...or, watch out Blue Devils!

http://www.phillyburbs.com/intelligencerrecord/news/columnists/sessinger/1626141.htm

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/3898822.htm

The Christian right is alive and, well, well in the heartland. I understand that next they'll be taking a hard look at the Grand Tetons.

Now there could be the reason for replacing cock by frizzen

Thanks for the links, tsuwm. They touch upon one of my favorite subjects.

And now that the Satans are no more and they are searching for a new nickname, may I suggest the

reactionary superstitious literalists?

That ought to fit nicely into the cadence of a cheer.

AThe obvious solution if for town to change its name. "Angel Lake"
sounds much nicer. Then the team could have wings on jerseys
and haloes on helmets. And lose gracefully.

Symptomatic, unfortunately, of the Talibanic mentality of extreme fundamentalists everywhere...in every religion. Next these folks will be wanting to blast away the Amerindian burial mounds.


Do they eat deviled eggs? deviled crab? devil's food cake?

>And now that the Satans are no more and they are searching for a new nickname...

as a proud (but chagrined) alumnus of Devils Lake Central HS, and with the (tongue-in-cheek?) suggestion of a friend in mind (they should take on the name of a local Indian tribe!), I am going to expect full consideration by the Devils Lake School Board for this suggestion:

Devils Lake Central Dakotah(s).

(with a thumb of the nose to South Dakota, and to Peter Schickele as well..)

Somewhat along the same line:

MARIETTA, Ga. (AP) - Georgia's second-largest school district is considering a policy that could allow teaching about different theories on the origin of life, including biblical creationism.

Some parents have asked that creationism be taught.

The Cobb County school board voted unanimously Thursday to review for 30 days a proposal that says the district "believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species."

Board Chairman Curt Johnston said he did not know how the policy would change current classroom practices and was unsure whether the new language would allow creationism to be discussed.

"We've been told by our attorney we're not allowed to teach creationism. But the point is we want free and open discussion in the classroom," Johnston said. "And our teachers are nervous about what they can talk about. This will clarify things."

The board is expected to vote on the policy Sept. 26.

Cobb County schools are already in court over the science curriculum. The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday sued to remove disclaimers on biological evolution in thousands of middle and high school textbooks.

The district put stickers in science books that said evolution is theory, not fact, and should be critically considered.

If I were a high school science teacher and were told that I had to include creationism I would use it as a negative example in a lesson defining science.

TEd,

This is really scary. I used to live in the adjoining county. And my mom is a retired schoolteacher from that adjoining county (somewhat more 'progressive' but). Thanks for the heads-up. I'm gonna look into this. Remember Lemony Snicket?

I played sports in the same conference as the Freeport Pretzels (mentioned in the article). I could never figure out why their uniforms weren't brown and white (instead they were orange and black). They weren't very intimidating and not surprisingly, did usually break under pressure.

Then there's the annual matchup between the Hobart Statesmen and the Franklin & Marshall Diplomats.

http://www.hws.edu/statesmen/football/

http://www.fandm.edu/Departments/Athletics/football/default.html

It is strange. I once knew a woman who believed in creationism to a fault. When I asked her about archaeological finds that gave us a better understanding of evolution, she just said that the devil put them there to keep us off-track.

I've also heard of people who fervently believe (this is off-topic, sortof) that no one has ever landed on the moon--and that everything we've seen was produced by the government à la Hollywood.

I'm a Believer--practicing, active Christian believer--and one with a fairly broad conception of how things may have moved along--and scientific inquiry, theoretical or otherwise, just makes the whole proposition of the universe that much more remarkable, miraculous, and, finally, spiritual.

And I wouldn't want the woman I mentioned in the first paragraph here teaching any children of mine her creationist views. Fine in her church among her friends who interpret as she does--but not in the classroom. Science is based largely on physical evidence that backs up theory. Sure, science takes a few steps seemingly forward, and then a few back when new facts cancel out the old ones....but it is a movement based in part on what can be observed and tested. What about fundamental, literal creationism? It's not a science. Seems like an apples and oranges way of organizing a science curriculum in order to teach creationism, which isn't even a science.

Off my soapbox,
WW

Remember Lemony Snicket?

Yes, yes I do.

What I always liked was that creationists use, as their evidence, a book, written by men; the evolutionists use as theirs, the world, created by God.

Don't lose the 'faith'(!!!)

It's always been a worry to me when the boundaries between faith and science get blurred. And of course it will become political, especially in the US' bible belt and other similar places.

It's a sad indictment of the misuse of power that school boards are actually asked to consider such things. I agree with Faldage; you can use the creation myth as an exemplar of how scientific evidence beats out unfounded belief every time ...

creationists use, as their evidence, a book, written by men; the evolutionists use as theirs, the world, created by God.

..both of which, of course, are open to interpretation.


But I like your point, Fal, and will most certainly reuse it (heh heh, you neglected the copyright )

neglected the copyright

Consider it public domain.