1. Comment #44538 by Philip1978 on May 25, 2007 at 4:09 am

Cheers Billy! Brilliant!

Other Comments by Philip1978

2. Comment #44542 by Lordsuhn on May 25, 2007 at 4:10 am

LOL,"Dimitri Mendeleev, Russian Bigamist"

This is great satire.

Other Comments by Lordsuhn

3. Comment #44550 by LeeC on May 25, 2007 at 4:22 am

It's all true...

Other Comments by LeeC

4. Comment #44555 by redfive on May 25, 2007 at 4:26 am

Like it! The scary thing is that they really do think like that. The amount of times I've debated with people who believe science to be flawed because it is constantly being revised!

Other Comments by redfive

5. Comment #44556 by BicycleRepairMan on May 25, 2007 at 4:27 am

"This is great satire"

After reading the previous article about the "Strong opinion" on atheists, I dont think I'm able to separate satire from religion anymore. Religion isnt just stranger than fiction, its stranger than the most non-subtle satire out there.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

6. Comment #44579 by phasmagigas on May 25, 2007 at 5:02 am

so the bible talks of adam eating the forbidden fruit yes? well im happy that it didnt mention the said apple fell to the ground by the will of god otherwise could you imagine the implications for poor old gravity.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

7. Comment #44592 by pissinintothewind on May 25, 2007 at 5:13 am

V/Good

Other Comments by pissinintothewind

8. Comment #44596 by Mat on May 25, 2007 at 5:16 am

I love the Kansas State motto on the flag: "As dumb as you think." Just fantastic.

Other Comments by Mat

9. Comment #44608 by konquererz on May 25, 2007 at 5:30 am

Holy shit this site is hilarious! You have to check out the "literature is only a theory" section!

We just don't know how these were written. No modern writer has managed to reproduce a similar work, so it's obvious there was a supernatural designer present. Once proposed, we find all manner of works that were obviously inspired by an intelligent designer. Chaucer is an obvious candidate, as are some of the works of Milton. Obviously the core candidates are such bestsellers as the Bible, and the Qur'an, who's very authors admit to direct intervention in their composition.

This might be the funniest site I have seen in a long time!

Other Comments by konquererz

10. Comment #44623 by glittergulch on May 25, 2007 at 5:43 am

It's important to get both sides of the debate over chemical periodicity.

Other Comments by glittergulch

11. Comment #44683 by bouwe on May 25, 2007 at 7:17 am

Wow. reDiscovery Institute is a great idea and a great site. Congratulations to those who DESIGNED it. Thanks Billy -- or are you really that punk from The Young Ones?

Other Comments by bouwe

12. Comment #44688 by visiblepulse on May 25, 2007 at 7:22 am

Fire? an element?

Other Comments by visiblepulse

13. Comment #44749 by Awl on May 25, 2007 at 8:51 am

"Get the A out of DNA!"

What a great site!

Other Comments by Awl

14. Comment #45012 by Dr Benway on May 25, 2007 at 7:25 pm

I'll share a similar Kansas spoof I read years ago on the James Randi site (http://www.randi.org/jr/12-01-2000.html):

The Kansas Board of Education voted today to eliminate mandatory teaching of the theory of evaporation from schools across the state. Most scientists believe that water and other liquids are spontaneously converted by so-called evaporation into the form of a gas, and carried off into the atmosphere. This, they say, is the explanation behind sudden disappearances of water all across the state.

Many non-scientists, however, stand by the widely accepted theory that a lovable invisible two-headed thirsty blue giraffe named Clarence is responsible for the disappearances. The two theories, evaporation and Giraffism, will now be taught on a more equal footing to school-children across Kansas. Parents are pleased, saying that Giraffism is easier to understand and far more comforting to small children. "There's nothing happy about evaporation," says Frank Nubbins, father of Jason, 6, and Sue Ellen, 4. "Clarence the giraffe is blue, and he's lovable. You can't say that about evaporation, that's for sure. I love my children."

"Nobody has ever adequately explained evaporation," says Dr. Harold Thumper, of the Kansas Board of Education. "With evaporation, we're expected to imagine that water just disappears, all by itself, with no rhyme or reason. That's ridiculous."

Clarence the lovable invisible two-headed blue giraffe, on the other hand, is always thirsty, an explanation which is simple and obvious. He has a well-established presence in children's literature. "Every culture on the planet," says Dr. Thumper "has a story about giraffes, or thirstiness, or lovable blue things. Most of these have happy, happy endings. My children just love these stories. But I challenge you to find a single good story about evaporation."

The theory of evaporation is getting a dry reception in academia these days. At leading universities including Harvard, Stanford, and MIT, it's impossible to find a single professor of Evaporation on the faculty. "What's the point?" says Gwen O'Malley, dean of the Harvard Medical School. "It's not exactly a good career move to spend your life trying to explain evaporation to people."

Other Comments by Dr Benway

15. Comment #45059 by eximious on May 26, 2007 at 4:24 am

While I admittedly take some sadistic pleasure in this, I hope Richard and Sam don't. So much psychological research has gone into persuasion in recent years. In order to persuade the theists, we must gain their trust or (if it were possible) subdue their subconscious activity. Since we do not have effective, ethical methodology for the latter, we must pursue the former.

Derision will only make their ranks swell in backlash. We must be the rational, the reasonable, and the respectable.

Other Comments by eximious

16. Comment #45070 by Lant on May 26, 2007 at 5:09 am

Excellent!

And while I agree with your sentiment eximious, I don't view it as derision.
I spent a good portion of my life among "their ranks", and while rudeness and derision may do more harm than good I firmly believe - from experience - that something taken to an extreme, especially in satire, can reawaken independant thought and just may make some people think. It could at least plant the seed, as happened in my case.

Other Comments by Lant

17. Comment #45111 by Bobbley on May 26, 2007 at 12:10 pm

"so the bible talks of adam eating the forbidden fruit yes? well im happy that it didnt mention the said apple fell to the ground by the will of god otherwise could you imagine the implications for poor old gravity." -Comment #44579 by phasmagigas on May 25, 2007 at 5:02 am

What the hell are you talking about?

Other Comments by Bobbley

18. Comment #45231 by AuntieM on May 27, 2007 at 12:21 am

RD spoke last year at Kansas U and he was impressed at the warm welcome and full house. My son attended and was able to secure a seat because he was early. He called after the event to describe a wonderful and entertaining evening. Many of us in Kansas are not "as dumb as you think".
An atheist from the heartland.

Other Comments by AuntieM

19. Comment #45681 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 1:03 am

Re comment 12 by visiblepulse, I was wondering about the 'real' creationist periodic table, too. I think they probably should have listed phlogiston and calx, instead of fire. Although, on second thoughts, perhaps that would be a bit too modern. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

Other Comments by Flagellant

20. Comment #45693 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 1:59 am

On a very much more serious note, however, there is the matter of strategy raised by eximious (15) and discussed by Lant (16). There is always the problem that we could offend the persuadable theists and push them into reactionary positions where they will be even more difficult to convince. The thinking behind the Brights net http://www.the-brights.net/ is presumably that by adopting a name (cf. 'gay') and being a bit noisy, one can raise the consciousness of 'reasonable' people and they will come out. And unlike the gay crusade, we may even do some persuasion, too. There are several dangers here, not the least of which is the antagonism of the term 'Bright'.

There are those who feel that a confrontational attitude to all religious positions is the only route and I find myself in some sympathy with this view. However, the more pragmatic position is, perhaps, to be more emollient to potential converts; we aren't fighting a war: we are trying to educate and persuade. We also have to remember that we're opposing all cults of unreason, not just religion – there are other things to debunk: new age nonsense and astrology, for a start.

We lack the principal asset of the religiosi, though: their social centres where they meet and reinforce their faith. I can see no reason why atheists should meet formally by way of 'going to church', although net discussions are a useful start.

This is not the thread on which to expand this theme any more; there are probably several such discussions going on in the forum. Anyway, there's a lot going on on/in the Brights net. Why not join? http://www.the-brights.net/

Other Comments by Flagellant

21. Comment #45772 by maires on May 29, 2007 at 7:14 am

Did anyone feel like the bottom line of the creationist periodic table of elements should read...

"With your powers combined... I am captain planet!"

Other Comments by maires

22. Comment #46077 by BillySands on May 30, 2007 at 6:38 am

Glad this went down well, I'm puting it up on my office.
Flagellant One thing I suggested at the Glasgow brights was that we attend alpha courses and help people who attend them realise how stupid religion is. I used to teach these things, but the arguements are so easily dismantled

Other Comments by BillySands

23. Comment #46333 by Flagellant on May 31, 2007 at 1:16 am

Hi Billy (22) Thanks for that. I'll try to comment in a bit more detail later (bizzy backsun). I love the table and I've sent it to all my chem & biochem friends & associates. I loved your (& epeeist's) spats with the flea, too.

Other Comments by Flagellant

24. Comment #46711 by Flagellant on June 1, 2007 at 8:30 am

The difficulty we have is that we don't all want/need to go to regular atheism classes to feel content with our natural World view. We are therefore limited to discussions on the net with like-minded people and 'debates' with the religiosi, when the opportunity arises. (But well done Billy for going to Brights meetings.) Personally, I never bring up the subject with friends, etc. but join in with gusto if the subject comes up. This is how Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, & co are making it easier to get the message across - the religiosi bring up their shameful beliefs more often and thus they are beginning to invite the debate if only by denigrating "the abrasive atheists".

Unfortunately, some of us live up to the "abrasive" bit: it's OK to refer to someone as a nitwit, or more strongly, or to ridicule them when talking/blogging in semi-private with like-minded fellows, as here - it is a form of shorthand; it is another thing entirely if we are trying to de-convert faithheads.

I have noted how Richard Dawkins is incredibly emollient when talking to high profile people like Winston, Harries (Bish of Oxford,) and McGrath. He just doesn't say any more, in effect, than that they puzzle him, after he has dealt persuasively and rationally with every point they make. There would be no point in being abusive and it would be counter-productive. (It wouldn't surprise me to see a high profile convert or two within the next year or two.)

The occasional fleabag (oops) fundie is not open to reasonable discussion and, since s/he is as likely as not to start the abuse, there may be no good reason to hold back.

However, we are not out to win slanging matches; we are trying to get people to join us in our World view. And given the years the faithheads have had in the ascendant, with all the reinforcement they get, that is no easy task.

Other Comments by Flagellant

25. Comment #402355 by ConstantSeeker23 on August 4, 2009 at 1:16 pm

Is this for real??!!! Tell me that the Discovery Institute doesn't expect anyone to buy this bollocks!

Other Comments by ConstantSeeker23

26. Comment #402356 by Quetzalcoatl on August 4, 2009 at 1:18 pm

Of course it's not real!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl