lookingformisha:

surejohn221b:

magical-history-genius:

idiotsonfb:

the future isn’t looking too bright Bill =/.

Sorry for the rant, but EVOLUTION NEVER FUCKING SAYS WE COME FROM MONKEYS. IT STATES WE AND PRIMATES HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR, BUT WE DO NOT COME FROM PRIMATES AND PRIMATES DO NOT COEM FROM US. WE SHARE SIMILARITIES, AND EVOLUTION SAYS WE DERIVED FROM THE SAME ANCESTORS.

I’m sorry, I just get so fucking annoyed when people rant about the whole “evolution says we come from monkeys so why do we still have monkeys omg that means evolution is fake!” spiel. Rant over. Goodnight.

^^THIS

thatcreepylurker:

2-13-61:

recoveringsjw:

hisnameinvain:

I wonder how many creationists bought the issue thinking this would be possible, only to face the huge “NO.”

Nat Geo=Professional trolls.

i need copies of this to hand out to certain people

`

thatcreepylurker:

2-13-61:

recoveringsjw:

hisnameinvain:

I wonder how many creationists bought the issue thinking this would be possible, only to face the huge “NO.”

Nat Geo=Professional trolls.

i need copies of this to hand out to certain people

`

(Source: fl-tsam)

I say to the grown-ups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it, because we need them.
seriouslyamerica:

deconversionmovement:

The New Anti-Science Assault on US Schools
In a disturbing trend, anti-evolution campaigners are combining with climate change deniers to undermine public education.
You might have thought it was all over after the 2005 decision by the US district court of Middle Pennsylvania (pdf), which ruled in the case of the Dover Area schools that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional. You might have guessed that they wouldn’t come back after the 1987 US supreme court decision in Edwards v Aguillard, which deemed the teaching of creationism in Louisiana schools unconstitutional. Or maybe you figured that the opponents of evolution had their Waterloo in the 1925 Scopes “monkey” trial in Tennessee.
They are back. There are six bills aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution before state legislatures this year: two each in New Hampshire and Missouri, one each in Indiana and Oklahoma. And it’s only February.
Read More

Seriously New Hampshire? You have one of the lowest rates of self-described religious citizens in the country. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?

seriouslyamerica:

deconversionmovement:

The New Anti-Science Assault on US Schools

In a disturbing trend, anti-evolution campaigners are combining with climate change deniers to undermine public education.

You might have thought it was all over after the 2005 decision by the US district court of Middle Pennsylvania (pdf), which ruled in the case of the Dover Area schools that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional. You might have guessed that they wouldn’t come back after the 1987 US supreme court decision in Edwards v Aguillard, which deemed the teaching of creationism in Louisiana schools unconstitutional. Or maybe you figured that the opponents of evolution had their Waterloo in the 1925 Scopes “monkey” trial in Tennessee.

They are back. There are six bills aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution before state legislatures this year: two each in New Hampshire and Missouri, one each in Indiana and Oklahoma. And it’s only February.

Read More

Seriously New Hampshire? You have one of the lowest rates of self-described religious citizens in the country. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?

yesimanatheist:

For those who may not understand evolution…

yesimanatheist:

For those who may not understand evolution…

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it – or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.