An Arizona Republican is trying to force Creationism back into science classes - Friendly Atheist

[ihaveaquestion]

Dec 24, 2025
In an attempt to drag politics back about 20 years and drag science back a full century, a Republican lawmaker in Arizona has filed a bill to force Creationism back into public school classrooms.

State Sen. David Farnsworth said, "If we’re going to teach that man came from monkeys, I think we ought to give a choice."

[Initech]

1. Oh god, fuck these morons.

[wolfie001]

3. Everyone of "them" is a cult follower of the fat orange imbecile nt

[wolfie001]

2. stupid f6cking christo-fascist jackass

Alrighty then......
[img][/img]

[AZJonnie]

4. They grow some serious morons in this state

Hey dipshit, man did not "come from" monkeys. Humans ARE Great Apes, a family lineage that is distinct from that of monkeys. Monkeys are our cousins, but much more distant than our fellow Great Apes (Gorilla, Orangutan, Chimp, Bonobo, etc).

And no, in science class, you ought NOT to "have a choice", except in very specific circumstances. This question is not one of those. Our genes are closer to our closest cousins (chimps and bonobos) than mice genes are to rat genes. There's no "choice", there's no "options", this is known, scientific fact. Homo Sapiens literally ARE apes.

These people, I swear

[Buckeyeblue]

5. 100%. The monkey business has always been an attempt to mock evolution

How evolution happened and continues to happen is quite complex. As we know, a great many humans aren't curious and aren't interested in learning. So they attempted to try to control the premise by telling people that scientist think we're nothing but monkeys.

The same thing happens today with climate change. One cold day, one bad snow storm and the deniers how can you have global warming if we're having winter?

[AZJonnie]

9. These people are hostile to science because they perceive it as "telling them what to believe"

When what they really want is to be able to "believe" whatever made-up bullshit pops into their heads (or as some authority figure instructs them to). To them, "freedom" means I can believe whatever I want, regardless of whether it reflects measurable/observable reality.

People who think like this have always existed, in every race and culture of the world, so this thinking pattern is likely part of the human genome, ergo it likely confers some type of survival advantage. It fairly eludes me as to how exactly, but it's probably only helpful as part of a collective synergistic effect, i.e. the combination of some individuals who think one way + the some who think the other way confers the survival advantage. You need both "imaginative" individuals, and "rigorous adherence to observable reality" individuals for society to thrive. I would *guess* if you studied our close cousins (and you knew how to properly study it), you'd observe the same phenomenon in their populations, and a similar breakdown in counts.

For me part, I literally have no desire to believe ANYTHING which cannot be proven through science (or at least, that I could imagine science one day being able to determine, even if it has not yet). I *actively avoid* "wanting to believe (in) things" as best I can, because it clouds my judgement and my quest for actual truth. I have no desire to make anything up. This is just how I'm wired, I've always been this way. I'm the exact opposite side of the coin from people like this congressman. People like him REALLY desire to believe whatever they want. My presumption is that somehow their brain structure and/or differs from mine, and it's probably genetically, though I'm not attached to my hypothesis, because that would be unscientific

[cab67]

6. Give us a choice?

I choose New World monkeys (platyrrhines). They have much better dispositions than Old World monkeys (cercopithecids). Old World monkeys are greedy, ill-tempered, and just all-around unpleasant creatures to be near.*

That said, I know I don't have a choice. We're related to cercopithecids.

Neither does this legislator.


---

* useless trivia - the vast, vast majority of monkeys shown in movies are platyrrhines. The film could be set in Africa or Asia, but the monkey will usually be some sort of capuchin, the white-faced capuchin being the most common. These are the stereotypical organ-grinder monkeys. The monkey that supposedly carried a hemorrhagic fever from Central Africa to California in the 1995 movie Outbreak was a white-faced capuchin. They're from Central and northern South America.

The only movie set in Asia that actually depicts Asian monkeys I can think of is Apocalypse Now, and that's only because there happened to be a bunch of macaques where they were filming the river scenes in the Philippines.

I've asked a couple of primatologists I know, and they tell me that capuchins are just much easier to train and handle than baboons or macaques.

Maybe you can win some money on Jeopardy with this information. Or not.

[dem4decades]

7. Do you need a PHD in Creationism to teach it?

[FalloutShelter]

8. We had this fight 100 years ago

This past July.

FFS.

[RedWhiteBlueIsRacist]

10. Mr. Farnsworth, hard to claim you didn't come from apes when you have just put up a tree in your house!