Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Science

Review of Discovery Institute's Evolution Textbook 756

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the just-partner-it-with-dawkins'-god-delusion dept.
Darwinned writes "Intelligent Design is still a hot topic, as evidenced by recent legislation mandating that it be taught in school. Pro-ID group Discovery Institute has released an evolution textbook for use in schools, but a review shows it to be chock full of bad science and questionable reasoning. 'The book doesn't only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book, but its authors are expecting that legislators and the courts will be too stupid to notice that, or to remember that the Supreme Court has declared teaching creationism an unconstitutional imposition of religion.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review of Discovery Institute's Evolution Textbook

Comments Filter:
  • by jdogalt (961241) on Friday September 26, 2008 @06:57PM (#25172693) Journal

    "
      remember that the Supreme Court has declared teaching creationism an unconstitutional imposition of religion
    "

    Can someone post a reference. I suspect any actual rulings will be somewhat more nuanced than that broad statement.

    • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:10PM (#25172799) Homepage Journal
      The grandparent was probably referring to Edwards v. Aguillard [talkorigins.org].
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jdogalt (961241)

        If that is correct, then my skepticism was correct as well. From your link-

        "
        [This is the text of the 1987 United States Supreme Court decision striking down a Louisiana law that required if evolution is taught in public schools then creationism must also be taught.
        "

        Which is entirely different than what the top post said-

        "
        remember that the Supreme Court has declared teaching creationism an unconstitutional imposition of religion.
        "

        I understand that many of my fellow democrats suffer from *severe* dogmatism o

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Secret Rabbit (914973)

      There's also:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District [wikipedia.org]

      ID is creationism and creationism being taught in schools is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. That, so called, broad statement is law in many a county including the US.

  • by darth_MALL (657218) on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:01PM (#25172723)
    1 - In The Beginning...

    2 - The Great Flood (Where are all the Unicorns?)

    3 - Jesus, Dinosaur Wrangler

    4 - Darwin, What a Jerk.

    5 - The Scientific Method - Hooey or Baloney?
    • by rossdee (243626) on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:23PM (#25172901)

      Were Unicorns mentioned in the Bible before Noah? (The Irish Rovers song doesn't count)

      Anyway I think that the Slashdot usage of the term "Creationism" should be replaced by the phrase "Young Earth Creationism"
      (YEC for short)

      There are people of many Faiths that believe in Creation and a Creator, but that the Creation event was many (billions) of years ago, not 4004BC, and that the cosmos and the creatures therin have evolved over that (long) time.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by gardyloo (512791)

        Anyway I think that the Slashdot usage of the term "Creationism" should be replaced by the phrase "Young Earth Creationism"
        (YEC for short)

        Perhaps. At least the YECers have the balls to believe in something which is not only demonstrably inane, but has been disproven many times. Those OECers simply relegate their creator to misty Planck times. I call that moving the goalposts to a spot where they do no one any good whatsoever.

      • by bcrowell (177657) on Friday September 26, 2008 @08:03PM (#25173279) Homepage

        Anyway I think that the Slashdot usage of the term "Creationism" should be replaced by the phrase "Young Earth Creationism" (YEC for short)

        That would be very convenient for the creationists, because YEC is disappearing these days. The creationists have learned that if they make definite scientific statements (e.g, that the Earth is 6000 years old), they risk being proved wrong by scientific evidence. Instead, they've learned to say vague, fuzzy things about intelligent design, while avoiding making testable statements about facts.

        There are people of many Faiths that believe in Creation and a Creator, but that the Creation event was many (billions) of years ago, not 4004BC, and that the cosmos and the creatures therin have evolved over that (long) time.

        Right, and those people aren't creationists. The wikipedia article gives a good definition of creationism: "Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.[2]" In other words, the commonly accepted definition of creationism is that it's in contradistinction to evolution, so the people you're describing, who accept evolution, aren't creationists. "Creationism" is just one of those words that doesn't mean exactly what you'd think it meant based on its etymology. For comparison, "communism" doesn't mean belief that people should live in communes, and a "Republican" in the US isn't defined as someone who's happy that our form of government is a republic.

      • by gregbot9000 (1293772) <mckinleg@csusb.edu> on Friday September 26, 2008 @09:41PM (#25173977) Journal
        I want someone to hit the nail on the head with creationisms, but no one seems to ever do that online so I'll give it my best shot.

        Evolution in no way denounces god. Even the Catholic church says the view science has on the universe and evolution are compatible with their faith: http://rellavent.blogspot.com/2008/09/catholic-church-acknowledges-evolution.html [blogspot.com] And it's pretty easy to reconcile the two: universe created in a big explosion that created light, land and heaven coalescing into stellar bodies, water and land separating as it cools, life slowly taking to the land, and man ultimately being removed from the bliss of the primordial garden by eating the fruit of knowledge. It's god, if evolution happened without his help at all, he set up the universe knowing full well what it would do. ID in the 6k year old vein makes no sense and actually is insulting to the power of god.

        This brings up the problem of the creationists. Science as it is written, is not in that strong of a conflict with the bible as it is written, so why do they continue to push it?

        we know the symptoms: text books, politicians, online spaming, but what causes the disease? Or to frame it in a more humanistic perspective: what do they gain by perusing their agenda? This should be the prime argument in creationism, not the symptomatic treatment that has been prevalent.

        My theory is that creationism is viewed as being linked to a value system that creationists view as being under attack from secular radicals, and evolution is taken as a battle field to fight against this because Evolution is pretty removed from their day to day lives, if they chose to believe fantasy on it they wont hurt them selves like they would if they choose to believe fantasy about refrigeration. Basically they are picking ID as the place to make their stand to defend their way of life.

        That brings up the other point, why do they feel their way of life is in danger? It could be politicians playing it up for votes, it could be changing social economics beyond anyones control, it could be pure paranoia, and it could be that people in the cities and scientific community actually attack them. I think its a combination of all those factors, but i also think one of the largest factors is the fact that Secular atheists do actively attack the religious beliefs of others.

        I know this from having been to several meetings. The atheist community is one of the most bitter and spiteful I have ever seen and actively wish to see all "non-rational" belief systems torn down and replaced with their "belief" system on a level that matches any religion. Pure tribalism at its best, two sets of group-think throwing stones at each other. the Atheists attack christen beliefs and they attack the atheists through ID.

        The solution to the problem is not the one shown on /. of armchair intellectuals decrying the ignorance of the bible belt hicks, while smugly reassuring each other that they have the "best" ideology. It is through an understanding of their actions and why they do them and coming to terms with them. Calling their text book stupid isn't going to get them to stop. I don't know what the solution is, but I know what it isn't.
        • by LSD-OBS (183415) on Saturday September 27, 2008 @12:32AM (#25174947)

          Science as it is written, is not in that strong of a conflict with the bible as it is written

          Perhaps not if you don't take the bible literally. But many do. And science is, and let's not mince words here, absolutely and completely at odds with the bible as it is written, should it be interpreted as literal text.

          Now, I've never understood anybody who said they believed in the bible but didn't take it literally. What. The. Fuck.

          OK, how about: "I believe in The Complete Works Of Shakespeare, but I don't take it as a literal historical document." Say what now? What does "believe in" *mean* then?!

          Nah mate, science and Christianity are NOT compatible, so long as Christianity promotes any kind of belief that is either at odds with provable fact, or is not supported by any direct evidence.

          And just to be clear, attributing unknown or unexplained things to god is *never* a reasonable theory because that logic requires the concept of god in the first place, which (if you spend any amount of time thinking about it) you should know is circular reasoning and therefore crap. One of the fundamentals of the scientific method is never to search only for facts to fit a theory, but rather to constantly revise the theory to fit the facts. This precludes the possibility of the concept of "god" to ever factor in to any scientific theory because there was never any direct evidence to cause the scientist to develop the concept and theory of a god.

          Personally, I find religion deeply offensive, in the same way I find littering, racism, homeopathy, and liars offensive. If anybody is going to be doing any of that on my lawn, I'm going to yell at them.

          Now, I know exactly the tribal mentality you mention, but that is human nature and humanity will always have a Complete Dick contingent. However, I certianly do not need smug reassurance from anybody else whose beliefs line up with mine. My smug reassurance comes from ascribing to verifiable truth, which stands on a mountain of evidence, and holds its own.

          • by Phroggy (441) <slashdot3@nOSPam.phroggy.com> on Saturday September 27, 2008 @03:03AM (#25175531) Homepage

            Nah mate, science and Christianity are NOT compatible, so long as Christianity promotes any kind of belief that is either at odds with provable fact, or is not supported by any direct evidence.

            If Christianity promotes a belief that is at odds with provable fact, then you're right, but the argument of young-earth Creationists is that macro-evolution and a billions-of-years-old universe is NOT provable fact. This is where you have a conflict, not in the logical conclusions that follow.

            I believe your view of the scientific method to be flawed. The existence of God clearly falls completely outside the realm of empirical science. This doesn't make God false, it makes God untestable. Science only deals with the natural, which doesn't mean that the supernatural cannot exist. The scientific method does not require that you begin with a disbelief in God; indeed, many well-known scientists including Kepler, Galileo, Pasteur and Newton put God at the center of their scientific work. These men endeavored to better know the Creator through the better understanding of His Creation. Would you call their work unscientific?

            Personally, I find religion deeply offensive, in the same way I find littering, racism, homeopathy, and liars offensive. If anybody is going to be doing any of that on my lawn, I'm going to yell at them.

            I find that most people who are offended by religion in general (as opposed to being offended by some specific aspect of a particular religion) completely misunderstand what religion is.

  • by Phantom of the Opera (1867) on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:02PM (#25172739) Homepage

    In the US, its not fashionable to know math or science. It's not fashionable to work hard. 'Being liked' is in. Girls are encouraged to look pretty and boys are encouraged to be force wielding leaders (to later wind up as PHB's?).

    Look at kids' movies and TV shows. The message is that all you have to do is believe in yourself. Nothing else. God forbid we ask these delicate flowers to do more than the minimum.

    Prosperity is being taken as a birthright. I half wonder if the outcry against illegal aliens is due to the fact that these people work hard. The complainers may one day be expected to. Can't have that!

    • by wrf3 (314267)

      In the US, its not fashionable to know math or science. It's not fashionable to work hard.

      And why is this? What has changed about out culture that these things are no longer valued? The secularists among us might argue that "religion" has affected math and science, but I think this a false argument. Speaking to what I know from personal experience, Christians are opposed to naturalism, but not math or science. My middle child, for example, is pursing advanced studies in MEMS. And, certainly, there used to be something called the Protestant work ethic.

      'Being liked' is in. Girls are encouraged to look pretty and boys are encouraged to be force wielding leaders (to later wind up as PHB's?).

      So what caused the shift from an emphasi

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        In the US, its not fashionable to know math or science. It's not fashionable to work hard.

        And why is this? What has changed about out culture that these things are no longer valued?

        I wish I knew. When is the last time we as a people have been asked to sacrifice or had to sacrifice? That's not necessarily a bad thing, but my grandparents' generation lived through WWII and the great depression.

        The secularists among us might argue that "religion" has affected math and science, but I think this a false argument.

        I agree with you. Religion is not opposed to philosophy, science or thought. I think it is a culture that has. This culture tends (IMHO) to be a rabid form of the Christian right with a tribal 'we are better than you' attitude.

        Speaking to what I know from personal experience, Christians are opposed to naturalism, but not math or science. My middle child, for example, is pursing advanced studies in MEMS. And, certainly, there used to be something called the Protestant work ethic.

        The textbook in question stems from a lack of sophisticated thought. I

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by mattack2 (1165421)

          I wish I knew. When is the last time we as a people have been asked to sacrifice or had to sacrifice?

          Possibly Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" speech? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_crisis.html [pbs.org]

          This is the one that people continue to mock by saying that Carter "told people to wear a sweater" (but he didn't specifically say that at all).

          Sigh...

          Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial

          • by Phantom of the Opera (1867) on Friday September 26, 2008 @09:11PM (#25173815) Homepage

            Good point. Instead, we got good looking genius boy.

            "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

            "I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." -- Ronald Reagan, 1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)

            "The American Petroleum Institute filed suit against the EPA [and] charged that the agency was suppressing a scientific study for fear it might be misinterpreted... The suppressed study reveals that 80 percent of air pollution comes not from chimneys and auto exhaust pipes, but from plants and trees." Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, in 1979. (There is no scientific data to support this assertion.)

    • by Kamineko (851857)
      Back in my day, the after school special would say both 'Believe in yourself.' and 'Stay in school.'... Sonic Sez!
    • by dpilot (134227)

      > Prosperity is being taken as a birthright. I half wonder if the outcry against illegal
      > aliens is due to the fact that these people work hard.

      I'm caught between agreeing with you on this, and thinking that you just sound like a spoiled brat CxO who doesn't want to share any of "his hard-earned money" with his employees who did most of the real work. Speaking of "Prosperity is being taken as a birthright," certainly our CxO crew has taken that one to new heights - 270X (on average) higher than the p

  • by cliffiecee (136220) on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:11PM (#25172809) Homepage Journal

    What's really bugged me the most about Intelligent Design is that its proponents attacked the wrong target.

    As I understand science, it's a cycle: observe, explain, hypothesize, test; and repeat. Evolution as a theory, holds to this cycle. But Intelligent Design is just: observe and explain- the explanation being essentially "God did it." There's not much reason to keep examining things when you feel you've reached that stage, is it? It's an intellectual dead end.

    If *I* were in charge of promoting/legitimizing ID, I would put it up against the Big Bang/String theorists and the like. When we can't yet explain why the universe is the way it is on a fundamental (quantum?) level, *THAT's* when you can trot out the "God did it"s. Evolution is just too well researched and tested a subject to topple (logically and rationally, that is).

    • by Torontoman (829262) on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:39PM (#25172999)

      ID is about as legit as Scientology.

    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:51PM (#25173137)

      What's really bugged me the most about Intelligent Design is that its proponents attacked the wrong target.

      That's because you and the religious fundamentalist leaders have different goals.

      If *I* were in charge of promoting/legitimizing ID, I would put it up against the Big Bang/String theorists and the like.

      ID isn't about finding science that is sufficiently speculative and trying to insert "God". It's about finding science that is sufficiently confusing to the average person so that some will be able to be convinced while others will not. If there isn't strong controversy, then people don't get emotional and angry and feel they need to fight and give exploiters money to help with the fight.

      If they weren't laughed at so hard, they'd be arguing that the sun revolves around the earth, because that is in conflict with absurdly literal interpretations of the bible. In fact, in some poorly educated communities, they are making that argument. It's just too absurd for the mainstream US (who can understand enough astronomy or at least see the pictures, to understand otherwise). So they pick the most outrageous untruth possible that they can talk a significant number of ignorant saps into believing. That way there are two "sides" and the religious can feel they are being attacked and need to strike back, by sending their money in and casting their votes to fight for their religion... even though mainstream christianity moved on and has accepted evolution (and heliocentrism) for a long time.

      Evolution is just too well researched and tested a subject to topple (logically and rationally, that is).

      And that is where you fail. They aren't interested in logic or reason, but in emotionally charged attacks and intentionally spread confusion as a way of manipulating the sheep. Seriously, how many of these so called scientists and preachers do you think have any interest in really promoting christianity instead of making a buck or getting elected? If they were really christians they'd be focusing on the core message of Jesus, which is still not well understood; things like reacting to violence with nonviolence and treating people you disagree with peacefully and respectfully in spite of said disagreement.

  • Let the wingnuts in Kansas and other red states teach creationism or any other loony idea they want and let those of us who are in the blue states teach real science and math and critical thinking skills and let's see which population is more successful in our knowledge based economy 10 - 20 years down the road. Let the free market decide, as they say, with one condition. Let's do away with welfare and let the religious nut jobs who aren't interested in teaching science, math and critical thinking reap what
    • by J_Omega (709711)
      You should desire to really inform those who are getting taught his crap. Realize that the ID/Creationism movement is from the adults - they just force the (idiotic) ideas on the children who have no say in the matter, and are confused enough as is. Hey, if an adult tells them that's how the world works, the'll believe it. Better that the kids are taught the real-deal so that this stuff isn't propagated to their children's children's children.

      If "red state" values dominate, who gets elected? who
    • by spazdor (902907)

      This would be perfect reasoning if not for the fact that kids don't get to choose their parents.

      Your plan is to punish an entire generation of kids for the poor reasoning skills of their parents.

  • by RiffRafff (234408) on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:36PM (#25172973) Homepage

    I saw a t-shirt the other day that said:

    SCIENCE
    It Works, Bitches!

    I thought it was funny...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The Slashdot blurb implies that the review shows the book to be "chock full of bad science", yet I didn't get that impression from the review.

    The first section of the review dealt with politics, not science.

    The second section claimed that the "scientific community" overwhelmingly accepts evolution.

    Finally on the second page of the review, the implication is made that it's unscientific to be precise about definitions ("neodarwinianism") since the rest of the community prefers the term "evolution" (which is a

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Psychotria (953670) on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:44PM (#25173045)

    I don't live in the US, but have read heaps about this topic. My real question is why the subject is even being considered being added to the US school curriculum. There are lame attempts and arguments that go along the line of we want to be "balanced", but, frankly, creationism is not accepted science (it doesn't even come close to science). It's great to debate these things (it broadens our minds), but schools should teach fact; not conjecture.

    Evolution is not "fact" either (although the accumulated data supports the theory). If another theory comes along that explains the data better, then Darwin's theory will be superseded. This is how science works. Teaching crackpot "theories" in schools doesn't end up making people more objective. I would suggest that it teaches them to be more stupid. Teach critical thinking. Don't teach things that are not falsifiable. It's easy.

    It's not a debate it's arguing absurdity.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I don't live in the US, but have read heaps about this topic. My real question is why the subject is even being considered being added to the US school curriculum.

      Money.

      Seriously, televangelists have made bucketloads of cash by making people feel like they are persecuted or like "those people" are trying to force them to change. Politicians get elected using the same. They use that money to market misinformation and undermine education. It's just a way to make money and gain power.

      In most countries there is not a lot of profit in misinforming citizens in that way, so no one does it and said misinformation is less intentional. Marketing works if it is well funded whic

  • by thermian (1267986) on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:44PM (#25173047)

    The Riddle of Epicurus
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
    Then He is not omnipotent.

    If He is able, but not willing
    Then He is malevolent.

    If He is both able and willing
    Then whence cometh evil?

    If He is neither able nor willing
    Then why call Him God?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Back on topic, the Discovery institute is dedicated solely to enriching its members, any other claim is nonsense.

  • by circletimessquare (444983) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [erauqssemitelcric]> on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:47PM (#25173077) Homepage Journal

    (pun intended)

    i don't think you are going to find much support for this textbook on slashdot

    however, what you will find is a lot "hear, hear" and then... nothing. or worse, cynicism

    there's a lot of issues in this world where all you can do is whine and bitch and moan, and are otherwise helpless to effect change. this is not one of those issues

    ALL of these creationist initiatives are happening on state and local levels. you CAN do something about it if you live in one of these areas

    if you do live in an area creationists are making headway, do something about it, please. if for nothing than else than simple civic pride, that the residents of your {state/ town} are not all ignorant buffoons, that some of you actually understand the value of a critical mind, and even more importantly, understand the value of an involved electorate and citizens active for causes they believe in

    how is it possible that such idiots can get creationism in our schools? because THEY GET INVOLVED

    there are too many voices here on slashdot that will speak loudly about right and wrong, and never actually get involved to make sure their government stands up for that

    please, do not feed me the standard psychological lines of learned helplessness that convinces you you can effect no change on this issue or that issue. on creationism, on a state and local level, you CAN do something about this. you SHOULD do something about this. DO IT

    if not you, who?

  • by H0NGK0NGPH00EY (210370) on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:56PM (#25173195) Homepage

    This story from the Seattle-area satire paper The Naked Loon seems relevant: Discovery Institute Takes on Gravity Myth [nakedloon.com]

    Hot on the heels of a recent Louisiana victory in the fight against evolution, the Seattle-based think tank Discovery Institute held a press conference Thursday to announce their latest initiative: defeating the myth of gravity.

    Robert Crowther, Discoveryâ(TM)s director of communications was visibly excited as he detailed the Instituteâ(TM)s plan for attacking what he refers to as the sloppy, inaccurate, and overtly biased portrayal of the theory of gravity.

  • by gfxguy (98788) on Friday September 26, 2008 @08:28PM (#25173483)

    "... as evidenced by recent legislation mandating that it be taught in school. ..."

    And I said "WHAT?"

    So I clicked on the link... and it says "The US state of Louisiana has passed the 'Science Education Act,' a piece of legislation that could allow Intelligent design to be taught in schools."

    And this is why we will never get anywhere trying to intelligently discuss anything; either about education, politics, any contentious issue... because I honestly believe that this is how "ScuttleMonkey" sees it; when people disagree with something, they paint it as the most extreme, worst exaggeration... it's not that I agree with it, this book, or ID, it's that people become blinded when they get "religious" about a topic (no pun intended).

  • Hot Topic? (Score:4, Informative)

    by gyrogeerloose (849181) on Friday September 26, 2008 @08:38PM (#25173561) Journal

    From the summary:

    "Intelligent Design is still a hot topic

    It's only a hot topic here in the United States. In the rest of the civilized world, ID is dismissed as the nonsense it is.

  • mandated (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geoffspear (692508) on Friday September 26, 2008 @09:12PM (#25173825) Homepage
    "Intelligent Design is still a hot topic, as evidenced by recent legislation mandating that it be taught in school."

    Umm, the linked article says nothing about ID being mandated, it talks about legislation that would allow schools to teach it, not require them to do so. It's dumb legislation, but attacking intellectual dishonesty with more intellectual dishonesty doesn't really help your case.

  • by euclidprime (1373167) on Saturday September 27, 2008 @01:01AM (#25175061)
    is that they readily embrace other conclusions of science. Fundamentalist Christian's happily drive SUV's, talk on cell phones and take prescription medicine. They have no problem with the technologies and science that provide refined oil, vulcanized rubber, plastics, satellite communications, data encoding in radio waves, etc. They also implicitly agree with theories on blood-born pathogens, vaccines and antibiotics. But, when science turns its gaze to the age of the earth, the fossil record or the origins of the human genome, they suddenly have problems with the method or its conclusions. Except for possible exceptions like the Amish, it smacks of hypocrisy. Physics and chemistry are OK while genetics, astronomy and geology (oil good, dinosaurs bad) are suspect? If you want to live by revealed as opposed to discovered truth (remember Galileo?), perhaps rejecting more of the fruits of science is your spiritual path, are they not, after all, tools of the devil? I have no problem with spiritual beliefs, but 4000 year-old myths on the origin of the world really needn't be taken literally.
  • by LSD-OBS (183415) on Saturday September 27, 2008 @01:44AM (#25175225)

    Evolution vs Intelligent Design

    Darwin vs Darfail, basically, yeah?

The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made. -- Jean Giraudoux

Working...