Arizona Professor Is Being MOBBED By Christian Conservatives For DARING TO SHOW THIS SLIDE In Class

[Segami]

LOL!!.....................................



A biology teacher who describes himself as “an open-minded skeptic” opened a discussion on evolution versus creationism with an image which has sent local Christian Conservatives into a vexatious rage. Arizona State University lecturer Christofer Bang teaches biology and ecology courses, specializing in evolution and plant biology. During a recent class, he provoked the ire of pro-creation students and local community members be presenting this slide as an opening gambit in a debate the relative merits of evolution and creationism. According to reports, Bang began his lecture by showing a slide titled “Evolution vs. Creationism.” The slide featured two cartoons—one depicting Charles Darwin with the words “genetics,” “adaption,” and “natural selection,” along with images of an ape-like creature gradually evolving into a man. The other, a cartoon Jesus creating a man, with the words “zap!” and “magic!” It just so happens that a creationist in his class took issue, snapped a photo of the slide with his camera phone and speedily dispatched it to creationist noise-makers Campus Reform.

“Quite a few students in the lecture hall were bothered by the picture, and it didn’t contribute to the lecture besides adding spite,” the student said.

http://christiannews.net/2014/12/15/arizona-biology-teacher-mocks-jesus-biblical-creation-in-lecture-slide/

Sandy Leander, manager of media relations for ASU’s School of Life Sciences, told Campus Reform that the slide was intended to stimulate discussion about evolution and creation:

“The image you are referring to is on the title page of a PowerPoint and sets the stage for a discussion about the extremes of the public discourse on evolution/creationism,” she stated.

Bang is a perfect poster boy for ‘liberal scum’ from the point of view of pitch fork brigades like Campus Reform, because he has a zero tolerance policy for fairy tales.



Christian News Net decided to scour his twitter feed and claimed that because it “features Tweets mocking pro-life groups, Fox News, and various conservative political figures”, then he could not possibly be an open-minded, skeptical thinker. And well, this entry from his personal blog, where Bang says he tries to cultivate “sound skepticism” in his students – that made them all pretty mad too:

“In my teaching, I try to engage students using examples from familiar surroundings to increase their awareness of nature,” he states. “We are constantly exposed to examples of bad science in media, so by exposing flaws in ‘sciency’ products I try to teach my students sound skepticism and critical thinking.”


https://sites.google.com/site/chbangsite/christofer-bang

cont'

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/22/an-arizona-professor-is-being-mobbed-by-christian-conservatives-for-daring-to-show-this-slide-in-class/

[arcane1]

1. "I try to teach my students sound skepticism and critical thinking"

There's his problem right there. We don't stand for that in 'Merka!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. More power to him! And a pox on all Creationists!

K&R

[GoneOffShore]

3. ^This^

[unblock]

4. believers insist god is everywhere, but they can't see god on the left side of that slide.

of course, i'm a stupid atheist, but i just don't get it.

they can see god in a sunrise.

they can see god in a piece of toast.

they can see god in the marvel that is human anatomy and biochemistry.

but they can't see god in evolution?

[dawg]

8. To be fair, I would guess that about half of us believers *do* accept evolution.

We just don't make for compelling news stories.

[truedelphi]

10. I grew up in the Catholic catechism arena during the 1950's, and we were taught that

The fact that science unfolds in the way it does does not mean there is no god. (Although we were discouraged from thinking there could be goddess energy.)

[dawg]

14. I don't believe God is as "gendered" as most religions depict.

I have always felt that a monotheistic God would encompass both the masculine and the feminine.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

23. All encompassing everything doesn't have a gender.

[unblock]

17. yes, i should have been more careful.

i certainly know plenty of people who have no difficulty at all reconciling evolution with religion, even fundamental christianity, southern baptism, etc. in fact, in my personal life, i'd say that the number of believers i know who are fine with evolution dwarfs the number of believers i know who deny evolution.

but the deniers certainly have more microphone.

also, while the believers aren't all deniers, the deniers are almost entirely believers. not many atheists out there denying evolution.

[Warpy]

31. I'd say it's more than half

Even my religious coworkers who had their noses in bibles during breaks (when we got them) accepted evolution, hard to function as a nurse without knowing how bacteria have been evolving and why.

It's only the crackpots who say their bibles are the words of gawd and then wave the things around like talismans instead of reading them who deny evolution plus a few utterly stupid people who have never been exposed to the concept in its entirety who are not terribly religious but are suckers for the "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" idiocy.

Still, most people know we constantly dig up bones of creatures who aren't here any more but have creatures now of different sizes with the same bone structure and who accept it without knowing all that much about it. They'll accept it so people won't think they're bible wavers.

[whatthehey]

84. Data show otherwise

46% in the US are young earth creationists who believe God created humans in their present form in the last 10000 years. Even if you (wrongly) include ALL Muslims, Jews, etc in that, it is impossible that it does not also include more than half the Christians.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

[Warpy]

105. I suppose I'm spoiled

I left a city full of universities (Boston) for a city of avid readers (more writers and bookstores per capita than any other) and I suppose the local dimwits avoid me, realizing I'm not too polite to laugh in their silly faces if they try to trot out their creation "science" around me.

I would imagine that while polls show an increase in this foolishness over, say, 1970, the overall trend for believing nonsense is down. We're having an uptick now because of millennial fever combined with a strong attack against the American people by the institutions they live with.

People without hope cling to whatever they can find. It's fertile ground for charismatic men building religious empire.

[TheKentuckian]

117. 46% young earthers is a frightening rate. There is no reason to believe such a thing at all

it would seem a fringe viewpoint the insists on counting generations since Adam and declaring such the age of the Earth.

To do this you have to flat ignore the bit where "the world was void and without form" aka already present and the separating the land from the water (also already there).
You have to know how long these folks where in the garden and to some degree you must also ignore that...shit, there are other people in numbers running around by the time the eldest child of the purported first people killed the younger and was fearing being murdered and took a wife and then the next kid finds somebody to get with and continue the line we are following.

I don't get this one, even if you are a biblical literalist one is far from bound to sticking to that story.

[sarisataka]

45. I have no problem

Seeing God on the left side. Actually when you think about it, isn't it far more impressive to create life that can grow, change and adapt than dropping in a stagnant specimen?

In twelve years of parochial school I never had a teacher say evolution was wrong. We learned about Darwin and genetics and Gregor Mendel, the who deduced the theory of genes.

[yeoman6987]

60. I never did either

I don't know of any Catholic who doesn't believe evolution. Of course God started with the little particles and went from there. This anti-evolution is not the Catholics that is for sure.

[melm00se]

83. Pope Pius XII

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

[eridani]

77. It certainly is more impressive to anyone who thinks about it

The problem with creationism (and Intelligent Design is just another version of it) is not that it posits the existence of a higher power, but that it posits constant diddling with an inadequate system by said power, with the explicit intent of promoting biblical literalism at some level. Intelligent design is more appropriately called stupid design, because it assumes that a higher power smart enough to invent the operating system of the universe is nevertheless too stupid to get the job done right the first time -- it's still and must always be in beta test mode.

The computer analogy is modern, but the basic idea certainly isn't. Newton personally believed that God could and did intervene in the workings of the universe to keep the planets on track, but his minister friend Thomas Burnet strongly disagreed. In the 18th century they used clockwork rather than computers for the analogy.

"We think him a better Artist that makes a Clock that strikes regularly at every hour from the Springs and Wheels which he puts in the work, than he that hath so made his Clock that he must put his finger to it every hour to make it strike: And if one should contrive a piece of Clockwork so that it should beat all the hours, and make all its motions regularly for such a time, and that time being come, upon a signal given, or a Spring toucht, it should of its own accord fall all to pieces; would not this be look'd upon as a piece of greater Art, than if the Workman came at that time prefixt, and with a great Hammer beat it into pieces?"

And that's far from the oldest assertion of the concept. Augustine of Hippo and several Islamic scholars had similar notions. For a long time many theologians have thought that constant diddling with natural law by its creator would automatically imply that the creator isn't very bright-a notion very much at odds with traditional concepts of God.

[treestar]

52. This is true. Only to the most literalist fundie are they mutually exclusive. nt

[hootinholler]

67. To be fair

Toast is the best thing since sliced bread

[enlightenment]

5. Hopefully, he will have support

from the institution. His position as a lecturer means he is non-tenure track. I'm sure the fundy loon wills be baying for his firing.

[AwakeAtLast]

81. This is a prime example of why we need tenure

One side cannot squelch something with which they disagree by canning a teacher.

[SomethingFishy]

6. "It didn't contribute to the lecture except to add spite.."

As well it should add spite. Same spite you should get for denying climate change.

It's one thing to be religious, it's another to use your religion to throw all common sense, science and logic right out the window.

[eShirl]

55. & humor. I think kids learn better when humor is used to teach.

(and that slide is pretty funny)

[Iggo]

57. I think it added humor. The spite came from the creationists. (n/t)

[TBF]

78. I think it added truth -

which is something the FAUX news watchers could use on occasion.

As an agnostic I have appreciation for many of the myths that have passed down through time, and who knows what is really out there. I tend to think if there are other forces though they will present differently than what we see in their "Holy Bible" which I view largely as fiction. I don't find religious useless however. I look at someone like our current pope who is managing to talk about income inequality on a very high pulpit and see how useful that can be. So, mostly I just wish the clergy would use their power for good so to speak. There are definitely leftist Christians out there and I will always listen to their perspective.

[nc4bo]

7. Creationist bullshitters create a stink. Hilariously pathetic!

If they hadn't brought up their jesus rode dinosaurs, I may have given them 5 seconds of my time

GO Professor, YAY science!

[hifiguy]

24. Silly, aren't they?

Some kids of stupid are even less fixable than others:

[hadrons]

9. Mind you, nothing about the slide being wrong ...

only that he showed it.

[HereSince1628]

25. Actually, the illustration suggests human evolution is orthogenic which is mostly wrong.

Orthogenesis is an interpretation of evolution in which speciation follows a linear trajectory of descent with change, and is also anagenetic (across the entire population of a species) in its occurrence

The dominant belief is that speciation occurs by cladogenesis (branching/splitting) and frequently involves changes in one or a few subpopulations.

[KingCharlemagne]

33. Either you're engaging in 11th-dimensional wit or I think you meant to write 'descent' (and

not 'dissent'). Of course, as I've gotten older, I've gotten slower and there may be a hidden pun there I'm completely missing!

[HereSince1628]

38. Thanks... no I probably misspelled it and missed the autocorrect

[BlueJazz]

40. Yep. What HereSince1628 said. I'm a Physicist but (to me) Human Evolution is not as simple as a..

..few slides....by a long shot.

[AlbertCat]

48. Actually, the illustration suggests human evolution is orthogenic which is mostly wrong.

Both images are symbolic. I feel sure they go into a little more depth of the theory in class.

[HereSince1628]

71. What I replied to was the claim that the slide communicates nothing wrong

That assertion isn't true. The slide is somewhat more art than science, although many people with cursory knowledge of evolution wouldn't know that.

I do get that the purpose is to create a contrast that is supposed to yield a sense of difference between explanations between biology and contemporary America's most popular version of the biblical creation story.

As a biology educator the slide represents challenges similar to those that I faced regularly in preparing material for university classes. Visual impact is very important. Humor is a useful tool. The slide clearly works on those levels.

But when attention is called to its freedom of mistakes it doesn't perform so well. What is represented is now more vernacular understanding of evolution than contemporary scientific understanding.

[safeinOhio]

11. What next. He'll be telling his students

that the earth is round and doesn't have 4 corners like it says in the Bible.

[KingCharlemagne]

36. One thing you don't do is question "Four Corners" doctrine in

Arizona!

The Four Corners is a region of the United States consisting of the southwestern corner of Colorado, northwestern corner of New Mexico, northeastern corner of Arizona and southeastern corner of Utah. The Four Corners area is named after the quadripoint where the boundaries of the four states meet, where the Four Corners Monument is located.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Corners

[VWolf]

104. I visited that place once.

Was at a conference in Durango CO and decided what the hell.

Saw it and left - then got caught in a horrific thunderstorm on the way back.

I suppose if the earth were originally flat, maybe "God" rolled the corners together to form the place. Or not. It wouldn't work, topologically.

[niyad]

12. beats me why a creationist would be in a biology class anyway. looks like they

deliberately sign up just to "create" a nuisance.

[tblue37]

13. Probably to fulfill a requirement. nt

[AlbertCat]

49. And why get upset?

They can forget it all after class like they would anyway.

[Feral Child]

103. Expansion on tblue 37

Many students, especially LibArts, take biology to fulfill a science requirement because it doesn't require much math in the Intro courses.

[Rex]

15. I don't understand, according to the Bible the right side of the slide is exactly how they say it

happened! OKAY, maybe the picture of Jesus is wrong (should be God there) but otherwise that is how CCs say it happened in the Bible!

Also I do not understand why CCs have such a problem with magic, what the fuck do they think God uses when he makes a new planet? So stupid, it hurts.

[Initech]

16. Love that they used the Buddy Christ from Dogma.

I should forward this to Kevin Smith.

[sinkingfeeling]

18. Of course, we wouldn't want a university to teach science. Hats off to Mr. Bang.

[sakabatou]

19. Oh, this will be on Fox "News" for ages

[Arugula Latte]

20. I thought it was Yahweh, the angry sky god of Iron Age goatherders, who created people

and then later he raped a virgin and cuckolded poor ol' Joe and then Baby Jesus was born, after there were other humans around, ya know, a few thousand years after Yahweh made the Earth (oh, yeah, and the rest of the universe, but who cares about that other stuff out there...).

[Moonwalk]

26. Jesus & Skygod are actually one in the same....

As I understand it (and note that I am no expert in any branch of Christianity). Father-Son-Holy Ghost are like water. Steam-Liquid-Ice. All the same thing just in different guises. Why Angry Sky god gave birth to himself as compassionate son who then asked "Father why hast thou forsaken me..." confuses me, but then, again as I understand it, god is beyond our mortal ken and we should just accept that it will all make sense when we finally become one with the creator.

[Arugula Latte]

27. Yes, yes, I'm sure this convoluted piece of primitive mythological nonsense will all make sense

one fine day!

[KingCharlemagne]

39. Were you there when He created the whirlwind? The first recorded STFU in

history and said to God's most loyal servant (Job) no less (after God and Satan engaged in a friendly wager on whether Job would stay loyal

[whatthehey]

85. A total rip-off of the Ludlul-Bel-Nimeqi however

Like many books of the Bible, it's just a synthesis of much older folk tales that were later discovered in earlier versions however, so "first" is hardly likely.

[KingCharlemagne]

87. I'm not familiar with the tradition you reference here, but I'll willingly concede

your point. Job is, hands down, my favorite book of the Old Testament (although II Samuel gives it a run for its money).

[hifiguy]

21. Isn't that the image from the Jesus' General blog?

Extra points for that, professor.

And since this is a university the complainers need to chug a bottle of STFU juice.

Skepticism is the central tenet of science and the scientific method.

Boy, some people are fukkin' DUMB.

[Enthusiast]

41. STFU juice......

[Boreal]

22. Last I knew

the biblical creation story came from the Jewish old testament (Genesis). Maybe the lecturer should have used a cartoon rabbi.

[Moonwalk]

28. Nope. Because Christianity says Jesus & old testament god are one in the same...

...even as they're also father/son. Otherwise there's be no calling Jesus "god" without admitting that Christianity is polytheistic (two gods) rather than monotheistic (one god). So, picture is apt.

[Thor_MN]

29. What was a creationist doing in a biology class?

The creationist already had all the knowledge needed. Six days, Rest, and let simmer for 6000 some years.

[HereSince1628]

37. A non-major could betaking it to meet general studies requirements or as a degree requirement

for a health related major.

A student wanting to major in bio without an advanced placement certificate would probably have to take at least one intro course. I taught intro bio to many kids working on bio degrees who believed the creation story of western culture and a few who believed Native American creation story.

[Thor_MN]

74. It wasn't a literal question...

[elleng]

30. It is rather confrontational.

He might have found a different, noninflammatory way to open the discussion.

[Tommymac]

97. Really???????

[elleng]

98. Really

not kind of you. Not interested in discussion, I guess.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. I thought they wanted to "teach the controversy"

Maybe they don't like the word "magic", and would prefer "unsubstantiated mystical hoo-hah"?

[Enthusiast]

35. I like that term—unsubstantiated mystical hoo-hah.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

64. I think they call it "a miracle"

Which is God's magic, right?

[Warren DeMontague]

73. Sure.

And I can assert that I'm Napoleon, too, but it's not gonna fly in History class.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

75. Well, maybe in the cuckoos nest!

[Enthusiast]

34. I like it when Christian Conservatives fly into a vexatious rage.

But how can we tell?

[KingCharlemagne]

42. Especially when accompanied by copious amounts of gnashing of teeth and

rending of garments!

Because I have suffered from poor dental health most of my life, just the sound of 'gnashing teeth' sets my nerves a-jingle!

[Enthusiast]

59. Sure does. Youch!

[Laxman]

43. It's Always Useful To Remember....

the words of Thomas Jefferson at times like this:

"The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."

Of course believing in magic is so much more comforting.

[SunSeeker]

106. Yup. I have a copy of "The Jefferson Bible."

It's Jefferson's distillation of the Bible, without all the crazy stuff, just the life and teachings of Jesus. Jefferson wanted to extract Jesus' teachings of absolute love and service from the Bible's "fables" about the Annunciation, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, etc. that had no foundation in Jesus' words.

We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus. There will be remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered man.
-Thomas Jefferson

From what I can tell, most Christians ignore Jesus' words but have gone all in on the crazy fables.

[The Green Manalishi]

44. Anything that ridicules any religion is good with me

It's all a mental disease.

[Roy Rolling]

95. ()

There are many innocent people with brain disease that are more Jesus-like than the zealots who beat their chests and pray in public.

Your post is an insult to all brain disease patients.

(smiley face to ensure that humor is the message, not small-minded criticism)

[SoapBox]

46. Hilarious!

Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

Presto!

[hifiguy]

88. - Lion ROARS -

Musta been the wrong hat?!?

[vlyons]

47. They don't handle ridicule, irony, or satire very well, do they?

Up-tight and defensive all the time. They are ignorant, raised by ignorant parents, in ignorant families, associating only with other ignorant, intolerant, and closed-minded people. They say that they love us, but really, they fear us. ya gotta know that there are more than a few, who secretly question. Don't hate them.

[chrisa]

50. If these people were actually sound in their beliefs, they wouldn't care if someone mocked their

beliefs. They wouldn't need everyone to believe as they do, and their religion would work no matter what others say.

[treestar]

51. Whats the problem, that is basically the Biblical position

Though it wasn't Jesus, maybe he should have indicated it was Jehovah.

[Fearless]

53. I love when idiots think they're speaking for everyone

In this case the creationist student.

[AlbertCat]

54. “Quite a few students in the lecture hall were bothered by the picture,

But then their parents sent them some money, and "The Voice" came on and they all forgot about it.

[Doctor_J]

56. He'll get the boot

David Horowitz's terrorist organization will get their way. Take it to the bank. Liberals are in less danger at a KKK meeting these days than in a college classroom.

[Enthusiast]

58. You unbelievers will be laughing from hell!

[malaise]

62. But we'll be in good company

[niyad]

109. some of my friends own the ice water concession, so we should all be okay.

[Xithras]

61. I worked with a prof a few years ago who really pissed off a bunch of these guys.

He was a bio lecturer as well, and had to deal with these people every semester. They were unyielding one semester, so he struck a deal with his students...he would spend one complete lecture discussing and explaining "faith based" origin theories in a way that did not favor any particular religion, if they promised to shut up for the rest of the semester.

He began his lecture the following week by explaining the Shinto origin story, followed by the stories from several animist religions and two Native American religions. Then he moved onto Jainism and a couple of other Hindu faiths. Then Buddhism, and on, and on. He never went into the Abrahamic creation myths, so Christianity, Islam, and Judaism weren't even mentioned in his lecture.

The Christians fundies who drove the whole thing were incensed and wanted to know why their religion was left out. He was prepared for this, and responded by pulling out a list of hundreds of origin stories from various parts of the world, explaining that he'd have to spend every lecture for the rest of the semester trying to cover them all, so he randomly picked a selection of origin stories in a fair and impartial manner. The Abrahamic faiths simply didn't make it through his fair and equal process.

What was the process? After he'd printed out that list of origin stories, he'd taped it to the wall and threw darts at it. He read the stories that the darts hit. The fundies were pissed, but they shut their mouths for the rest of the semester.

[niyad]

110. ohhhh, kudos to that prof!! that was brilliant!

[BootinUp]

63. Excellent job Professor. nt

[markpkessinger]

65. What is really absurd about this is that college students can't handle a challenge . . .

. . . to their cherished religious beliefs, in the context, no less, of an academic setting where challenging assumptions and long- but uncritically held beliefs. This molly-coddling of religious conservatives only feeds this sort of thing.

[gladium et scutum]

66. Why is he having this discussion.

The class is biology or evolution or some other natural scientific subject. Creationism may have a place in philosophy discourses but I see no need to address the issue in a scientific class. I worked through may classes in biology, zoology, geology etc. and not once was any reference made to deity, or creation. It is just not part of the subject matter to be studied, why waste the students time with ancillary topics.

[hunter]

93. Because invaribly the Creationists will bring it up...

... unless they know they are in a class where most of the students and the teacher will shut them down. Personally I think biology teachers should be allowed to flunk kids who are still creationists at the end of a high school or higher level biology course. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, and abandon all hopes of a career in the sciences or medicine.

It's always best as a Biology teacher in the U.S.A. to make it clear in the first minutes of the first class that Creationist nonsense, diversions, and other games will not be tolerated.

I'm really aggressive about this.

If you are a Creationist then you don't actually know ANYTHING about biology. If you are still passing the exams it's because you are good at cramming your head full of disconnected facts. Maybe you should be practicing for the spelling bee instead.

Biology-is-Evolution-is-Biology. Teaching Biology without Evolution would be like teaching Chemistry without any any understanding of electrons, protons, neutrons, and electric charges. Why do atoms form molecules? Like, I dunno, magic!

[gladium et scutum]

99. So You would Fail A Student

Who may have the highest grades in the class, but still believe in creationism. So much for the philosophy of academic freedom. If a student does the class work, passes the exams, does the labs satisfactorily, why does it matter what his personal beliefs are. Give the students the grade they earn, not the grade you believe they should have for agreeing or disagreeing with your own personal philosophy.

[Curmudgeoness]

101. I can assure you,

as someone who used to be a Biology teacher, that the creationist student will not pass with flying colors. At least, this was my experience. Every one of the creationists just flat out refused to learn the principles of evolution....and without those principles, they were unable to pass the test.

I will say that I am not so rigid that I would flunk a student who still believed in creation, as long as they had learned the lessons on evolution. And I made that clear to all students in the class---you do not have to accept this if that is what you believe, but you do have to learn it. End of discussion.

[hunter]

107. Hell yes.

I'd also "fire" a Creationist doctor.

[gladium et scutum]

112. So you would fire

someone that does not think or believe like you do. Even though capable of doing the job required, you would can them for personal beliefs? You would fail a student that was passing the course, because he didn't think or believe like you, is that what you are saying.

[hunter]

113. They demonstrably lack certain critical thinking skills.

I trust doctors or pharmaceutical researchers to practice evidence based medicine. There's still plenty of room for spiritual beliefs in the practice of medicine, we are, after all dealing with people and we don't know everything about the human body or the origins of human motives, personalities, and "spirit" (if you wish to believe in such.)

But believing in the small, mean, incompetent god of many fundamentalist religious sects, a god madly tweaking the joysticks of the video game he created, is on the face of it a strong deceleration that a person is committed to denying and ignoring scientific evidence.



People who make such declarations shouldn't be practicing medicine or science, nor should they teach it.

It's possible to have spiritual beliefs that do not contradict scientific evidence, just as it's possible to be an atheist and a very ethical person.

In my own life, whenever the scientific evidence conflicts with my spiritual beliefs, it's my spiritual beliefs that adapt to the new evidence, never the other way around. Exposed to such conflicts, I aggressively pursue them until the conflict is resolved, but never by denying the scientific evidence.

I was raised in a Christian pacifist home. The flavor of Christianity was intellectual-Catholic but we ended up as Quakers because my mom is entirely unable to keep her heresies to herself. She's the sort who argues with priests and bishops, she'd argue with the Pope, she'll argue with God Himself until she's satisfied with His answer. My wife's family is liberal Irish Mexican American Catholic. We're married in the Church and we raised our children in that same tradition.

I'm an evolutionary biologist by inclination and many years of education (alas, no graduate degree yet, maybe when we are done paying for our kids' college education.)

It seems absurd to me that people can call themselves "Creationists" and then categorically deny some of the most wonderful aspects of that Creation.

[gladium et scutum]

115. That is all well and good

But it does not answer the question posed. Would you fail a student that was doing satisfactory work in class and lab because they were creationists. Would fire who is satisfactory in their job performance because they view creation different than you.

[hunter]

116. Yes, certain forms of "Creationism" and Fundamentalism are incompatible with science.

Textbooks and standardized tests that allow teachers to skip over or deny the observable age of the universe and evolution are an obscenity.

God knows my own cosmologies, some of them posted here on DU, are unconventional, but I'm willing to argue them from either a scientific or theological foundation. Most of all, I'm willing to change my mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The evidence of evolution as the foundation of biology, and the evidence that life on this small speck of a planet goes back billions of years, slowly becoming more diverse and occasionally more complex, is overwhelming. Otherwise any "creator" of this life, forever tweaking the operating system of it all, recreating the evidence, is a deceptive and incompetent rat bastard, and not the sort of being I'd choose to respect. Omnipotence is lighting the fire and knowing exactly how it will all turn out. Occasional "supernatural" communications, if they exist or not, do not trouble me. Crazy people who talk to God are not unusual in my family. It's up to the listener to discern if they are actually talking to God or not. Sometimes it's just noise in their heads, and sometimes it's just mean.

And, oh yeah, on this Christmas Eve, if the stories are true, Christ probably wasn't born on Christmas and the Christian Church in it's most ancient and Orthodox Catholic form was simply trying to relate to even older belief systems, especially northern latitude beliefs where there was always a great celebration when the days started getting longer, but people were beginning to die of cold, starvation, and the many diseases people suffer when they are all crammed together in close quarters, with their livestock, dogs, cats, and vermin such as rats and mice.

Stories are important to human beings. Our storytelling abilities seem to be where we diverged from our nearest hominid relatives. My Christian heritage is an important story of my family and my community and I respect that.

Merry Christmas!

[hootinholler]

68. Why did Campus Reform watermark the image?

Are they asserting some sort of copyright claim?

[Zorra]

69. These students don't belong at a real university if they can't handle

facts that are contrary their religious beliefs.

If they only want to be presented superstition, they should go to a phony school where they teach those kinds of things.

Someplace like Bob Jones University.

[phil89]

70. My thoughts exactly

They don't need to be at a university if they're buying into creation mythology. Give the seat to a serious student.

[MrScorpio]

72. What would Buddy Jesus do? nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

76. Evolution is an intelligent design indeed

[MrModerate]

79. The slide captures . . .

With absolute precision, the two sides of the 'debate.' I can't imagine what the creationists are complaining about.

[riqster]

80. So in addition to "truthiness", Teavangelicals also have "sciencyness"?

Figures. Good on this prof.

[The Wizard]

82. How would Socrates have fared

in an environment that refuses to seek logical conclusions based on deductive and inductive reasoning to find a more perfect truth?
Never mind.
Magical thinking falls into the Republican/Christian fundamentalist dogma that demands fealty to an imaginary sky hero and Ronald Reagan. It's all about subjugating a certain percentage of the population for cheap political gain at the expense of normal people.
As long as the Church is tax exempt, there is no separation of Church and State.
Tax exemption to effectuate religious preaching is an anathema to the First Amendment. And we have the lunatic fringe controlling a Supreme Court that is supposed to determine what is Constitutional.
Third World cultures steeped in superstition look like they have a better grip on reality.

[Taitertots]

86. He should have used "miracle" instead of "magic"

Creationists don't want their supernatural events conflated with non-religious supernatural events.

[bklyncowgirl]

89. "God is not a magician."

Pope Francis I recently said this while castigating creationists for having a simple minded view of theology.

[DFW]

90. So-called "Christians" in a vexatious rage

Gee, where have I heard THAT before?

Oh, yeah, now I remember. EVERYWHERE.

[dawg]

91. Mocking people's beliefs is never helpful.

Sometimes it's fun. But it's never helpful.

[niyad]

111. sometimes we need the fun--and would not do it if they weren't so darned earnest about the

whole thing.

[RBInMaine]

114. Sometimes it's necessary. The Christian Right Wing has crossed the bridge to crazy land.

[True Blue Door]

92. "Zero tolerance policy for fairy tales" should be the Common Core science curriculum standard.

[KansDem]

94. Let's review the definitions for "religion" and "myth" again, shall we?

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj′ən)
n.
1.
a. The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe


myth (mĭth)
n.
1.
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

[packman]

96. I can understand the anger

the slide must have destroyed some of their dormant, sleeping brain cells and made them start to think. Facts do this - they piss off certain people who prefer their comfort zones to be all warm and cozy.

What in the hell, I ask, is a confirmed Creationist doing in a college class who is certain to cover evolution as a fact? Let them go to Oral Roberts or some such so-called college.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

100. What upsets them the most is the idea that humans weren't always white.

[amuse bouche]

102. Love this and good for the Prof

[Trillo]

108. There's also another "magic" connection.

Corporations. Corporations love the idea of "magic". They really don't want you to know how they make something, how it's constructed, if it has GMO, trade secrets, etc. Asking employees in critical jobs to sign non-disclosure statements, etc.

It seems there's a connection between Christian beliefs and our overall economic or business structure.