papakwanz

papakwanz — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:24:41 -0800

I had a weird experience working with the pre-med students. They were all very "smart," no doubt about it. They knew biology, chemistry, physics... all very complex stuff and a lot of information. Some were better than others, of course, but they were all intelligent in that sense. What I found was that the majority of them weren't very creative or imaginative, and most of them didn't really seem to be all that interested in what they were supposed to be going to school for, and certainly not interested at all in anything that they didn't think was directly involved in "being a doctor." I wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of them were ID proponents, too. They were the kind of kids who would do what they were told: "Be a doctor!" OK Dad. "Evolution is false!" OK Pastor. Before MeFite medicals jump all over me, I'm just relating an anecdote here about a group of maybe 100-150 medical students. Not trying to extrapolate my experience, or my potentially incorrect interpretation of that experience, to all med students.

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:30:13 -0800

([#_] I like it! Simple and iconic. I'm gonna use it!

By: borkingchikapa

borkingchikapa — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:49:07 -0800

Did anyone else notice that all the RateMyProfessor comments mentioning her stance on ID are from today?

By: Dr No

Dr No — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:51:33 -0800

If anyone is interested this is a pretty good site for info supporting evolution. The link points to an article describing fossil records.

By: MonkeySaltedNuts

MonkeySaltedNuts — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:51:45 -0800

Try asking a creationist this question: "if species don't descend from ancestor species but are individually created, then why were all the 40 current species of kangaroos only created in the Austrailia region?" I have yet to find one who doesn't change the subject.

By: arialblack

arialblack — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:53:02 -0800

Faint of Butt: You may have been thinking of this Rimmer: Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, Lister. I never agreed with my parent's religion, but I wouldn't dream of knocking it. Lister: What were they? Rimmer: Seventh day advent hoppists. They believed that every Sunday should be spent hopping. They would hop to church, hop through the service, then hop back home again. Lister: What was the idea behind that, then? Rimmer: Well you see, they took the Bible literally. Adam and Eve; the snake and the apple... Took it word for word. Unfortunately, their version had a misprint. It was all based on 1 Corinthians 13, where it says, "Faith, hop and charity, and the greatest of these is hop." So that's what they did. Every seventh day. I tell you, Sunday lunchtimes were a nightmare. Hopping round the table, serving soup - we all had to wear sou'esters and asbestos underpants.

By: rawfishy

rawfishy — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:02:01 -0800

[#~] Brain in Jar with 'evolved' spinal cord...?

By: rawfishy

rawfishy — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:05:31 -0800

|[#~] forgot to put the lid on.

By: A189Nut

A189Nut — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:07:59 -0800

@~ Ass monkey

By: Slarty Bartfast

Slarty Bartfast — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:09:45 -0800

We are too tolerant of stupidity in this society. I think ID got its foot hold precisely because scientists are eager to gobble up, evaluate, and take seriously a diversity of opinion. A good scientist tries to approach a problem with out any preconceived bias; sometimes, in an effort to be unbiased, he or she must consciously ignore their initial reaction that something seems patently absurd. I think this is what has allowed ID to gain a lot more momentum in the popular media than it surely deserves. My initial response to ID was that it sounds crazy, but there must be some heavyweight intellectual scholars who have something interesting to say about it, otherwise why would it be debated on school boards or in newspapers like the Washington Post? Like any good scientist, I was ready to listen. However, there don't seem to be any intellectual heavyweights behind this. There is no secret scientific cabal holding these people back. Richard Dawkins himself was a pariah in the 70s and 80s because of his controversial ideas. However, he persisted, he wrote pursuasively, and his ideas held intellectual water and people respect him now. But whenever ID proponents want to argue, they trot out someone like Dr. Crocker. A medline search of I. Caroline Crocker reveals no publications (unless she uses a different name for her scientific publications). GMU is basically a community college. And she couldn't even hold her job there. I'm sorry, but if you want as revolutionary a concept as Intelligent Design accepted enough by the mainstream as to be included in a high school science curriculum (arguably the highest standard of mainstream scientific acceptance) don't be surprise or feel persecuted when the science establishment tells you to go work the kinks out of your theory and come back for a real debate in a few years. And I can't believe that I am still interested enough in this debate to write a post this long addressing the lunacy of ID.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:14:27 -0800

is "evolutionism" a real word?

By: TedW

TedW — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:14:47 -0800

Before MeFite medicals jump all over me, I'm just relating an anecdote here about a group of maybe 100-150 medical students. Not trying to extrapolate my experience, or my potentially incorrect interpretation of that experience, to all med students. Speaking as a faculty member at a med school, I am afraid you are right. The education system in this country is set up to promote compliance and conformity and minimize disruption; to create good factory workers and cubicle drones. The amazingly high rate of presciptions for ADD/ADHD is good evidence of this. I mainly work with residents and one of the most difficult tasks I face is getting them to adapt to the unexpected or to stand up to surgeons or nurses with more seniority when it is in the patient's best interest to do so. That is not to say there aren't those who rise above the pressure to conform, but the majority have to be prodded to do so.

By: bugmuncher

bugmuncher — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:41:26 -0800

From the article, quoting Leshner, who is against ID: "For all I know, there was an intelligent designer, but science can't answer the question," Leshner told the students." I think if more public school science teachers were willing to make a statement such as this, there would be no ID curricula, and no need for an ID debate. I think it is a distinct, loud minority of adherents to any religion that would want their religion's creation stories taught in a U.S. public school as fact. To extrapolate from Leshner's quote, he could just as easily be saying, "Yes, it is possible that your god is creator of the universe, but science can't answer that question." Acknowledgement of possibility ouside the explanation of science would satisfy most religious people, myself included. But then, I tend to be more rational than emotional.

By: A189Nut

A189Nut — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:52:30 -0800

Bit harsh to call GMU a community college!

By: stenseng

stenseng — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:58:44 -0800

To extrapolate from Leshner's quote, he could just as easily be saying, "Yes, it is possible that your god is creator of the universe, but science can't answer that question." Acknowledgement of possibility ouside the explanation of science would satisfy most religious people, myself included. But then, I tend to be more rational than emotional. Problem is, they don't. You give the ID nutjobs an inch, and they take a mile. Best course of action is immediate and consistent ridicule.

By: duck

duck — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 13:29:12 -0800

Caddis: Not according to the Catholic Church. Elpapacito: uhm not according to the official doctrine allright , but what about Joe Preacher ? I've never encountered a Catholic Joe Preacher (or catholic of any sort) who didn't believe in evolution (that I know of -- I mean I don't run around questioning people about whether or not they believe in evolution any more than I run around questioning people to find out if they believe in trees). I went to Catholic school for 15 years. I learned about evolution, and was taught a proper scientific understanding of the word "theory". I was well into adulthood and out of undergrad before I found out that there people out there who seriously didn't believe in evolution. This ID business isn't a Catholic thing.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 13:31:55 -0800

Best course of action is immediate and consistent ridicule. That and a boot to the head.

By: 445supermag

445supermag — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 13:57:13 -0800

That and a boot to the head. And one more for Jenny and the wimp.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 14:30:46 -0800

ID FAQ

By: squarehead

squarehead — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 15:31:40 -0800

fff, wow, you got it abolutely right, and said it far better than I would have been able to. We are too tolerant of stupidity in this society. Bravo! posted by newfers at 12:37 PM EST on February 5 [!] WATTOSITS!

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 16:16:30 -0800

bevets writes "posted by bevets at 10:42 AM EST on February 5 [!]" WATTOSITP

By: beth

beth — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 16:47:54 -0800

On one level this stuff is so laughable, but on another level it is deadly serious. We live in a society that enjoys the many fruits that scientific endeavor have given us - including advances in engineering, medicine, food production, etc, yet increasingly we see the voices challenging science itself gaining in volume, exposure, and credence with the public. This cannot go on forever. Sometimes I get sad and I think that I have grown up in a sort of golden age that is now passing away. I get sad, and I also get pissed. The Truth is supposed to win, dammit. And I have a young child, and she deserves better. I am probably going to have to teach her about science myself (we live in Texas, ugh).

By: jb

jb — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:43:29 -0800

Did anyone else notice that all the RateMyProfessor comments mentioning her stance on ID are from today? posted by borkingchikapa at 10:49 AM PST on February 5 [!] Yes. Ratemyprofessor is laughably easy to scam. Anyone can rate any professor, regardless of whether they have been taught by them or not. Anyone who uses it seriously is very, very naive. Personally, I just use to give myself chilli peppers.

By: bevets

bevets — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 19:27:43 -0800

mcsweetie is "evolutionism" a real word? yes

By: duck

duck — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 19:35:21 -0800

jb: Yes. Ratemyprofessor is laughably easy to scam. Anyone can rate any professor, regardless of whether they have been taught by them or not. Anyone who uses it seriously is very, very naive. Personally, I just use to give myself chilli peppers. That's a real coincidence. I also use ratemyprofessor just to give jb chili peppers.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:56:36 -0800

So, bevets, are tinfoil hats really an effective way to block out God? If so, seems like he's not a very effective, you know, deity and everything. /feeding the troll, because that stock line of bevet's has always struck me as odd

By: jenovus

jenovus — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:37:49 -0800

|[#,,.]

By: jenovus

jenovus — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:39:48 -0800

|[G,,.] I think I like this one better, though. It's hard to represent "brain in jar."

By: jb

jb — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:28:38 -0800

That's a real coincidence. I also use ratemyprofessor just to give jb chili peppers. posted by duck at 7:35 PM PST on February 5 [!] Then why don't I have more chilli peppers? The only one there is from my husband. (In the end, it felt just a little too arrogant to give myself a chilli pepper. So I told him to.) Are you on there? I'll give you chilli peppers, too.

By: verstegan

verstegan — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:00:36 -0800

I'll give you a chilli pepper, jb -- but I'm afraid you might think I was stalking you .. (Did you ever get my e-mail, by the way?)