LW says she's been with him 5 years.

Was he like this when she met him, or has this addy-tood developed over time?

If he's always been like this, what attracted her to him in the first place? Was she like him 5 years ago, and gained an environmental conscience, or did she think he'd change, or what?

Is it the classic bad-boys-are-hot/nice-guys-finish-last thing?

--

IMHO the greatest single source of problems in male-female relationships is this:

He gets into the relationship thinking things won't change - at least, not if he can help it.

She gets into the relationship thinking of all the things that will change - and how she'll change them

"I don't really understand why creationism and science are at odds at all... one could say that evolution doesn't describe *who* created the world, but *how* the world was created, whether it was God or Allah or natural forces or purple unicorns. Regardless, science, as has been mentioned, is a process, and should be regarded as such."

The problem is that "creationism" doesn't want to stop at "who" or even "why". It wants to explain "how".

"Young earth creationism" says that this planet is less than 7000 years old. Literally. It discards *all* scientific evidence to the contrary.

Heck, it even discards the built-in contradictions in the Book of Genesis (read both creation stories - they cannot both be literally true because their sequences are different).

"At the end of the day, though, does it really matter?"

YES

"For all but a very few of us, the big bang, genesis, greek mythology, etc are just stories to entertain us."

Maybe for you. But what is being discussed is the idea that "creationism" is a scientific fact, not just a story to entertain. It's as if someone wants you to accept that fairies and leprechauns are as real as tornadoes and snowflakes.

"does some event that happened before recorded history began really affect my day to day life? If I believe that the universe was created by dancing muppets, does that impact my ability to function in society, apart from maybe getting laughed at at dinner parties?"

YES. Just ask Galileo.

"So I say, leave the creationism out of public school, but let the private schools do as they will. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter."

Yes, it does, because to knowingly teach something as science when it is not is to corrupt science. Worse, it corrupts both those who teach it and those who learn it. Better to say "I don't know" than to teach a lie.

---

Unlike a lot of other subjects, in math and science there are right and wrong answers. 2 plus 2 equals 4, not 3, not 5. The earth goes around the sun, obeying gravity and other rules. The solar system is at least several billion years old. There is no Easter Bunny. Etc.

That a lot of folks want to believe otherwise, or have believed otherwise makes no difference; what they believe has no effect on objective reality.

--

Most of all: If it doesn't really matter, why not just teach evolution as science? Why insist on teaching "creationism" as science?

"Perhaps it's better in the long run that the students are taught by someone who has serious reservations about young earth creationism."

No, it's worse, because it lends scientific credibility to something that is not science.

"Or that he could teach it as theology, not science."

That's not what's being proposed.

Nobody has a problem with teaching the Bible as theology. By definition, "creationism/intelligent design" say they are *SCIENCE*. They want the same credibility as real science, but want to be exempt from the rigorous reality-testing of real science.

As for pointing out the problems with the various "theories" and letting the students decide, if all the problems are pointed out, the logical conclusion is that they aren't even real scientific theories to begin with.

--

Has anyone else mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster yet?

Ramen

"If you have to work, do a job, suffer employment for a living you are not middle class, you are working class -- people who live by selling their labor."

So who is middle class, then?

"Some "conclusions" science has reached over the past century:

* whites are superior to other races;

* men are superior to women (bigger brains, don't cha know?);

* bad mothering causes schizophrenia;

* smoking is a good weight control mechanism for pregnant women."

Yep, those were mistakes caused by misinterpretations of the available data. They were plain, flat out wrong.

And over a pretty short period of time, "science" repudiated all of those mistakes.

In the same time frame, how many correct "conclusions" have come from "science"?

And how many mistakes caused by misinterpretations of the available datahave been repudiated by religious literalists/fundamentalists?

Real science is always up for review, revision, new data, refinement, disproof. There are experiments, observations, and verification.

Young-earth creationism does not meet any of those criteria.

---

What's most interesting to me is how selective the literalists are about what to take literally. Look at all the dietary laws - does the school that wants to teach a literal interpretation of Genesis insist on following all of them? How about the laws on clothing? divorce?

What's underneath this hatred of creationism? Fear? of what?