Fundamentally Destructive

If you haven’t guessed by now, I’m not a big fan of organized religion. Religion does not change with the discovery of new facts or the disproving of cherished tenets. That’s one good thing about science, it’s constantly changing, constantly seeking new truths, and hence why I tend to trust what reputable scientists say over what religious fanatics yell at me on the street or what some evangelical groups try to sell me on while I’m waiting for public transportation.

What is really, really dangerous about religion is the potential for fundamentalism. There is a long history of violence associated with religious fundamentalism. Wars have been fought because of it, genocide has been justified by it. It is aggressive, demanding, and narrow-minded. Fundamentalism creates terrorists, religious warriors, intolerant governments, and an oppressed populace, as you can see in many of the Mideast countries that are run by Islamic fundamentalists. We have battles here in the US over the separation of church and state, which vexes Christian fundamentalists. We fight over what should be included in our schoolbooks as far as scientific facts go because they might cause children to be confused as to who created the Universe. Evolution, we’re constantly reminded, is a theory. As an American, I’m pretty used to the constant debate over Creationism being taught in schools. But now, fundamentalists in Russia are pushing the same tired “it’s a theory” argument and advocating for Creationism to be taught in their schools. People, this is why we can’t have nice things.

The Soviet Union was an atheist state. Say what you will about Communism, I’m not trying to say it’s great and everyone should have some, but at least the USSR had the idea to constitutionally keep religion out of politics and not cover every national monument and piece of currency with quotes from the Bible and “In God We Trust”. (Unfortunately, they enforced the anti-religion laws in some pretty violent and unnecessarily brutal ways under Stalin.) During the Cold War the US naturally assumed the Judeo-Christian god was on their side, and that the Soviets were godless heathens. Personally, I’d rather be governed by godless heathens than religious fundamentalists. At least heathens can throw a good dance party. But, I digress. The Soviet Union collapsed, a clear sign that their godlessness had been punished by the divine and the US had been ordained as The Only Superpower, police force to the world. (See “American Exceptionalism”)

Now the Orthodox Christian church, the dominant church in the years before the Soviet Union was formed, is having a revival of sorts in Russia. And of course the first thing any fundamentalist religion wants to do is indoctrinate their children. Well, the Orthodox Church isn’t the only game in town anymore, and Muslims, who make up 20 million of the 141 million Russian citizens, have been expressing their concerns over what they see as the privileged position of the Orthodox Christian Church. Surely Russia, with it’s sparkling human right record, wouldn’t think to install the teachings of the Church into Russia’s textbooks without mentioning any other religions!

What really burns me, as a science nerd, is that the Christian fundamentalists who want to teach intelligent design either alongside or without teaching evolution, state that intelligent design is also a theory just like evolution, so it should be taught so that children know their options. But intelligent design is NOT a theory.

In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

(via Wikipedia)

Do you see how intelligent design meets basically none of those criteria? How can you scientifically prove a theory that by its essence is unprovable? Intelligent design is one of the laziest pseudoscientific “theories” out there. Basically it says “well, this shit is here on earth and in the sky… and it seems like it would be hard to make all this stuff because it’s so complex, so someone really smart must have put this stuff here!” Intelligent design makes the most sense when you have a Bible in your hand. Then when your brain (hopefully) leads you to the question “Well who the hell created this crap and how long did it take?”, you take the Bible and look it up. Never mind that science has proven that the Universe is billions of years old as is the Earth, and any rational person could believe that over what, 8 billion years or so, nature could evolve complex creatures like us.

Not all Christians think intelligent design should be taught in schools, and that’s great. Now I just wish they’d talk some reason into their fundamental friends.

27 Responses to Fundamentally Destructive

  1. DeeLeigh June 15, 2010 at 3:54 am #

    Thank you.

  2. Lori June 15, 2010 at 6:21 am #

    Not all Christians think intelligent design should be taught in schools, and that’s great. Now I just wish they’d talk some reason into their fundamental friends.

    As an Episcopalian, I'd say the problem with this is that fundamentalists and more moderate/liberal Christians aren't friends. (Well, individuals might be friends, of course, but the groups are not.) We've got about as much control over what conservative churches do as the Democrats have over what Republicans do. Sure, both are political parties and both affirm some of the same basic tenets regarding the political process, but they have very different views and aims and one group isn't going to have sway over what the other does. However, many of the plaintiffs in cases where intelligent design has been challenged in courts have been mainline and liberal Christians. In the Dover, PA case several of the plaintiffs were Christians, and a number of the witnesses arguing against the inclusion of ID in schools were also Christians.

    The thing I find so silly about the "let's include the alternatives!" argument is that its proponents seem utterly unaware that there are more theories (and I'm using this in the loosest sense right now, not the scientific sense) regarding creation out there than just two. If we start including creation myths, where do we stop? My 6-year-old child has a book of myths that includes, in the first section, at least 10 creation myths from various cultures and traditions. And that's just in a children's book. There are hundreds and hundreds of creation myths and there's simply no justification for including one of them in a science class while ignoring the others, if the idea is that all "theories" should be considered.

    • Tasha Fierce June 15, 2010 at 11:20 pm #

      I guess it's just the creation myths that won the most favor.

  3. angrygrayrainbows June 15, 2010 at 7:16 am #

    I've read a lot of books about how modern christian fundamentalism evolved and have come to the conclusion that these are people who are very insecure in their religion. They fear that religion might somehow "disprove" religion and that their religion has no validity without scientific proof… and so, they desperately try to bend science to try to make their religious believes provable and therefore "safe" in their eyes.
    Now, I was raised in a very religious home, but even my parents told me very early on that religion and science were too seperate things. My parents speculated that maybe someday science and religion would meet and make sense of eachother, but that was unlikely in my lifetime and to keep science and religion seperate in the meantime. Thank goodness my parents at least had that much sense.
    Karen Armstrong has written a lot of books about religion and talks about how religion fills a basic psychological need to explain the unexplainable and to give us hope when we have no other reason to hope… and to otherwise feel more connected in the world and feel less alone. I personally am not religious and am merely spiritual, but I do understand that religion can do a lot of good. At the same time, it is clear to me that weilded in the hands of fearful and insecure people that religion can do ridiculous amounts of damage. History has also bourne out that governments often throw the banner of relgion on war (and other atrocities) to justify their behavior when ultimately the powers that be (the governments that is) dont' necessarily have any religious conviction and just use the religious banner as a way to mobilize the people. I have little doubt that if religion wasn't available as an excuse for some wars and atrocities that other excuses would've been manufactured and the atrocities would be committed anyway just under some other banner.
    I think religious fundamentalists are bullies.. and as bullies they are very insecure, very shrill and very pushy. It has always been interesting to me that being raised by a minister (as I was) that I heard all too often how one of the most important aspect of religion was FAITH. The irony of religious fundamentalists is that they seem to have little to no faith in their religion and instead demand of their religion that it conform to science (and that science conform to it) or otherwise they fear their religion might be completely pointless. That said… bullies are always going to be bullies and even if they didn't have religion to try to bash everyone's head in, I am sure they'd just find something else… because ultimately they are fearful and insecure people who are ever going to make a mess of thing… but personally, I wish they'd leave religion alone as well and leave it to the people who don't try to make it into something it's not – science.

    • Tasha Fierce June 15, 2010 at 11:24 pm #

      That's a interesting idea. I can see the whole "insecure in your religion" thing. I wish that people would accept that their holy books were written by men, and that there's no reason why they can't modify their beliefs, which they imposed on themselves, to include evolution. That doesn't mean there can't be a Judeo-Christian god, maybe he just went about it a different way. I don't know. Religion is pretty interesting to me. I feel like basically it's all about death. Knowing what happens when you die. But that's just my random thought.

  4. Atchka! June 15, 2010 at 8:59 am #

    I've had a recurring argument with my atheist Father-in-Law (I'm a theist and Reformed Catholic (aka lapsed Catholic)).

    Even if there were no religion in the world, the same people who use religion to justify their own selfish goals and ambitions for power, wealth and prestige would find another outlet, whether through nationalism or racialism or whatever -ism was handy.

    As a former Catholic, I'm a big believer that the key to a healthy life is moderation in all things, including religion.

    Peace,
    Shannon

    • Kelly June 15, 2010 at 11:37 am #

      I agree with Atchka.

      In "progressive" and liberal circles people jump down my throat when I stand up for religion and I see it's very popular to put it down (including calling religious people "crazy" or wack-jobs etc, which I find problematic on a few levels). But I'm going to comment in good faith here.

      You make great points Tasha. You also contradict yourself with your second sentence and your second-to-last sentence:

      "Religion does not change with the discovery of new facts or the disproving of cherished tenets. … Not all Christians think intelligent design should be taught in schools, and that’s great."

      Of course all Christians (or nearly all) USED to believe in intelligent design and New Earth theory or whatever; a huge amount of Christians now believe in evolution. That's just one example from one religion. Religions do change and people adhering to religion do have hearts and minds.

      Religion is not the problem – like Atchka said – but rather a blunt and convenient instrument some people use to bludgeon one another. Fear, a belief of "scarcity", a lack of compassion, a lack of knowledge and trust, aspirations for power… those things are the problem and have been evidenced by the religious, the non-religious, the spiritual and the athiest/agnostic alike.

      I understand religious fundamentalism is scary and upsetting to many. I really am not trying to argue anyone out of their feelings. I'm also writing in good faith and hope I don't get flamed by the many who hate/dislike/are mistrustful of organized religion.

      The truth is I know so many people who belong to religious traditions and do so much good in the world (many like my mother who also support marriage equality and compassion and separation of church and state, who do anti-racist work and concern themselves with the equal distribution and access of services and goods, etc etc). Framing a discussion of religion by taking only the worst aspects of some members erases so many of the great people I know who do a heck of a lot of active, loving good.

      Creationism does not belong in public school IMO. In fact there's a lot more of it in school today than people realize. Instead of wishing religious fundamentalism away it might be a better strategy to ask ourselves what these rigid belief systems are providing for those who adhere to them, instead of painting them broad-brushstroke as nutters.

      • Tasha Fierce June 15, 2010 at 11:17 pm #

        You make great points Tasha. You also contradict yourself with your second sentence and your second-to-last sentence:

        “Religion does not change with the discovery of new facts or the disproving of cherished tenets. … Not all Christians think intelligent design should be taught in schools, and that’s great.”

        Of course all Christians (or nearly all) USED to believe in intelligent design and New Earth theory or whatever; a huge amount of Christians now believe in evolution. That’s just one example from one religion. Religions do change and people adhering to religion do have hearts and minds.

        But see, that's the PEOPLE that changed their minds. Their religious text and what they're taught in church didn't change. The religion itself didn't make some kind of statement that it was now using On the Origin of Species instead of the Bible. People can change, and the only reason why the religious gatekeepers let them break the rules (because they are breaking the rules of their religion) is because it's impossible to stop the flow of information now.

        The truth is I know so many people who belong to religious traditions and do so much good in the world (many like my mother who also support marriage equality and compassion and separation of church and state, who do anti-racist work and concern themselves with the equal distribution and access of services and goods, etc etc). Framing a discussion of religion by taking only the worst aspects of some members erases so many of the great people I know who do a heck of a lot of active, loving good.

        I need to do a post on this, but I was born and raised Seventh-Day Adventist and I went to an Adventist church until grade 8. My grandfather, whom my mother and I lived with, was a pastor. So I grew up on that. And my family does a lot of good too, my grandfather is really who introduced me to science and my mom let me check out any books from the library I wanted. So I had access to differing viewpoints. They're not fundamentalists at all. So I know that all religious people are not horrible awful people. I'm specifically talking about those Christian fundamentalists here and in Russia who seek to subvert the knowledge of evolution in favor of their own doctrine, which is impossible to test scientifically.

        Creationism does not belong in public school IMO. In fact there’s a lot more of it in school today than people realize. Instead of wishing religious fundamentalism away it might be a better strategy to ask ourselves what these rigid belief systems are providing for those who adhere to them, instead of painting them broad-brushstroke as nutters.

        Not a therapist but I'll bite on that one. I think it probably gives them a sense of belonging and of order and purpose in their life.

        • Kelly June 16, 2010 at 12:42 am #

          So I know that all religious people are not horrible awful people.

          OK, that's a good clarification. So thanks.

          People can change, and the only reason why the religious gatekeepers let them break the rules (because they are breaking the rules of their religion) is because it’s impossible to stop the flow of information now.

          Definitely, and that gives me hope, no matter what theological/moral "battle" one is talking about and how grim things look at times.

    • Tasha Fierce June 15, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

      Oh I totally agree there will always be something, unless we finally at some point realize that we need to stop fighting each other over stupid shit, or trying to feel superior to everyone else. Unfortunately I doubt we'll be around as a species long enough for our psyche to evolve like that.

  5. QuiltLuvr June 15, 2010 at 9:15 am #

    Half of my family is Mennonite, with very rigid ideas about what to teach their children – THEY all go to private, mennonite schools. So no problem.

    Now that I've moved to Texas, among the nuts, it is apalling how much my fellow citizens want to run my life, while saying they want "Government" out of theirs. This running-of-lives only goes in one direction, I guess.

    I think it's interesting, that as fundamentalist as the Mennonites are, they do not try to tell other people how to live (only among themselves).

    • Tasha Fierce June 15, 2010 at 11:26 pm #

      See, if you want to be fundamentalist, just don't try to remake the world to fit your view. That's excellent.

  6. Michelle June 15, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    I like this post and agree with most of what you're saying. However, I don't think it's really fair to…

    -use the word "religion" when talking primarily about Christianity – there are tons of other religions that don't have Christianity's particular pitfalls.
    -make statements like "What is really, really dangerous about religion is the potential for fundamentalism. There is a long history of violence associated with religious fundamentalism.". Historically, fundamentalism and religious violence come primarily with monotheism. The "one god, one true path" idea isn't found in polytheist religions, for fairly obvious reasons, and that mentality is what tends to lead towards religious wars and insistence of spreading religion at whatever cost. This is not to say that all monotheists are evil people or anything, but as far as I know, it wasn't a thing for pre-Christian religions in Europe (for example, I'm woefully uninformed about other places) to invade other places specifically BECAUSE they were worshipping the wrong thunder god or whatever.

    I certainly don't want creationism taught in our public schools, I'm just coming from a place of feeling like I'm constantly erased in regards to my religion. When I tell people I'm religious they automatically assume I'm Christian (I'm a pagan, a heathen to be specific), and when discussions come up about problems with religion (I'm also NOT a fan of organized religion, I much favor more decentralized local groups) people tend to talk about the problems with fundamentalist Christianity, leave it at that, and then dismiss all religion as inherently bad. This essentially leaves no room for me or my experiences/beliefs. And the experiences/beliefs of many other people.

    • Tasha Fierce June 15, 2010 at 11:06 pm #

      However, I don’t think it’s really fair to…

      -use the word “religion” when talking primarily about Christianity – there are tons of other religions that don’t have Christianity’s particular pitfalls.

      Since I was talking about the Orthodox Church in Russia, I focused on Christianity. All religions have pitfalls. I see religions as being created by humans trying to figure out their place in the universe and therefore subject to its flaws. I think we hear enough about Islamic fundamentalism, I didn't see the need to include it.

      make statements like “What is really, really dangerous about religion is the potential for fundamentalism. There is a long history of violence associated with religious fundamentalism.”. Historically, fundamentalism and religious violence come primarily with monotheism. The “one god, one true path” idea isn’t found in polytheist religions, for fairly obvious reasons, and that mentality is what tends to lead towards religious wars and insistence of spreading religion at whatever cost. This is not to say that all monotheists are evil people or anything, but as far as I know, it wasn’t a thing for pre-Christian religions in Europe (for example, I’m woefully uninformed about other places) to invade other places specifically BECAUSE they were worshipping the wrong thunder god or whatever.

      Actually, wars have been fought over polytheistic religions since the beginning of time. Even the Bible documents some. Each conquering empire had their own sets of gods, and the conquered states would be forced to take on the religion of the victors. Greeks fought Greeks because one set whose patron goddess happened to be Athena felt that she wasn't properly honored by some Spartans or something, whose patron goddess was Persephone, and Persephone didn't think Athena needed recognition, so there was a fight. That's all throughout Greek and Roman history. Really, do a lot of reading on religion, it's very interesting. So no, polythestic religions are not getting off scot free.

      I don't view paganism as "organized religion". Not to say it's not valid or something, but it's just not a juggernaut the way specifically Christianity is, but also Islam and in some cases Judaism.

      When I use the phrase "organized religion" I'm talking about the institution of religion, as informed by the big 3 (Christianity, Islam, Judaism).

      • Michelle June 17, 2010 at 11:16 am #

        Greeks fought Greeks because one set whose patron goddess happened to be Athena felt that she wasn’t properly honored by some Spartans or something, whose patron goddess was Persephone, and Persephone didn’t think Athena needed recognition, so there was a fight. That’s all throughout Greek and Roman history. Really, do a lot of reading on religion, it’s very interesting. So no, polythestic religions are not getting off scot free.

        *shrugs* I guess that doesn't surprise me, 'cause I don't know a lot about Greek/Roman history or theology, but I don't think a few incidences within one culture necessarily make a pattern (especially since the Greek and later the Romans had that whole thing going where everyone else was obvs barbarians that they had to conquer and show the light of civilization). Among the Germanic or Celtic tribes, I don't think there were similar incidences. I could be totes wrong since it's been a while since I brushed up on my history.

        BUT I do think monotheism lends itself better to fundamentalism than polytheism.

        And yeah, most of the pagan religions don't fall under "organized religion", we are kind of disorganized by nature. Herding cats and all that jazz. Paganism itself is certainly not an organized religion since it's not really one monolithic religion to begin with and is more of am umbrella term…

        I was probably transferring a bit with my first bulletin-point (hyphen-point?) because I ran into something the other day that was a self-proclaimed evangelical atheist (lolwhat) talking about the problems with "religion"…who then proceeded to point out flaws in Christianity and be like "SEE, RELIGION IS FAIL". And I was kind of like, okay? So…what about the hundreds of other religions out there?

        • Tasha Fierce June 19, 2010 at 12:00 am #

          *shrugs* I guess that doesn’t surprise me, ’cause I don’t know a lot about Greek/Roman history or theology, but I don’t think a few incidences within one culture necessarily make a pattern (especially since the Greek and later the Romans had that whole thing going where everyone else was obvs barbarians that they had to conquer and show the light of civilization).

          I was just using the ancient Greeks and Romans as examples of a polytheistic culture that went to war over their gods. Pretty much all the polytheistic societies did the whole "conquer then indoctrinate" thing because that's just what societies do when they're building empires. I don't know about the Celtic & Germanic religions, but I know they were much lower-tech and may not have been the empire building types. Of all religions I think the earth-based ones make the most sense.

          And yeah, I think the rise of monotheism really ushered in an era of fundamentalism.

          Really, as long as you're not trying to push your religion into government or push it on other people, violently or peacefully, I'm cool with it. It's just not for me.

  7. Shoshie June 15, 2010 at 6:22 pm #

    I'm a religious and (in many but not all) traditionally observant Jew. I'm also a PhD student in chemistry. I find the most helpful approach to be that my science informs my religion, but not the other way around. So, if it helps me to see the divine though thoughts like, WOW, molecules are AWESOME, that's fine and dandy. But I will not compromise the scientific process because of my beliefs. And I really don't think there's any need to. Rabbis were talking about "one day" of creation representing more than a solar day before Darwin was a twinkle in anyone's eye. Go exegesis!

    The only time I allow my religion to inform my science is through valuing certain questions over others. For instance, I hold environmentalism and conservation as key Jewish values; therefore, I am working on developing a solution for certain energy problems.

    Also, P.S., I really like your blog, Tasha, and find myself nodding along with a lot that you have to say! You are awesome and write things out that I want to say but am totally unable to. So thanks!

    • Tasha Fierce June 15, 2010 at 11:28 pm #

      I’m a religious and (in many but not all) traditionally observant Jew. I’m also a PhD student in chemistry. I find the most helpful approach to be that my science informs my religion, but not the other way around. So, if it helps me to see the divine though thoughts like, WOW, molecules are AWESOME, that’s fine and dandy. But I will not compromise the scientific process because of my beliefs. And I really don’t think there’s any need to. Rabbis were talking about “one day” of creation representing more than a solar day before Darwin was a twinkle in anyone’s eye. Go exegesis!

      Yes! Religion and science can co-exist! The religious powers that be need to learn that.


      Also, P.S., I really like your blog, Tasha, and find myself nodding along with a lot that you have to say! You are awesome and write things out that I want to say but am totally unable to. So thanks!

      Thank you so much!

  8. Heather Flescher June 16, 2010 at 4:56 am #

    Fundamentalist beliefs not only discourage learning about science, they can discourage believers from learning about their own religion. I had a friend who was working on a doctorate in New Testament theology, and she got to know many people at her university who were studying the Bible as a historical text, tracing the origins of the various parts and understanding their influences. I asked her how many of those people were Fundamentalists, and she told me, "As far as I know, none of them." If someone thinks of the Bible as a unified, infallible document handed down verbatim by God, they probably wouldn't want to explore how it actually came to exist.

    • angrygrayrainbows June 16, 2010 at 5:35 am #

      This is an interesting point… in book "Monkey Girl" that goes in detail over the creationism debate, the author goes to fundamentalist conventions where young people stand up and state their own fear of going to college and learning too much… especially too much science, because if they do, then maybe they will go to hell or at the very least be ostracized from their family and friends. I wasn't raised Fundy, but there are fundy branches of my family tree and I've seen this fear and conformism first-hand in my cousins who feared being disowned by their parents and thrown out of their church which was the only social life that they had ever had before.

      This is a very biblical way of thinking in the Old Testament sense as God forbid Adam and Eve the fruit from the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. Once they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge "their eyes were opened" and they were thrown out of Eden… many people take this story as a warning against knowledge and education. This point of view finds ignorance to be a virtue and a sort of innocence…. rather, in my point of view, this "innocent" just creates a lot of really annoying and sometimes even dangerous people who are afraid of actual facts.

    • Tasha Fierce June 16, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

      Studying the Bible as a historical text is incredibly revealing, I love it. The things you find out about why it is what it is, and how men wrote and manipulated it… The idea of "sola scriptura" is scary when that book is so biased and full of flaws.

  9. Dawn. June 16, 2010 at 8:45 am #

    Thank you, thank you, thank you! A fundamentalist approach to any religion breeds violence, ignorance, and conformity. I grew up with a fundamentalist Pentecostal mother in a fundamentalist Pentecostal church, so I know this first hand. I'm an atheist now.

    What really burst my Jesus-bubble were two things: 1) I'm queer so you can imagine the clusterfuck of self-hate, bitterness, and fear emanating from my closeted pre-teen self and 2) The story of Jesus is total plagiarism from a variety of much older polytheistic religions. Krishna is just one of many examples. Virgin birth and miracles and all. Niiiice.

    I don't have a problem with people who choose to believe in God and/or choose to participate in any religion. I do have a problem when you tell me and everyone else like me that we're perverts, we're going to hell, etc, because that encourages a particular mindset that encourages a particular kind of violence (HATE CRIMES) and a particular kind of society (A HOMOPHOBIC ONE). I have a problem when you tell me to submit to a man. I have a problem when you tell me my "purity" is my primary value, so if I don't close my legs I'm worthless. And I have a motherfucking problem when you fuck with the separation of church and state.

    • Tasha Fierce June 16, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

      YES to your entire comment. A lot of Bible stories are a hodgepodge of various other cultures' mythologies. And I don't care what god you worship as long as you don't let it interfere with my business.

  10. Lori June 15, 2010 at 6:28 am #

    Just wanted to say that, just like all Christians really aren't wackos, all homeschoolers aren't, either. Honest. Right now we're homeschooling our son. We had him in kindergarten,only to have him sent home with worksheets designed to teach him how to fill in bubbles on standardized tests and to walk into his school to discover that the kids' standardized test scores were posted in the halls. It was insane. Plus, his teacher had no idea what to do with a 5 year old who could already read anything, and the schools solution was to suggest putting him in the third grade class for reading. Because my kid who's struggling to behave in a kindergarten class would have no problem fitting in in a third grade class. Right. We pulled him out and had him home the rest of the year, and it's been a great experience.

    It is a struggle to find homeschool materials that don't teach creationism, though. This is one of the future projects my husband and I have filed in our heads, creating a homeschool science curriculum that is secular and evolution-based.

  11. Tasha Fierce June 16, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    Redlami, your nephew sounds pretty creative. But I think the blueprints for laptops can be found in the book of Ezra.

  12. redlami June 15, 2010 at 8:22 am #

    I wasn't suggesting that *all* homeschoolers were creationists by any means… just that this is what you get when creationists homeschool, and it offers a glimpse into the kind of science we can expect if this malarkey goes mainstream.

  13. Snarky's Machin June 15, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    Give it a rest Lori. Seriously, this "my kid is so smart and a special cupcake" is such privileged dribble. Redlami didn't say anything about "all" school. Maybe you should take some reading comprehension lessons from your smart home school child.

Leave a Reply