?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Creationists: They're Baaack

Remember the brouhaha that erupted back in 1999 when the Kansas State Board of Education decided to adopt science standards that de-emphasize the teaching of evolution in public schools? Whether you do or not, you can read about it here at the Topeka Capital-Journal Online. Here's the gist:
Thursday, 12 Aug 1999 - The Kansas State Board of Education on Wednesday -- in a controversial decision that attracted nationwide attention -- adopted a new set of science standards that de-emphasizes the teaching of evolution in public schools.

The new standards, approved on a 6-4 vote, were drafted by a three-member subcommittee that was controlled by socially conservative members of the state school board. The teaching standards essentially leave the decision of what to teach on the subjects of evolution and creationism to local school boards.

"This is a terrible, tragic, embarrassing solution to a problem that didn't exist," Gov. Bill Graves said in a brief statement released by his office. His spokesman, Mike Matson, said the governor saw no reason for the board to get into the debate.
In the aftermath, four board members voting for the resolution were later defeated by moderates, and the resolution was reversed:
Tuesday, 01 Aug 2000 - According to AANEWS: Four Republican candidates on the Kansas Board of Education who voted to remove testing on evolution ran for re-election. Three were defeated in a primary election. They were the Board chairperson Linda Holloway, who had championed the creationist cause, Douglass Brown, and Brad Angell. All three were defeated by moderate Republicans. The fourth, Roger Rankin, won his primary. Spending in past elections had been on the order of $500. Holloway raised nearly $90 thousand; her opponent, Sue Gamble, raised $35 thousand. AANEWS reported that "Holloway blamed her loss on 'propaganda' over the creation-evolution debate. Gamble, though, saw her nomination victory as a rejection of the board's tampering with science standards, and told reporters, 'I think it's a validation of parents and other community people speaking for their schools and quality education.'"

( Source | ReligiousTolerance.org )

Well, here's what has happened this past election: Kathy Martin, a proponent of the theory of intelligent design, has declared opposition to the teaching of the theory of evolution in KS schools.

Sunday, 26 Sep 2004:
For supporters of teaching evolution in Kansas public schools, the best defense is a good offense.

In January, the balance of power on the state Board of Education is expected to shift to social conservatives who want to include creation science and intelligent design among the theories taught in science classes, or remove evolution from the classroom.

In 1999, when the school board last voted to de-emphasize evolution, it took evolutionists months to organize and respond to the action. The board later reversed its decision in 2000.

This time around, evolution supporters are hoping to head off changes in state science standards before the new school board convenes early next year. The effort will start Tuesday, when [the University of Kansas] science department will play host to a speech by Jack Krebs, an Oskaloosa high school teacher and vice-president of Kansas Citizens for Science.

"This speech is meant to be a rallying cry," Krebs said. "Last time, the rallying cry happened after the fact. This time, it needs to happen beforehand."

...

Conservative Republican Kathy Martin won the District 6 board seat in the August primary against incumbent and moderate Republican Bruce Wyatt. Martin, who will be sworn in this January, said as far as she knew, the changes in the science standards would be "minor."

( Source article: "Evolution defenders anticipate new fight" | The Lawrence Journal-World )

On Monday, 18 Oct 2004, Kathy Martin spoke on our campus.
Tuesday, 19 Oct 2004 - Science classes in Kansas public schools should examine all possible theories, said Kathy Martin, Republican candidate for the sixth district seat on the State Board of Education.

In Martin’s speech Monday, "A Vision for the State School Board," she set the record straight about her position about teaching creationism in public schools.

"I’m not for teaching creationism in our science classes," she said. "I’m just saying that besides evolution, theory of intelligent design should be allowed to be discussed in the classroom."

( Source article: "Martin visits K-State, speaks" | Kansas State Collegian )


Wednesday, 20 Oct 2004 - LETTER: Candidate not suited for board

Editor,

After attending Kathy Martin's lecture and Q&A session, I am left in awe of how much we need the theory of evolution to be taught in schools and taught to future teachers. Martin has been the head science teacher at the elementary school in Clay Center for many years, yet her understanding of evolutionary theory is not what we should expect of someone who should be a scientist of sorts...

Joseph Kern
Senior in Secondary Education
Kansas State University

( Source article: "LETTER: Candidate not suited for board" | Kansas State Collegian )

On Tuesday, 02 Nov 2004, Kathy Martin was elected to the Kansas State Board of Education, District 6. She had run unopposed.
Audio segments from The Lawrence Journal-World (MS Internet Explorer only, unfortunately): Kathy Martin on



Please do educate yourself on opposing viewpoints.

Evolution Science perspectives

Creationist perspectives

News and review


--
Banazir

Comments

( 135 comments — Leave a comment )
crypthanatopsis
Nov. 6th, 2004 12:08 pm (UTC)
In 1925 it was bad enough. Now it's just plain fucking ridiculous. How has middle America become so incredibly backwards and ideologically blind to reason?

I bet the redneck fundamentalist living out in the middle of nowhere in the plain states are probably the stupidest English-speaking people, if not the stupidest first-world residents, alive today.
banazir
Nov. 6th, 2004 12:21 pm (UTC)
Assiduous ignorance
In 1925 it was bad enough. Now it's just plain fucking ridiculous. How has middle America become so incredibly backwards and ideologically blind to reason?
I call it assiduous ignorance, like the assiduous failure that plagues some of our students.
None so blind as they who will not see.
It takes a lot of effort, but I know of several Ph.D.s who have told me of the dangers of thinking otherwise. Listen to Martin's first and fourth recordings.

I bet the redneck fundamentalist living out in the middle of nowhere in the plain states are probably the stupidest English-speaking people, if not the stupidest first-world residents, alive today.
If only it were that simple, Nathan. See the "Creationist perspectives" section that I just put in. Also, I refer you again to Kathy Martin's first sound bite: she is a (self-reported) science teacher, and has garnered some influence thereby.

--
Banazir
Red Neck? - r3turn0 - Nov. 6th, 2004 09:15 pm (UTC) - Expand
kakarigeiko
Nov. 6th, 2004 12:12 pm (UTC)
Hey maybe in a few years you're going to have to stop research in genetic algorithms, because that's just not how God works, you know, you unholy heathen you :)
banazir
Nov. 6th, 2004 12:30 pm (UTC)
You think that's funny?
True story: I once wrote a paper for the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. After it was published, I was asked by a co-author to remove his name from the author list for reasons of faith. He did not wish to be associated with any publication dealing with the theory of evolution or with what he believed to be "dangerous ideas". I was asked to lie to the publishers in order to get a retraction of the co-author listing; I refused. Some time later, I learned that the person had contacted the publishers and directly misrepresented himself.

I will say this for the record:
I teach evolutionary computation, a branch of computer science that studies "evolutionary techniques inspired by mechanisms from biological evolution such as natural selection, mutation and recombination to find an optimal configuration for a specific system within specific constraints" (Wikipedia, 2004).

Come and get me.
I dare you.

--
Banazir
Re: You think that's funny? - kakarigeiko - Nov. 6th, 2004 12:54 pm (UTC) - Expand
Living on your very own heath - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 01:11 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Living on your very own heath - twinofhugin - Nov. 6th, 2004 01:25 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Living on your very own heath - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 01:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Living on your very own heath - twinofhugin - Nov. 6th, 2004 01:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
Learning autonomous security worms - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:13 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: You think that's funny? - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 01:25 pm (UTC) - Expand
Madison, 1998 - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 07:09 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Madison, 1998 - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 07:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
cretaceousrick
Nov. 6th, 2004 12:48 pm (UTC)
"in fact, I know we have no empir[c]al evidence [in support of evolution]"

...umm...I hope by "we," Martin means her own group, because surely she's not referring to the scientific community as a whole.
chaosinaskirt
Nov. 6th, 2004 01:10 pm (UTC)
gotta love the purposely blind

...though i love them alot more when they're not, say, in positions of power.
(no subject) - cretaceousrick - Nov. 6th, 2004 01:13 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 01:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cretaceousrick - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
sadly... - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 04:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
Blind faith and thinking faith - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 04:52 pm (UTC) - Expand
I agree entirely... - cretaceousrick - Nov. 6th, 2004 06:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 7th, 2004 01:39 am (UTC) - Expand
Purposely blind - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Purposely blind - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 04:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
Who's "we"? - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 01:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Who's "we"? - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:11 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Who's "we"? - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:11 pm (UTC) - Expand
but on the bright side.. - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 04:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
Miracles and Clarke's Third Law - banazir - Nov. 7th, 2004 08:23 am (UTC) - Expand
Creation put me on the wagon - banazir - Nov. 8th, 2004 06:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
When frogs moo - banazir - Nov. 8th, 2004 07:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
Cowkissing: When Hingelicking Goes Bad III - banazir - Nov. 8th, 2004 07:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
Awwwwwwwwwwwww poor baby!!! - banazir - Nov. 8th, 2004 07:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Awwwwwwwwwwwww poor baby!!! - kaladhwen - Nov. 8th, 2004 08:06 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Who's "we"? - cretaceousrick - Nov. 6th, 2004 03:03 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Who's "we"? - neadods - Nov. 6th, 2004 04:19 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Who's "we"? - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 7th, 2004 01:40 am (UTC) - Expand
oxbastetxo
Nov. 6th, 2004 01:35 pm (UTC)
Was going to comment....
But I'll get my head ripped off. :-)
banazir
Nov. 6th, 2004 01:45 pm (UTC)
Re: Was going to comment....

(Safe Zone logo stolen from chaosinaskirt - hope that's OK)

This is a censorship-free zone, oxbastetxo. No head-ripping here, or I'll whip out the Trout of Trasking.

Opine away!

--
Banazir
Re: Was going to comment.... - oxbastetxo - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:03 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:15 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
Define macroevolution and cite, please - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:33 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Define macroevolution and cite, please - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 05:00 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Define macroevolution and cite, please - zaimoni - Nov. 6th, 2004 04:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
creation narratives - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 03:14 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: I wasn't going to comment, but... - masteralida - Nov. 6th, 2004 10:11 pm (UTC) - Expand
Turtles all the way down - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 10:14 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Was going to comment.... - (Anonymous) - Nov. 6th, 2004 07:54 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Was going to comment.... - masteralida - Nov. 6th, 2004 08:32 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Was going to comment.... - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:14 pm (UTC) - Expand
Ah, OK - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:19 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Ah, OK - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 03:06 pm (UTC) - Expand
You know... - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 04:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: You know... - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 6th, 2004 05:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Was going to comment.... - smoke_au - Nov. 6th, 2004 06:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
zengeneral
Nov. 6th, 2004 01:55 pm (UTC)
.. urgh
Don't worry, my robot army will fix all...

Too bad, in the church of Jeff, creation isn't taught, at all... when someone asks:

q: "Where did I come from"
a: "The church of jeff made you"
q: "Who made the church of jeff"
a: "jeff"
q: "Who made jeff"
a: "jeff"
... so on and so on, people will realize it is a pointless question or die asking...

On a side note, I am a de-evolutionist. I seriously believe that aliens came to this planet billions of years ago, had a sexy orgy, the juices were flying, and that complex genetic material has been de-evolving, and we are the most complex form left... Course, who created the aliens? ... I DID...
banazir
Nov. 6th, 2004 01:59 pm (UTC)
Catetchism of Jeff
Only your church would have a bottom-less catechism.

You realize I will denounce your church as not being well-founded?
:snerk:

--
Banazir
Re: Catetchism of Jeff - zengeneral - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:09 pm (UTC) - Expand
Ex Falso Quodlibet - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:16 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Ex Falso Quodlibet - zengeneral - Nov. 6th, 2004 02:34 pm (UTC) - Expand
The Blessings of Jeff Be upon You - banazir - Nov. 7th, 2004 08:15 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: The Blessings of Jeff Be upon You - zengeneral - Nov. 7th, 2004 08:33 pm (UTC) - Expand
r3turn0
Nov. 6th, 2004 06:28 pm (UTC)
If you take banazir's and chaosinaskirt's and zengenerals's thinking into account on this whole matter, put them into a blender and drink it, thats enlightenment!!!
as far as my opinion after the intoxication of said brew :

I have to partially agree with everyone...(banazir 100% chaosinaskirt 100% zengenerals 100%)--I know this equals 300% but keep in mind I live in multiple deminsions, so the actual total is reduced by distortions in the time continue-um.--how do you spell that last word?

Being a redneck in Texas with alien DNA, but also supporting the cause of evolution, I feel the love and warmth of some supreme being comforting me in the back of my mind (although I sometimes think this is a result of a self preservation stategy by extending ones-self beyond death).
Having said that, almost seriously, this discussion represents the last and first great triumph that humankind, and the intelligence that we create, may ever hope to achieve.
chaosinaskirt
Nov. 7th, 2004 01:42 am (UTC)
that or it means you're 3x as enlightened as the rest of us! :D
Thanks for your concordance - banazir - Nov. 7th, 2004 08:19 am (UTC) - Expand
smoke_au
Nov. 6th, 2004 07:03 pm (UTC)
Disclaimer: If there are two ways to read this comment and one of those ways makes you angry or offends, then I meant the other way, ok? This is obviously a HOT topic and I dont like asbestos underwear - it chafes. ;-)

********************
Banazir,

Your initial post seems incredibly close-minded for a scientist. You seem to ignore that this person seems to be saying that creationism should be taught alongside evolution, and instead have read the comments as a call to eradicate the study of evolution altogether. I dont see this person saying that at all - whatever her personal beliefs are.

Having read (and perhaps misinterpreted) your post, I suppose I am interested to know why you think you have right to say creationism is a load of garbage (as you pretty much have done) but do not give anyone else the right to even consider the theory of evolution less than an incontrovertable law of reality. I know its what you are studying, but it sure seems ... intolerant? Especially over a "clinically non-repeatable experiment" as is the nature of these things.

Do you have a problem with people in schools being able to explore an alternate theory and accept or reject it for themselves? If so, why? If it is a load of bollocks and the other theory is so much better then surely the scientific mind will accept one over the other.

nb: I purposely have attempted to obscure my true position on evolution ;-), since its immaterial to what I am really interested in knowing about your thoughts.

Im interested to hear your response.
********************

To everyone else: Please let Banazir respond as this is a response to his initial post, isnt meant to be in any way offensive, and Id like to know if Ive read his post wrong - since either way, I would like to understand his position.

banazir
Nov. 6th, 2004 07:58 pm (UTC)
My actual opinion on the matter, Part 1 of 2
Dear smoke_au,

No offense is taken at your comment. Here is my reply:
Your initial post seems incredibly close-minded for a scientist. You seem to ignore that this person seems to be saying that creationism should be taught alongside evolution, and instead have read the comments as a call to eradicate the study of evolution altogether. I dont see this person saying that at all - whatever her personal beliefs are.

First of all, let me state for the record what I understand Ms. Martin's position to be.

1. She has sought to gain admittance for intelligent design (a proto-creationist theory that is not tied to any particular monotheistic religion but is definitely theistic in basis).

2. Not only this, but she has stated that they should be presented as equal, and equally undemonstrable, alternative theories.

3. Furthermore, she has expressed support for the KS Board of Education's 1999 decision to set secondary science education guidelines that de-emphasized evolution, meaning that she sees it as less of a priority than it was held to be prior to August, 1999 and after August, 2000.

My opinions:

1. I have concerns about theological teachings being presented under the rubric of scientific theories (rather than as religious beliefs, which may very well have their place in the "philosophy and history" modules of a science course).

2. I do not concur that evolution and creation science are equally undemonstrable. To me, the evolution vs. intelligent design distinction is in general analogous to isolating color gluons or other subatomic particles versus proving the existence of an Omega particle, or specifically that God is the origin of subatomic particles. Considering the specific way - Seven-Day or "Young Earth" creationism - that some of the proponents of the 1999 amendment in KS interpret intelligent design: it is more analogous to isolating fermionic particles vs. arguing their non-existence because atoms are indivisible. You can certainly believe the latter; it simply is not science to put it forward as a "theory" (speaking colloquially), though there is a formally disprovable hypothesis in there.

3. Taking the "indivisible atom" analogy forward: there are two ways that American politicians and educators who favor creationism tend to attack evolution as a theory. The first is to discredit speciation as undemonstrable using laboratory experimentation and claim that it has not been observed in the field.

The former is not the case, as chaosinaskirt noted, but at the scale required to provide scientifically acceptable support for Darwinian theory, current laboratory science is clearly insufficient. The latter is not quite the case, either, but as the talk.origins page noted, the time scale required for selective pressure to produce intergenus or interfamily differentiation is several decimal orders of magnitude higher than humans have been around (by all accounts).

(continued)
(Deleted comment)
My actual opinion on the matter, Part 2 of 2 - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 08:00 pm (UTC) - Expand
evolutionary biology - chaosinaskirt - Nov. 7th, 2004 01:56 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: evolutionary biology - zaimoni - Nov. 7th, 2004 06:59 am (UTC) - Expand
An additional comment - banazir - Nov. 7th, 2004 08:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
masteralida
Nov. 6th, 2004 07:24 pm (UTC)
Just read back through the chat room.

When I'm sober I'll comment on this. Right now I can't concentrate enough to read it ;)

I love mango martinis and mojitos.
r3turn0
Nov. 6th, 2004 07:36 pm (UTC)
Hey!
Party on--I have a theory about alcohol : I like it I love it I want some more of it...
Would have liked to see your comments in three-sheets-mode...
Re: Hey! - masteralida - Nov. 6th, 2004 08:01 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Hey! - r3turn0 - Nov. 6th, 2004 08:14 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Hey! - masteralida - Nov. 6th, 2004 08:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Hey! - r3turn0 - Nov. 6th, 2004 08:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Hey! - masteralida - Nov. 6th, 2004 08:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Hey! - r3turn0 - Nov. 6th, 2004 09:00 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Hey! - masteralida - Nov. 6th, 2004 09:03 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Hey! - r3turn0 - Nov. 6th, 2004 09:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Hey! - masteralida - Nov. 6th, 2004 09:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Hey! - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 09:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Hey! - r3turn0 - Nov. 6th, 2004 09:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
ldymlissa
Nov. 6th, 2004 08:57 pm (UTC)
thoughts
I don't truly have a stand on this. I see both sides, have heard both sides... have studied both sides and I dont' think we'll ever have a true answer because too many what ifs and too many people choose to be guided by faith rather than by fact. I'm a biologist and I've had a lot of classes that have covered this both in school and out, even text books touch on both topics even if they cover only one in detail. Even in my anthropology classes we discussed this for many days. It was amazing the evolutionary proof that I witnessed in my anthropology classes... amazing when so many say we have no evidence. I understand the creationist view I mean... we don't truly know how the "EArth" came to be. While we can prove evolution of species and we can continue to see evolution today so surely evolution had to start at some point... why not at the beginning. Anyway, I don't think we'll ever have an end or true answer to this debate because there are too many people who choose faith rather than facts and too many who have no faith. So it's a bit of a deadlock in my opinion. But we shouldn't ever jump to conclusions on either side of the issue or about how the issue is handled in oh... say schools.
So my big thought of the night:
If God created the Earth, were the other planets his screw ups?
kaladhwen
Nov. 6th, 2004 09:28 pm (UTC)
and what's wrong with creationists? ;)
I think r3turn0 and masteralida sorta started to get into this, but, my response is already written so here it will stay.

Simply, I believe in creation and evolution. I don't know all the "technical" terms for all the positions on this issue but frankly whatever you call it, it doesn't change what I believe. ;)

Longer explanation. Let's see. In school we were presented with all the theories, were told they were only theories, that we'd have to figure it out for ourselves, and basically to 'have fun kids cause science doesn't have all the answers' (yet). ;) Well I used to scoff a bit at evolution, but in HS I saw things that could be nothing other than evolution - survival of turtles, for example, that had longer necks to reach things to eat, and the ones with shorter necks died out. Etc. (Wow, that was a random example.)

But I believe that God created all things, and if evolution exists he's the author of it. I mean, with a changing environment over tens of thousands of years, wouldn't the things living here need to be able to slowly adapt as the environment does? But I digress. There are so many possibilities, and no, we don't have all the facts, but it's fun to speculate. For example, I think that the seven days in which God created the earth could very likely be figurative. If it was seven standard earth days, well, in my church we're taught that each day to God is 1,000 years to us. So, who knows, maybe those seven days stand for 7 thousand or million years or whatever. I believe God still has to follow all of the natural laws of physics, and science, etc., cause heck he created them, he can't just go violating them now; but since he created them, he knows how to manipulate them and use them a whole heck of a lot better than we do, if that makes sense.

All I do know is, it is possible to believe in both creationism and evolution. And despite what I believe or do not believe, if something isn't fact, all possible theories should be presented in public schools, for what they are, as theories, and let the students decide for themselves. And as I did in HS, I still keep an open mind to new things I hear and learn about both creationism and evolution. I simply believe that it's possible they can both exist...I'm just not exactly sure how (yet). ;)
r3turn0
Nov. 6th, 2004 09:35 pm (UTC)
Re: and what's wrong with creationists? ;)
My dear, I believe as you do, and drunk or sober, in the end you can devote your life to the perfection of science, but eventually you have to DIE; and then you start reconsidering your options.
Re: and what's wrong with creationists? ;) - kaladhwen - Nov. 6th, 2004 09:47 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: and what's wrong with creationists? ;) - r3turn0 - Nov. 6th, 2004 09:59 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: and what's wrong with creationists? ;) - kaladhwen - Nov. 6th, 2004 10:03 pm (UTC) - Expand
Tweenage Mutant Redneck Salamanders - banazir - Nov. 6th, 2004 10:04 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Tweenage Mutant Redneck Salamanders - r3turn0 - Nov. 6th, 2004 10:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Tweenage Mutant Redneck Salamanders - banazir - Nov. 7th, 2004 01:10 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Tweenage Mutant Redneck Salamanders - r3turn0 - Nov. 6th, 2004 10:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
Original ideas - banazir - Nov. 7th, 2004 12:41 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Original ideas - kaladhwen - Nov. 7th, 2004 04:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
Stop me if you CAN - banazir - Nov. 7th, 2004 08:01 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Stop me if you CAN - kaladhwen - Nov. 7th, 2004 08:12 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Tweenage Mutant Redneck Salamanders - kaladhwen - Nov. 7th, 2004 04:54 pm (UTC) - Expand
Tweenage Mutant PREGNANT Salamanders - banazir - Nov. 7th, 2004 08:09 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Tweenage Mutant PREGNANT Salamanders - kaladhwen - Nov. 7th, 2004 08:13 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: and what's wrong with creationists? ;) - kaladhwen - Nov. 7th, 2004 04:47 pm (UTC) - Expand
Um, let's see - on Voyager - banazir - Nov. 7th, 2004 08:54 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Um, let's see - on Voyager - kaladhwen - Nov. 7th, 2004 09:06 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Um, let's see - on Voyager - banazir - Nov. 7th, 2004 09:22 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Um, let's see - on Voyager - kaladhwen - Nov. 7th, 2004 10:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Um, let's see - on Voyager - masteralida - Nov. 7th, 2004 09:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
ROFLOL - banazir - Nov. 7th, 2004 10:19 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Um, let's see - on Voyager - kaladhwen - Nov. 7th, 2004 10:58 pm (UTC) - Expand
Laylah / Chakotay - banazir - Nov. 8th, 2004 08:39 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Laylah / Chakotay - kaladhwen - Nov. 8th, 2004 10:18 pm (UTC) - Expand
r3turn0
Nov. 6th, 2004 09:53 pm (UTC)
New Represenative of "Rednecks"
Hey Bill, if you need the "Redneck Analysis" please feel free to consult me.
I feel obligated to enlighten the masses and dispel the Internet stereotype
of "Redneck culture". Born and raised in Texas, I am qualified to respond in the rhetoric in a way that's not predicted by most--with a slight unexpected (un-Bush character). Ya know, I used to hate Rednecks, but then again I used to hate (insert minority here). I can give the opinion of a true southern man. BTW- This has got to be the best thread I've seen recently.
banazir
Nov. 7th, 2004 10:53 am (UTC)
Redneck Representation
Hey Bill, if you need the "Redneck Analysis" please feel free to consult me.
LOL, thanks. Start a column!
I'm sure it'll be better than Scarborough Country. Say, would you call yourself a liberal, libertarian, conservative, or moderate/centrist redneck, or "none of the above"? (I am not into labeling folks, but I'm curious how you affiliate yourself.)

This has got to be the best thread I've seen recently.
Thank you, and thanks for contributing.

--
Banazir
Re: Redneck Representation - r3turn0 - Nov. 7th, 2004 07:53 pm (UTC) - Expand
kakarigeiko
Nov. 7th, 2004 05:07 am (UTC)
Very interesting discussion. I'm glad smoke_au asked what he did.

In discussing the relative scientific merits of the theories, though, smoke_au is totally veering off from the main point. The main point is that politicians and religious figures are trying to affect what scientists would like to be taught in schools. This has far reaching consequences regardless of whether or not evolution or creationism happen to be true.
theatremomma
Nov. 7th, 2004 10:31 am (UTC)
oh no!!
Oh no- not again!!!! And I just posted regarding the 1999 fiasco. Tell me quickly, how do you change your birth state?!?!?!
banazir
Nov. 7th, 2004 10:57 am (UTC)
Erstwhile Kansan
First of all, nice to meet you. Hey, I see you're a friend of myng_rabbyt. I've added you - I hope that's all right with you; feel free to add me back if you like.

You were born here? Whereabouts?

And where did you post before?

--
Banazir
chaosinaskirt
Nov. 22nd, 2004 01:41 am (UTC)
so anyways.

how did consciousness evolve?
( 135 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2008
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

KSU Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GEC) Lab

Teunciness

Breakfast

Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) Communities

Fresh Pages

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Naoto Kishi