I’m Broadway-bound in an hour or two, but I can’t let this stay in my head. Like a lung-full of phlegm, it has to be expelled:
The field split on another issue, with Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raising their hands when asked who did not believe in evolution.
Should this disqualify those guys for the Presidency? Nah - nobody should be disqualified for their faith. Not unless they’re members of some church that worships bacon bits or hamsters or Ryan Seacrest or something like that - we have to be rational, after all, and limit our tolerance to faiths based on magic superheroes who can’t ever be killed, really, and the cryptic ancient texts that describe their adventures. Once we start opening the door to belief systems that don’t involve science or gigantic supernatural unknowable beings (be they men or lobsters), things could get messy.
But at the very least we should take the raised hands of Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo as persuasive evidence of dumbassery. Plenty of responsible, intelligent Christian men and women have figured out how to have a worldview that includes both their faith and the overwhelming evidence for evolution. I’m sure there are even some Seacrestians or Hamsterites out there who’ve managed to pull off this trick.
Do I have something interesting or funny to say about this? Apparently not. But it’s worth reminding ourselves - we’re living in a country where an atheist can’t even get near the podium in a Presidential debate, while these three unwise men can blithely hop onto the national stage and tell children that science just doesn’t work.
… and then they’ll start talking about education, and their plan to help America’s children get back the smarts and that old-fashioned quality book-learnin’ that somehow - mysteriouly, almost supernaturally- seems to have disappeared.
God help us.





58 comments
It's Pat!
May 4, 2007 at 8:15 am
1Well have fun at the play, we’ll handle the evolution thingie.
I think these guys know they haven’t a snowball’s chance in hell of actually being president, and are running for the vice president. As soon as they raised their hands they were showing their cards, as it were.
Actually, the more I hear from the Repubs, the more they sound like Democrats of the 70’s and 80’s - sort of trapped in the fishbowl of issues that the majority of the country is sick of hearing. That doesn’t mean to say that the Democrats are saying the correct things now - education, environment, health care and business reform are the issues I am interested in. I am not interested in whether a woodpecker’s bill is proof of the infallibility of the Bible.
piglet
May 4, 2007 at 8:35 am
2“Dumbassery.”
I like it.
lurker dave
May 4, 2007 at 11:07 am
3Do you know if they the evelution deniers were asked this follow up question: Do you believe in the Judeo-Christian creation myth or are they Pastafarians?
I accept and acknowledg your great lobster but His Noodly Greatness has called me.
RAmen
Steve
May 4, 2007 at 12:01 pm
4Such is the power of myth and self-delusion.
Pull the wool over your own eyes.
Ann
May 4, 2007 at 12:34 pm
5Hey, it’s true that I could have baked this cake without using magic, but that doesn’t mean I did!
SpottedDog
May 4, 2007 at 1:27 pm
6One is a senator, another a governor, and the third is a representative. They’ve gotten that far. I don’t believe there is any reason to think they are dumbasses. I think it means that they don’t know much about evolution, which in turn means that they have alot in common with the average American citizen. I doubt that the average American could logically explain why they believe in evolution. Most people probably believe in it because they have been told that it is true, not because they understand it. In other words people have been given the answer, are familiar with the answer, and will repeat it when prompted. In this light, I don’t think that it is so shocking to hear people say that they believe in creationism. They have been given the answer, are familiar with the answer, and will repeat it when prompted.
I also don’t think that a belief in creationism necessarily indicates a lack of knowledge about science. For example, I don’t see any reason why someone who is knowledgeable about nuclear energy would need to know anything about biology.
gillian
May 4, 2007 at 1:53 pm
7Lately, I’ve felt drawn to the services at the Untied Dyslexic Church of Dog down the street, but their hymns all sound like cacophonous howlings at the full moon. Obviously there’s not much happening in upstate Vermont during the mud and black fly season. I just wish we could get more than three TV stations with these cheap Radio Shack rabbit ears.
Ann
May 4, 2007 at 2:03 pm
8SD, I respectfully disagree with you. People don’t believe in evolution, the way that someone might believe in Santa Claus, Jehovah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster: they believe that the theory of evolution is sound.
And if they do believe that it’s sound, it’s because they’ve learned something about it in school or read about it, and could probably provide a rough explanation.
And yes, a belief in creationism does indicate a lack of knowledge about science, because science is a process of systematic observations and experiments—a way of analyzing—not just knowledge about some particular field. Creationism is the opposite of science.
However, it’s true that a nuclear technician might not know anything about biology.
Finally, being a dumbass is not particularly inconsistent with having a lot in common with the average American citizen. Remember, half of the population is below average in intelligence! So perhaps I should revise that: You can be a dumbass and still have a lot in common with half of all citizens.
Kjell Mikkelsen
May 4, 2007 at 2:05 pm
9Aften dum Norgies mene “evolution”!
gillian
May 4, 2007 at 5:20 pm
10Today the first hour of Science Friday was about Global Warming. Maybe this helped to inspire Ira to do yet another fine program on this topic. At least I get good NPR reception here, even if the TV sucks.
BTW, It’s Pat!, when are you going to get around to teaching your boyfriend some English?
Dale
May 4, 2007 at 8:15 pm
11I can think of no more compelling refutation to the theory of intelligent design than the current crop of Republican presidential candidates.
SeattleTammy
May 4, 2007 at 9:29 pm
12Kjell (pronounced sh-ell, y’all), I’m getting worried, I’m starting to understand you! But then, I just spent all yesterday with 4 Swedish authors. The Swedish Cultural Society was a trip, but luckily, they have an open bar!
God kväll!
RGere
May 5, 2007 at 4:48 am
13Mr. Felber, you didn’t mention the worship of gerbils. Gerbils, inside certain body cavities, came be a truly religious experience.
historyenne
May 5, 2007 at 6:58 am
14I’ll never forget the day that the class cretin (or, more accurately, one of the class cretins) in my freshman year astronomy class told me that the theory of evolution “can’t be true, because if it was, then naked apes would be walking out of the forest every day.” And yes, that is a quote. He flat out refused to listen when I tried to explain that if he wanted to refute evolution, that was his business, but he should at least take the trouble to understand it first.
In fairness, I’m not certain I completely understand evolution myself, though I get the basic tenets. I suspect that at the core of the average, not-particularly-scientific person’s misunderstanding of the evolutionary theory is the fact that it deals with really really super duper long periods of time. It is hard for people who feel that the eight-hour workday is interminable to get their minds round the concept of hundreds of billions of years. So, unable to grasp the scientific argument, they revert to the gut reaction, which for many people is something not dissimilar to indignation at the idea that humans “came from” apes.
However, I wouldn’t say I “believe” in evolution, because, as Ann pointed out, evolution doesn’t call for belief. It is not a point of faith. Evolutionary biologists don’t ask people to take them at their word, rather they are expected to follow rigorous scientific standards and produce sound evidence in support of their theories. What really gets me is when people who have little knowledge of and less interest in scientific standards feel called upon to pass value judgments on scientists’ work. What makes them think that they know the experts’ jobs better than the experts? What research have they done? Have they even tried to understand the science before they deny it?
Incidentally, there’s a tremendous exhibit at the Field Museum in Chicago on the history of life, from the primordial ooze to modern man. It gives a very comprehensible explanation of evolutionary theory in layman’s terms, complete with fuzzy cartoon creatures. You’ll need at least four hours to get through it all, but it’s soooo worth it, not the least for the massive jawbone of the primeval proto-shark, which will blow you away, I guarantee it.
Harold
May 5, 2007 at 7:58 am
15I do hope that people who are knowledgable about nuclear energy also know a thing or two about biology. The primary objections to nuclear energy have to do with the effects of nuclear radiation on living things.
Cotton Mather
May 5, 2007 at 9:18 am
16Historyenne, doth they likewise hath the selfsame jawbone of the ass that Samson used to smite the Philistines at this exhibit, prithee?
SpottedDog
May 5, 2007 at 9:36 am
17I was about to acknowledge my error for using the phrase “believe in”, but reading it in context I think it may be accurate. I agree with historyenne and Ann that evolution doesn’t call for belief. Part of my main point though, is that I don’t think there is much critical thinking going on for the average American. Hence, saying that they “believe in” evolution may be quite accurate. Afterall, if a person doesn’t really understand the theory, but is going along with it anyway, belief, rather than scientific reasoning is probably a more accurate description of what is going on. I wasn’t originally intending to make that distinction, but looking back I think it makes sense.
Though it is surprising, after reflection it isn’t too hard to understand how a senator and a governor could believe in creationism. With little critical thinking going on in general, and knowing that even less occurs when it comes to religious and spiritual beliefs, it is merely a matter of shifting the line and placing creation or biology within a religious context rather than the more usual secular context to come up with the result we see. This, I think, explains how certain people could be successful and still hold a belief which most people find absurd.
My point, which I have elucidated primarily as an exercise to help myself understand, is that the senator, governor and representative are not necessarily very different from myself.
cooper
May 5, 2007 at 12:44 pm
18Okay, raise your hands up high, everyone who enjoys a good plumbing project. Yeah, me neither.
The drain for the washing machine overflowed recently and, after pouring all manner of solutions and potions down the drain, suspending a crystal pyramid over the drain for 24 hours (the southern Left Coasters will understand and appreciate that one) and running a power auger down the vent on the roof, in the end, it came down to crawling under the house, dismantling the drain pipe and ramming the sludge, the rust and the primordial ooze further down the pipes, sending it on its way to the treatment plant and, eventually, to Mother Ocean. The joys of home ownership. I’ve taken 3 showers since and, I must say, I don’t stink nearly as bad as I did earlier today.
Boomer
May 5, 2007 at 2:21 pm
19This is good fun and should be required viewing for lurkers like waterfowler. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/05/maher-slams-conservatives-who -poison-the-national-debate/
Dirk's Diary
May 5, 2007 at 4:07 pm
205-05-07
Dear Diary,
I can’t believe my good luck. While everyone in DC is holding their collective breaths waiting for the other scandalous shoe to drop, I got the hell out of town and back Idaho for some “official R & D”. I landed in Coeur D’Alene, did a perfunctory Meet & Greet with some of the local swells, yapped into a media microphone for a few minutes, did a quick look-over of the Avista Hydroelectric Dam in Post City (it’s still there), hopped into a government-owned Suburban and left the crowds behind. I pulled into a primitive camping area in the Coeur D’Alene National Forest, slept in the back, and got up before dawn, getting in several hours of primo fly-fishing. I’ve abandoned my quest to become President. I know, I know - it’s why I came back to DC in the first place, to head the Department of Interior (eighth in line of succession to the President), but the plane crash with the President and the next seven in line is just not going to happen. Just as well - what sane person would want the job anyway. Apparently none, noting the current officeholder and the Republican crop on wannabes. It’s going to be down to freezing again tonight, so I’m off to find a better sleeping bag - government issue bags suck, as I found out last night. I’ve got to bring Patricia on my next escape from the looney bin. I fear she’s forgetting her roots and getting caught up in the whole social scene in DC. Today she went to the Kentucky Derby and met the Queen of England - well, got to wave to her from across the room (the greeting was not returned).
I’m being sucked back into the vortex on Monday by some required face time with Bigus Dickus (W’s new nickname for the Veep). Until then, I think I’ll just take a deep breath of pure Ponderosa Pine scented air and watch the stars again tonight.
Ciao, Dirk
SpottedDog
May 5, 2007 at 8:11 pm
21Dear Dirk,
Nice to hear you are back home and enjoying some of the local natural beauty. I am pleased to see you still remember many of the details regarding your home state. Your time away is showing, however. Post City is still officially known as Post Falls. Unless that was a slip. Are there plans afoot which have not yet been made public?
SD
Harold
May 5, 2007 at 8:28 pm
22Err, off-topic, but so what else is new? I’ve got Spike Feresten playing in another room (and taping in still another room), and I just stepped out into the room with the TV, and I thought I heard this guy playing Matthew McConahaugh say the words “another monkey” (the name of my blog) followed by “Hook ‘Em Horns” (a shout-out to the Texas Longhorns that is frequently heard on this site.) I’m gonna have to review that tape…
Rusty
May 6, 2007 at 5:41 am
23I’m slipping out of lurker mode for a slight detour in the topic, but I am struck by the stillness of the religious right in the wake of the Greensburg, KS tornado. Have they not yet discerned this community’s sin that justifies its utter destruction at the hands of a righteous god? I am eager to know what it was, myself, and who better to weed out transgressions, cast stones, and utter disparagements than the religious right? Funny how it did not take them long to understand the connection between wickedness and Hurricane Katrina.
“Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city,” stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. “From ‘Girls Gone Wild’ to ‘Southern Decadence,’ New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. From the devastation may a city full of righteousness emerge,” he continued. -Repent America web site
Harold
May 6, 2007 at 5:42 am
24…and I would’ve, too, if I had ACTUALLY SET THE VCR CORRECTLY! Last week I must’ve re-set it to record just for that Saturday, rather than for every saturday. Dammit! Now I’m gonna have to wait for the John C. McGinley episode to rerun, or go through my old tapes to see if I managed to record it previously.
Hot Tub Tommy
May 6, 2007 at 5:13 pm
25Okay, so the investigations around the Abramoff scandal seem to be getting a second wind. I’m not worried - really. The secret is to get the slimiest and most repugnant barracuda on the face of the earth and keep pushing money down his throat. I’ve been able to do both and, in the end, it will all pay off big time, with Christine and I walking away doing zero jail time and having full access to certain “funds” squirreled in the Cayman’s and with our good friends in Abu Dhabi.
From the Houston Chronicle - “Mr. DeLay is eager for the investigation to run its course,” DeLay’s attorney Richard Cullen said Tuesday. “He has been fully cooperative and he remains at peace — confident that he has done nothing wrong.” Nothing that I’ll ever ‘fess up to, anyway. By the way, Richard is a particularly smooth and gifted talker. Who says money can’t buy happiness. No jail time makes me very happy!
Of course, now they’re coming after Christine for that $115,000 she got paid for filing papers and her nails at that lobbying firm funded by Abramoff. Christine has always been a huge Sharon Stone fan and she’s been practicing crossing and uncrossing her legs like Sharon did in that movie. This may come in handy, if she’s ever on the witness stand, but she’ll have to “go commando” or “do a Britney” or whatever it’s called these days when she leaves her panties at home.
I’ve admired Jack Abramoff’s heartless nut-cutting from the get-go, but the boy was just plain sloppy not covering his tracks. So, now he’s in the pokey. I wonder how prison ever got such a ridiculous nickname. I wonder if it had anything to do with getting poked in the shower. Hopefully, I’ll never find out and Christine doesn’t become a lesbo toy for some trustee in the big house.
If you see Lemuel, let me know. He has a number of items that belong to me and some may prove unfortunate, if they ever see the light of day.
Boomer
May 6, 2007 at 5:35 pm
26One can get lost for hours at the YouTube site, but this one shows the DCCC’s slowly developing sense of outrage and humor. Keep working at it, guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uWDfmJVYuM
SeattleTammy
May 6, 2007 at 6:34 pm
27Ann, when I bake a cake, believe me, it’s magic. Nay, it’s witchcraft.
I’m pretty good at baking bread, something I haven’t done in too long a time. And what this has to do with evolution, I don’t know. But I think, by and large, that evolution is good thing. Except when once semi-social-liberal GOP canididates tell me that their views are “evolving”.
SeattleDan
May 6, 2007 at 6:35 pm
28And while I’m sure my lovely wife would agree with me, the above post is mine.
hedera
May 6, 2007 at 7:49 pm
29Rusty, I have to admit I personally concluded that Kansas was flattened by tornadoes because of its persistent refusal to accept the evidence for the evolutionary developments so carefully arranged by the Lobster. As my husband commented, any God can poke at things every day to make them work out, but it takes a Real God to create a set of rules that will work out right over billions of years, and then sit back and watch them develop. My husband isn’t a Lobster fan but I’m sure the Lobster will accept the credit.
It's Pat!
May 7, 2007 at 6:31 am
30Gillian, han er ikke min boyfriend ! Vi er akkurat god venner.
Or whatever that says. I would never date a Norvegian when there are Swedes available. I believe it has something to do with devolution. But that’s a whole ‘nother subject, eh?
Murray
May 7, 2007 at 7:11 am
31Yes, blaming the sins of the victims is convenient when you have an axe to grind on some city. (Just wait till SF has its next big quake). It’s also interesting how the same moralists are quiet when God does his axe grinding on a favored city.
Isn’t it interesting how easy it is to use the Wrath of God to prove what ever point you want?
Evolution.
Let’s get some definitions straight here. Science works on exact definitions, if you don’t agree with the definitions, that’s OK but it is no longer science.
Faith - What you believe in the absence of proof. If you had proof for it, it wouldn’t be faith.
Science - What you believe only with the presence of proof. If you can’t prove it, it’s not science.
Anyone who claims that science is just another faith is not sticking to the definitions. Again, you can do that but don’t call it science.
I’m sure that there is no ONE person on earth who can tell you EXACTLY how your computer works, both hardware and software. Yet we still accept the outcome. On the other hand just because something is complicated doesn’t mean it can’t be explained and proven. Same with Evolution. You don’t have to take it on faith, you can test any part of it you want. (It has always passed the test).
The problem we have is that one small section of Christianity takes one section of the Bible and reads it literally. My guess is that the same people don’t sell their children into slavery, or stone them if they disobey, let alone refrain from eating pork chops or Clam Chowder. They have set the Bible up against science and so because God has to be right, science has to be wrong. The only way you can do this is to stay ignorant about what science is and how it works. Anti-Science as I call it. Or you can stretch for more magic by saying that God created the world to “look” as if it were 4.5 billion years old while actually being only 6006 years old. (Oh and the light coming from the Andromeda Galaxy which is 2 million light years away was also only meant to fool us. God’s such a joker).
It’s not surprising that troglodytes get voted into power, just look at their constituents. There are large swaths of dumbasseryness through out the country.
waterfowler
May 7, 2007 at 10:51 am
32Murray, you seem to be calling the theory, “Science”. I’ll admit my “Faith”, please prove your science.
Boomer, lurked to both. Bill looks a little French also and the dccc forgot all about Diane, Harry, Jefferson, Hillary…
Ann
May 7, 2007 at 11:52 am
33Is WF misunderstanding the meaning of the word theory in the scientific context? Sad, very sad.
nato
May 7, 2007 at 4:15 pm
34Ann,
Have you ever met or heard of a creationist who understood the meaning of the word theory in the scientific context? You are dealing with two mutually exclusive concepts here: Creationism and understanding.
Boomer
May 7, 2007 at 4:59 pm
35wf, Diane and Harry have the gavel now. Get used to it. Jefferson is a crook and is going to be sharing a cell block with Bob Ney, Mark Foley and Jack Abramoff real soon.
Something wrong with Hillary? God told me in a dream to vote for her and I woke up speaking in tongues, so it must be the right thing to do. No science needed there; I have faith. You should have faith, too.
gillian
May 7, 2007 at 5:22 pm
36Pat, yust a good friend? Ja sure.
hedera
May 7, 2007 at 8:09 pm
37And now let’s get back to reality. Kansas was flattened by tornadoes because - tornadoes Happen. Sometimes things just Go Wrong for no obvious reason, and innocent people who have taken every precaution they could think of get flattened in spite of it. I can’t think of a single place to live where the weather, or the geography, or the combination of the two, can’t possibly turn deadly. And if all those threats fail to materialize, there’s always the neighbors. Ask anybody in the Middle East.
This is why the Romans worshiped Fortuna as a goddess; and it’s why some Christians blame disasters on the Wrath of God. It’s much more comforting to believe that there’s a deity out there who will protect you if properly worshiped. It just isn’t true.
And no, WF, I have no scientific evidence for that statement; it’s pure personal opinion.
Donna
May 8, 2007 at 1:57 am
38Wait didn’t these idiots get the memo that Amricans are tired of religious extremist posturing? Maybe they actually believe what they’re saying and aren’t really pandering to the lowest common denominator. Nah, can’t be.
Zee Man
May 8, 2007 at 2:51 am
39hedera, …well reasoned “personal opinion”, I’d say.
Donna, apparently we’re just sick of Islamic extremist posturing. Standing in front of the flag on bended knees and pandering to our god is still de rigeur. Now let’s batten down the hatches and prepare ourself for another harangue from waterfowler - you, for misspelling “American” and me, for using Frenchie-type words.
Murray
May 8, 2007 at 4:41 am
40WF, I’ll repeat this one more time for those who weren’t listening.
Science works on exact definitions. If you change the definition for your own use, that is fine, but it is no longer science.
Theory - Often proven, never disproven hypothesis. A theory stands until it can be disproven.
Creationalist’s own definition of a theory is a guess or hypothesis. It is a word that they use with scorn not knowing how airtight and powerful it is. To them a theory is nothing, or just the beliefs of scientists, not knowing that a theory is something that has withstood the test of time and no theory has had more effort devoted to disproving it than that of Natural Selection. It is also the basis for our understanding of biology on every level including microbiology. Trust me you don’t want a doctor treating your diseases who only believes in original creation.
David
May 8, 2007 at 6:55 am
41Been away in NC for a bit of a while. Got back just in time to say Amen! to Murray’s comment. Science constantly acknowledges current limits, whereas dumbassery clearly has no bounds, but quite a frightful history.
The Clash of the Titans will one day, hopefully sooner rather than later, refer to the National Title Game between the Gators and the Longhorns, Harold (felt sure you’d want me to point that out), with the Gators enjoying generous servings of flank steak, of course.
Mike Z
May 8, 2007 at 9:34 am
42Can’t help but comment on this just a little…
The sense of the word “proof” that is being used here should probably be clarified. Scientific proof consists in establishing the very best explanation for something after we have experimentally eliminated every way we can think of for it to be wrong. Logical / mathematical proof is different because it establishes that it is impossible for the conclusion to be wrong. Conscientious scientists would never claim to have proven anything in the latter sense, but many theories have been proven in the former sense, and evolutionary theory is certainly one of those.
I will leave it to Murray and waterfowler to decide which sense of “proof” they each are using.
waterfowler
May 8, 2007 at 10:49 am
43Murray, the “Creationalists” definition seems to be exactly that of Noah Websters’. Please enlighten me if I should use a different dictionary in order to converse w/ you. The problem I have w/ evolution is that it is taught in public schools as fact. You should have the same objection. Also, science is being completely disregarded in the global warming debate, but that seems to be ok w/ you since it fits nicely into your political/world view.
Ann
May 8, 2007 at 12:10 pm
44Oh Great Lobster! Who could have imagined that Webster’s dictionary is not the proper reference for scientific terminology! Or that a term commonly used in TV shows about crime-solving could have a different meaning in the scientific community! Or that science classes are presenting the findings of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community as if they were valid! No magic! No mystical beings! No turtles!
I may have to lie down for a bit.
Landis
May 8, 2007 at 12:22 pm
45Seriously, the whole argument against evolution rests on ignoring the very clear scientific term ‘theory‘ for a general definition? It just boggles my mind that fundamentalists can’t envision a God powerful enough and ingenious enough to create all these physical laws and set everything in motion.
No, no, no. It’s turtles all the way down.
Harold
May 8, 2007 at 1:16 pm
46Landis, don’t rely on Wikipedia to be the final and/or definitive word on anything. The definition of “scientific theory” may be correct at this moment, but at any time an anti-science vandal (and there are plenty of them) can edit the entry to say whatever they want it to. And even if that change gets reverted, there can always be another vandal waiting in the wings, and another, and another…look at something like the coordinated campaign of bombing the FCC with identical letters following the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” and you’ll realize that coordinated efforts to undermine Wikipedia’s accuracy aren’t that far-fetched.
Waterfowler, shame on you for using the “willful ignorance” argument. I find it hard to believe that you are unaware of the meaning of the word “theory” when used in a scientific context. I see that from conservatrolls all the time, but I expect better from you.
Billy
May 8, 2007 at 3:31 pm
47What I object to is science being taught in public school. I’ve taken my children out of school and my wife teaches them the Lord’s way at home. We’ve also become tax resisters in the last two years for the same reason. Join the fight! Say “No!” to science. Wasting tax dollars in such ways is sinful.
Murray
May 8, 2007 at 5:28 pm
48WF, how should your doctor treat the issue of bacteria and viral mutation to become drug resistant? This is Natural Selection in real time. Should he treat it as a fact or just a “mere theory”.
The science that produced your computer is “mere theory” also. Do you treat it as fact? Come on guy, put up or shut up.
But I’m wasting my breath. God says evolution is wrong. End of story.
Ann
May 8, 2007 at 7:53 pm
49You know what theory really ticks me off? That blasphemous Pythagorean theorem. “A squared plus B squared equals C squared” my ass. How dare they teach mere theories in math class? Get back to us when you’ve proved it, old dead Greek guy. I don’t even think he was Christian.
And don’t get me started on the value of pi.
David
May 8, 2007 at 7:59 pm
50Pie? What kind of pie? It’s damned hard to beat real key lime pie (which can only be prepared at home by someone who knows from key lime pie), although pecan pie is a serious contender.
And remember: Pie are round, cornbread are square.
Jim (OJNTNJ)
May 9, 2007 at 8:14 am
51“Also, science is being completely disregarded in the global warming debate”
*snip*
Waterfowler, I actually agree with this part of your statement. However the folks I think are disregarding the science are probably different from the folks you’re talking about.
nato
May 9, 2007 at 4:25 pm
52Ann (again!?) Personally, gravitational theory is the one that gets me down the most . . .
David
May 10, 2007 at 5:58 am
53If an apple falls in an orchard and no one is there to see it, does gravitational theory still hold? Said theory is, of course, selectively provisional at best, given that it will be superseded for the elect when they rise sans clothing into the sky on that day of days.
Dale
May 10, 2007 at 6:16 am
54That´s why I always try to hang stand near particularly well-dressed Christians who look like they might be my size.
Dale
May 10, 2007 at 6:17 am
55Aarg. That was going to be hang out. Then it was stand. Not hang stand. Why I should not post before noon.
nato
May 10, 2007 at 7:51 am
56That’s okay, Dale. Anyone who has such insight into the amazing world of duck genitalia is allowed the occasional typo.
(Angry) David
May 10, 2007 at 5:10 pm
57I kind of like “hang stand,” Dale. Seems like it might involve a surfboard with special dispensation. And what a way for a gay to rise naked in the sky with the other saved souls.
David
May 10, 2007 at 5:12 pm
58Dammit, that was supposed to be (Not Currently Angry) David.