How I pissed of thousands of people at once. Again.

Earlier today I had an article published on Listverse, 10 Reasons Creationism Should Be Taught In Schools, as you can probably tell from that title alone, it’s been quite popular to say the least.

This is my Mona Lisa.

This is my Mona Lisa.

At first glance, it would seem like the list is written to argue that Creationism should be taught in lieu of evolution or alongside it, which I can understand, however, if you actually read it, I’m making a different point entirely. That’s why anonymous comments on the article itself look like this,

Untitled copyAnd why comments on my personal Facebook wall looked like this.

Untitled copy UntitledThe article, as I intended it to be read, in no way suggested that Creationism be taught as fact, or in lieu of science. How do you know I’m not lying to cover my tracks now that all those well spelled and thought out rebuttals have shown how retarded I am, well, read the first fucking paragraph of the article, something a lot of people seemed to not want to do in favour of sending me death threats.

Untitled copyThe rest of the article is referencing that exact situation, because that’s how a list fucking works. Each subsequent entry follows on from the one before it. The list isn’t trying to convince people that we should be teaching creation instead of evolution, it’s trying to convince people that teaching both isn’t a bad thing.

Now that article wasn’t written by me off the cuff, the site editor asked the collective group of Listverse writers to pitch for the idea because he personally felt that the article needed to be written, I agreed with this sentiment and pitched the list you can read on their site right now. I wrote it because over here in Blighty, we have a thing called RE (religious education) it’s openly taught alongside science, history and maths, it’s openly taught alongside evolution.

It gave myself a basic understanding of the 6 major world religions as well as some of the others. It by no means gave me the knowledge to discuss any of them in depth, but it means that now, as an adult, when I see stories like this one. Which discusses the awesomely named Jatinderpal Singh Bhullar, the first Sikh to ever guard the queen while wearing the symbol of his faith. I’m able to understand that the turban is an unshakable several hundred year old tradition strictly followed by all Sikh men. The belief is so strong that they’re even exempt from wearing fucking motorcycle helmets. I’m fully aware that asking a Sikh man to remove his turban is the greatest of insults and understand that he’s trying to find a balance between his faith and serving his queen and country, unlike these fuck wits.

Spell checking is for Arabs.

Spell checking is for Arabs.

For the sake of fairness, here’s a similar story that happened in the US last year involving, the again, awesomely named, Tejdeep Singh Rattan, another Sikh who didn’t want to abandon a life long devotion to his faith and remove his turban, but also wanted to serve his country. Again, the comments were a combination of good for him and, well …

How dare his 400 year old tradition take precedant over our 200 year old one.

How dare his 400 year old tradition take precedent over our 200-year-old one!

Teaching creationism in school isn’t about making children believe in religion, it’s about making them understand it. Even the father of evolution himself Charles Fucking Darwin warned against the dangers of ignorance. Is it really a bad thing for children to learn about something 20 god damn percent of the world believe rather than them know nothing about it and simply make snap judgements.

But, wait, “wah, if people want children to learn about religion, teach them at home, separation of church and state, Carl Sagan, Reddit *FART NOISE!” I wish I was making that up, but it’s pretty much the summation of the emails I’ve received today. Because yes, let’s end people being cripplingly uninformed about religion by having them taught at home by one person with biased opinions, instead of by a state funded professional. Progress!

If you hate religion, if you think that the people who believe in it are “sheeple”, that they’re morons blindly following and quoting something they can’t possibly understand, that you’re so much smarter, shouldn’t it fall to you to be the bigger person and at least try to understand why it is they believe what they do? If only to stop ignorance from causing hostility, which it always invariably does.

Being a dick to your fellow man is much more progressive than trying to get along with him.

Being a dick to your fellow-man is much more progressive than trying to get along with him.

My father always told me that school isn’t just about academics, it’s about the hidden curriculum. Though school is where you’re taught to read and write, it’s also where you learn to bond with others, develop a personality and basically, how to be a human being. Though maths, English and science are incredibly important, subjects like theology, critical thought, sociology and media studies, though perceived as soft options, are incredibly useful at breeding discussion, debate and opinion forming.

The other important thing to note is that even if you don’t agree with religion, the effect it has on your life is undeniable. Our modern concepts of right and wrong, law, order and justice, which you’ll notice as the basis of civilised society, stem from religion to an extent.

My article was never written to argue that religion replace science, is was written to argue that we should all be a little more understanding of other people’s beliefs and that we should start with the younger generation, because the older one is pretty fucked.


If only there was some sort of deity he could pray to, to make that happen.

8 thoughts on “How I pissed of thousands of people at once. Again.

  1. Have no idea why so many people are getting upset over this. its a bit retarded to say the least. very well written and well researched article, looking forward to more

  2. You fail to define what you actually mean by “teaching creationism”. What you imply in some entries is that creationism should be taught about as a cultural phenomenon. Few atheists would actually disagree with that. In others, you imply that our curriculum should be adjusted to fit the wishes of parents, which implies that it be taught as a valid alternative theory of our origins, leading to a whole plethora of objections by the scientifically minded, none of them addressed (anything you said in this regard could be rebutted by something as silly as the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

    Maybe some more precision in your writing will lead to a better kind of discourse on it.

    Oh, and the writing? “There has been furious debate about whether or not this way of thinking should be taught in schools, here are ten arguments in favor of it being taught in schools.” Is that even a sentence?

    • The main point is that we should be open to other ways of thinking and that relgious education isn’t something we should scoff at. The article strictly mentions only teaching it philosophically, so this “ you imply that our curriculum should be adjusted to fit the wishes of parents, which implies that it be taught as a valid alternative theory of our origin” is just you seeing something that isn’t there.

      But thanks for taking the time to comment.

      • The content of your article is fine, the presentation is not. Topics coated in social vitriol cause people to leap to conclusions just off the title or first line, your title in particular was made under the assumption that readers would actually read the article and not assume the contents based on “Oh, another one of THESE posts again…”
        A different approach to throw your point into their face before they have an opportunity to stop reading could look something like “Why creationism is an important topic in Philosophy classes (and 10 reasons to support)” or “Philosophy classes should cover all common worldviews” or even “Learning about religion doesn’t mean being indoctrinated.”

        And you never did say anything about “implying it as a valid alternative theory” (except non-sciency people who don’t understand the entire scientific thing about “Never admit anything without significance evidence” just being applied to religion) but you ALSO never clearly stated what you DID mean. With that title that can so easily be misconstrued by any random person as a “pro-creationism”

        tl;dr: You designed your article in a way that is too trusting of the readers ability to read completely and think critically.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s