State Sen. Mike Fair Blocks Evolution From South Carolina Science Standards


The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee approved most of the state's new science standards on Monday but blocked a clause featuring the phrase "natural selection." According to Republican state Sen. Mike Fair, "To teach that natural selection is the answer to origins is wrong."

"I don't have a problem with teaching theories. I don't think it should be taught as fact," Fair said after Monday's review, according to the Post and Courier. "Natural selection is a direct reference to Darwinism. And the implication of Darwinism is that it is start to finish."

Read the full article.

NEXT: Obama Signs Executive Order Raising Minimum Wage For Federal Contractors

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I have a theory that if I drop a fifty-pound weight from twenty feet up on his toe that his toe will break. It’s only a theory–I could be wrong.

  2. “Natural selection is a direct reference to Darwinism. And the implication of Darwinism is that it is start to finish.”

    What does that even mean?

    1. My hovercraft is full of eels.

      1. I like eels,
        Except as meals.
        And the way they feels.

      2. Let’s go back to my place. Bouncy, bouncy!

    2. No god in the machine.

      1. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

        1. Well, is something quite atrosicous!

    3. Typo. He meant that Darwinism is sart[ing] to finish.

      1. starting, that is. Although sarting could also work.

        1. Darwinism is shart to finish.

        2. Sharting, Paul. Sharting.

        3. Sharting.

          1. I’m glad we’re all on board. When the next committee meeting?

            1. I don’t know which is worse, sharting, or getting beaten by Hugh. It’s a close call.

              1. It depends. Who’s pants am I wearing?

        4. No I think it means sorting to finish.


      1. You can’t prove that. But I think the veil of tears that passes for life on Earth is proof that He/She/It doesn’t care…or perhaps we are just here for amusement?

        1. perhaps we are just here for amusement? If there is a god this is the most likely explanation for our existence.

        2. The burden of proof in on the believer. What Gilmore should have said was that there is no evidence that a god exists.

  3. We need to strongly advocate for a strict separation of school and state before there comes a tipping point where the increased federalization of education policy leads to regional conflict the likes we have not seen since 1860.

    1. Seriously, I can think of two amendments we could use right now–one to separate education and the state and one to separate commerce and the state.

      1. Mr. Fair seems to want a separation of science and education.

        1. Fine. Let him homeschool.

      2. Trouble is, you’d need to amend most state constitutions which require state funded schools.
        Though on the other hand, one state could do this by itself and set an example for others. I don’t think there is any way the Federal government could force a state to provide public schools except by denying money to them. Yet, anyway.

        1. Not at all. My federal amendments can expressly be applied to the federal government and state governments.

          1. Yes, I suppose there is nothing to prevent that. But I think it is more likely to happen at the state level first.

            1. I’ve got amendments to burn.

              1. Funny that, so does Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein.

        2. Good point, that is a provision in many state constitutions.

          That makes me curious as to when these provisions got put into state constitutions.

      3. The separation of education and state would certainly fit along the lines of separation of church and state.

    2. I do not see how federalization is a problem here. This is the Caroline legislature working its magic.

      1. South Carolina, Bo. Big difference between NC and SC.

        1. Typo, trust me, I know the difference between the two.

          1. Don’t call me “Typo”.

            1. How about Miss Spell?

              1. Oh, no you don’t. Don’t you other Tonio.

                1. Ms. Spell?

                2. Especially after his inclusive words for us Carolinians of the North. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT TONIO!

                  1. I would talk some shit, being from SC and all, but…way to go Sen. Fair.

                    1. You’ve got Nikki Hailey, a hot governor. We had Bev Purdue, who was homely. Isn’t that enough?

      2. This is indicative of a greater problem, like another thread devoted to Creationism versus Science which I’m taking the long view can be counter stepped with a bit of hyperbole. It has already proven to be a productive tact by PL’s interesting idea.

        1. Followed by my third new amendment, the separation of my wallet and state.

          1. That is the only one you need, it would largely take care of the need for the first two.

    3. Just kick government way way out of here. Government needs nice little unthinking zombies that think how they’re told. They can’t have any independent-thinking Bible believers messing it up. Everybody else they convince that the zombi-brainless Christians represent them all. They don’t remind you that the greatest scientist that ever lived was a Creation believer and wrote more about the Bible than he did about math (calculus) and science (laws of motion and light as wave)

  4. This is one of the five forbidden topics.

    1. What are they again? You know, just in case I ever need to derail the comments if no one is pay attention to me. How many start with “A?”

        1. Oddly, for as long as I’ve been a poster here I actually couldn’t name all five. I also somehow missed the sheep incident. I just didn’t post at all that week. Hell I’m pretty sure I’ve cooked him dinner before. Makes me sad that I wasn’t involved.

    2. Pizza and abortion sure but what are the other two?

      1. Questioning Dr. Zaius and claiming that Dune was ever a movie.

        1. Those weirding modules are the best part of the movie. They must have explained them more in the book, though, right?

          1. I’d like to take the bone from 2001 and crush all of those weirding modules with it.

        2. What about the prequels being Canon – that’s been settled, right?

      2. Circumcision and atheism.

        Fortunately, Kirk vs Picard appears to be a dead issue.

  5. Big fat hairy deal. It’s the bible belt. What do you expect?

  6. Wouldn’t it be grand if there was a like a system where we could voluntarily trade with each other a decide for ourselves what to consume as education curricula for our children?

    1. I have little problem with creationism being taught to kids, provided that it isn’t taught to my kids.

      1. What about creating a competitive workersphere, to help pay for more freedom for Artistes?

      2. I might steal that one.

      1. Is he a witch? How can you tell?

        1. Well, if he weighs the same as a duck…

        2. Turned me into a newt!

        3. I do weigh less than a duck but more than a piece of wood, so it’s difficult to say.

  7. Shriek bait

  8. I getting really tired of these Protestant heretics using the law to inflict the devil’s work on the rest of us.

  9. Scientifically speaking, the proposition that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow morning is “just a theory”. Why do people have such a hard time understanding what science is?

    If the public education system can’t even teach people what science is, I think it’s time to give it up. But it’s not going to happen. Public education is required by lots of state constitutions and is very popular. So like it or not, these are battles that will need to be fought.

    1. Part of the confusion comes from different uses of “theory” in science and colloquial use. But enough people have explained the meaning of “scientific theory” that anyone in a position of power who continues to make the “theory not fact” claim is probably being disingenuous.

      1. Now, now. Be fair. It’s possible they’re just stupid.

  10. Evolution or natural selection should probably be taught as part of a college course on history / philosophy of science. Why do HS’s even offer general “science” courses, just stick with biology, chemistry and physics please.

    1. I should think evolution or natural selection might come up in biology class.

    2. Biology includes natural selection and physics includes the big bang. Creationists fight the teaching of both.

    3. I would imagine that evolution/natural selection is usually part of a biology class. Why wouldn’t it belong there?

      1. Perhaps as part of genetics, but I just don’t think statements about natural selection are in general scientific anyways. You can’t refute them and you can’t predict the future with them.

        1. Maybe not when it comes to the development of complex organisms (though that is debatable too), but it is most certainly possible to observe natural selection in action and develop valid theories with simpler organisms.

        2. And you can make predictions. Just not in the way you usually think of. Evolutionary theory leads to predictions about what you will find in the genes of various organisms and what you will find in the fossil record. You can look at it as sort of like astronomy. Except for the occasional supernova, and some variable stars, we really don’t see much actually happening. No one can ever watch a star go through it’s whole life cycle, yet we have a very robust theory of stellar evolution. You make predictions about what you should expect to see in the universe and they you go out and see if that is what you actually see. Theories about biological evolution are very similar.

          1. Very well said.

    4. Compulsory education has always been and will always be about pushing an agenda into the minds of the young. Every subject taught in high school above basic literacy and numeracy generally involves imparting the prevailing orthodoxy.

      Since that will be done by “society” anyway, why must we compel people to attend institutions for the same purpose?

      1. So they learn that freedom is slavery?

      2. I believe it’s just an example of the road to hell being paved by good intentions. No need for conspiracy theories.

    5. Lets replace all of them with a class just called “Science”. Teach only very basic concepts in basic biology, Newtonian physics, and chemistry. Like chapter 1 and 2 stuff, which is likely all most people even remember. Then the rest of their academic career hammer them with the scientific method, how to run experiments, surveys, methodology and how to read and evaluate an existing study. Then they can make up their own mind about everything.

      Not that I’m advocating state education.

      1. ^yes, this please.

        1. Also a course on logic shouldn’t be pushed off until trying to get into a post graduate program.

          1. Here’s some logic for you…

            Science is a LIAR

  11. These stories serve a valuable purpose in giving urban progressive liberals their periodic self-satisfaction patting-self-on-the-back for being SO SMARTS BECAUSE WE KNOWS WE MORE SMARTER CAUSE EVOLUTIONS. Party of Science FTW!

    …then they will happily go rant about the corporations spreading the GMOs in order to further their Global Warming Agenda to oppress the brown peoples and utilize their criminal tools of Financial Speculation to Steal Money from the Working Peoples by Finance which isn’t really making stuff but just moves money around. Oh, and macroeconomics is also a lie. Something about printing money. Shaving is simply a conspiracy to sell razors. Also, Bees are dying and shit. And vaccines, autism. Duh.

    Because they’re SMARTER.

    1. Rule of Reason Hit and Run number 29: no discussion of creationism can pass without someone bringing up Global Warming.

      1. Its a scientific fact that republicans hate scientific facts.

        1. Good lord, can you not peddle your team v. team stuff to another thread.

          1. “‘no discussion of creationism can pass without someone bringing up Global Warming.””

            Sorry if I misunderstood the politically neutral implications of the unmentioned “Someones” who dare to point out that rampant ignorance isn’t exactly exclusive to any given single group.

            Which is *such* a TEAM point.

            1. This post is about creationism. I am happy to ridicule anti-vaccinators and GMO opponents, I just find it interesting that no criticism of socon creationism can exist on this site without the ‘usual suspects’ of, shall we say ‘right leaning’ regulars here trying to divert the discussion back to progs and AGW.

              1. “This post is about creationism”


                and you don’t seem to have anything to really say other that to whinge and moan about other people?

                If you had some particularly fascinating insights on ‘creationism’ no one is really stopping you from sharing them.

                instead you’re playing “oooh, look! someone’s picking on TEAM BLUE! how gauche!”

                So enlightening.

                1. The post is about creationism. If anyone is playing diversion it is you, who want to go from there to attacking your opposing team.

                  1. its amazing how I really interrupted your chain of thought there on ‘creationism’. You were making such interesting points.

      2. Evolution: science good
        GMO: science bad
        AGW: science good
        Vaccines: science bad

        Fuck progressives and their selective embrace of science.

        1. The usual suspects…

        2. Those ‘sciences’ don’t advance the proggie agenda or concentrate more power and money in the hands of our betters in District 1.

      3. Rule of diversion trolling number one, when someone makes a point you don’t like, immediately make an accusatory and irrelevant point so that the discussion can be steered away from the offending point and towards the veracity of your new and irrelevant accusation.

        Here we see Gimore making the uncomfortable point that, while teaching creationism is a really stupid idea, creationism is one of about a million stupid ideas being put forth in our public schools and probably not even close to being the worst.

        In response, Bo the Diversion Troll steps in and accuses the poster of just wanting to talk about AGW and not wanting to admit the evils of creationism. Thus the discussion will turn away from the relative significance of this in relation to the larger issue of what is to be taught in schools and towards whether Gilmore is really just a right wing shill wanting to change the subject.

        That ladies and gentleman is proper trolling.

        1. Yes, it was me diverting the discussion, not Gilmore.

          Good lord the Red on this site is thicker than weeds on an untended S. Carolina lot.

          1. Needs more ‘enlightened objectivity’ posing.

            Also, snarking about the implicit ignorance of southerners is always a +1 Kultur score.

            1. I am a Southerner my partisan friend, and I do not care much for mocking Southerners. Creationism is not some Southern thing, for your information.

              1. “‘my partisan friend””

                That would be: Wrong, and Wrong.

                Better luck next time.

                1. Oh, I am right on the first part, the second is Southern manners.

                  1. Bo, I’m not partisan at all.

                    its just that I think *you* are an idiot.

                    big difference.

              2. Really? I am a NYer and I love nothing better than mocking my fellow NYers. It’s great fun, you should try it – get yourself out of your provincial comfort zone.

                Unless you are one of those Southerners that thinks The South Will Rise Again…

                1. I’m (by some estimations) a Southerner, and I welcome all mocking. We deserve it. And Southern manners is a big fucking myth. Manners have to be taught and learned in a rigorous way, and most people here can barely pick their exposed navels without some difficulty.

        2. I’ll say this much: There is no political party for science. True science is beyond politics, as is what is and isn’t real. Screaming about it or believing really hard to the contrary will accomplish nothing to change reality.

          1. I am not sure that even given all of our problems that the politicization of science might not be the biggest one, at least in the long term. At some point people are going to be so much politicized bullshit disguised as “science” they are going to lose faith in science altogether. That is called a dark age last I looked.

            1. Certain branches of science are a lot more prone to politicization than others. Climate science will take a long time to recover from the current political crap that it is tangled up with. Neuroscience, genetics and other things having to do with human behavior and development probably will have similar sorts of problems as it develops. But better established hard sciences are probably more immune. There will always be some politics and trends and biases, but that has always been the case with science.

              1. The problem Zeb is that people are liable not to make that distinction and think “if I can’t trust this why can I trust any of it?”

                If you think the climate scientists have lied to you all of these years, why wouldn’t you think the vaccine companies are lying to you?

                1. That is a worry. But the best developed branches of science, like physics, chemistry, genetics, either keep producing useful technology, or are so esoteric that no one understands them anyway. So I’m not too pessimistic overall. But some branches of science are probably ruined for a long time to come.

              2. This is true. Trying to claim that the periodic table is a patriarchical assault against menstruating women won’t get too far past Jezebel / Feministing.

            2. I’m quite concerned that the advances we’ve been making in science and technology will slow quite a bit due to politics and lovely laws like ACA.

          2. I think that a big part of the problem is that people don’t even know what science is or how it works. Whether or not humans contribute significantly to changes in climate is a scientific question and an interesting one. What should be done about that is not. And yet we have people telling us that the scientific consensus demands that we fuck over economic development to implement some ineffective measures to combat a problem that we don’t understand very well at all.

            1. All that matters is learning about stuff and learning how to do stuff.

            2. You are right Zeb. Part of the problem is that science has been sold as providing ultimate answers. And some of that is science’s fault.

              Science doesn’t provide metaphysical answers. It just makes observations and predictions that, based on passed observations and knowledge, are reliably correct. That is it. It lets you build buildings and go to the moon. But it doesn’t provide you with meaning or understanding beyond its own terms.

              What has happened is people have started to think it does. And when you think that science gives ultimate answers rather than provisional explanations and predictions, you start to think that it can be settled and worse still it can be settled by a vote of the various “top men”.

              When people say AGW is the consensus, they are speaking like it is the Nicean Creed or something rather than as yet full developed theory.

              1. I think that the first thing in any science class at a high school level or higher should be to read a few choice selections from some of Richard Feynman’s writings and lectures aimed at a general audience. He was really good at clearly and bluntly explaining what science is and isn’t.

              2. It is a fully developed theory and scientific fact that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and altering the climate.

                1. Climate science is definitely a field that is still in its infancy. It just is. They have a lot of interesting theories and some computer models that are also very interesting, but so far fail to produce good predictions.
                  I really don’t have a problem with someone who is willing to accept the current consensus. But it is not a robust and mature theory. They are still working and fine tuning and finding new feedback mechanisms all the time. Don’t fucking pretend that climate is all figured out and don’t fucking tell me that any science can tell us what policy is appropriate in response to any particular situation.

                  1. And it really fucking pisses me off that it is so politicized from both sides. Climate science is extremely interesting, but it is almost impossible to find someone without an agenda who is doing serious work in the field. That’s what people are talking about here, Tony. Whatever you think of the state of the science, it has been politicized to such an extent that it is hard to trust anyone on the subject. I don’t want to be on the winning side. I want to know.

            3. You don’t appear to understand it very well, but that doesn’t mean it’s the case for everyone.

              1. Tony,

                You are one of the most amazing fonts of stupid I have ever seen. Around 90% of everything you say is either the complete opposite of the truth or utterly irrational. It amazes me that you manage to always be lying or wrong and can’t even tell the truth or say something correct by dumb luck. You really are remarkable.

                1. Funny, I think the same about you.

                  “It is a fully developed theory and scientific fact that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and altering the climate.”

                  Dispute that using reliable sources or shut your face and admit you’re wrong about everything.

                  1. Of course you do Tony.

                    Part of being a moron is not realizing your a moron. If you had any sense, you wouldn’t be who you are.

                    1. Part of being intelligent is understanding what you don’t know. I’m claiming I don’t know better than climatologists about what’s going on with the climate, and you’re claiming you do. At any rate, you were only offered two choices and you took the latter by default. Glad to finally accept your concession.

                  2. “It is a fully developed theory and scientific fact that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and altering the climate.”

                    Dispute that using reliable sources

                    Well, for one thing “scientific fact” doesn’t mean shit.
                    Personally, I think that it is more likely than not that humans are contributing in some nontrivial way to climate change. But it is far from a fully developed theory. A few computer models that still haven’t been able to consistently make any specific and accurate predictions and a few decades worth of apples to apples data is just not enough to make a robust and mature theory about an enormously complex system that has changed radically many times over billions of years.

                    1. You’re just wrong. The models are fine. It’s as much a scientific fact as anything. There just isn’t the level of uncertainty you’re claiming.

                  3. “”It is a fully developed theory and scientific fact that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and altering the climate”


                    Forgetting for the moment your use of B.S. terms like ‘fully-developed’ or ‘fact’ when talking about nascent research fields where there’s HUGE amounts of unknowns…

                    …Even if one grants MOST of the basic claims of AGW Science…

                    – which is a huge ‘grant’ given the failure of the base climate models that prompted ‘Global Warming’ panic over a decade and a half ago… e.g.


                    … even accepting the common assumptions regarding the root causes of AGW (debatable) AND the expected effects (as noted= already failing in the models)….

                    …accepting ALL of that = There is basically ZERO, NADA, ZIP, NIENTE logic or ‘science’ behind ANY of the policy proposals made by liberal pols about “what should we DO!?” about said AGW.

                    And more = people frequently called “Climate Change Deniers” in the liberal media are, more often than not, IN NO WAY contradicting any of the science about climate change, but rather opposing THE INCREDIBLY STUPID IDEAS proposed by politicians.

                    And what do liberal douchebags do when confronted by entirely legitimate criticisms of their stupid fucking ideas? CALL THEIR CRITICS “DENIERS!” as though we were discussing the holocaust.

                    Sorry, but that don’t play here.

    2. That too. I would be more upset about this kind of stuff if it wasn’t number 521,000 in the list of millions of things wrong with the schools and bullshit being taught there.

      If I had to choose, I would rather have my kid’s science teacher going on about creationism than I would them going on about AGW or their history teacher telling them what a glorious experiment communism was. Neither option is desirable. But I think the first one is more easily fixable and does less damage overall if I had to choose.

      1. How is teaching creationism any different than teaching kids that Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy are real? I do not believe in man-made global warming but i’m much more concerned about the effects of imposed schizophrenia, especially as someone who has suffered because of religious nonsense.

    3. Nobody put a gun to the head of State Senator Dumbass and forced him to do this.

      Or is State Senator Dumbass part of the progressive plot?

      It’s funny, I remember about a week ago all the socons whining that it wasn’t fair for Bill Nye to debate a Creationist because all the Creationists were gone now and it was a dead issue. Or something.

      1. Listen, never count something out as long as the SC General Assembly is still around.

    4. It’s absurd, too, because I only know a very small number of people (a few who are Democrats, incidentally) who are actually Creationists. Most who are strong theists also just think God set everything into motion and seem to accept some level of evolution, etc.

      If you don’t accept in broad terms evolution, cosmology, geology, physics, and everything else that has overwhelming evidence that the universe is at least billions of years old, then the only alternative you can have is that the universe is a fraud being perpetrated on us by God or the guys running a very high-end VR simulation.

      1. 13.798 billion years old (+/- 37 million years) by the current best estimate.

        1. Yes, I was leaving in some room in case the Big Bang isn’t quite right. The visible universe might not be the whole thing, for instance.

          1. Understood, I just think the level of (un)certainty in that number is remarkable.

            I’d say there certainly is something beyond the visible Universe, as that boundary is set by light travel time and is only “special” because the Universe has a finite age. According to inflationary models, though, there are regions of space that are completely cut off from us and will forever be so. As far as I know, any ideas about what they would be like is purely speculative.

            1. The more we know, the less we know. Or the more we learn that we need to learn more about.

      2. Most who are strong theists also just think God set everything into motion and seem to accept some level of evolution, etc.

        “God of the gaps” theory is far more popular than academic nowadays.

      3. “Pro Libertate|2.12.14 @ 3:59PM|#

        It’s absurd, too, because I only know a very small number of people (a few who are Democrats, incidentally) who are actually Creationists.”

        One of the only card-carrying Creationists I’ve EVER met was @ college in Tennessee. She was an *anthropology* grad student. (yes, it makes your brain hurt to contemplate) She was working on “Flood Theory” – or, the ‘science’ of trying to demonstrate the historical reality of the biblical deluge. it involved some geology, some fossil study, and a WHOLE LOTTA bullshit mixed in between (call it ‘sediment’)

        I was drinking a beer, fortunately, when I met this person. It helped a lot. instead of offering any criticism, I just listened, asked a few questions about details. Their issues with dating techniques. Accounting for the fossil/geologic records, etc.

        Then, in a moment of inspiration, I explained my own areas of academic interest = RAGNAROK STUDIES.


        See, because I’m descended from Vikings.

        She wasn’t feeling it.

    5. I really don’t care what those people think or what motivates them. The people who think that they are saying something intelligent when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” are still fucking morons who should be mocked mercilessly if they want their idiocy applied to public policy.

      1. Zeb, you are losing your focus, which must constantly be on progressives, or else you are diverting the conversation (never mind the post is about creationism)!

  12. You know, no one who wasn’t related to him or one of his children would have to care what Mike Fair thinks should be taught in schools if we just had full on school choice and got rid of government schools. Just saying.

    That point seems more important than another in a long time of tedious debates about evolution and parental control of education.

    1. So much of our trouble with education would vanish with the abolition of government schools.

      1. I do not think school choice with government funding solves that much, since people will care about funding the neighbor’s kid to learn creationism or African American studies or what have you.

        1. Nobody bitches about social security checks being subject to tithe.

          How that’s not 100000000% worse than school vouchers, I’ll never understand.

          1. You would be wrong if you think I do not complain about being forced to contribute to social security.

            1. THe point is that lots of people complain about vouchers going to religious schools, but very few complain that people can give their SS check to their church.

              1. Does not that logic apply to this: religious employers complain about having to provide contraception in insurance coverage but not their employees taking their wages (perhaps a mandated minimum one) to use to buy contraceptives?

                Note: I am against the contraceptive mandate, just saying that when it comes to religion people are funny about the directness of the forced support.

                1. Does not that logic apply to this: religious employers complain about having to provide contraception in insurance coverage but not their employees taking their wages (perhaps a mandated minimum one) to use to buy contraceptives?


                  1. He himself has said it.

          2. And no one cares that people use Pell Grants to go to Liberty or Yashiva.

            Beyond that, it is a fair trade. You give up the right to bitch about some of your money being used to pay for things you don’t like and in return everyone else gives up the right to complain about how you use your share of the money.

            Objecting to how people would use their tax funded vouchers is a pretty standard dishonest objection to vouchers.

            1. “And no one cares that people use Pell Grants to go to Liberty or Yashiva.”

              Actually, historically and legally there have been opposition to that.

              1. Generally not by the people who use this argument against primary school vouchers.

                It is nearly always a completely hypocritical and opportunistic argument. Despite all of the fierce objection to school vouchers in this country, there is no movement afoot to restrict the use of Pell grants to only secular schools.

                Why is that? Because the people who claim to object to the using of government money at religious schools don’t really believe that. They are just claiming that to hide the fact that they object to vouchers in general.

                1. John, see Locke v. Davey, and Blaine Amendments.

            2. “You give up the right to bitch about some of your money being used to pay for things you don’t like.”


        2. That’s not what Pro L said.

          So much of our trouble with education would vanish with the abolition of government schools.

          Who said anything about funding?

          1. Pro L was responding to what John said, which was about that.

            1. Yes, but most of us like to ignore what John said and make our own point.

          2. It’s true, I don’t want government funding schools, either. I mean, look at the damage the government has done to the higher education market. Screw that.

  13. These stories mess with my plan to flee Maryland for some place in the Southeast.

    On one hand, we already plan to homeschool our children so I don’t fucking care what goes on in public schools.

    On the other hand, I would still have to interact with the people in the state.


    1. You are still better off in the Southeast. In the end, your kid’s education is your responsibility. If your kid is so weak that he is going to by into anything the teacher tells him, you have a lot more problems than him believing in creationism.

      As we point out above, with public schools, it is pick your poison. They are going to be feeding your kid some kind of bullshit no matter where you are. So it is a question of which bullshit will it be. I am not seeing how this bullshit is any more damaging than any of the other bullshit.

      1. I said we plan to homeschool.

        The problem with my first comment was actually the interacting with people in the state. This is what pisses me off about Maryland. One of my good friends (COVER YOUR EYES BO) thinks I am an idiot because of my views on global warming, yet refuses to enter into any conversation about it. So, I am probably going to hate people regardless of where I live.

        1. So, I am probably going to hate people regardless of where I live.

          Yes. Yes you are.

        2. I am lucky in that my neighbors are pretty reasonable. But I have acquaintances who are like that. They are so insecure and so fanatical they can’t even engage with the other side. It really is a cult.

          Those people scare me. They live in such isolation and in such an environment of hate and contempt, they are starting to dangerously dehumanize anyone who disagrees with them.

          1. The kicker on this friend is…he goes to church.

            1. The churches nearly always sell out to this kind of shit. Most of the Protestant Churches in Europe rolled right over for the Nazis. A good number of them in this country would roll over too if the opportunity ever arose.

        3. I never lived deep in the Bible belt, but when I lived in Virginia we would hold astronomy open houses at some of our telescopes. Twice a year we had a cohort of Liberty students come up. If any of them disagreed with prevailing astronomical theories on the age and evolution of the Universe, they didn’t make it known to us. They usually just wanted to look at the planets. I also grew up in a pretty religious area of Pennsylvania with plenty of born-again Christians in HS. Things sometime came up but it was hardly relentless.

          My point is that I don’t think normal people harp on these issues nearly as much as outsiders think. And even if they do, it is pretty easy to just keep on walking and move on.

          1. I think it’s overblown, too, though there definitely are some people who are serious, no-shit Creationists with a capital “C.”

            1. Oh no doubt. But in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, progressives are far more likely to bring up and even pick fights about the controversial political topic du jour than the run of the mill Evangelical is to pick a fight about Creationism.

          2. It still matters sometimes, like in North Little Rock recently. Now, it’s in a social studies class, so your first instinct might be to think that there’s nothing wrong with a dispassionate and neutral “This is what some people believe” class. But when you look at the detail in the slides, you find that they are highlighting scientific problems with evolution that aren’t really scientific problems.

      2. Nobody is better off in the Southeast unless your primary interests in life have to do with food.

        I see it as my right to have other people’s children protected from your bullshit and taught facts, because they are going to be implementing the society I live in in the future.

        1. Nobody is better off in the Southeast

          Unless they want a job. As the various states that follow your cult depopulate feel free to tell yourself whatever it takes to get through the night.

          And don’t let the irony that you live in Oklahoma crush you. You don’t move out to the Prog fatherland because you feel such a burden to preach to the unfaithful I am sure. It couldn’t be because your economic opportunities are so much better among the heretics. No, it couldn’t be that.

          1. Oh well bully for the South because the jobs market in shithole places to work is a little better. Yet there is much more wealth in the liberal states, which are net donors to the welfare state that Southern states avail themselves of as net takers. Then there’s the minor matter of every other possible measure of human well-being.

            1. So says the retard who lives in Oklahoma.

              Your actions belay your words. But your words are always lies so that is not surprising.

              1. I remain in Oklahoma because it has a) the hottest gays in the country and b) my family. Don’t ask me to explain a), it just happens to be true.

                1. Since when is “Oklahoma” southern?

                  I seem to recall this being discussed during the Independents show where they had the Pancreatic Cancer guy, and we all agreed that Oklahoma /= ‘south’.

                  Its just that Not Midwest, Not Texas, Not South zone of boring comprised of OK, KS, and MO.

          2. I’ve lived and worked in a number of places, and Tampa is by far the nicest and least shit-holiest. I haven’t lived everywhere, so I’m not saying this is the best possible place, but it’s quite nice.

        2. Of course not living where you are is also important to me.

        3. Re: Tony,

          I see it as my right to have other people’s children protected from your bullshit[…]

          I see it as my right to protect MY OWN children from the ravages of self-righteous authoritarian assholes like YOU, you stuck-up arrogant motherfucking piece of dung.

          1. “I see it as my right to have other people’s children…”

            This sentence really doesn’t even begin to make sense unless you really believe the worst possible things about Gay Tony.

            1. And how are you better than him for bringing sexual orientation into this? I think Tony’s an idiot but this comment makes me think you’re at least twice as dumb. Go back to Stormfront or FreeRepublic.

        4. I very much enjoyed living in the “South” (Charlottesville, VA, but I got out pretty often) and would gladly move back in a heartbeat. I’ve spent a lot of time in Vermont, too, and while it is beautiful, if I had to choose between a rural town in South Carolina and Vermont, I think I’d lean towards SC.

          1. North Carolina is really nice, too. The Research Triangle and the western mountains are great.

            1. I didn’t make it down there as often as I should have, but the few times I did it always seemed beautiful. I had been hoping to land this job in Boone. I would have taken it happily.

              1. I love Boone and vacation there regularly. With the university there, there is some work in the area. Lovely place.

    2. Just as an FYI, you ae going to be supplementing your childrens’ education with plenty of your own thoughts on matters.

      My son recently read the Hunger Games for a school reading project. While we were discussing the ‘dystopian future’ I pointed out to him that many similarities have actually existed in western history. He found this…interesting.

      It was even better when I told him that guns are merely another tool that mankind has developed with technological advances in metalurgy/chemistry, and that left by themselves they are inanimate objects incapable of anything, much less inflicting harm, on anyone or anything. It is the actions of the individual that are responsible for that.

    3. You want a progressive culture tempered by state law from doing its worse? Consider Asheville, NC.

      1. Yeah I am considering NC, SC, TN, GA. Warmer climate, but far enough inland that I am not blown away in a hurricane.

        1. Aw, you take all the fun out of it.

          (I’m a coastal NC fan. Used to spend summers on the banks)

      2. I

        1. I typed “I

          1. Okay said I heart Asheville. Was a left arrow and the number three (heart symbol) that hard for the site to process?

  14. According to Republican state Sen. Mike Fair, “To teach that natural selection is the answer to origins is wrong.”

    I agree, because it is wrong. Natural Selection only works in organisms that already exist.

    “Natural selection is a direct reference to Darwinism. And the implication of Darwinism is that it is start to finish.”

    I am not so sure the good Senator is even superficially familiar with the subject he talks about.

    1. I am not so sure the good Senator is even superficially familiar with the subject he talks about.

      Isn’t that a given? I mean he is a Senator.

  15. SoCon!

    Durr HURRRR

    1. On one side magic created us and on the other side magic fixed healthcare and created “green jobs”.

  16. Oh Jesus, can’t we get over this. We are still evolving. All the immunities built up for example cycle cell anemia or thalassemia. Both to fight off malaria and are recent innovations. The bivalves that survive in warm water or their cousins who do well in cold water as the climate changes. Fossilized minds harping on this crap should evolve a bit beyond pap and dogma.

  17. Another misleading headline: “Blocks evolution”. Way wrong, just like in Kansas. In Kansas, there was absolutely no prohibition, per se, the objection was ONLY in forcing *belief* in it into the requirements, like swearing allegiance to the untruth, for those children for whom it is against their religion. (Happened to me but true science brought me back from state religious scientism.)

    (If you say the children don’t count because it’s their parents religion, then you are proving that you are brainwashing the kids against their parents’ eduction into ONLY government-approved “science”, and you’re justifying global warming, and vaccination of babies at 3 months, and prison for the crime of selling raw milk.)

    Of course he’s wrong about natural selection per se, and right about Darwin’s wild unscientific speculations meant to buttress an ancient pagan religion, as condemned in Jeremiah 2:27.”Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.”

    Better to ban government from science, from schools, from guns, from everything. When there is a free exchange of ideas, we get creationist giants of science like Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Mendel, and the scientist that formalized the scientific method.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.