Thursday, January 17, 2008 | Science : Teaching Science | print version

Questions Delay Creationist Master's Degrees

by Inside Higher ED

Thanks to Tristram for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/16/icr

Scientists fearful that Texas was about to approve a program to offer online master's degrees in science education — from a creationist perspective — received some good news Tuesday.

The Institute for Creation Research, which received preliminary approval last month from an advisory committee to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, asked the commission not to consider the matter at this month's meeting. The institute acted after the commissioner of higher education sent the institute a series of questions about its program — questions that weren't considered in the initial review.

The commissioner stressed in an interview Tuesday that he is open minded about the creationists' request for degree approval and that the authorization could still be granted. But with the matter off the agenda of this month's meeting, the creationist group will have to wait until the coordinating board's next meeting, in April, for approval. And some of the questions to which the commissioner is seeking answers — such as why the master's program based on creation science is so different from every other science education program in the state — may be difficult to answer.

News that Texas might approve the master's program by the institute became public in December and quickly alarmed many scientists and other educators in Texas. So-called creation science is viewed as non-science by a wide consensus of researchers — but is also viewed as dangerous, given how little most Americans know about science.

The idea that the state might give its OK to a new program to train teachers to instruct children in creation science set off alarm bells and calls for the commission to hold off on approving the institute. At the same time, the issue is delicate politically — many Texas lawmakers (not to mention President Bush, a former governor) have argued that discredited theories such as intelligent design should be given equal billing with evolution in science courses.

Raymund A. Paredes, commissioner of higher education for Texas, said he has received numerous e-mail messages from politicians and others offering advice on handling the institute. He said that the office of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican who has also argued for teaching evolution and creationist ideas at the same time in schools, has been informed of the process being used, and has encouraged the coordinating board to follow its normal procedures.

The institute has been offering degrees from a base in California, but is shifting many operations — including the master's degree program — to a Texas base. Because the institute is not regionally accredited, it needs state coordinating board approval to offer the degrees. While the institute says that its courses teach evolutionary theory as well as creationism, the institute makes no effort to suggest that it is open to traditional scientific views.

The statement of faith for everyone at the institute requires support for both "scientific creationism" and "Biblical creationism." The former includes the belief that humans were created "in fully human form from the start" and that the universe was created "perfect" by the "creator." The latter includes the beliefs that the Bible is literally true and "free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological." Specifically, the statement requires belief in the literal creation of the earth in six days, that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and in the virgin birth of Jesus.

Paredes said that he has raised three "concerns" with the institute, asking for more information for coordinating board review:

- Online learning. "Given all the research that demonstrates that science is best learned by actually doing it, how are you going to give students the proper exposure to the experimentation side of science online?" Parades said that this question is one he would ask of any online science program and wasn't related specifically to creationism.

- Curriculum. "Their curriculum doesn't line up very well with the curriculum available in conventional master of science programs here in Texas," he said. "I wanted them to either revise the curriculum or explain why it departed from the norm."

- Research. Paredes said that the institute "claims that their faculty do actual research," so he asked for "material that documented the research activities under way" and that show the research to be "based on solid scientific research."

Until the institute answers those questions, Paredes said, he is not making up his mind about whether to recommend approval to the coordinating board. He said it was "not unusual" for him to raise questions after an initial review and approval, and that people should not assume that the proposal is dead just because of the questions and the request for a delay.

"Because this is an issue that's controversial to a lot of people, we want to make sure we look at this matter throughly and fairly," he said.

Officials for the Institute for Creation Research declined to be interviewed for this article, but issued a press release noting the initial approval received from the advisory committee and pledging to provide the additional material requested by Paredes.

The press release said that the institute was "pleased" to "demonstrate its compliance and its competency in the fields that it teaches." The release also said that the goal of its graduate programs was "to provide teachers with the scientific knowledge and teaching skills necessary to actively engage their students and to prepare scientifically literate graduates."

— Scott Jaschik

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 60 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #112523 by jimbob on January 17, 2008 at 12:28 pm

First class in the creation science curriculum: "Oxymorons 101"

Other Comments by jimbob

2. Comment #112529 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 12:32 pm

- Research. Paredes said that the institute "claims that their faculty do actual research," so he asked for "material that documented the research activities under way" and that show the research to be "based on solid scientific research."

Well, it's going to be VERY interesting to see what answers the Institute gives to this! How do you research creationism? And how they have the gall to equate hunting for ANYTHING, no matter how stupid, that might just possibly (when suitably twisted and regurgitated) reinforce the conclusion they've already arrived at, with proper scientific research is just beyond me. But then, so much about these so-called creation "scientists" (sic) is.

Still - a glimmer of hope here, maybe?

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

3. Comment #112536 by AshtonBlack on January 17, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Only one class: "Goddidit 101"

and Yes, Paula it does indeed give me a small sense of hope. :)

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

4. Comment #112540 by gtcc on January 17, 2008 at 12:40 pm

I would have thought this news item would appear on RD website:
"Pope cancels trip to Rome university after protests"
SEE HERE:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-01-16-pope-visit_N.htm

Other Comments by gtcc

5. Comment #112552 by D'Arcy on January 17, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Oh dear! Is Texas really going to teach that the Earth was created in October 4004 bc. Not only that, but it will also be "scientific", as approved by the relevent authorities.

Surely there must enough guns in Texas to shoot this one down?

Other Comments by D'Arcy

6. Comment #112565 by Epinephrine on January 17, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Thankfully it's being asked some tough questions. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the thought of an MSc. in Creation Science...

Other Comments by Epinephrine

7. Comment #112575 by The Truth, the light on January 17, 2008 at 1:38 pm

The crazy/frustrating/stupid thing is that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is even considering ICR's programme. The ICR proposal shouldn't have even got to the first stage. It should have been shot down in flames.

Other Comments by The Truth, the light

8. Comment #112579 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Epinephrine: I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the thought of an MSc. in Creation Science...

Yes. If you'd never heard the term before, you'd assume it was the science of pottery, wouldn't you?

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

9. Comment #112583 by AshtonBlack on January 17, 2008 at 1:48 pm

..... or mother/fatherhood :)

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

10. Comment #112584 by Animavore on January 17, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Will I even bother...

So glad i don't live in America. Please Spagetti Monster, don't let the I.D. crowd come over here. Smite them with celestial meatballs Your Formaggioness.

Other Comments by Animavore

11. Comment #112586 by al-rawandi on January 17, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Man... Americans are getting a bad rap. We are not all that dumb, just most of us.

Animavore,

Do not call on the false god Spaghetti Monster, or the supreme Leprechaun will smite you as he smote New Orleans!

Other Comments by al-rawandi

12. Comment #112588 by MGBOY on January 17, 2008 at 1:54 pm

I dont have a problem with teaching creation, but lets call it what it realy is, Magic.

How was the earth created? Magic

How did we get here? Magic.

Other Comments by MGBOY

13. Comment #112590 by Animavore on January 17, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I'm well aware that not all americans are dumb and the percentage of idiots might be the same as here. Only problem is. Over there a small percentage is a couple of million people who cna pool together lots of money and resource and infest the media and make their presence felt. Over here when dumb little clubs get together it usually dosen't make even a hundred people who rent out a room in a local library and quite soon disappear into obscurity.

Other Comments by Animavore

14. Comment #112594 by Goldy on January 17, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Going to be hard to teach Egyptology if you're going to learn that the world was created a thousand years perviously and the flood occurred durin the period when they had extensive records...
In fact, I dare say, given teh rise of China, learning Sinology will be rather compromised too!

Other Comments by Goldy

15. Comment #112598 by Goldy on January 17, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Over there a small percentage is a couple of million people who cna pool together lots of money and resource and infest the media and make their presence felt.

Bush, Huckabee et al?

Other Comments by Goldy

16. Comment #112604 by ianmkz on January 17, 2008 at 2:25 pm

More than 80% of the US population accept creationism or divinely guided evolution. A puny 10-13% believe that a non-divinely guided process of evolution resulted in h. sapiens.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

All very sad and scary.

Other Comments by ianmkz

17. Comment #112605 by padster1976 on January 17, 2008 at 2:25 pm

'...to provide teachers with the scientific knowledge and teaching skills necessary to actively engage their students and to prepare scientifically literate graduates."

How to render term scientific completely meaningless by attributing it to the very opposite of what it means!

Their context is a 'science' based on creationism. Which, er, isn't science.

For a genuine glimpse into the attitude of americans I suggest you have a look at amazon.com and look at some of the blogs on the 'the god delusion forum'.

My good grief!

Other Comments by padster1976

18. Comment #112616 by Driver on January 17, 2008 at 2:46 pm

ianmkz:

"More than 80% of the US population accept creationism or divinely guided evolution. A puny 10-13% believe that a non-divinely guided process of evolution resulted in h. sapiens."

I live in Texas. I don't have the statistics, but I'd be willing to say that in Texas we are fewer than 10-13%. It's so lonely down here.

Other Comments by Driver

19. Comment #112618 by Animavore on January 17, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Come to Ireland Driver. The trend is reversed.

Other Comments by Animavore

20. Comment #112624 by Steven Mading on January 17, 2008 at 3:25 pm

I like the approach taken by the approval board. If they just dismissed the creation institute out-of-hand then it would have been easy for the creation institute to do the standard dishonest pretend persecution thing and claim they were only denied because of a bias existing, as in Ben Stein's "Expelled". But this way, the institute were told they could be treated as an accredited science school - so long as they show that they're actually teaching their creationism subject as a science and not as something else. It's a safe requirement to put on it, knowing full well that they can't live up to that standard because what they do isn't really science and we know it. It's a way of denying them without having it look like bias. Instead they get denied for the correct reason - that despite labeling themselves as doing "science", what they actually do does not fit the definition of science because there isn't peer review and isn't repeatable testing of falsifiable hypotheses.

By sticking to the definition of what makes science different from other disciplines, it's trivial to show that what the creation institute does is not science.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

21. Comment #112636 by lazarus on January 17, 2008 at 4:03 pm

I think having a degree in Creation Science would be great.
I'd love to sign up for it. The course would be so much fun with all the text books reading like a Monty Python script!

Other Comments by lazarus

22. Comment #112638 by DasSquid on January 17, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Australia seems to be pretty good on the edumacation scale also, can't be sure but I'd hope for the people in Australia who say Evolution is Fact is high...

Anyway, I'm rather unknowledgeable about such things, however is there ANY kind of court process or something like that which can once and for all make it legally binding that creationism/I.D. is a crock of shit? I know we have things like the Dover case to look on, but I'm thinking more along the lines of Evolution Vs. Creationism as opposed to Group Vs. Dover School board, or some such.

I'm sure if it went ahead, science can prove it's position to a judge, and we could finally just have a piece of paper, or a final ruling finally ruling out Creationism forever... that'd be pretty sweet and make life MUCH easier/more convenient to us.

Other Comments by DasSquid

23. Comment #112639 by MelM on January 17, 2008 at 4:12 pm

You can go over to the web site containing this story and post a comment. (Comments are moderated but you don't have to create an account or anything.)
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/16/icr

There's quite a flap going in the comment section and there's even a comment by a "Steven Schafersman, President at Texas Citizens for Science" Naturally, there are some nutters there too.

I posted a short comment (not through moderation yet) about Creation science and ID being nothing more than an attempt to make miracles an accepted part of science. Bottom-line, that's it in a nutshell.

Other Comments by MelM

24. Comment #112645 by Duff on January 17, 2008 at 4:37 pm

If the commissioner of higher education, Paredes, really does insist that the perpetrators of this fuckwittian proposal must actually provide a description of the research they are prepared to do, it will be their undoing.

What research could they possibly propose??? The mind is boggled!

Other Comments by Duff

25. Comment #112647 by DasSquid on January 17, 2008 at 4:49 pm

If the commissioner of higher education, Paredes, really does insist that the perpetrators of this fuckwittian proposal must actually provide a description of the research they are prepared to do, it will be their undoing.

What research could they possibly propose??? The mind is boggled!

"Well, from our research 100 million people believe this to have happened."

"Why do they believe that?"

"We told them so."

Mmm Short and to the point.

Other Comments by DasSquid

26. Comment #112648 by heafnerj on January 17, 2008 at 4:50 pm

That an online academic degree (an oxymoron) in creationism is even being considered at all here makes me ashamed to be an American and simultaneously proud to be a community college professor. Even my students somewhat understand the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Other Comments by heafnerj

27. Comment #112655 by knutsondc on January 17, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Seems to me that any organization that requires anyone affiliated with it to subscribe to a statement of faith that includes biblical inerrency on questions of scientific fact has, ipso facto, disqualified itself from acceptance as an organization teaching science. If you insist on the factual truth of anything a priori, regardless of what the evidence says, you're not using the scientific method and you're not doing science.

Other Comments by knutsondc

28. Comment #112662 by Richard Morgan on January 17, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Well, they had to try, didn't they?
And let us not forget that quite respectable institutions in the UK propose degree courses in Theology. Seems to me all that should go hand-in -hand : you can first graduate in the study of something that doesn't exist, then take a further degree by studying how the non-existent thing created the earth, sun, moon and stars and Ronald Macdonald and Huckabee and quantum pizzas.
All sounds quite exciting to me...
I'm even wondering if you need to be physically present to take an exam in Goddiditologie.
And, please, can we stop knocking the USA and Americans in general. I know quite a few countries, and there are dumb pricks in all of them. And in all of them, a goodly quantity of those DPs get voted into parliament.
I could never criticise a country that gave the world Bluegrass music.
And (edited)Cindy Lauper.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

29. Comment #112668 by ianmkz on January 17, 2008 at 5:55 pm

I could never criticise a country that gave the world Bluegrass music.
And Diana Krall.

Diana Krall is Canadian... so criticize away.

Other Comments by ianmkz

30. Comment #112671 by Radesq on January 17, 2008 at 6:02 pm

I think you are all getting carried away a little bit here. I have heard you have to have an undergraduate degree in Makebeleivology from an accredited University (i.e Regent or Bob Jones) to get accepted to the program -- so this will have a rather limited scope.

Other Comments by Radesq

31. Comment #112672 by Goldy on January 17, 2008 at 6:08 pm

And let us not forget that quite respectable intstitutions in the UK propose degree courses in Theology

True, but you aren't going to find those courses in the faculty of Science are you?
On a personal level, I quite like America and the Americans. Had some good times there and plenty of decent beer (you just gotta look for it:-))

Other Comments by Goldy

32. Comment #112677 by Cycik on January 17, 2008 at 6:48 pm

In terms of degrees, I was talking with Pastor Deacon Fred of the Landover Baptist church http://landoverbaptist.org/ some years ago at the Atheist Alliance question. He had been going to school at Liberty University and was thrown out some time shortly before graduation. He was worried in that he had about 3 years of creation science. "How am I going to get that to transfer to a real school?" Well, he did get an English degree and got all of the creation science to transfer as American Mythology.

Other Comments by Cycik

33. Comment #112680 by dragonfirematrix on January 17, 2008 at 7:03 pm

One of the scariest parts of this whole debate is the need for a debate between creationism and evolution at all.

We are talking about the Law of Evolution.

I guess the next thing the Christians will want to do is to tear down high-tech, literature, other history, and medicine, to name a few. Then again, the Christians may want to force their religion into the workplace (they are already testing this) and base our work performance most on how we conform to Christian beliefs. Delightful thought, huh? "I am sorry, we have to let you go for poor performance."

Last night, before an awards dinner, I was subjected (along with everyone else) to a ten-minute oratory about the Christian God before we could eat. I imagine others of you have experienced the same recently.

If they were not so dangerous to the United States, the Christians might constitute a joke, but these fanatics are seriously trying to radicalize Christianity to overthrow the very spirit and meaning of America by incrementally destroying the "wall of separation" in every corner of life, one brick at a time.

I really enjoy the topics of discussion on the RD Network. The RD Network certainly is a friendly bright light in an ever-darkening world. That said… however… I wonder if America really understands from where the greatest threats to our freedom are being born and educated one degree at a time.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

34. Comment #112685 by bawruss on January 17, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Apologies to my American friends.
But this country has become the laughing stock of the civilized world.
Good night Texas.

Other Comments by bawruss

35. Comment #112689 by Roland_F on January 17, 2008 at 8:32 pm

5. Comment #112552 by D'Arcy

Oh dear! Is Texas really going to teach that the Earth was created in October 4004 bc

Genesis started on 22 February 4022 BC not the totally wrong date 4004 BC. This shows that Texas desperately needs a Genesis Creationist school to avoid this misunderstandings.

Also there are several inconsistencies to be sorted out :
(1) the 2 versions of Genesis with the sequence problem of version 1 (animals before humans) and version 2 Adam before animals.
(2) Why are humans imperfect when they are created to be like God ? (Genesis 1.24-26). ?
(3) This humans are godlike is stated as 'like us' (plural !!), so where does the other God's went after this creation ?
(4) Does Adam has a navel, when he was not born from a mother?
(5) Why some of these God's created Eve from the rib of Adam on the 7th day where God/Gods is/are supposed to have rested ?
(6) Why did God (whichever of the 'us') forget to make rain, and which God created the rain after 'everything was already finished and good'.
(7) How does Cain and Abel make children when there are no women ?

So really lot's of research to be done from a accredited Creationists school.

Other Comments by Roland_F

36. Comment #112691 by funwithsynapses on January 17, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Maybe required reading for the masters degree will be "The Silmarillion" by Tolkien...

great creation stories....

Other Comments by funwithsynapses

37. Comment #112692 by LorienRyan on January 17, 2008 at 9:04 pm

The only valid subject would be the 'history of the creation science movement.'

Also, what legitimate industry would a graduate be qualified for accept perpetuating it's own dogma?

Seems like a vicious self serving cycle of nonsense.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

38. Comment #112705 by Aussie on January 17, 2008 at 11:30 pm

I would be well qualified to be on this faculty teaching "Creation Science" in my capacity as an "Evangelical Christian Atheist".

Other Comments by Aussie

39. Comment #112707 by Cartomancer on January 17, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Ironically my own masters degree involved, and my doctorate currently involves, quite a lot of "creation science" literature - such magisterial opera as Thierry of Chartres' Heptateuchon, The Dragmaticon Philosophie and Glosses on Timaeus of William of Conches, and Robert Grosseteste's Hexaemeron. The University of Oxford even considered my masters thesis worthy of distinction too.

Thing is though, I study the intellectual history of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries rather than a science subject...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

40. Comment #112710 by Goldy on January 18, 2008 at 12:19 am

the 2 versions of Genesis with the sequence problem of version 1 (animals before humans) and version 2 Adam before animals.

On another thread I had a quick gander at Genesis (the KJV). Seems God created men and women in his image on the 6th day. The 7th day he did some tidying up of Heaven and Earth. Then, after the 7th day, he realised he forgot rain and men to till the land (so probably these men and women he created a couple of days previously weren't farmers). So he made Adam. Then, a wee while later (days later? Who knows) he made Eve (oh, before I forget, I think he made rain...there is a mention of mist on the land). So, God made men and women, forgot rain and thought "Bugger it, need rain - and maybe a farmer too" and then made Adam on the 8th or 9th day.
Sad really - only 2 chapters in and it's all gone to pot. How this has been missed all these millenia beats me. The emperor's new clothing springs to mind...

Other Comments by Goldy

41. Comment #112722 by Roland_F on January 18, 2008 at 2:16 am

40. Comment #112710 by Goldy

Sad really - only 2 chapters in and it's all gone to pot. How this has been missed all these millenia beats me.

When the Pentateuch was assembled in shared exile of northern tribes (Israelites since 722BC) and southern tribes (Judeans since 587BC) in Babylon the contradiction of Genesis-V1 versus Genesis-V2 was quite obvious. Both version were nevertheless kept to test your faith.

Now arguments go that there are actually 2 separate events the V1 for ordinary humans on day 6 and another V2 only for the chosen people from Adam to Abraham. Also Islam is following the Abrahamic line, so the V1 humans must be all the remaining heathens.

With this 2 Genesis versions the religious spin doctors even try to explain away inconsistencies like the inbreeding of a single family tree from Adam to Abraham and beyond, or that Cain after slaying Abel was the last human left on earth … V2 Cain (from the chosen line) just take an outside wife from Genesis-V1 humans.

But this missing knowledge proves again the urgent need for a global 'accredited creationist schools' focusing at least the first 3 years on studying the first 3 pages of the Bible.
This education is followed by 1 year per page study of the remaining Bible (my version has 383 pages) – so humans are only allowed to authorized and certified preach the 'word of God according to the Bible' when they are 400 years old. Which is by the way no problem for chosen people, who were getting offspring beyond 100 years and are usually reaching around 900 years of age

Other Comments by Roland_F

42. Comment #112769 by Bertybob on January 18, 2008 at 4:15 am

Sad thing is I get the whiff of all this drifting across the pond to the UK. If the IDers or Creastionists come over here, I don't see the UK government having the balls to stop it.

Reg Vardy and his funding of City Acadamies means you can buy your own curriculumn, curtesy of god botherer Blair. Pay £2m per school, appoint your own governors and then the tax payer gives you £25m per school to finish the job. Sweet!!

I have no problem with teaching Creation, it just needs to stay in the Religious Education class, not in the biology lab.

Other Comments by Bertybob

43. Comment #112781 by Flavius_Josephus on January 18, 2008 at 4:42 am

Geez it is embarrassing to be living in the USA these days. Somebody pinch me and wake me up from this bad dream.

And Cartomancer, you wrote:
"Ironically my own masters degree involved, and my doctorate currently involves, quite a lot of "creation science" literature - such magisterial opera as Thierry of Chartres' Heptateuchon, The Dragmaticon Philosophie and Glosses on Timaeus of William of Conches, and Robert Grosseteste's Hexaemeron. The University of Oxford even considered my masters thesis worthy of distinction too.

Thing is though, I study the intellectual history of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries rather than a science subject... "

This was just too funny and gave me a good laugh. Can I use this quote?

Other Comments by Flavius_Josephus

44. Comment #112927 by Cartomancer on January 18, 2008 at 9:35 am

Sure, go ahead...

In Soviet Russia, Flavius Josephus quotes me!

Other Comments by Cartomancer

45. Comment #113006 by konquererz on January 18, 2008 at 12:34 pm

A masters in creation science? They have that already, its called a master of theology.

Other Comments by konquererz

46. Comment #113009 by al-rawandi on January 18, 2008 at 12:37 pm

konquererz,

Watch it. There are more than a few Atheists working in the field of theology (I know several), bringing it down from the inside...

In fact most university programs offering theology do not offer "creation science". It seems like a lot of atheists laugh at "theology" but don't seem to know much about it or how it can be used against the god-squad.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

47. Comment #113028 by D'Arcy on January 18, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Genesis started on 22 February 4022 BC not the totally wrong date 4004 BC. This shows that Texas desperately needs a Genesis Creationist school to avoid this misunderstandings.

Surely Roland_F is not arguing against the date set by the great Bishop Ussher of Armagh? 9 am 3rd October 4004 bc (adjusted by the great Sir James Lightfoot)? Some heretics have suggested 23rd October, and Roland_F places himself out of eccesiatical court altogether with his suggested 22nd February 4022 bc.

Yes perhaps Roland has a point. In the spirit of scientific discovery, all these dates should be assumed to be wrong until there is evidence to the contrary. "Evidence" presented by cosmologists, biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers, chemists and any other ...ists will of course be discounted because of the inherent bias these people have in proving the word of the Lord to be false.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

48. Comment #113030 by annabanana on January 18, 2008 at 1:28 pm

"god-squad", haha. Does that make us the A-Team?

Other Comments by annabanana

49. Comment #113032 by _J_ on January 18, 2008 at 1:31 pm

There are more than a few Atheists working in the field of theology (I know several), bringing it down from the inside...

[A moment's silent respect for these brave saboteurs for secularity.]

Other Comments by _J_

50. Comment #113033 by al-rawandi on January 18, 2008 at 1:31 pm

D'Arcy,

What the deuce?

This is ignoring the real scientific discovery to be made. That the earth is flat resting atop a turtle named chukwa, who in turn rests upon an elephant name Mahapumbra.

Blast. You damn atheists.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last