 |
| "Forty Six and 2 " / inks on bristol / Brandt Hardin |
"The
idea behind this bill is that students should be encouraged to challenge
current scientific thought and theory,"
-Bo Watson,TN
Republican and Author of The Monkey Law
-Bo Watson,
Rep. Watson is saying lawmakers and teachers SHOULD
encourage students to consider alternative theories about man’s origin aside
from The Theory of Evolution. The idea
man evolved by a gradual method of natural selection can be traced back to
Ancient Greek, Roman, and Chinese scientific studies. Most famously, a well-rounded theory of this
concept was produced by Charles Darwin in 1859 when he published On
the Origin of Species. The true
underlying danger in encouraging debate against Darwinian ideas is alternative
theories to Evolution are exclusively found in religious doctrine. The Scientific community has almost
unanimously adopted Evolution as fact over the past 150 years. Short of making time travel a reality, this
theory will perhaps be man’s best and only scholarly rationalization of the
ultimate question, “Where did we come from?”
The “Monkey Law” which ensures protection of teachers who
wish to challenge Evolution in the classroom is also digging up Tennessee ’s long
historic battle against science in the classroom which roots back to the
infamous Scopes Monkey Trial. Tennessee
was the first state to ever ban the teaching of Evolution and only one of three
states to develop laws against the theory.
In 1925, Dayton , TN Tennessee was finally repealed in 1967. Another teacher, Gary L. Scott lost his
teaching position after facing a similar legal battle stemming from bringing
evolutionary discussion to his students.
When he filed a class action lawsuit against the State of Tennessee , The Butler
Act was overturned.
With The Butler Act finally laid to rest, Tennessee moved on six years later to create
new legislation affecting the teaching of evolution. The Christian Conservatives weren’t going to
give up without a fight. In 1973, Tennessee
Flash-forward
ANOTHER 40 years with today’s SB0893, the Republican authored law which now
opens the door back up for Creationism to be presented as a challenge to
Evolution in academic settings.
Religious zealots who hold office in our home state are again pushing to
attack scientific theory with religious doctrine.
"Concepts
like evolution and climate change should not be misrepresented as controversial
or needing of special evaluation. Instead, they should be presented as
scientific explanations for events and processes that are supported by
experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision based on
detectable and measurable data,"
-The National Association of Biology Teachers
Despite
the political rhetoric surrounding this new law, its intentions are clear to me
as they are to any person who isn’t blinded by their Holy Ghost glasses. We must uphold a separation of Church and
State by not allowing Christian ideals to interfere with teachings based on science
and over 150 years of research. Knowledge
is the next step in evolution of the spirit, body and the mind. Ignorance of this only backpedals the human
race and at best, has us running in place with no explanation to further our
human quest other than passively leaving our lives to “God’s Will.” Religion holds its rightful place in the
personal lives and homes of adult citizens as laid out in our Constitutional
Rights. In a classroom setting,
Christian theories are not an academic stance and cannot be given any more
significance than the belief the world is flat.
"I've been wallowing in my own insecure delusions...
I wanna feel the change consume me,
Feel the outside turning in.
I wanna feel the metamorphosis and
Cleansing I've endured within…
Forty-six and Two are just
ahead of me."
-TOOL “Forty Six & 2”
Evolution is a theory based on
scientific fact and human knowledge of biology and life, which can neither be
proved nor disproved.
Creationism is a theory based on
religious texts written by men who claim to have spoken with an invisible man
in the sky, which can neither be proved nor disproved.
I ask you- which is closer to reality?
The lynch pin (obscure spelling sic) is this: God, by definition cannot be proved or disproved. Evolution can be proved, but not disproved. Only one of these is scientifically credible.
ReplyDeleteEvolution and adaptive selection are proven. Period. God has no place whatsoever in a science class.
You want to debate this in a philosophy class? Fine. But wait, our primary schools aren't funded well enough to consider philosophy a worthy endeavor, contrary to the classical systems on which they are based.
So in the end, the only option for those who want their children taught some ridiculous notion humanity's origin is private school. Which they are absolutely welcome to pay for.
This is not about the separation of church and state- it's about the separation of science and religion. And the more those two arenas are separated, the better.
I love your suggestion that there is, perhaps, an appropriate forum for the discussion of "the controversy." It's very clear to anyone who's not deluded that there's no SCIENTIFIC controversy to be discussed so obviously science teachers shouldn't be wasting their precious time on ID, or whatever alias creationism is currently going under, any more than they should waste time teaching historically-popular notions regarding, say, what's at the centre of the universe, what shape the Earth is, the mechanisms of transmission of infectious diseases, etc.
DeleteBUT, it's equally clear that there is a SOCIAL controversy that is very worthy of attention and analysis. As an interested observer from outside the U.S. (did the way I spelled "centre" give it away?) I'm fascinated by the phenomenon of creationism-touted-as-science continuing to be something that is taken seriously by your nation. In the rest of the 'western world' this is just a complete non-issue. Sure, even here in solidly secular New Zealand, there'll always be a minority of reality-challenged folk who personally cleave to their favoured mythologies but we've pretty generally accepted the idea that publicly-funded science education should be based on the teaching of the current scientific consensus; after all, the subject is "science" not "science plus a bit of mythology thrown in as a sop to people who don't like the conclusions reached by the overwhelming majority of people actually engaged in doing science."
So, by all means teach the controversy but recognize what type of controversy it is - not a scientific one but rather a social, or, as you suggest, a philosophical one. In the absence of school-level philosophy as a subject, what other subject is the rightful place for this discussion? (Here, we've got a subject called 'Social Studies' which would be the natural candidate. I don't really know what it is but I've heard of something called 'Civics' in the U.S. - is that a good place to teach the controversy?)
Abroad Anonymous, you certainly have a good point. Groups defending Biblical ideals are promoting this social discourse throughout our country. Now there is a Creationism Museum being erected in Kentucky (just north of us here in Tennessee.) What could be on display in such a venue? You're guess is as good as mine but certainly the content will not be based of fact but rather on the mythology of current religion.
DeleteWhat is the hard evidence/proof that life originated naturalistically? There is powerful appearance of design/engineering/programming/complexity in the simplest cell on earth. We can't bring about life in the lab, even the simplest self-replicating. There is too much complexity required for the first life and no natural process to explain it. What if it is through the agency of an intelligence? Evolved or Alien or Supernatural?But a higher intelligence? Since the vast majority of Origin of life scientists have ruled out "mere chance" as the cause of abiogenesis, which is the foundation and beginning of evolution, what else is there naturally besides chance and chance has been ruled out! Well there is then the "unknown process/mechanism" that they are now looking for, and cannot find. So it would be a logical fallacy to rule out a source of intelligence, which can be discerned by a set of criteria just like we use it for SETI and archaeology. And if we rule out intelligence without knowing what that unknown factor is, it is foundational bias. You may say - there is no evidence for design - but even Dawkins admits "POWERFUL illusion of Design" so that proves right there that we have appearance and he does not have any reason to rule out Design in origin of life as he said: "No one knows how it happened...it's not a trivial problem...that's one of our gaps at the moment". If science is truly objective and not biased, intelligent design will be eventually accepted as a viable model for Origin of Life.
DeleteI completely agree with you Logan and thanks for the great comment. As you say, there must be a separation. The place for debate of this topic is at home with the students' parents. Otherwise, the floor must me given to any source of debatable theory including Satanism, Buddhism, Islamic and of course- Christian ways of thinking. The Republicans would be the last ones voting for it when put in those terms. Imagine a Muslim Q&A in the classroom? Tennesseans would take to the streets!
ReplyDeleteJust wondering why you went with XXXXVI instead of XLVI? was that intentional?
ReplyDeleteIt was intentional... just to look more scrawled out. It crossed my mind to be formal but it looks a little more like the monkey wrote it with all the X's. Numbers, words, symbols evolve also I suppose.
ReplyDeleteGlad to know that there are still a few people residing in the great state of tennessee who value science and want to keep religion out of the public school classrooms.
ReplyDeleteLike Bill Hicks said Tim, some of us are just glad to have our thumbs! I do value science above zealotry any day.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking but not believing.
ReplyDeleteThe American Taliban have been growing in strength for decades; I've followed some of the TV evangelists, first with an eerie fascination, then later with deepening fear. These Christian evangelicals are clearly partisan, political spokespeople for an increasingly ignorant segment of the voting population which discards the learning achieved over the last few thousand years by the inquisitive nature of the human mind.
ReplyDeleteThis anti-reason, expertise, intelligence, education, science and the scientific method, etc., are the ingredients of the new Keystone upon which the entryway Arch into the modern Republican and tea party horror house of ideological quackery fragily rests. Faith based politics is no substitute for a intelligent, substantive understanding of any issue.
But, according to Leonard Pitts, the Texas GOP has pressured the TX Board of Education into removing "Critical Thinking skills from the required standards." No surprise there after witnessing eight years of Bush and fortunately, just a couple months of Perry.
It's indeed frightening the influence they have on their flock Ed. Religion shouldn't play such a decisive role in our government or our schools. Much of my family as Christians often cite what they're told in the pulpit during political conversations (which I've learned to avoid as I've gotten older.)
DeleteI have a quick question for you that goes slightly off topic: are you afraid of people who are willing to hold on to their beliefs? You certainly fall under this category, as do these Christian evangelicals you mention. There is nothing wrong with wanting to stand up for what you believe in, as you are doing in this forum.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you seem to believe that all Christians are ignorant and backwards, and that they discourage learning and the progression we have made through thinking for ourselves. Did you know that Nicholas Copernicus, who brought forth the idea originally that the solar system was heliocentric instead of geocentric, was a Canon in the Catholic Church. Even Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind" (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Einstein.html).
I, like you, am wary of those who believe exclusively in Christianity and discard logical reasoning because it conflicts with their beliefs. But do you not believe that you are being just as close-minded as those Christian evangelicals, because you want to deny creationism as a potential theory and solution? We have no eyewitness proof of how the world was created, so what is wrong with discussing more than one possible solution?
Slightly-Off-Topic Anonymous, I've never stated that all Christians are ignorant and backwards. I was raised in a Christian family and the vast majority of my intermediate and extended family are devoutly Christian.
DeleteThis being said, I'm no stranger to religious and scientific debate in the home, which is certainly the place for such conversation. I would encourage ANY family to have open communication about such things to perhaps develop happier relationships than I've seen though stubborn resentfulness of opinions maverick to one's upbringing. However, the Classroom should be a forum of debate involving fact and science and NOT that of religious indoctrination.
I can see why you'd comment as Anonymous as I wouldn't want it known to be so ignorant as to think an invisble man in the sky 'made us all.' That is not science it's primitive 'everything is a god' thinking of early unknowing peoples. I was not there to see you being born, but holy hell here you blinking are, and I'm quite sure I can rely on science to explain it, whereas you would rely on the stork theory. I was born into Xianity and it's the worst that happened to me,as I had to unlearn the nonsense of Xian doctrine, as the Pentecostal orphanage thought they knew best and beating me gave them their authority as they were adults and I was a kid bullied into accepting their lies. My atheism is not a reaction though, it's a well thought out position. You need to reread Brandt as well as Steve Novella's article about creationists NON-response to Bill Nye's video. Call me closed minded, I don't care, reality and truth is what I'm closed minded about&anything less is irrational mythology god believing nonsense. BTW, creationism is an assertion as there is no body of knowledge about creationism other than the Wholly Babble, which does not make it a viable 'theory'and after 150 years of research Evolution has yet to be refuted or have anyone come up with anything better through the peer review process, which creationists refuse to engage in. Bible bangers have said if reality contradicts the bible, go with the bible, and that is the creationism you want espoused to innocent kids who see classrooms as knowing what's going on in the world. It's sick.
DeleteI have to reply unfortunately as...Anonymous, only cuz' couldn't do it another way.
Mr. Hardin writes: "by not allowing Christian ideals to interfere with teachings based on science and over 150 years of research".
ReplyDeleteBut the fact is, Origin of Species, a foundational doctrine of Evolution, has never been observed in action. This means that Evolution is not properly called "science", but a "belief system".
Evolution is based solely on the magic god of time. Don't know how to explain how frogs became dogs? - Just give that magic god of time another hundred million years or so!
Daniel, there are many examples of scientists tracing the evolutionary path of certain species through identification of fossils and bones. There is a very distinct path in the evolution of humans from the neanderthal to modern man. You can easily research man of these including whales, birds and many other creatures. This stands up to debate much more than the invisible man in the sky waving his hand and creating the world... shaZam!
DeleteYou're wasting your time Brandt and here's why. Republicans(the majority of which are creationists and bible bangers) under the influence of the Religious Right(which is why so much is being done to push religion, their narrow sectarian view, into everything) like to project themselves onto others what they themselves are guilty of, and Carl Sagan said it best:"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." AND especially this: "You can't convince a believer of anything: for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."-Carl Sagan
DeleteI hate to provide quotes of what others say(a creationists tactic, as they love authorities)but I'm for reality and truth above any ridiculous god and my believing evolution is not another god as creationists like to claim. I was wondering just how many comments down the absurdieites wouyld start and it was sooner than I thought. potholer54 of youtube mentioned just how many hours it takes to debunk the lies creationists tell, and it's truly considerably long, unfortunately, w2hich BTW, the creationists will just gloss over and real evidence against them, ever looking for that smidgin of something they can attack. Wow, religious belief systems are etched in concrete it seems, but they are like the people in a darken cave shouting to give themselves courage as they think they're combatting it, but the cave remains dark.
Regardless, no one in any research of any type ever has found the word 'bible' or 'jehova' inside a rock, or encoded in the dna, etc. If there is design, maybe its Allah or Ahura Mazda. Just give up trying to give credibility to your fantasy. You don't have to be an atheist, just stop saying what's in some book from the bronze or whatever age it was is incontrovertible fact, its utterly ridiculous - just stop, we are tired of listening to nonsense to server your inability to face death without uncontrollable fear that you've got to subvert by lying to yourself.
Deletegood luck,
Elrond Hubbard
Christianity as a whole certainly thrives on the denial of mortality- replacing the fear of death with the fear of sin and promise of immortality. Preparation for death can be taught in the correct way like with Buddhism. Meditation is "death training" essentially and helps one find peace here on Earth in its practice as well which is a stark contrast to the hate-mongering much of the Bible-thumping sect generate.
DeleteEmbarrassingly ignorant blog post, and mediocre-at-best artwork. This blog's author is exactly the type of scientifically-illiterate zealot he thinks he's rallying against.
ReplyDeleteHis support of Darwinian evolution is based on his hidden irreligious agenda; it's his creation story in a cheap tuxedo. His wanting to shield it from critical thinking -- a staple of scientific thinking -- is an outright assault on science.
Sorry, Hardin, but science has evolved beyond Darwin, and your desire to keep biology stuck in 1859 will not be respected by me, nor anyone with any degree of dignity.
Jared, please enlighten us as to your own scientific theories beyond Darwin which explain the existence of humanity. I'm quite confused by your contradictory comments accompanying your run-of-the-mill cheap shots.
DeleteI'm not agreeing with Mr. Jammer here...but he is right that evolutionary theory has developed beyond Darwin's original postulations. There are more current theories that have taken Darwin's framework and built upon it. One of the problems of Darwin's theory is that he proposed that evolution took place very gradually. Fossil evidence suggests that such a gradual change wasn't possible--there were sudden, rapid changes. Stephen Jay Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium tried to explain away this issue.
DeleteThat said, I don't think Mr. Jammer made his point very well if that's what he was trying to say. ;)
I should say... evo-devo is more recent than Stephen Jay Gould's theories. It uses modern molecular biology (epigenetics) to explain the sudden changes seen in the fossil record. But Gould's theory isn't at odds with the evo-devo movement...and they're all built on a foundation which Darwin laid out so meticulously in Origin of Species.
DeleteJared, you sound insane.
DeleteElrond Hubbard
The grand claims of te theory of evolution cannot be tested.
ReplyDeleteFor example how can one test the premise that any bacterial flagellum evolved via natural selection and/ or genetic drift (ie blind and undirected processes)? What is the testable hypothesis and supporting evidence?
My bet is not one evo can answer those questions. But I am sure I will be attacked...
It's a shame you feel as though you'd be attacked by expressing your opinion Joe. With evolution, at least we have a logical trail of evidence to support the theory. Creationism is a product of pure fantasy.
DeleteThe origin of the bacterial flagellum is indeed testable because it makes predictions whose consequences can be tested especially in this day of molecular biology. No one (who's a biologist) expects something like flagella arose via natural selection or drift; prokaryotes have even more ways to evolve. The proteins involved in the construction of a flagellum should be found in common ancestors with different functions. Things like this are being tested all the time to see if they fit hypotheses. So Joe G.'s claim that such things cannot be tested is quite false.
DeleteThanks for the scientific input!
DeleteThis article called Creationism a theory, twice. It is not. A theory is clearly defined as part of the scientific process.
ReplyDeleteThe National Academy of Sciences defines theory as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
Creationism does not fit that definition at all. This has even been demonstrated in court (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/3:Disclaimer#Page_43_of_139).
Creationists like to call their ideas theories as it gives them an air of legitimacy, and capitalize on the fact that the general public doesn't know what "scientific theory" means. The general public usually confuses theory with hypothesis, which is simply an idea.
Please do not contribute to Creationist propaganda by repeating it. Creationism has no theories. Even Intelligent Design, which they represent as one, fails the definition and they have been forced to admit to this during Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
Theoretical Anonymous, Thank you very much for the input... point taken.
DeleteI absolutely agree with you. These 'god dunit' creaturds have tried to lift their nonsense by introducing words that they think will elevate it, but it is still pure nonsense, not a real scientific theory at all, as you pointed out in your link. From calling it Creation 'Science' to 'Intelligent Design' to obscure the fact that they think ultimately their Xian god was the creator, or...uh designer, and their use of 'Intelligent' is supposed to reflect that..well.. some intelligence above humans had a hand in life progressing as after they started it, which is all pure unadulterated horse hockey. Thanks for bringing up this point about what constitutes a real 'theory.' Now, if only shouting over these creaturds would prevent their despoiling the basics of human knowledge. I hate to comment as Anonymous, but it's just easier at this time.
DeleteThe reason that the politicians are considering a law that allows the teaching of creationism in school is not because the people of Tennessee are stupid - the obvious conclusion of outsiders. But it's because all those intelligent Tennesseans don't vote. By not voting and not involving themselves in local politics, they allow less than average IQ politicians to be elected. Your vote is our best defense against ignorance.
ReplyDeleteCS, thanks for the input. I don't think these things happen from a lack of voting. I know I vote here in TN as do many people. The problem is the religious indoctrination which polarizes politics creating Red States such as Tennessee. We find many of our neighbors voting based on overdrawn and endless issues such as gay marriage and abortion while the Republican sect runs a muck creating dangerous crackpot laws which are heavily influenced by the church. We aren't called the "Bible Belt" for nothing!
Delete@ Joe G
ReplyDeleteThe argument you cite, that rotating flagella are too complex to have evolved, is called "irreducible complexity" and has been thoroughly discredited.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_79_of_139
Perhaps before you attack the "grand claims" of evolution, you should learn a little more about it?
Rather than attempting to discredit the millions of PhD scientists from all over the world who, for over 15 decades, have devoted their lives to study of the matter, perhaps you should speak to one of them. PhD researchers are not as dumb as fundamentalists make them out to be.
Or you could just go back to a fundamentalist propaganda website and pick up another argument. It's the only place you will find them - note that there are NO scientists I am aware of who argue against evolution on scientific grounds, and the very few who do have fundamental religious convictions. That's a very telling fact.
Homework: look up "scientific consensus" and "the scientific method". Before you enter a battle of wits with doctorates, you might want to arm yourself with some serious mental ammunition.
Of course, if you actually do the amount of study on the subject that they do, you will no longer refute it - you will understand it.
READING is POWER
DeleteGreat article.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering what the big move for the creationism/ID movement would be since Kitzmiller v. Dover, and not surprisingly it's pretty much the same thing all over again.
This notion that 'we should let the children decide' has been contentious, to say the least, even before the Intelligent Design label was adopted.
I understand the 'logic' behind it, and I like the idea of encouraging skepticism and doubt within growing minds, but that's clearly not what's been proposed. The first and foremost goal in any classroom is to teach the children; to supply them with the knowledge relevant to their current level of understanding and help them in understanding it.
By suggesting they 'challenge' scientific theory is an invitation for armchair objections in a very literal sense (well almost, I'm British and we never had armchairs on school seats, but maybe that's a luxury you get).
If you absolutely had to have a debate about evolution and creationism in a class room, then first of all it should not be in a science lesson. As you pointed out sadly philosophy or even sociology are not compulsory in most schools, but if they were all we'd be seeing are unmoderated debates by a teacher who is in favour with the indoctrinated children and against the minority of students who have parents supplying them with actual science.
If they must have a debate, why not bring in a guest speaker (a University professor or if they're lucky enough a scientist) to clarify any misconceptions or rebutt any refutations. Would be a decent way to learn, I think.
But fundamentally (if you excuse the pun), this is not an issue of arguing creationism with evolution. It's christianity wanting its place not just in Science lessons but in every classroom. I doubt that any Hindu or Sikh ideas of creation will be brought up, despite being much older and completely different.
Graham, if we spent the same amount of money on Education as we do on our Military Budget, every student in America would indeed be in an armchair... something very chic at that I'm certain. Thanks for the comment- I agree 100%. Children should be allotted the freedom to debate but not in this obvious manner of "pushing" them in one direction or the other.
DeleteCreationism/ID is based on blind-faith. Blind-faith is dependent upon free-will wielding devotees and cannot ever stand up to the rigors of scientism. Further, science needs no such human input...it happens with or without humans being present.I would be inclined to trust that life here on Earth has been a petri dish for "cosmic farmers" sowing and collecting DNA, than the infant drivel spewing from blind-faith wielding religious yahoos!
ReplyDeleteKeep up the great work Brandt and thanks for sharing a good article. Sorry for the Tn. kids who have to be contaminated by "Monkey-brained" mentalities and free-will stifling dogma.
Life here on earth has been a petri dish for "cosmic farmers" and they made us call them "God". It was they who built the genetic code so life could be manipulated easily. Think about it, what reason would random nature have to construct a code so as to have an impact on future generations. WTF does randomness care about the future? THING ABOUT IT MORONS OF THE EARTH. Nature had no need for any codes. Nature is not conscious or intelligent enough to think about codes.
DeleteBut it is better for the evolutionists to let free discussion go on in classrooms rather than banning ID. Reason is banning is always bad from a scientific standpoint, even if the opposition is weak. You kill them with overwhelming proof. Banning only gives the impression you fear their argument. Which of course they do, because if an intelligent ID guy comes along he can cause major damage.
But beyond that, open discussion can get the conversation going in the right direction, that intelligence constructed the genetic code for purpose, and we should take that up as a legitimate theory, otherwise we're living a totally deluded life.
I'm not comfortable with how much banning and intimidating science has to do these days. And how peoples careers are ruined because their ideas are not mainstream sciences ideas. That is really not what science is all about, stifling strange ideas. Most ideas started out pretty strange. I am working on a few right now which you would probably have me committed for.
WAKE UP BOZO, there are other people out here.
My name is Joe Ford, but I am going to sign as anonymous because I don't have any of those other account things, I don't think. Probably do but too lazy to look up the passwords.
Hi Folks,
ReplyDeleteHere is the text of a letter I sent to your Governor when I heard about "you know what." Now I feel bad about it, because I see that y'all are suffering as well.
"Dear Governor Haslam,
It has come to my attention that you are going to allow a bill that protects teachers who let children criticize evolution or global warming in classrooms become law. I want to thank you for this, as those of us in Ohio are tired of being ridiculed as ignorant, and I appreciate your efforts to have your state share the spotlight.
It makes perfect sense to have high school students use their massive experience in scientific methods to correct those silly teachers with their dumb "theories." Better yet, we should get to vote on what science is true, now that would be true democracy in action.
It occurs to me that there isn't an I.Q. test required to become a State Governor, is there? Science and education may be overrated anyway.
Thanks again,
Rick
Note: I was unable to use the internal messaging system on your website, it threw an error which I forwarded to your help department. Perhaps some H.S. students could come over and straighten out your servers.."
His office sent a little form letter praising me for getting involved in the process of Government, and saying that he would send my letter to Legal to get ideas for useful new legislation.
My condolences fellows.
Rick..
Rick, this is simply wonderful. Thanks for sharing- I've gotten about the same response from my few attempts at contacting the Good Governor myself.
DeleteFollowed this from your link in the comment sections of the Star Telegram to a letter that I wrote in regards to creationism.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good blog. Keep it handy because I fear that it is still going to be relevant 20 years from now. Sigh.
I hope you are wrong but I'm fear for the same. There are two sides to the South right now... the general progressive attitude of the public and the extreme legislation being shoved through by elected officials of the FAR Right.
DeleteI get a kick out of you evolutionists, sooooo scared that kids hear other's religious theories, or evidence that challenges your religion. You really are closer minded.
ReplyDeleteIt's not my religion I have a problem with others challenging but rather science. Science is factual and most faith is, well... blind faith.
Delete