We’ve explained many times why we won’t debate creationists (see Debating Creationists is Dumber Than Creationism). We don’t even like to talk to them. But for those who enjoy that sort of thing, you might consider asking one of these questions:
1. Name one species, fossil or contemporary — including man — that is physically unrelated to any other life on earth. (Expected answer: The magic designer likes to re-use his patterns.)
2. Name one accomplishment, in medicine, agriculture, or any other field (other than theology), that is directly attributable to creationism. Just one will do. (Expected answer: some archeology find. But that’s not a good example, as it doesn’t support Genesis. To the extent that archeology sometimes supports folk-history, it also supports the Iliad.) Addendum: Something accomplished by a creationist doesn’t count unless he used creationism in his work.
3. Name one business (other than a church or a creationism amusement park) that is using any aspect of creationism to produce its product.
4. Name one experiment that clearly disproves evolution or that demonstrates creationism.
5. If evolution is so evil, name one criminal biologist who personifies what you’re claiming.
6. Where Are The Anachronistic Fossils?
7. And finally, for young Earth types: If the Earth were only a few thousand years old, then the fossil record shouldn’t reveal things to have been much different than they are today, with the possible exception of a few extinct species — like the mammoth or the dodo. And even extinct species should be like other species now existing — mammals, birds, etc. Instead, we see aeons of time revealed, with very different forms of life unlike those that exist today. Why? (Expect some blather about Noah’s flood.)
That’s our little list, but we wouldn’t mind adding to it, so feel free to add your own suggestions.
See also: A Few More Questions for Creationists.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
If you are descended from your grand parents, why do you still have cousins?
I once asked the godfather if ID question number four at a talk he gave at the University of Oklahoma. His answer, after mumbling around, was “the experiment was already done'”with no follow up. He did not do well at the talk where the small audience was dominated by biologists.
1.The giraffe
2.Astronomy – the moon Métis: For more than 4 billion years,
it has been orbiting Jupiter from only 79,000 miles away.
3.N/A
4.Not experiment, but autopsy ; The giraffe
5.NA
6.There aren’t any. The Flood of Noah was in 2,611 BC. Only
modern animals and humans died.
7.Ask those creationist clowns how old the moon is, and if those impact
craters occurred before Adam & Eve, or after Adam & Eve.
Herman Cummings
ephraim7@aol.com
Hey Herman, good to see you. I agree with most of your questions, however, I’m not sure about your #2, it’s hard to know how long Metis has orbited Jupiter. Definitely more than 6,000 years, of course, but it might be a captured object and thus could have orbited for less than 4 billion years. Also, in practical terms, how many creationists have heard of Metis?
SC – great questions. I would also ask what objective evidence do they have that a creator even exists. The bible doesn’t count, since we do not know it’s provenance, or it’s authors.
I would modify question (4) somewhat, maybe something like this:
4′. Describe an observation, even hypothetical, of creationism/design, telling us how it would differ from an alternative (even hypothetical), non-creationism/design event.
I don’t like the part about disproving evolution, because the creationists spend all their time in refuting evolution, rather than telling us something positive about creationism or intelligent design.
TomS says: “creationists spend all their time in refuting evolution”
Then they shouldn’t have any trouble doing it for me.
Herman;
1) Wrong…. look up Okapi.
2) Wrong…. nothing to do with creationism, try Physics.
3)Wrong…. Just because you cannot answer doesn’t mean it is N/A.
4) Wrong…… see 1).
5) Wrong…… see 3).
6)Wrong….. no physical evidence of Noah’s flood, try Geology.
7) Wrong….. no Adam or Eve, try Genetics.
Thanks for playing. Edjumacation, get one.
SC: You question #2 is well and plainly worded, I think; but your example (archeological find) and Herman’s answer (Metis? really, Herman? reread the question- “Name one accomplishment…that is directly attributable to creationism“)** suggest to me that, like synapticcohesion, with his Gishy list here a few days ago, you’ll end up with creationists claiming that credit for discoveries due to scientific methods is due to creationist thought, just because the particular scientist may have been a Christian (or other theist). The distinction is not one they’ll make in any case, I suppose; but, I get the feeling that your list of questions is directed more to exposing the weakness of the creationist position for fence-sitters than to move the ideologically-immovable anyway.
**Herman, I can’t seem to find anything to suggest that Dr Synnott, when he discovered Metis in 1979, used Genesis rather than Voyager as a source. The question isn’t about the thing discovered, it’s about how it was disovered.
aturingtest says: “You question #2 is well and plainly worded, I think; but …”
It now has an addendum.
I have three questions.
You [the Creationist] often refer to “strengths and weaknesses” of evolutionary theory. Will you please detail the strengths of evolutionary theory, in a robust and comprehensive manner?
You [the Creationist] have are probably concerned that we teach common descent AKA “evolution” as a fact. Given that we will not change such teaching, how may we address your concern? Is it sufficient to expressly acknowledge a student’s right to reject such teaching, as long as such a student understands the principle? If not, how may we address your concern, given that we will continue to teach common descent AKA “evolution” as a fact?
The third question is analogous to the second, but broader in scope.
You [the Creationist] have concerns about the teaching of evolutionary theory in our public school science classrooms. We will teach our best understanding of evolutionary theory with neither compromise nor singularly critical analysis. Given such teaching, will you inform us of your actual concerns, as opposed to the false concern that evolutionary theory is not scientifically supported? Will you engage in a constructive dialogue, so that we may address your concerns within the context of teaching our best understanding of evolutionary theory with neither compromise nor singularly critical analysis?
I agree that debating “creationists,” or any pseudoscience-peddler, is a bad idea, because the debate format simply favors pseudocience. But as you know, I strongly encourage asking them questions, and often complain that “Darwinists” don’t do that nearly enough. The usual excuse is “why bother, they’ll only evade the questions.” But that’s the whole point – to show the evasive games they play, and how they make pathetic excudes for other evolution-deniers who don’t believe anything remotely like what they do (other than “Goddidit”, which is what ~1/2 of “Darwinists” believe anyway).
So here are a few questions I like to ask. Everyone: please feel free to ask them of as many evolution-deniers as possible:
1. These “creationists” can’t agree on which hominid fossils are “fully ape” or “fully human.” Which one(s) is/are wrong, and on what evidence do you base it?
2. Michael Behe, who is one of the most raved-about idols of evolution-deniers, accepts ~4 billion years of common descent. Do you, and if not, have you challenged him directly.
3. How many years ago do you think the first life appeared on Earth? Note: I’m not asking for the age of the Earth.
4. What one pro-evolution book and one anti-evolution book, each published in the last 25 years, would you recommend to “teach the controversy”?
Here’s the correct link in question 1 above (I hope).
aturingtest: “..I get the feeling that your list of questions is directed more to exposing the weakness of the creationist position for fence-sitters than to move the ideologically-immovable anyway.
I would certainly hope so! I can’t vouch for all critics of ID/creationism, but every single word I have written and spoken in the last 15 years on this topic was specifically directed at fence-sitters (everyone from those who have been thoroughly, but not irreversibly, misled, to those who accept it but seem on the verge of doubt). Even when I ask a question to, or answer a question from, an evolution-denier, my interest is not in attempting to change their minds (by the time they frequent these boards, ~99% are either beyond hope or Loki trolls) but to show fence-sitters the games the deniers play. Most fence-sitters are not interested in these boards, of course, but many new readers might be still on the fence, and everyone can pass on the information to those not likely to stop by
I only have one question for creationists: How do you sleep?
I just read an article about Richard Leakey (from the famous Leakey family). In it, he says that any debates about whether evolution is responsible for life will soon come to an end.
“Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that “even the skeptics can accept it.” ”
Well well!! The Discoveroids are going to have to deal with two problems now: How to deal with their much-touted Academic Freedom position regarding the ousting of non-creationist science professors from Shorter University and, the DI’s eventual fade into irrelevancy as declared by Mr. Leakey.
Ian Hyland says: “The Discoveroids are going to have to deal with two problems now”
No problem. They can always switch to moon-landing denial.
Here are some thoughts about why I suggested the rewording of your question 4:
Asking about the evidence for creationism may play to the assumption that there is some substance to creationism. The reader may think that, since it makes sense to speak of “evidence for X”, there is an X.
Mentioning evidence against evolution may play to the false dichotomy that if not evolution, then it must be design.
Creationists do spend their time attacking evolution – granted that the attacks are misdirected or fallacious. They do have a supply of things to say, which can waste time and resources in pointing out the flaws. Let’s shift the burden to where they have nothing to say.
TomS says: “Asking about the evidence for creationism may play to the assumption that there is some substance to creationism.”
It’s no different from asking for evidence of Bigfoot.
I have read (forgive me for not remembering where) that if Noah’s Flood actually occurred, the volume of water it would have taken to submerge the entire planet for a year would have produced so much sun-induced water vapor it would have saturated the atmosphere, drowning every one and thing on the ark. How can a creationist dismiss that?
If man walked with dinosaurs, why are there detailed cave paintings of lions, horses, woolie rhinos, cave bears, and other mammals but not one painting of a T-Rex, Apatosaurus, or Triceretops? Weren’t those animals impressive enough for the artists to record?
Archeologists have found Bronze Age warrior armor made of boar tusks, and the use of mammoth bones to make shelters in Siberia? Why is there no archeological evidence of man’s use of dinosaur teeth, bones, horns, or armor? Wouldn’t scavenged dino parts have made great weapons, tools, and building materials?
There are thousands of extinct species from dinosaurs to mega-fauna mammals, many filling the same types of eco-niches, and additional species seem to be announced every week. Since the survival of a fossil is a random act, it can be assumed there likely were many hundreds if not thousands more species that existed and went extinct that are not recorded in the fossil record. How did the earth accommodate all those competing species and how could the ark accommodate even a fraction of those, much less the million or so modern species?
“We’ve explained many times why we won’t debate creationists…”
Who is “we?” Your other personality?
So-called “creationists” are the trailblazers of modern science–you can’t ignore it and gloss over it, though it doesn’t stop you from trying.
“Name one business (other than a church or a creationism amusement park) that is using any aspect of creationism to produce its product.”
Your sense of value may lie in exploitation of ideologies for money–it is not the case for most decent people.
“Name one experiment that clearly disproves evolution or that demonstrates creationism.”
Puhleez. There’s nothing proving evolution but conjecture and lots of imagination.
If I could create munchkins out of thin air, do you think these munchkins could really prove my existence scientifically? Not unless I allow them to. Can said munchkins know that I am their creator while engaging in scientific study? Of course. Knowing a creator exists is not scientific study, nor does this hinder scientific study as has been proven throughout the ages.
I’m letting this one through for its amusement value.
NeonNoodle: “I only have one question for creationists: How do you sleep?”
C’mon, you know. Some of them sleep like children whose parents have just told them fairy tale bedtime stories. Some of them sleep just like parents who told their children fairy tale bedtime stories. And a few sleep like snake oil peddlers who had a good day.
“So-called “creationists” are the trailblazers of modern science”
“Your sense of value may lie in exploitation of ideologies for money”
Creationism is either modern science or an ideology, you can not have it both ways
sc (little sc here, not the big guy): I take this, from where you visited before, to be your basic, bedrock assertion:
“Of course the Bible is the foundation and the motivation behind scientific research.”
Of course. Now, all you gotta do is back that up by answering question #2 of SC’s. Please note, the question has nothing to do with whether or not the discovery itself backs up some theistic narrative; nor does it matter if the discoverer was a theist in any shape or form; it is only about whether the thought process that produced it was specifically, as you assert, based on the bible. You might also explain how science ever got along without your “foundation” in, say, the Greek formulation of the spherical Earth by scientific, observational means by about the middle of the fourth century BC- unless you believe (and can show) either that 1) Aristotle, Eratosthenes, Seleucus, Posidonius, and others, were regular bible readers, or b) the Earth isn’t really a sphere. (Picking “b” won’t make you look any dumber than you already do, I promise)
@synapticcohesion: I hardly know where to begin. In the first place, you did not answer ONE question. What you offered would have failed even the most generous high school quiz. Your last two points, though, are worthy of mention. You need to understand that there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence proving evolution, and it grows prodigiously as the technology advances. But you don’t need to know any of this. Go to any museum of natural history (that Ken Ham doesn’t run) and the stark evidence just about jumps out at anyone with a capacity for reason.
As to your last point, you actually made a case AGAINST creationism. Since there is no way to produce a Creator who does not want to be contacted, there is no science that can be applied here. We ‘munchkins’ ask a lot from our scientific forays. That’s why we can’t just accept talking snakes or go to dentists who think their patients are descendants of Adam and Eve.
“If man walked with dinosaurs, why are there detailed cave paintings of lions, horses, woolie rhinos, cave bears, and other mammals but not one painting of a T-Rex, Apatosaurus, or Triceretops? Weren’t those animals impressive enough for the artists to record?”
Dave: There are. Of the apatosaurus especially. And who knows what else? It’s clear that evolution proponents want to hide the truth as much as possible, thus it would not surprise me that many detailed artifacts have never never see the light of day. The fact that I am talking to myself (because my answers to questions specifically directed to me are hidden) is further evidence that there is a desperate need to suppress the truth.
Another one let through for amusement.
I think the Curmudgeon is having a bit too much fun here.
@Synapticcohesion: If there is any evidence that the hordes of biologists, paleontologists, archeologists, and others in their thousands are in a conspiracy to withhold creationist truth, I will not stand for it. Those Nobel laureates, discoverers of new medicines and treatments for disease, and others involved in pure research will soon be exposed for their suppression of TRUTH, Inc.
SC said:
and
I’m betting this has nothing to do with the amusement value. I’m betting that this has more to do with the fact that synapticcohesion is the perfect example of why debating creationists is analogous to mud-wrestling a pig. You both come away dirty, but the pig (played by synaptic here) enjoys it.
Oh, and SC, you may have to ban a range if you’ve been banning synaptic by individual IP addresses. Unless he’s been going by home, cellphone (which if he’s able to switch between 3G and 4G could be separate IP addresses there), library and maybe’s some friends homes. Or just using a proxy service. Just to show you that he’s not just an annoying twit, but a technically knowledgable annoying twit.
sc (little one): “The fact that I am talking to myself (because my answers to questions specifically directed to me are hidden) is further evidence that there is a desperate need to suppress the truth.”
OMG!!!111!1!!!!!1! You’re absolutely right, sc, how could I have been so blind, the scales have fallen from my eyes, yea verily and all that. It really is all a conspiracy! And how fiendishly clever of SC to censor your no-doubt devastating answers, but leave your post showing that he has done so! How elaborately (and pointlessly) Ludlumesque! We’re through the looking glass here, people!
The only thing that worries me now, now that I have seenThe Truth, is this- aren’t those of us who know The Truth in some danger from the Conspiracy? Is there a possibility that we will be abducted and sent for re-education, or that something else may hap
synapticcohesion:
“If man walked with dinosaurs, why are there detailed cave paintings of lions, horses, woolie rhinos, cave bears, and other mammals but not one painting of a T-Rex, Apatosaurus, or Triceretops? Weren’t those animals impressive enough for the artists to record?”
Dave: There are. Of the apatosaurus especially.
synapticcohesion, if you’re talking about that one smudgy, blobby thing that if you squint really hard might have the outline of a Flintstones cartoon dino, it does not even come close to the finely rendered, anatomically detailed cave wall paintings of ancient mammals. And, of course, it’s always easier to shout conspiracy to explain why your belief system has no evidence behind it.
Alas, synap is why Leakey’ prediction will never come true. First, creationists never do and never will “look at the evidence.”. It’s readily available on Google or Wiki or scads of science websites. Interview between Dawkins and Wendy Wright is classic; she laughs in his face at the suggestion she go to the Natural History museum down the street and look at the exhibits. She says the “evidence” is merely fanciful drawings in books. Second, evolution is a conspiracy involving millions of tight-lipped acolytes. Right. No evidence of men and dinosaurs because it’s ALL hidden; none of it discovered by creationists. Right.
Leakey underestimates the power of willful ignorance.
@(big)SC:
Allow me to remind any new readers that this is one of the few “evolution/creationism” boards run by “evolutionists” that does not allow “debates.” Since most boards run by anti-evolutionists do not, you are certainly entitled. (small) sc is cordially invited to Talk.Origins or the Panda’s Thumb to “debate,” which in his/her case means evading questions and writing things that encourage “feeding.” (small) sc is also encouraged to take his/her claims to anti-evolution sites that peddle differing “theories” – case in point the Discoveroids do not buy the “man walked with Dinosaurs” thing. If these people are truly confident in what they claim (yeah, I know they’re not) they’d be very eager to challenge other evolution-deniers.
garystar1 says: “Oh, and SC, you may have to ban a range if you’ve been banning synaptic by individual IP addresses.”
Done that, but he slipped through, so I’m also using the name, and if necessary I’ll go beyond that. But now, everyone who refers to him by name is getting delayed by the comment moderation feature. Bear with us, that’s the price of entertainment.
Another price (and also cheaper than the alternative) is that many of them will whine to the “flock” that “Darwinists” “censor” them, while conveniently ignoring who does the real censoring. Including the self-censoring that’s becoming fashionable in this politically correct era of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Oh well, it’s not like they belong to any religions that forbid bearing false witness. 😉
DocBill: “Leakey underestimates the power of willful ignorance.”
When I first read the article I too was quick to mention that I thought that Leakey was ridiculously optimistic. But if one simply writes off the ~1/4 of the population (Americans, high school age and up) that is irreversibly in denial, and of course the <1% that are professional and amateur anti-evolution activists, there is some cause for hope.
Currently another ~1/4 has varying doubts, and yet another ~1/4 accepts evolution (though often as a caricature, with poor understanding) but still thinks it’s fair to “teach both sides” in science class. I did too just before starting to read the fine print ~15 years ago. These people are not hopeless, but they have very little time or interest. Unfortunately it’s a war of sound bites, and the anti-science (not just anti-evolution) forces are winning. And we only help them with our careless use of the word “creationists.” Do we mean the <1% of activists? The hopeless ~25% Or the majority that lets the activists chip away at science education despite dramatic court losses? On that issue our side looks hopelessly confused to me, so imagine how we look to fence-sitters.
The activists can afford to confuse definitions (their strategy depends on it), but we can’t. Winning over even half of the other half – the minimum necessary – won’t be easy, and it won’t be because of evidence. But I think it’s doable.
“garystar1 says: “Oh, and SC, you may have to ban a range if you’ve been banning synaptic by individual IP addresses.”
Done that, but he slipped through, so I’m also using the name, and if necessary I’ll go beyond that. But now, everyone who refers to him by name is getting delayed by the comment moderation feature.”
Yeah ban the “scary theist” with those “scary ideas” that differ from ours!!! Ignorance is bliss.
Non-stop entertainment.
>“So-called “creationists” are the trailblazers of modern science…”
If by that you mean “Their pants are on fire”, I could go with that.
>“So-called “creationists” are the trailblazers of modern science…”
If by that you mean Burn heretics at the stake”, you might have a point.
>“So-called “creationists” are the trailblazers of modern science…”
If by that you mean “Forging a path into Bronze Age ignorance”, spot on.
I’m pretty sure little-cs chose those initials quite intentionally. Curmie, you have an admirer.
(big)SC: “Non-stop entertainment.”
How he/she “refuted” my observation (of which side does the real censoring) by ignoring it is the most hilarious part of the act.
Ian Hyland said:
That’s my usual reaction to most creationist spiels. Almost everything they say is wrong or a lie, much of it based on an unstated foundation of errors, lies, and deliberate misrepresentations.
Much like SC I rarely ever bother to try to argue with them anymore. I prefer to avoid them and ignore them when I cannot. They are among the most dishonest people and the biggest liars I have ever dealt with.
Jack Hogan: “Much like SC I rarely ever bother to try to argue with them anymore. I prefer to avoid them and ignore them when I cannot. They are among the most dishonest people and the biggest liars I have ever dealt with.”
I hope (correctly?) that by “they” you mean the <1% that I refer to above, and not their two audiences. You are right that door # 1 ("debating" them) has the "zonk." But door # 2 (ignoring them) only has a modest prize. Door # 3 has the "new car." That would be to "feed" them just enough – particulary questions about their nonexistent "theory" that they hate to answer – to show new readers the pathetic games they play.
Your are missing the point about Metis. Science admits that capture (including our Moon) is impossible. It proves that our solar (and our universe) was created. See my article (The Truth of Genesis: Science Was Wrong About Comet D/1993 F2). It also proves a creator.
I don’t promote creationism, but rather the “Observations of Moses”.
Hi Herman, welcome back. I am unaware of any scientific difficulties with gravitational capture, but then orbital mechanics are not my thing. So I looked at your article …
That’s it? The existence of Metis is unexplained because is doesn’t crash into Jupiter? Here is a short explanation: Newton’s discovery of the Law of Gravity, and how the force that holds us down on Earth also explains the orbits of planets about the Sun, and moons about planets. It’s a convergence of evidence. Science is Neat stuff. Try it sometime.
Let’s change TA’s quote from your article just a little bit, Herman.
There. Fixed it for you.
(little) sc said:
If this statement is, in fact, true, it means that you must be the most blissful person in the world.
I am the atheist nightmare personified. Thus the desperate need to censor and suppress.
WARNING: DO NOT CLICK HERMAN CUMMINGS’ NAME! Purposely or not, it’s a fake security warning VIRUS.
@Herman Cummings
“I don’t promote creationism, but rather the ‘Observations of Moses’.”
As well as computer viruses. I suspected your name was a pornographic double intendre.
Hi Herman,
Still suffering from ignorance, I see. Try reading something other than the Wholly Babble. A physics book will explain momentum and astrophysics will explain our understanding of gravity. I think your argument from a mythical figure, Moses, is a steaming load. Prove Moses ever existed outside the imagination of the deluded and you may have something.
@Donna: I was at Herman’s link yesterday and didn’t have any trouble. There were some dodgy advertisements though, and that was likely the source of the fake virus warning. Herman himself is mostly harmless.
synaptic wrote>”I am the atheist nightmare personified.”
If by that you mean the nightmare where you suddenly realize it’s finals week you forgot to withdraw from the Sociology of Banjo Tuning class that you never went to and you are going to get an “F“. Yeah, that’s a scary one.
synaptic wrote>”I am the atheist nightmare personified.”
If by that you mean … something completely different? Seriously, synaptic, you are in the presence of THE Herman Cummings, and you ought to take this opportunity to study his style and methods. Herman’s a pro. He’s been at this game for years and is one of the true leaders in his field. Watch the master, and learn.
I know it sounds like I’m making fun of Herman, but I’m dead serious, and no one is going to believe me.
@Curmie: synaptic is starting to suffer from delusions of adequacy. Time to cut him off before he hurts himself. I’m also tired of him stealing your initials.
Herman says: “Your are missing the point about Metis.”
I understood your point about Metis. What I was saying is that “Metis”, as an answer to SC’ squestion #2, is not an answer to the question actually asked. Here it is- again– ” Name one accomplishment…that is directly attributable to creationism…Addendum: Something accomplished by a creationist doesn’t count unless he used creationism in his work.”
Herman, I know it’s hard with all that god-stuff gumming up the works, but…please try to stay on point. How did creationism, the bible, religion, etc., play a part in the discovery ot Metis? Answer the question asked, not the one you want to answer.
sc (little guy)- you’re not anyone’s nightmare, you’re a six-year old child at an adult’s party, constantly jabbering nonsense, that we’ve all heard a million times, in a desperate cry for some kind, any kind, of attention. That’s the thing that always amazes me about proselytes like you- you always assume, for some reason, that what you have to say is something that OMG!!! no-one has ever heard before! Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, sc. Give it a rest until you actually have something new.
@Tomato Addict
” I was at Herman’s link yesterday and didn’t have any trouble. There were some dodgy advertisements though, and that was likely the source of the fake virus warning.”
As soon as I clicked his name last evening the tenacious ad-virus was on my screen, posing as a Microsoft security warning. I don’t think that type really infects unless you click them, but I cleaned my pc anyway. Nuisance and got through my virus protection.
“Herman himself is mostly harmless.”
Except that he has a computer std.
“If by that you mean the nightmare where you suddenly realize it’s finals week you forgot to withdraw from the Sociology of Banjo Tuning class that you never went to…”
I’m still having them, too. Typical variation is: I’m without number two pencil as I’m trying to wing the final for the class I never attended.
@Donna: Those “classmares” were awful, and persisted for a few years after I was out of school. I recall vivid memories of attending class and assignments not done. And after waking, digging up my printed course list to make sure it wasn’t real. Stress sucks.
Then there was the nightmare about the time I was a narrow-minded religious fanatic and when I posted on some blog about how my brilliance was going to destroy the atheist conspiracy and everybody laughed at me and they are so mean and so dumb and I wasn’t wearing any clothes.
… Oh wait … that was our lower-case silly creationist, not me. Nevermind.
Good questions to.pose at a Texas SBOE meeting.
I think I will.
🙂