Well, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
My name is Kirk and I believe in evolution. This guy has been hurting my good name since I was a kid.
Ooohh - so that's what empirical proof means.
Ya know, if the Bible would be proved false I would be so embarassed.
""Wouldn't it be weird if you died, and heaven was just like they said? With Saint Peter and the Pearly Gates? Wouldn't you feel stupid? [To self] 'Awww noooo, . . . In college they said this was all bullshit.'"
Watching Kirk Cameron hawk products to convert people "who claim to be Christians but whom you suspect aren't truly saved," is probably one of the great low points of my spiritual journey. I realized, "Holy shit, it's me he's talking about. Kirk Cameron is selling people propaganda kits to teach them how to convert me!"
I want every minute I spent watching Growing Pains as a kid back--with interest.
"A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented." [Emphasis mine]
Trained, eh? Trained in science, or trained in ways to be weasely when presented with evidence? And are these Christian Scientists?
this dr. dino is a jackass. he offers a prize for proving that evolution occurs, then to claim the prize he asks for proof that the universe arose de novo and will accept nothing else as definitive proof. actual proof of evolution (fossil evidence, genetic evidence, lab experiments showing generation of new bacterial species, etc.) aren't allowed.
uh... forgive me if i'm wrong - but as far as i know most evolutionary biologists don't spend much time studying the big bang (which we have already proven happened - radio telescope anybody?). becasue the two things aren't related. to study evolution (which deals with life) we have to study astrophysics now? how is this even a contest? this is akin to saying i'll give a billion dollars to anyone who can prove jesus existed, but you aren't allowed to use any records of roman crucifixions, any written material from the bible, the only thing that will be 100% proof would be to show me the bush that burned and talked to moses, the rock moses split in the desert to find water, and the exact location and remnants of noah's ark. because if that stuff is true, the rest of it is. and if that isn't true, none of it is. and oh yeah, i won't say this up front, but the people judging the contest are going to be devout atheists.
same logic. your move, ass.
anyone with his head stuck this far in the sand isn't qualified to offer a prize like this. it'sd pretty safe to say that the prize will never be claimed. not because it isn't true, but because this guy won't choose scientists who would believe the evidence. as is pretty obvious by the fact that he won't give out the names of the scientists on his panel. this would be like some guy choosing me to decide whether or not some obscure quantum physics theory was believable or not - sure, i do science, but i know jack shit about quantum physics. just like you don't take your TV to an auto mechanic when it breaks.
[more...]
don't forget that this "dr. dino" asshat also claims that AIDS was developed by scientists in North America in the 70's specifically to target african americans, as a method of population control. oh yeah and west nile, parkinsons, and diabetes are also all man-made, sure. he also uses a joke chain letter as "proof" that we need to get rid of doctors, 'cause we all know that praying for five minutes will cure your cancer or heal that broken leg. and like a good christian scientist he is also pushing to end vaccinations for mumps, rubella, polio, and other crippling, debilitating diseases. probably because these diseases are handed out by god to the kids of bad parents, and playing god by eliminating these will make the baby jesus cry. the guy is a confirmed crackpot, an embarassment even to other creationists, and the "degree" he claims to have is a mail-order Ph.D. just like the ones you can get from the "get a college degree" spam you find in your inbox every day. read all about this guy here if you wish to learn more.
i loathe celebrities who use their money and name-value to push whatever stupid ideas they come up with or get sucked into.
sure, mr. travolta, we all believe that there are aliens living in our heads and we need to send the estae of l. ron hubbard money to remove them. *rolls eyes* what's that, airheaded movie star bimbo? i shouldn't eat anything with a face and bombing a research lab is OK? oh, yeah. you just convinced me. *right* and now kirk cameron tells me that my entire career is based on a lie. well, if all the star power of KIRK CAMERON says so, then i'll renounce darwin right now, shave my pate, and go become a benedictine monk.
all this shows is what a dip kirk cameron is. i suspected it for a long time...
they say biology is the tool of the devil. i say biology is only the devil to tools.
[damn why doesn't monkeyfilter like long posts?]
*hoses down frogs*
Mr. frogs, I love you.
do frogs like bananas?
wow, frogs - so how do you feel about Dr. Dino? I couldn't really tell.
Wow. well i think the most frightening aspect is from Kirk's Column and doesn't involve Dr. Dino.
"I am writing this article from New Orleans, Louisiana...I, however, am here for a different reason; Chelsea and I are on location, filming a new Growing Pains reunion movie with all the Seavers."
*Hands pete_best a bucket of ice*
I think you'll need this as well, I can see the steam from over here.
Best thing to do with guys like these is to plunk them somewhere that's rampant with some disease. Geez, why don't they push to abolish medical education? Let's all go back to the Elizabethan dirt-is-a-natural-and-Godly-protection-from-unhealthy-influences age!
GO frogs GO
Sing it again!
I'd say he's hopped up now, fellas.
Sorry to be off-topic and entirely inappropriate, but Orange Swan, I think I love you. I don't even remember why anymore (something you said long ago), but it's something that's lay dormant in the back of my head, never having been able to publicly declare it on the blue, as is necessary for these kinds of love.
Daniel and Orange Swan, sitting in a tree . . .
/back_to_work
Growing Pains sucked, except for that episode where whats-her-face wore a bathing suit. Even that one probably sucked, but I was a horny teenager when it came out.
What I'm saying is that I'd rather hear what Cameron Diaz thinks about evolution while she's dancing around in her Spider-Man underoos. Because I'm still that horny little teenager, trapped in a horny 20-something's body. And if I have to hear about some celebrity's loony-ass opinions, I damn well better be tittilated.
Daniel and Orange Swan, sitting in a tree . . .
I wish.
No, she'll probably never come back here again after that outburst.
Well, my work here is done.
great post(s) frogs. i think i have a solution: introduce dr. dino to gene ray...winner take all!
So, here's the thing. Fundamentally, he's right. My trust in evolution is nothing more than a belief: I believe that the textbooks and papers I've read, the lectures I've attended, and the fossils I've seen are all true. That is to say, I've never actually seen the beaks of finches change size from season to season, but I've decided that I will believe it. I really do believe in evolution.
Now, if we start from that perspective, then let's work further with his argument. We have two conflicting beliefs: one is that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. The other is slightly more complex, a little bit lonelier, but explains a hell of a lot more. Let's go further and accept Dino's statement that evolution is just another religion and that the state, being barred from establishing religion, shouldn't be teaching it in schools.
So now we're not teaching science in schools. Okay. What happens now? How about we have a debate in this country about which science we should teach? Since both the christian religion and the evolution "religion" are both beliefs, we ought to at least teach SOME science in our schools, right? Why don't we examine the two worlds that we've lived in under the two different systems of belief. Under a christian rule of law, we've experience slavery, inequality, and death on an unimaginable scale. Science, a large chunk of which is based on biological evolution, has made us all healthier, live longer, and hopefully has started our work towards ending poverty. Which one do we really want to teach our kids?
Honestly, I'd be totally willing to make this a community issue. IF 30,000 fundamentalists want to start a town somewhere, and pay for their public school with their own money, and teach only creationism, I'm okay with that. It's their money; it's their belief system. They surely believe in Christ even more than I believe in evolution (which, like any good scientist, I'm willing to call a theory). So why not? What the hell? Let 'em do their worst.
If so many people are so upset about evolution, why not let them just forget about it? It seems rather oppressive, to me, to force them to teach their kids something they don't want them to be taught. If I had to send my kid to a school where they taught "Creationism" in science class, I'd be outraged. I can see where they're coming from. I'd prefer to have a more diverse country that is tolerant of both sides of the argument. He's right, after all, on some level: evolution is just a theory. It's not proven. Virtually nothing in science is proven. Ask any good philosopher (decartes, anyone?) and you'll know that our senses are limited. Just because radio telescopes tell us the big bang happened, that's only one way of understanding the universe. We'll never, ever, be certain that it's true; we can only dis-prove it. That's the fundamental axiom of the scientific method.
Look, guys like this infuriate and scare the crap out of me. But as a scientist, one who believes in evolution, I have to understand that I do the same to him. I, personally, am comfortable/confident enough in the theory of evolution that if it were presented fairly to high school-aged students alongside "Creationism," most kids would start to "believe" in evolution. And if they didn't, i'm not going to stop them. If they believe in Christ, or whomever, that much, that's wonderful. I wish I had that kind of blind faith in something.
[more]
[continued]
Look, there are different kinds of people in this world. Some are born with a keen, reasoning mind, some with deeply held spiritual confidence. In the end, as long as those with the religious beliefs aren't using them to FORCE them on other people, or use those beliefs as an excuse for evil (i.e. terrorist attacks, or Bush's state-sponsored Holy War), cool. Similarly, I'd prefer if scientists maybe hadn't invented the atom bomb.
So, yeah, let's try to be reasonable about this. I don't want to tell anybody they can't love that warm fuzzy feeling in their chest that they call Christ. On the other hand, Dr. Dino's smugness is so acidic that if I ever got the chance I would ram a T-rex-sized fore-arm bone right up his ass.
It's an interesting post, but really the argument has been over since the century before last, and in general I am just so weary of hearing yet more about evolution. And yes, Dawkins, that means you too...
Dr. Dino's smugness is so acidic that if I ever got the chance I would ram a T-rex-sized fore-arm bone right up his ass.
Make sure you get a photo, I'm on the edge of my seat!
tmb48: The problem with fundies is that they believe theirs is the only truth. So they want to 'save' everyone and ram it down everyone's throat. They're not going to up stakes and move into a town and pay to educate their children how they want. They'll want the government to make everyone study The Truth. And anyone who doesn't want to study or believe in The Truth is a tool of the devil.
Dammit, I thought they were Star Trek links.
Plegmund, who is forcing you to read Dawkings. Maybe some Stephen Jay Gould would ease your mind.
tmb48: I understand your argument and I agree that evolution is a belief. But there's a fundamental difference between religious beliefs and scientific ones. They are not shoved down people throats (or at least they shouldn't) as the truth but as the most valid explanation/interpretation of reality based on the experimental and observational evidence we have at hand. Schools don't even teach all that it's know or discussed about evolution. Just what most, if not all, scientists agree 100% on evolution. The rest which is more hypothetical or highly controversial, like the selfish gene theory or punctuated equilibrium, it's not even mentioned.
Why it isn't anticonstitutional to teach the theory evolution, or any scientific theory if in the end they are all belief systems? Because it's not longer a matter of faith, cientific beliefs are proven to work as tools that empower human beings. It's not their purpose to give them spiritual comfort or guide them to a better afterlife. Which is, after all, the true reason creationists and I.D. proponents defend so much they theories. They don't really care if their theories can explain all volume of evidence as well as evolution does. They just want to save your soul or your kids soul from eternal damnation.
As well as I can recall, My school books explained very clearly other theories that competed during modern evolution's wake. Like spontaneous generation and Lamarckianism (I even had some teachers who firmly believed in some sort of Lamarckianism). And the books were quite ID-neutral since they explained the mechanism behind evolution as natural selection but not necessarily as a random process (natural meaning "by God's will", just like natural disasters).
True, Zemat, I'm not forced to read Dawkins - and to be honest I enjoyed 'The Selfish Gene' (though I haven't been tempted to read another of his books so far, and much the same goes for Gould, I'm afraid). But old Snikwad does pop up in the media rather a lot (alright, it is his job, agreed - a bizarre thing to have a chair in, but there we are). What irritates me slightly is his air of "Hey, I'm such a dangerous intellectual iconoclast that - guess what - I believe in evolution! Not only that but - you'll be shocked to the core by this - I have decided that God does not exist!!!."
He seems to have appointed himself as spokesperson for atheists everywhere, who he has decreed will henceforth be known as 'brights' or 'twinkles' or something. I don't remember voting for him...
Alright, his heart is probably in the right place - I mainly wanted my disenchantment to be balanced...
He seems to have appointed himself as spokesperson for atheists everywhere, who he has decreed will henceforth be known as 'brights' or 'twinkles' or something. I don't remember voting for him...
ARTHUR:
Well, we all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king.
WOMAN:
I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS:
You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
There you go, bringing Class into it again!
Plegmund, I hear you, I bassically agree with most of Dawkins' points of view, but nevertheless, he's a snotty bastard.
but nevertheless
heh, talk about snotty.
tmb48 - nice argument but zemat's got a point there. i'd be more than happy to collect the creationists and shove them into a nice reservation somewhere, sort of a wildlife preserve that future generations can take the guided "see the young-earth advocates!" tour and ask "wow mommy, did people really used to think that praying could cure cancer and that dinosaurs died in a big flood? what dopes they were!"
but the problem is that these people feel so strongly about religion that anything hinting they are wrong isn't a different belief, like islam or judaism or buddhism (which they can dismiss by just smugly pointing to the bible and saying "have a nice time in hell, heathens"). when there's hard, cold, incontroversial facts saying their good book may not be accurate, they have no way to back out - it's an attack not just on a belief system but an attack on their core self-identity. not of course how it was intended, but that;s how they see it. without the bible they have nothing, so they fight to keep their ignorance. they can't reconcile the idea that parts of the book might be wrong with the idea that the overall message of the book still has value.
then as zemat said they can't just leave this alone. once they reject it, they must make sure that their little insular world isn't attacked again - by pushing strongly for laws, etc. to make sure that the demon of science doesn't take away their version of the truth. they won't allow "our" version or reality to impinge upon their world, but they see no problem with inflicting us with crap like "evolution is only a theory*" and "biology is a lie, abstinence works" and "vaccination is bad for you", etc., etc. and sadly there are not as many people who vehemently believe in evolution as there are those who oppose it. the people who are sort of ambivalent, or those who accept the theory but don't feel too threatened by people who don't, aren't the ones who vote on the issue.
what really pisses me off is that the ones opposing evolution want to pick and choose which parts of science they believe. you can't do that - i've seen arguments that use radioisotope breakdown rates and patterns to "prove" the earth is young, then the same people object to radiocarbon dating because they claim that radioisotope breakdown is an unreliable method of time determination. it's circular and rather obtuse, but they keep shouting.
i'd just be happy if we decided collectively that you believe in science or you don't, and if you don't then you need to give up all the benefits of science - electricity, synthetic fabrics, medicine, machines, etc. - and go live in the woods somewhere as a fundamentalist hunter-gatherer.
*evolution is a fact, not a theory. it happens. natural selection is a theory, a mechanism to explain how evolution works. fundies like to use this usually blurry understanding most people have to argue against evolution. heck, there's so much overwhelming evidence supporting the fact that some new creationist arguments even cede evolution, at least on a small scale, but still say only god can make new species or only god could start life in the first place. you can confuse the hell out of a new (or poorly informed) intelligent design proponent by starting the debate with "so, you and i both agree that evolution is a fact, as evolution is one of the key underlying tenets of intelligent design. your move."
then as zemat said they can't just leave this alone. once they reject it, they must make sure that their little insular world isn't attacked again - by pushing strongly for laws, etc. to make sure that the demon of science doesn't take away their version of the truth.
Hehe, frogs, actually it was Alnedra who said that. Not that I don't agree.
Now, clam out a little and count to ten. Or should I call for pete_best?
Or maybe Alnedra's 100-Ton Hammer will do.
All I'm saying is that right now Christian fundamentalists view us (that is to say, people who believe in evolution) as the ones shoving it down their throat through legislation. All the anger and fear that you present at the notion that fundies could force their beliefs into our society... well, we've already done that to them. So they've panicked. Imagine if we lived in a country where all the schools were required by law to present something completely, inexcusably wrong; and whenever we said "wait, that's not how it is," we received insults and worse.
I guess I'm just a human who believes that a little more sensitivity on all sides would go a long way (except when it comes to DDT... ha). If we actually taught the scientific method in schools, and the underlying assumptions behind all scientific theory, then everybody would benefit. "Look, kids, this semester we're going to be learning about something that many of you, and your parents, don't agree with. We're in science class, though, which is a practice of modern civilization based upon a few tenets. We'll spend the first week or so discussing those underlying assumptions. At the end of the week, you're free to agree or disagree with the methods that scientists use. If you disagree, you still have to sit in this class and learn about natural selection because that's the theory that most of the world functions under these days, and the school board thinks it's in your best interest to understand the theory. You don't, on the other hand, have to believe it. Just like when you're in english class you don't have to believe that little dot in 'Ulysses' represents an orgasm, or when you're in baseball class and you don't want to keep your eye on the ball. But before you disagree with something, you have to understand it."
I wish this culture war would hurry up and escalate into an actual war already.
I'm tired of being sensitive. Why is it ok that we allow a significant portion of this country to be idiots? Why is it that if you're feeling kind of down, it's your civic duty to get yourself on some mood-altering drugs, but the fucking out and out insanity of religion is allowed to exist? I mean really, you meet someone who claims to speak directly to some entity that no one else can see or hear, that makes life decisions based on guidance from a really special 2000 year-old book that he keeps on him at all times, and who believes that the entire world is doomed unless they listen to him.
But oh no, that's not schizophrenia. That's a man of faith. ARGH.
All I'm saying is that right now Christian fundamentalists view us (that is to say, people who believe in evolution) as the ones shoving it down their throat through legislation.
That's innacurate, here is a snippet from a article from the Washington Post.
Federal law has long barred Washington from controlling state and local school instructional content
What ID proponents and creationist actually that the government legislate forcing down all schools to teach ID along with Natural Selection.
That's shoving down things down throats.
I guess I'm just a human who believes that a little more sensitivity on all sides would go a long way (except when it comes to DDT... ha).
*Flings poo toward tmb48*
Ooh Aah Ahh!!
"Look, kids, this semester we're going to be learning about something that many of you, and your parents, don't agree with..."
That's actually beautifully articulate, but kids would hardly understand what the fuss is all about and you actually would confuse them more. Instead, teachers should say that to parents. Even if most of them don't agree with or believe in evolution they would understand your position. Just a few close minded individuals would oppose you fiercely.
How more sensitive than that education can be without being actually condescending? Consider this for example:
"Look kids, most evidence point out that babies come from moms bellies. But since some individuals don't actually believe that, we decided to ignore that fact and teach you this other theory about babies coming from Paris alongside the sexual one, just to please them. In the end (and hopefully) you'll probably ignore it, or risk having undesired pregnancies (coz' Paris theory conveniently says that sex doesn't have anything to do with babies), wasting both money and time, both we can hardly spare."
Pete_best, will you kindly lend me that hose for 15 minutes...
*Hoses down Daniel*
*...waits for Daniel to stand up again*
*hoses him down again*
*gives back hose to Pete_best*
... thanks!
[I never said that the legislation was federal; even on the state and community level people are upset that evolution is being taught without ID]
"That's actually beautifully articulate, but kids would hardly understand what the fuss is all about and you actually would confuse them more...wasting both money and time, both we can hardly spare."
In my school, we took biology in 10th grade (I actually didn't take it...I didn't want to dissect a fetal pig. Then I ended up majoring in env.bio. in college.. there you have it). I think that 15-year-olds are very well equipped to begin to understand these very complexities. And furthermore, I think that teaching kids tolerance for both religion and science (Daniel, I'm looking in your direction... you can have a spiritual life without being a literalist when it comes to the bible) is shaping up to be the most important issue of this century. I would rather that high school kids graduate with a keen sense of anti-fundamentalism of any kind than an understanding of allopatric vs. sympatric speciation (which they're going to forget anyway).
"Why is it ok that we allow a significant portion of this country to be idiots?"
Because in 99 out of 100 cases, somebody believing in creationism over evolution matters not a cent to anybody else's daily life. Only when they try to FORCE that view on other people does it become an issue. Because we (in America) have a constitution that allows people to pursue whatever religious beliefs they desire. Because in the end we're all going to die and what the fuck does it matter that you end up on your death bed knowing that you'll close your eyes and sleep longer than it's been since the dinosaurs went extinct and other people end up dying with the hope that they'll be in paradise in a few moments. Because good political law should be based on the single tenet that another person's actions, as long as they aren't detrimental to the rest of society, should be legally protected. Because in the end everbody needs to have a better concept of the limitations of their personal belief system, scientists and fundamentalists alike. Because, for christ's sake, if a large majority of humans throughout history have had some sort of spiritual feelings, you can't deny that that feeling exists, whether or not you feel it, and especially whether or not you believe in the explanation behind it. And I'd suggest that if you've never experienced that feeling as a rational human being, you give more thought to the first few nanoseconds after the big bang, and the structure of DNA and realize that, while neither point to the existence of God, there are beautiful things in this universe that matter more than any logical fallacies you can spot in other people's beliefs.
Sigh. But my question is genuine. Why go on with the pretense, the tolerance. Why aren't we viewing religion as a mental disease?
Maybe tolerance isn't the right word to use here. Yes, fine, believe in whatever the hell you want. No one can force anyone to accept anything they don't wish to.
It seems like there's this huge joke being played on a portion of our society, and the rest of us that are in on it don't want to tell those being duped for fear of hurting their feelings. Or something.
Please, before you give me anymore lectures about appreciating the beauty of the unknowable, or even about the values of faith, belief, love, etc.--I am making a very sharp distinction between spirituality and religion. I used to be very religious, and I am filled with regret for having spent part of my life that way. I don't regret being encouraged to love, the idea of brotherhood, or the idea that there is greater than what we're able to rightly perceive. But I'll save you the moaning of my spiritual oppression at the hands of my religion.
The teaching of creationism is but the tip. You're trying to tell me that their beliefs aren't affecting me? Bullshit. Gay? Sorry. Want to have pre-marital sex? Want to have sex without a condom, or for reasons other than procreation? Want a blood transfusion? Want to create art that doesn't "edify"? Want to buy liquor in Pittsburgh on a Sunday? Want to smoke some pot? Want to live in a shared house with more than 1 person who's unrelated to you?
You point out that the majority of people in human history have believed in some kind of deity, but I defy you to tell me more good than evil has come from that. I trust I won't need to name specifics of how religion has fueled mankind's atrocities upon each other.
But this isn't really a "religion is dumb" rant. I'm just wondering what is it about social dynamics that lets a group of friends ignore someone's self-destructive behaviour, because it rocks the boat. Well fuck it. Religion IS dumb.
Pez sure drinks a lot of vodka. That's really stupid. Let's mock him until he changes, or won't hang out with us anymore. Either way, we win a moral victory for the forces of conformity. teetotalers everywhere. Hurrah! Self-destruction is in the eye of the beholder. If religion bothers you, fine. Doesn't make it dumb. Guess what, I don't care for dogs. Does that make me dumb, or the dog owners? Or is it just a difference of opinion?
I'm trying to draw the distinction between people who follow a particular faith for themselves and those who force it on others, nothing more. Just think about that. Have a little empathy.
well that's the problem, tmb48. the only ones pushing their view are the fundies. nobody prostelizes natural selection (well, ok, maybe dawkins does, but you gotta have one or two in every grup, ya know?) if people would just refuse to send their kids to a school that teaches facts, rather than forcing other people's kids to learn lies, everyone would be happy. i say, go ahead and home-school your kid if it makes you happy. but don't force public tax dollars to be used to teach kids that darwin is a godless liar.
i think this is what you were getting at when you said we ought to round 'em up, fence 'em off, and let them be ignorant so they'll leave us in peace.
but they won't do that. they're pushing a view that says, in part, that (a) everything you learn in a biology class is based on a flawed assumption (life evolved from non-life, randomly, with no direction from a superior being); (b) most of what you learn in an earth science class (geology, plate tectonics, etc.) is lies used to support the flawed assumption given in biology; (b) a lot of what you learn in physics is inaccurate because people use it to support the lies you learned in earth science and biology; and (d) - most grevious to me - that the word "science" can and should be used to describe methods of basing all your assumptions on religious teachings rather than using the accepted scientific method: postulation of hypotheses and falsification of alternatives due to carefully controlled experiments and observations.
let's not even go into how much this screws up people's understanding of genetics, comparative anatomy, ecology, etc. you wouldn't believe some of the crackpot questions i have to field when teaching genetics or intro biology.
the fundies say that teaching "evolution" (again, they mean natural selection but are generally too ill-informed to recognize the difference) will take away all the good in the world and make us not care - hey, we're animals, the strong survive, so kill that guy and take his stuff. (except that they forget that sociobiology - social evolution - is part of this - peer pressure works because what people think of you is a HUGE part of your reproductive success. not too many people want to pair up with a sociopathic basket-case.)
personally i feel that teaching people that life is random gives you a greater appreciation for life than a religious view does - why care about extinction when god will just make more elephants some day? when you consider that an elephant reflects millions of years of gradually accumulated genetic diversity, AND that the ecosystem in which this animal lives has gradually been changed over that same period of time due to the presence of this animal and it's ancestors, the uniqeness and importance of this animal becomes that much greater. this is what we should be teaching our kids. the key point is that science teaches people to question and to be objective - if you don't buy a particular theory, you're free to figure it out for yourself. religion teaches kids not to question but to blindly obey - just what fundies seem to fear will happen to their kids if they're ever exposed to the false prophet Darwin.
all in all it's not that surprising that in the US we drive big SUVs, exploit the environment, don't give a shit about global warming, and that our kids do so badly on international tests of scientific knowledge. we teach them early on that scientists are evil, godless bastards who lie about everything, so why should the ever start to care about science?
conformity.teetotalers everywhere. Hurrah! Self-destruction is in the eye of the beholder. If religion bothers you, fine. Doesn't make it dumb. Guess what, I don't care for dogs. Does that make me dumb, or the dog owners? Or is it just a difference of opinion?