Georgia considers banning “evolution”. But what’s really stupid is that besides just changing the word to some silly description, they won’t even really ban it. Doubly stupid: once for trying, the other for trying badly.
This is probably the best thing Georgia could’ve done. Without evolution, they can now safely copulate with their relatives without all those nasty side effects of in-breeding.
Haha, nice one GM.
Why don’t they ban time while they’re at it? That way they won’t have to worry about any changes at all. Nothing at all in fact. And we would be spared from stupid ideas like this.
Didn’t they already try this? Wasn’t there some case where a teacher was banned from teaching because he taught evolution?
I often wonder why they ban evoloution. It would make sense that god would use it, really.
On a side note for you all my US history professor is a firm believer in creationism. Apparently the Earth has been around for a mere 6000 years…:hyperven:
Originally posted by Nulani
Why don’t they ban time while they’re at it? That way they won’t have to worry about any changes at all. Nothing at all in fact. And we would be spared from stupid ideas like this.
Yeah, somebody should make the glass clock from Thief of Time, and use it to destroy history!
Dude, they aren’t banning evolution. They’re banning the word evolution. So essentially they aren’t doing a fucking thing. =p
While the idea is rather… intresting, I can see where she is coming from.
A good chunk of Georgia, if my info is correct, is Baptist, and very conservative. What I see here isn’t a ban, but just a compromise.
Poorly conceived, but I am sure she means well.
So they are stoping people from saying evolution, just because of their religion. That is just plain stupid. Then again what else could you really expect from Georgia. (No offense to anyone here, who may live there)
Its happened before, I’ve heard it mentioned last year.
Actually, if people read the article at all, it would merely change the state wordings. Teachers could and would still say evolution. Books would still have the Theory of Evolution rather than some cumbersome wording. So, no, they’re not banning evolution. They’re not preventing anyone from saying evolution.
CNN and demigod phrased Kathy Cox’s idea incorrectly. It seems like the headline was chosen partly as a way of reenforcing the idea that all Southerners are backwards cousin-marriers as GM so narrow mindedly demonstrated.
And given the criticism from both sides, I doubt it’ll go anywhere.
That’s the most pointless and retarded thing I ever saw :thud: it’s like declaring “evolution” some kind of uber-swear word, it doesn’t change the facts but at least they’ll have their heads so far up their descended-from-apes-and-face-it fundaments that they won’t have to face just how irrational they’re being :thud: :thud: :thud:
Well, as stated before, soon enough they’ll have in-married enough times for the gene pool to turn into a stagnant pond, then various mutations will claim them and that’ll be the end of that chapter.
Oh, hang on a seconds, mutations are the same as genetic and biological changes over time, aren’t they? And what’s the word that best sums that up? EVOLUTION! :ah-ha!:
I don’t care how its worded, its obviously a step backwards, its being motivated by religious beliefs and fear of knowledge, and it makes the whole South look bad.
And Cyber, the fact that they have to ban the word evolution, or whatever they’re doing, so that nobody gets their feelings hurt shows how frickin’ backwards they are. We have to stop condoning behavior like this.
Yeah, they’re just abnning a word. But I think this is, anyway, imposing religion on other people, which should be illegal.
Oh good Lord CC for once I am ever agreeing with you on something, in reference to your recent post.
I read this over at Planetsocks earlier today and it sounds quite silly. 80% of the people involved, apparently want to change it back to “evolution.”
I dont see the controvery anyways, it’s an idiotic headline over the change of a word to a sentence.
EDIT: Evolution can have nothing to do with religion. If the religious students don’t like being taught that way, they can complain, or just take it in stride and look at the world in a different way. That’s how I always saw it.
Double EDIT: It did not say in any paragraph it was being motivated by religious beliefs.
Cox repeatedly referred to evolution as a “buzzword” Thursday and said the ban was proposed, in part, to alleviate pressure on teachers in socially conservative areas where parents object to its teaching
Triple EDIT: Because I am turning into a grammer whore.
Why don’t they just revert to 11th Edition Newspeak while they’re at it? That way they wouldn’t have any controversial or opinion expressing words at all.
It seems pretty pointless.
And yes I read the whole article, it would just have been really boring and not very controversial to say. It seems pretty pointless. Which it is, since there is no real difference: They’re just giving the schools an extra expense and the students a phrase to read and learn instead of a pretty self explainatory word.
You know, what exactly is the conflict between evolution and creationism? Can’t you say that God created evolution? Does “seven days” really mean seven days or does it mean eons?
The conflict is that they want creationism to be taught as a science, an “alternative” theory to evolution. Creationism taught as philosophy or theology is fine with me. But not the way they want it to be taught. The school doesn’t, but the people they’re catering too with this ridiculous wording change do.