back to article Steve Jobs in iPhone bitchslap to creationists, Tea Party

Steve Jobs' App Store for Apple's famous iOS devices - the iPhone, iPad et al - is no stranger to controversy lately. The company has been happy to take a firm and positive stance on various issues, weeding from its lucrative walled garden any dissenting program. Now, Apple has taken a stance which will upset a lot of …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    But monkeys luuuve porn!

    And thus so do I.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      Given the "supposed" origin of the AIDS virus, obviously, more than a few humans have been loving those porn loving monkeys ....

      1. whiteafrican

        Think About It

        "There's people on the street getting diseases from monkeys

        Yeah that's what I said, their getting diseases from monkeys

        Whys this happening, please, whose been touching these monkeys

        Leave these poor sick monkeys alone

        There sick, they've got problems enough as it is."

    2. Doshu

      Aaah, the dear cousins

      Yepp, we share much with our distant cousins -- like the ability and willingness to chuck our feces at others.

      What!? C'mon, i'm not the only one.

      Liars. :-)

  2. Sceptic

    So you have never heard of Charles Darwin...

    I thought you guys were a little more up to date with this. Perhaps you would like to read The Origin of the species by Charles Darwin which contains the theory of Natural selection first published in 1859

    So what stance is Apple taking here? Allowing the publishing of evolution theory as put forth by Charles Darwin. oh tsk tsk naughty Apple

    1. Marky W

      WTF... wrong with some of the posters here.

      It's a jokey article, gently mocking both Apple and the US 'controversy' of evolution vs. Creationism (which Brits - in general - find pretty amusing and a little bit scary).

      Get over yourselves, please.

      1. Sean Kennedy

        More than a little scary

        Trust me, Marky W, us americans ( USA folks, more specifically ) find the whole creationist/ID argument more than a little scary. It's downright terrifying to many of us that, in this day and age, we find ourselves having these mid-evil arguments.

        Any day I expect the "flat earth" argument to make a comeback.

        1. Anonymous Coward



          Victorian perhaps?

    2. mrmond


      matter of fact Darwin still beleived in God and creation. He viewed evolution as an ongoing process which God started off. Modern evolution theory is as similar to Darwin as an i7 quad core is to Babbage's analytical engine

      1. RegisterThis
        Jobs Halo

        Thank you ...

        ... for lending some balance here! It seems this debate is more centred around those who are anti- 'any creationist' or anti- 'any evolutionary theory' ... and should not really be a debate except for the press and some populist authors choosing to represent the extreme views as it gets more hits. Full marks to Apple for allowing observable theories to be made public - that in my mind,are a very different issue to pornography which is a moral issue. Still, Saint jobs is a curious fellow as not many corporates even bother with morality unless it is might get them sued.

      2. Steven Jones

        Darwin's religous beliefs

        It is not the case that Darwin still had strong religious beleiefs after the publication of the Origin of Species. His faith was strongly shaken by the deaths of his beloved youngest daughter. He did temper his scepticism in public as his wife was highly religious and this distressed her.

        The following extract from his autobiography best expresses his views later in life. It should be noted that some of the wording was changed

        The first version of the autobiography was edited (more accurately, censored), to protect the religious feelings of his widow Emma. The original content was restored by his grand daughter in 1958.

        It's safe to say that, later in life, whilst Charles Darwin was not an out-and-out fundamentalist atheist in denying the possibility of any god, he was by now means convinced that one existed (or that creation was necessary). After all, at that point in time, there was no real evidence of a Universe with a defined beginning. Consensus on that wasn't reached until the 1950s/60s.

      3. Anonymous Coward


        Darwin was born into a religious family, as were most back in the day, he even studied at a seminary and followed religion until later in his life when he found it harder and harder to maintian that religion in the face of all the scientific research he was conducting. Now I'm not saying he didn't believe in God at some point but later in his life he did renounce God and christianity. So to say that he viewed evolution as a process which God started is just not the case.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Darwin was born into a religious family

          Not however, a Christian on. They were Unitarians.

          1. Anonymous Coward

            @AC 12:52 GMT

            Unitarianism is a Christian theology.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.


        "Modern evolution theory is as similar to Darwin as an i7 quad core is to Babbage's analytical engine"

        We, as a species, progress our technology and our knowledge with each passing generation. I thought that would be obvious.

    3. TomP

      Have you read it?

      It's actually called "On the Origin of Species", not "The Origin of THE Species". So many people get that wrong.

    4. BrentRBrian
      Dead Vulture


      You know, I was talking to God about Darwin the other day ... the reply was odd ... "Charles WHO?"

  3. James O'Shea Silver badge
    Jobs Halo

    department of the bleedin' obvious

    as anyone who's ever seen this <> can say. Why some of us are _still_ monkeys.

    Dance, monkey boy, dance.

    Some things never get old.

  4. markfiend

    "only a theory"

    Well, so is gravity.

    "Apple has taken a stance which will upset a lot of Americans"

    It's hardly Apple's fault that the truth upsets people.

    1. Chad H.


      I for one will not rest until the science of "Intelligent Falling" is taught in every Kansas schoolhouse.

      1. Galidron

        Kansas Schoolboard

        At least Kansas voted out all the school board members who were pushing intelligent design in the class. Although it still does amaze me that school board members don't have to have any credentials to be such.

    2. John Savard Silver badge


      Yes, but the Register article was merely being heavily sarcastic here, noting that this seemed to be an exception to Apple's usual policy, which seems to be to ban everything which might offend anyone. And, sadly, in the United States, there are a lot of people who take issue with evolution.

    3. Semihere
      Thumb Up

      Title title title

      I upvoted you, because I'm on the side of the rationally sane, but I have to point out your error - Gravity is NOT a theory, it's a LAW ;)

  5. Matthew Smith

    Not a bitchslap at all

    Has Apple had any complaints? The article doesn't mention any. Theres no reason to think that creationists would be woefully upset at this app; they just think that Darwinist evolution is wrong rather than being unspeakably horrible. Enough hyperbole for a Tuesday afternoon.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Jobs Halo

      No Reason at all

      That Darwinian evolution in no way excludes the activities of powerful agencies has failed to penetrate the mind of creationists and ID'ers and means that reason has little to do with their grumpiness. (Of course such spoiling for a fight could have been headed-off had our bronze age ancestors managed to write-up a nice parable or two on the concept of imaginary friends having imaginary powers and imagined histories where time can mean whatever you want... ah well).

      Get enough complaints arriving and Apple will ban anything.


      Knickers in a twist.

      > Theres no reason to think that creationists would be woefully upset at this app.

      Clearly you do not follow this sort of thing.

  6. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. copsewood

      No one expects ...

      Sigh. The Vatican pretty much abandoned it's previous hostility to science when the Spanish Inquisition ended. There may still be a few nuts left who take Psalm 93 literally: "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." to mean that the sun goes around the earth, and presumably that the latter is flat. But please don't confuse Christians with brains (you'll find some in most denominations) with the other sort. There is a spectrum of intellectual capacity in relation to any faith position including those who claim not to have one.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Down

      Proveing the point of the pope

      Using aggressive miss-infomation. Even the pope is not a creationist, and most creationists are not catholic.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward


        does the pope shit in the woods?

    3. Anonymous Coward

      takes one to know one

      I believe he went a bit beyond "aggressive". The word he used to describe despicable humanists (how dare they subscribe to equality for and understanding of all people, who do they think they are... Jesus?!) rhymed with "Nah" and "Zee".

      And of course the Pope is quite correct, and I'd write more, but I've Priests in me industrial ovens to sort; those gold fillings won't collect themselves.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up


      "Fucked by a man made God"

      Quality. Undoubtedly comment of the day! :-)

  7. Matthew Greet

    What bitchslap?

    Umm... What? Until Apple rejects an app advocating creationism by stating creationism is rubbish, they can't be said to be taking sides. Allowing something into a marketplace is not the same thing as endorsing its contents. Only the stupid think that not wholeheartedly advocating one side means advocating its opposite.

  8. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Bill Hicks : and I quote - "one word... dinosaurs."

    Fundamentalist Christian : Well... God put them there to test our faith.

    Bill : I'm glad I'm strapped into this chair coz it looks like God put you here to test my faith dude!!!

    Have you ever noticed how all creationists look... unevolved.

    Fundamentalist Christian : I believe that god created me in 7 days.

    Bill : Yup... it looks like he rushed it.

    1. Philip J.F. Quinlan

      re Bill Hicks

      And he also explains why no one will get upset over this, the creationists in Dumbfuckistan are still waiting to evolve their thumbs and so can't use iOS based technology ;)

  9. Pete 2 Silver badge

    More app suggestions:

    The Earth is round

    The Earth orbits the Sun

    There is only so much oil

    The Moon is not made of Cheese

    Fire is hot

    There are many other countries

    1. Andrew Martin 1

      Well, yes

      I know the Apple Fans must have their apps, and you don't get to however many million it is in the app store by restricting it to useful ones.

      But quite why you'd want an app that tells you the bleedin obvious, I'm not sure.

    2. RegisterThis

      "There are many other countries"?


      *On the grounds of aiding and abetting terrorism and making the world a dangerous place.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton


    She did say "masturbation and all other forms of lustful behaviour outside marriage are sinful" but she was at high school when she said it.

    I wonder if the proposed free schools will allow children to be taught creationism as science?

    Why can't we just have a National Curriculum and make everyone study it. Religion should be something you do at masturbation!

    Paris...I'd study her at home.

    1. PT
      Paris Hilton


      "She did say "masturbation and all other forms of lustful behaviour outside marriage are sinful" but she was at high school when she said it."

      No, she was not at high school at the time. She didn't choose the paths of righteousness until she'd indulged her appetite for the pleasures of the flesh for several years. Rumours that it was because "those beastly fraternity guys never call me in the morning, but the voice in my head does" could not be confirmed at the time of writing.

      Paris, O'Donnell - one enjoys sex and the other is a liar.

  11. Daniel 1
    Dead Vulture

    What a non-story...

    Having begun it, I felt obliged to read it all the way to the end, simply in order to feel qualified to say that I really must find something more interesting to read, during my coffee breaks.

    The actual App, itself - from Penn State University - sounds quite interesting, but apparently the real "IT angle" is that the app store is run by control freaks, and there's a mad American in the US senate. This is 'news', apparently. God I wish I'd got a job in 'news': it looks much more fun than deciphering some long-departed contractors bloody .NET program...

    Anyway, before I go back to that, I'm off to read about the app:

    (I suspect this one will keep Sarah Bee busy - but I rather imagine there's no "'Sarah Bee' in 'Team Register'".)

    1. Ian Yates

      Shut your mouth!

      Quick! Clap your hands and say "I do believe in Sarah Bee!"

      1. Anonymous John


        Every time you say you don't believe in Sarah, a bee dies.

    2. Jimmy Floyd
      Dead Vulture

      What you said

      "Non-story" was the exact phrase I was about to use. Let's summarise:

      * App is created.

      * Some people believe it isn't the truth.

      * Apple doesn't take a view on whether it does or not.

      Bad Reg! And not even a chance of slapping Apple down.

    3. Gleb

      tittle tittttle

      I'm very disappointed with the reg for publishing non-stories like these. I would use much harsher language, but since about 1 in 10 posts actually get through... Let me just say that some insects shouldn't be allowed in a serious news organization, or a humorous news organization or a news organization or any organization for that matter, because these insects suck the fun of out of it and leave a shallow feeling of fun-less emptiness...

  12. Steven Knox

    It IS.

    Evolution IS no more than a "theory". But scientifically, that places it at least two rungs higher than creationism or "Intelligent Design" which are both no more than "philosophies".

    Specifically, it has been formulated in such a way that can be experimentally and statistically tested (hypothesis), and those tests have shown that it generally agrees with the available observational evidence (theory).

    And, lest you believe that this particular mental non sequitur is limited to the States:

    1. Ian Yates

      Beat me to it!


      Despite what these types of people might think, "theory" doesn't mean that we're just guessing, it means that this explanation conforms to all of our current understanding of the phenomena.

      I always laugh when people say "evolution/gravity/cake is just a theory", because they're right, just not in the way they think.

      1. Woodgie

        NO NO NO!


        (sorry, was I shouting?)

      2. Stumpy


        Cake isn't a theory ... the cake is a lie!

        1. Avatar of They
          Thumb Up

          It is a shame

          A lot of people won't get that comment, they simply don't know what you mean.

          Kudos. :)

          I thought Palin was nuts, I feel sorry for S Delaware, but this is the country where scientology is allowed to flourish.

          Chlorine + Gene pool etc etc.

    2. DrXym Silver badge

      Evolution is a fact too

      Evolution is a theory supported by overwhelming evidence and it is also a fact.

      Human beings can cause animals to evolve by selective breeding. Wild populations have also been observed to evolve, for example because of predation by introduced animals.

      The evidence for evolution is compelling. The only question that remains of creationists is whether they are ignorant or willfully ignorant to disregard it when there is absolutely no evidence of any kind to support creationism. It is a non theory since it predicts nothing or accounts for anything. Claiming "god did it" is the ultimate cop out.

    3. Captain Save-a-ho

      @Steven Knox 15:09 GMT

      Finally, a proper use of the egghead symbol and a well-reasoned, but lucid explanation of the situation. Post of the week.

    4. RegisterThis

      Process vs. Origin?

      As far as I know, Evolution is about a (factual) PROCESS that starts with ... err 'something'. 'Creation' is about ORIGIN ... that 'somthing'. I should not have to point this out as the words EVOLUTION and CREATION pretty much speak for themselves! (In case this is too challenging, an example: When speaking about how an IT system has evolved to be what it is today, nobody would think that you were talking about the reasons and whyit was put in originally)

      The bible was never written as a scientific manual (imagine Moses writing Genesis and trying to explain the Big bang?) ... it is about God as the ultimate creator and our relationship as humans to him and it emphasises that at *some time* in a PROCESS, God intervened and made us different to other animals be giving us a conscience.

      Christians who choose to read the bible as a scientific explanation (i.e. 7 days, no dinosaurs mentioned etc.) miss the point. 'Evolutionists' who choose to take issue with this clearly do too!

      1. Quiller-Nine
        Thumb Up

        Well said, Sir.

        That is possibly the best post about this subject yet. You win ten internets.

  13. Just Thinking

    Most creationists

    Most creationists would tell you "you might be descended from monkeys but I'm not".

    But not as a joke.

    1. The BigYin

      And the creationists would be right

      In the strict, pedantic sense. We are not descended from monkeys.

      We are descended from some kind of proto-ape from when we go us, and the other ape's 'n monkeys.

      1. Craig Chambers

        Apes descended from monkeys

        But if you went back, would this proto-ape be a monkey? Err, yes. It wouldn't be a species that's around today, but it would be an earlier form of monkey. A form of monkey whose descendants turned into the branch of life known as apes.

  14. <shakes head>

    creationist young earth/ old earth

    I really do wonder about the trolling here, in that people can't seam to differentiate between creationist, and the whole young earth old earth debate amongst Christians, there is also some debate in the difference around evolution of a species and evolution within a species. There is a lot of evidence that implies evolution of a species but not proves, and there is proof of evolution within a species. At some point I would like to see the level of thought of some commentators rise above the mentality of the young earth crowd. <sigh>

    1. John Wilson

      You're kidding?

      You are either joking, or my sarcasm detector is faulty. Overlooking observed speciation, evolution within a species = variation. Variation over time + selection = speciation = the origin of species.


      (WTF, because, really, I have no idea what you're trying to say).

    2. Richard Scratcher
      Jobs Halo

      Speciation not proven? Pah!

      St Jobs has also given access to a great series of videos called "Facts of Evolution" that can be found on "iTunes U" or from the link below.

      The video presents a wide range of scientific evidence that cannot be accounted for by any other mechanism than evolution.

      1. MeRp

        Devil's advocate...

        Not that I'm attempting to state a personal viewpoint, but the sentence "The video presents a wide range of scientific evidence that cannot be accounted for by any other mechanism than evolution." is obviously incorrect. Certainly Divine fiat is a mechanism that can explain any and all evidence. It simply explains it in a way that is not satisfying/testable from the point of view of humanity using the scientific method.

        1. Richard Scratcher

          God - The ultimate practical joker

          "Certainly Divine fiat is a mechanism that can explain any and all evidence."

          No it isn't. I tried this "maybe God did it" argument in court but I was still convicted.

          1. Shakje

            I have a masochistic bent of arguing with creationists

            and there are a variety of different creationist arguments, the most popular being (in no particular order):

            1) young earthers

            2) the earth is old but God created it in stages, just long stages, that match Genesis (specifically JWs). This also necessitates that macroevolution does not occur, but many rationalise that evolution occurs within the bounds of 'kinds' (it's woolly at best)

            3) the earth is old and everything evolved except humans, which god placed on earth perfectly formed

            All of them are very poor arguments in light of the evidence, but they just can't see that.

      2. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

        Nobody can disprove

        that the earth was created 5 milliseconds ago, complete with all our memories of the past, just the right mix of radio-isotopes, fossils etc to fool us. The Great Green Argleseizure just happened to sneeze that way, or the <insert creator of choice> has a really strange sense of humor.

        It is just not a very useful theory (it is positively begging for a rigorous trim by Occam's razor). There are alway alternative explanations, but it is best to adhere to the simplest theory that explains all (in part for aesthetic reasons).

        Having said that, there is very much evidence in favour of the evolution of new species.

  15. Woodgie

    They don't believe in themselves, so...

    I don't believe in creationists.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Oh they are real alright

      Mrs AC used to work in a natural history museum in a regional British city, on the occasional Saturday the Creationalists would turn up (obviously not on Sunday).

      En mass they would shout a lot and try and tell the museum's visitors that it was all lies, especially the dinosaurs; eventually security arrived in large enough numbers to throw them out.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    porn free?

    Did they remove the playboy and co apps then? I thought they just removed all the freelance and non-American apps that showed flesh?

  17. Ted Treen

    Someone had to say it..

    "...Steve Jobs is happy - assert that he considers himself, like the rest of us, to be descended from monkeys..."

    I assume the phrase "the rest of us" excludes a Mr Ballmer who, based on the evidence of a certain viral video, has yet to descend...

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Steve Jobs descended from monkeys?

      What evidence does The Reg have that Jobs is like the rest of us? Surely His Jobsness is at a higher level of evolution than mere simians, but he knows what they want and how to make his monkey customers happy with iPhones and monkey apps.

  18. Dazed and Confused Silver badge

    ID, where is the inteligence?

    The ID debate always reminds me of the old joke,

    How can you tell God was an architect?

    Who else would put the waste disposal unit in the middle of the play ground.

  19. Spudders


    If we evolved from monkeys, why haven't the monkeys kept evolving?

    1. LionelB


      "If we evolved from monkeys,"

      We didn't. We and monkeys share a common ancestor (as do, um..., alligators and yeast, slugs and pineapple, ...).

      "why haven't the monkeys kept evolving?"

      They have. So have we.

    2. Daniel Evans

      There's an app for that!

      And there's a picture and description of it in the article! Fancy that, it's almost like it's explained in explicit detail, positioned so that you had to scroll past it to get here to troll.

    3. LaeMing Silver badge

      they did

      the "monkeys" we evolved from are not the monkeys you see in the zoo today. Common mis-understanding going all the way back to deliberate mis-quotation of darwin by creationists: he never claimed we evolved from monkeys, but that we and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. But claiming the "from monkeys" line is better propaganda, as any political manipulator could tell you.

    4. Alex McKenna

      Well they have!

      We didn't evolve from present-day monkeys. We evolved from the same "monkey-like" creatures that they have evolved from.

      And both groups of species have in turn evolved from small mammals, and before that reptiles, and before that fish, and finally from worms and little blobs like human eggs and sperm..

      You can follow the course of evolution from the development of all animals in the womb. TO start with most animals on earth look pretty much the same in the womb. Like fish embryos with gills!

  20. Ezzy

    But.... Evolution is not global...

    And there are some monkeyhumes that have not evolved....

    And they are the ones believing in creationism... Although I understand the proper spelling is "Cretinism".

    1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

      This reminds me of a scientific correctness survey

      in Annals of Improbable Research

      Q: Did man evolve from an ape-like ancestor:

      a) Yes

      b) No

      c) Not in Kansas

  21. DrXym Silver badge

    The situation in the US is pitiful

    I can understand a movement which wants less government spending and / or taxation if its backed up by some rational arguments. But the Tea Party is anything but rational. A better name would be the Hate party since its members appear to run the spectrum from racists, xenophobes, homophobes, misogynists, zealots to common-or-garden bigots.

    What is particularly alarming is the success they are enjoying at least in the Republican party. Scandals seem to be running about 1 per week at the moment and it's like their supporters don't even care. The latest features no less than Christine O'Donnell who espouses the usual religious phooey even though she was just shown on TV confessing to dabbling with witchcraft. Pure hypocrisy.

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Well said sir!

      Most these cretins seem to on latch on to religion as an excuse to cover up their pecadillos. The extreme being the RC priests unable to keep their hands to themselves.

      Then there are the Sunday-is-Sacrad-God-Squad who say we should all be in church praising the Lord's name on Sunday and no one should work. Well I tell you what, how about you get all the firemen, police, hospital staff, power-station, santiation and travel workers to spend all day Sunday off work and down the local church. Let's see how long that lasts before we start stringing you up, you bunch of pillocks!

      I have no problem with religion, if it helps you get through the day, fair play but it's hypocrisy and the exclusionism I can't stand. 'Don't do that! Don't do that, especially not that! Of course I will be doing it, but do as I say not as I do!'

      Balls to the lot of 'em!

      Mines the one with a copy of my own bible, The God Delusion in the pocket.

      1. Craig Chambers

        Keep Sunday Sacred

        I used to go to church where a guy used to beat the Keep Sunday Sacred drum. Only problem was he was only at church every other Sunday as he had to work shifts. I seriously don't think that he saw any hypocrisy or irony in this!

  22. indicator
    Jobs Halo

    God and evolution....

    I believe in God AND evolution, so does the Pope actually!

    1. Mad Dave


      How will all the angsty teenagers have straw man arguments now?

    2. stu 4

      you're joking right ?

      I mean, have you actually read what he said ? Do you understand evolution ?

      "In the book, Benedict defended what is known as 'theistic evolution', the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches, that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this."

      Thereby quite neatly summarising his complete inability to understand evolution* and the selfish gene. sigh.

      *im tempted not to have to explain that - but for the hard of thinking: evolution does not 'result in man' anymore than it results in an ameoba. Perhaps god was happy to wait and see and would have written the bible for ameobas if evolution had played out that way ? personally I think the pope needs to give up trying to make a cat bark.

  23. Asgard

    Science needs to hammer home the evidence ...

    If Apple get this kind of reaction to Timetree then they should make programs like Timetree factory installed on all American iProducts to finally help drive the evolution message home in America.

    The amazing way scientific progress is moving forward, the creationists are going to have their worst century ever in trying to hold back the ever increasing weight of scientific evidence that shows creationists are wrong.

    It is however becoming very clear though that the creationists are lining up to fight back against science. They will ultimately fail, but they are becoming a threat of holding progress back like all the creationist propaganda they are trying to put into schools.

    So science needs to hammer home the evidence at every opportunity. Science needs to step up the war on Creationism because the Creationists are stepping up their war on science.

  24. JaitcH

    Could it be the personality of Job's kidneys OEM are taking over?

    Job's has always been a miserable bastard but his bitchiness seems to have reached new highs.

    Could his donor's personality, memories or consciousness remain within the tissue of the new set of kidneys and have been passed on to the MOS (Miserable Old Sod)? See: < >.

    Further links: < >.

    1. Daniel Evans
      Black Helicopters

      Blah Blah Consciousness is an EM field Blah Blah

      Ooh, so if I wave this magnet next to your head, you might stop being silly?

    2. Brian Morrison


      ...cos it wasn't his kidneys that he had replaced.

      It was his liver. Something that ten seconds of Googling would have revealed.


  25. Ron Luther

    Teach Both!

    I don't understand the problem. We should most certainly teach both in school; Evolution should be covered in Science class, whilst Creationism could be covered in any Literature class that discusses fiction and/or creative writing.

    1. Dazed and Confused Silver badge


      What ever your views on Christianity the Kings James bible is widely regarded as being a significant piece of English literature.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Posted on


    "I'm not going to participate in the debate. I'm just observing for now. Sadly I lack the understanding of biology required to have a rational, well-thought out opinion on evolution."


    "Don't let any lack of knowledge on any given topic stop you though.

    I wear my ignorance like a badge!

    It's our faith they need to see --- not our knowledge."

    I think it speaks for itself.

    1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

      letters but no digits

      "It's our faith they need to see --- not our knowledge."

      I think it speaks for itself."

      Indeed it speaks volumes

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yep, journalists are descended from monkeys.

    Lazy journalism... again. Humans and monkeys (broad term for primates) share a common ancestor, which is not the same as saying humans are descended from monkeys.

    And as for all those idiotic Americans who believe in Intelligent Design and creationism or whatever they call it, well if god's design is so intelligent, why do you circumcise boys? Why do your girls and women shave their legs and fannies (that's the English fanny, not the American one, although, a lot of women will have that dealt with, too). Why do you shave off your beards (men and women)....

    Strikes me that you don't like the way your god had designed the human race...

    Arsewits, the lot of you. Greatest nation on earth... I think not. Greatest nation of hypocrites... almost certainly.

    1. Paul Vail

      Pots and Kettles?

      Hypocrites, perhaps. We kind of felt that way about the crown in 1776, too. The whole citizen/representation thing. I guess every nation has to go through that whole process to become has-beens. Our country (the U.S.) is unfortunately sliding down toward the abyss in which our Pond counterparts now find themselves.

      1. Quiller-Nine


        Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr Paul Vail, King of the On-Topic Rebuttal.

        What the funk does citizenship/representation have to do with the other guy's argument?

        What is this "abyss" that the UK now finds itself in?

        Vis-a-vis the citizenship thing, when the UK ruled the US they never made any secret of the fact that they were just another one of the colonies and were treated just as badly as any other. They never pretended that the US was of equal stature to the then-mighty UK.

  28. Matthew 17

    poor old 'merica

    Watching them increasingly tear themselves apart over religion and terrorism would be entertaining if it wasn't so scary. Would be interesting to see what percentage of US citizens subscribe to the >10000 year old Earth 'theory'. However given the dire state of scientific education in the UK it won't be long before we're in the same mess, give it 100 years and we'll be burning people for witchcraft again.

  29. Anonymous Coward

    What is faith, anyway...

    Faith in God is by definition a belief without a proof. Was there a clear, ubeatable proof that God exists it would not be a faith any more, just an acknowledgement of the proof. From the point of view of faith seeking a proof is like not believing.

    Drawing directly from the Bible (e.g. Paul's letters), faith is a gift from God to the ones He has chosen. Expecting others to 'start to believe', not to mention forcing them to, is pointless at best, and rude - for sure.

    A true Christian should not even try to take sides in the public 'fights for schools' between the so called creationists and the secular society. What a waste of time to be a part of a political agenda of some unscrupulous people posing as 'saviours of traditional values'. History has seen a lot of that before...

  30. Chris Curtis

    This is not biased

    This would be big deal if Apple were blocking creationist apps but they are not.

    As a Christian I have several bible applications on my iPhone. As a Christian I also believe Apple have done the right thing by allowing this app. All people are entitled to their beliefs and we should always seek to have healthy debates on these topics.

    1. stu 4
      Thumb Up


      I also recommend iphone bible apps. As an antitheist.

      reading and searching for stuff in the bible is a hilarious way to pass the time.

      Did you know that it is a sin to eat an owl for example ? Or that women raped in cities who do not cry out should be stoned ? (the inference being that they were clearly asking for it...)

      hours of hilarious top tips in there.

      it's better than Viz.

  31. Anonymous Coward

    Bill Hicks quote

    "Ever noticed how the people who don't believe in evolution look really unevolved"

    Seriously though, what's all this about no pron on the iPad?? I don't have one so someone please set this straight for me. You can still go to your choice websites to have a wank right? Just no pron apps. If so, I don't see a problem and think that apple have made a very good, wipe clean, device.

  32. EvilPixieMan

    Creationists don't deserve iPhones

    What these idiots don't grasp, is that that vast majority of our modern technology has come from knowledge gained through the scientific method. That collective knowledge spans a vast range of fields from chemistry, biology, geology, mathematics, physics and archaeology, through to the application of that knowledge in engineering and other applied sciences.

    It's all self-supporting and largely (highly?) consistent, but more importantly, _highly_interrelated_ - so you can't just reject a small piece like evolution without bringing into question everything else. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't be open to questioning it, just the opposite - healthy skepticism is good. But we also need to accept evidence when its overwhelmingly suggesting something, even if it doesn't match the fairlytales we grew up with.

    To ID'ers and creationists: That knowledge, that technology, your iPhone, is all evidence of the success of science. If you don't believe it, hand over your iPhone, trade in your television and the other fruits of scientific endeavour, and phuck off back to living in a hut.

    1. PsychicMonkey
      Jobs Halo

      Except the iPad

      that's magic.....

  33. Walt French

    No worry about “intelligent” design here!

    Has El Reg been taken over by the Inquirer? Don't people feel a bit tender around the anus after having patronized this nonsense?

  34. Morpho Devilpepper

    A couple of things...

    Here's 2 things that I just don't understand...

    1) The way the Religulous Right here in the USA can claim that they are making progress into our future, when they are obviously stapled to a 2,000 year old dead horse that they flog viciously when no one is paying attention to them.

    2) The way your average net addict can read a story thoroughly, scrutinize the details, and then take the time to criticize it and question its newsworthiness as though their opinion mattered. If an article is, as you say, not worth reading...what does that say about the twit who invests such effort pointing that out???

    Whoops...I hear the Conservative stormtroopers coming. Where's that can of pepper spray...?

  35. JosephU

    Cutting-Edge Science

    Contrary to what this Apple app promotes,

    Cutting-Edge Science tells us:

    "The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings."

    For more info, Google:

    Creation Doctrine - The Kolbe Center

    1. Filippo


      Umm, sorry but that's not science, cutting-edge or otherwise. Genome complexity *does* increase spontaneously, in several well-understood and evidence-backed ways (e.g. mutation).

      If this Kolbe guys want to claim otherwise, they're free to do it, but unless they provide evidence that genome complexity doesn't increase, they don't get to call it "science".

    2. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

      I'm in stitches

      Haven't seen anything this stupid for DAYS

      Great laugh that read.

      1. Scott 19

        I must agree

        With my learnered colleague H.F. above, brilliantly funny cut and paste, if your get your knowledge from places like this I fell sorry for you, I have no worries about believing in God but when you are then listening to someone say "and God said" well no he didn't a man said actually, I will put my faith in God if he turns up but not man he’s proved to be untrustworthy throughout history.

      2. James O'Shea Silver badge

        he's actually not that bad

        "Haven't seen anything this stupid for DAYS". You can see much better than his stuff every day if you have a look at on USENET. My personal favs remain:

        1 the gentleman who claimed that woodpeckers have their tongues anchored in their left nostrils. When someone posted pix of a dissected woodpecker showing rather different physical anatomy, he replied, and I quote: "I don't care how many birds you cut up, I'm still right and so is God."

        2 the other gentleman who proposed that the Ark not merely had at least two of each 'kind' of animal (seven of some, the 'clean' ones; exactly how Noah knew which were 'clean' and which 'unclean' when the rules on that would not be laid down until Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, 1500 years after yea alleged Flood, is unclear) but that the animals were

        a) juveniles, so as to take up less space and require less food (someone hasn't seen just how much the average juvenile mammal can eat. I refer you to your nearest teenager.)

        b) trained to poop on command, and onto a conveyer belt which carried the evidence away and dumped it into the moon pool built into the bottom of the Ark (look up what a moon pool is. Now imagine building a large wooden barge with one.)

        c) that conveyer belt and the giant fans in all compartments of the Ark were powered by treadmills, which themselves were powered by all the juvenile animals walking on them, continuously, 24/7, for the over a year that the Ark was allegedly at sea.

        d) the Ark was stablised by sea anchors made of stone. (Someone clearly didn't look up 'sea anchor')

        e) the Ark, which was made of wood, was preserved for all time by being coated in lava. (Yes, he actually said that molten stone would preserve wood.)

        f) the impressive teeth found on T-rex, allosaur, etc., fossils were not there so that the animals in question could eat meat; all animals of the time were vegetarians. Instead, they were there so that Noah could have handy tools to saw planks for the Ark. The canine teeth on sabre-tooth cats were there so that Noah could drill holes in said planks. Before Noah went boat-building, T-rexes etc. used their teeth to strain leaves, nuts, and berries from tree limbs. Yes, folks, a T-rex was a sort of land-going vegetarian baleen whale which transformed itself into a walking chainsaw when needed to build a really big wooden barge...

        3 a different gentleman once stated that the P-51 Mustang proved that evolution is false. This same aviation-minded individual insisted that chickens cannot fly. Apparently the chickens which my golden retriever used to chase around the back yard when I was about six were teleported over the fence from their coop in the neighbors' back yard, and also teleported themselves back over said fence. (Yes, chickens can fly. Just not very well.) In other aviation-related news, according to this same person the Face on Mars was carved by Neanderthals who got from the Earth to Mars by going to the tops of magnetic mountains and riding giant eagles through space. (No, I am _NOT_ making this up.)

        4 yet one more person swears that MAN IS AS OLD AS COAL!!!! Yes, in all caps, with multiple exclamation points. He is a good friend of the aviation-minded one. He no longer posts on Instead he posts pretty much everywhere else, 'cause the t.o regulars either ignore him or tease the hell out of him. The infamous 'Smithsonian rejection letter' featured in Snopes at <> was allegedly inspired by this person, which should tell you how long he's been at it. The aviation-minded person was active for over 20 years before kinda fading away.

        5 yet one more, allegedly a professor of mathematics at a major state university, kept lists of those who particularly irritated him, and couldn't understand why there was competition to post something which would get the poster on one of his lists.

        You can't make this stuff up. At least I can't, and I don't have to. Google is your friend...

    3. cyborg

      Information is never adequately defined in this context

      From an Information Theory standpoint this piece of nonsense is just patently absurd.

  36. Sean Nevin

    "Intelligent" design

    My sister is currently studying genetics and molecular biology. While my field is physics and engineering, I do manage to glean some occasional understanding of the processes which make life work. One thing that surprised me however, is how un-organized and messy DNA, cells, and proteins are. From an engineering standpoint, the whole thing is held together with duct tape, baling wire and gum.

    From this we get my favorite quote from her: "The best argument against intelligent design is to take a good look at the design".

    1. Filippo

      Re: "Intelligent" design

      As a computer engineer who's also studied molecular biology, I can confirm that anyone who takes a good look at how life works deep down *cannot* believe in a designer. I still complain about spaghetti code when I have to deal with it - but never when a biologist is in the room.

    2. No, I will not fix your computer

      Re: "Intelligent" design

      Ohhh... I thought the I in ID was "Inelegant", in that case why don't I live to 1000, why does food sometimes go down the wrong hole, why did god place a pleasure park next to a sewerage outflow? not to mention the abscence of a built-in jetpack that runs on water, feet that don't smell, bogies etc.

  37. Paul Vail
    Paris Hilton

    No, no no no NO!

    ARRRRgggh. We did NOT descend from a monkey.

    We and the monkeys descended from something (more monkey-like than us-like, well, if you stand naked in front of a mirror and such). Good grief -- read Chuckie's work, will ya.

    I'm not saying that Palin or ODonnell don't look monkeyish when they speak, or in front of a mirror unclothed -- but here, I digress.

    Paris, because that Japanese hotel jail has just got to be worse than the limo ride in Vegas.

  38. Anonymous Coward

    no no no !

    re: "he considers himself, like the rest of us, to be descended from monkeys."

    Groan .. the article to which this refers specifically says we share the same ancestor as monkeys ... not that we are descended from monkeys. I know it's a common mistake made by people but really ... we share the same ancestor ... monkeys themselves aren't our ancestors.

    Got it ?

  39. Hans 1 Silver badge


    What is the point of this ill-written article? Where is the link between evolution and porn? Porn and masturbation?

    Creationism, what is that Medieval theory doing in school books?

    I understand the pope cannot claim he believes in the theory of evolution, like all clerics of all Jewish/Chirstian religions, but the rest?

    We all should know that Mary had been unfaithful to Joe and told world+dog that it was the holy ghost, and some cretins believed her. That sums it up, really.

  40. This post has been deleted by its author

  41. Alexander Vollmer

    Health Promotion

    Avoidance of masturbation results in the decomposition of body fluids and the formation of free radicals. Prevent cancer and keep your fluids flowing.

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    WTF, Reg?

    Seriously? This was a pretty pathetic article. A completely prosaic app is available for the iphone, therefore the president of apple is attacking the religious right? What? Have you hired someone from The Inquirer and let them have a keyboard?

    Yes, I understand it was a joke - unfortunately, it wasn't actually funny. "Jolly good! Here's a way we can make Americans look like idiots! It's a stretch, but it'll go right over the 'merkin heads - they're too busy chowing down Big Macs to notice! I say, old boy, what what!"

    Yeeeah... Not so much.

    1. No, I will not fix your computer

      *you* not finding it funny...

      Doesn't make it not funny.

      A 2008 Gallup poll said, 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

      Now, that, *is* funny (and unfortunately, not a joke), it sets the tone for the application.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Maybe I...

        ...don't find it funny because I live here. But it shouldn't be particularly heartening for you guys that the (for the moment) largest economic and military power in the world - and one of your close allies, with strong ability to shape your foreign policy - is largely held to heel by a group of people cannot (or will not) understand the raw basics of the science that drives the world.

        Plus, even if you take it as a given that US citizens' ignorance itself is amusing, the article itself -still- isn't. Just because something could be satirized effectively doesn't mean that any given attempt at it was successful.

  43. This post has been deleted by its author

  44. robin penny

    Common Misconceptions

    Charles Darwin didn't actually deal with the origin of new species (in spite of the book's title). It was the evolution of existing species, which isn't incompatible with Creationism.

    Relatively recent genetic evidence doesn't actually support the central idea (theory) of Evolution with regard to the origin of new species. i.e the idea of a "tree of life" starting with tiny organisms and evolving into more sophisticated species.

    The genetic evidence actually indicates a "web of life" i.e. what you get as a result of hybridisation - if you mate a donkey with a horse you get a mule which is a hybrid. Which no doubt some would say is impossible in a more general sense, as most species can't inter mate, but then creationism isn't considered a possibility either, but if you think how scientists have taken a genetic trait from one species and implanted it in another to create a hybrid, why couldn't God do it?

    Of course scientists who have "believed" in the Tree of life idea for so long are reluctant to change their minds in spite of the scientific evidence.

    1. No, I will not fix your computer

      Re: Common Misconceptions

      >>Charles Darwin didn't actually deal with the origin of new species (in spite of the book's title). It was the evolution of existing species, which isn't incompatible with Creationism.

      He actually said neither "new" nor "existing", he made no such distinction, if you want to infer that because he observed existing species his conclusions were only about existing species then that's your choice, but it is an error to imply it.

      >>Relatively recent genetic evidence doesn't actually support the central idea (theory) of Evolution with regard to the origin of new species. i.e the idea of a "tree of life" starting with tiny organisms and evolving into more sophisticated species.

      Again you are implying something which is not, that the central idea must be a clean "tree" with distinct "forks", implying somehow that this "tree" is somehow completely different to similar (enough) species interbreeding, this shows a common ignorance of evolution, here's a seed of an idea for you (lets see if you can allow it to grow);

      I am human, my parents are human, their parents were human, their parents were human and so on going back thousands of years, but after a while there are some slight differences, maybe it's lifespan, height, go back a few more thousand years, they are shorter still and perhaps have a little more hair, are they still human? the only problem with the fossil record and evolution is the perceved need to define ancestors, ask every successive generation back and they will think that they are the same species as their chldren (and so they are), but make the gaps bigger and you'll have different species down the same bloodline, when did my ancestors cease to be human? but their children looked the same as them (and so on...)

      You need to try and understand evolution if you genuinely want to debate it (perhaps read "The greatest show on earth" by Dawkins), or you can continue with your strawmen if you want an easy target.

      >>Of course scientists who have "believed" in the Tree of life idea for so long are reluctant to change their minds in spite of the scientific evidence.

      All recent evidence, and I would say *all* genetic evendence (period) support evolution and gives a better understanding of the mechanisms, your unrefrenced "evidence" and unnamed "scientists" mean nothing, because you've presented nothing except yet another made up strawman.

  45. Sarah Davis

    i thought,...

    creationists were created by space monkeys

  46. Anonymous Coward

    Slow news day today?

    Come on, is this really news? I can't imagine any creationsists or Intelligent Design advocates (me included) who would get upset over this. Heck, if we're going to get upset over this, we'd never be able to get out of bed since Evolution and Natural Selection (two different things don'tcha know) are spoken as fact in TV dramas, documentaries, newspapers, magazines, schools, colleges, universities, sunday schools, product packaging, web sites, zoos, interviews with Stephen Fry... everywhere.

    This sounds like a 'dog bites man' article. Let's have a 'man bites dog', that's far more newsworthy.

    1. No, I will not fix your computer

      Re: Slow news day today?

      >>Evolution and Natural Selection (two different things don'tcha know)

      Hmmm... different, but not in the way that you would like them to be different, I bet you also consider there to be two types of evolution (macro and micro), which of course there isn't either.

  47. Tigra 07 Silver badge

    Here's one they always dodge...

    Im sure any who still believe the bible word for word will have enough trouble stringing together a decent reply to this.

    Here's a big pointer to think about, Adam and Eve have kids, who do the kids then breed with?

    If you believe the Bible then by your own logic, you're inbred

    1. No, I will not fix your computer

      Re: Here's one they always dodge...

      They don't always dodge it, the answer I had once by the evangelical door knockers was, "science shows us inbreeding can cause genetic defects, Adam and Eve were perfect, from them onwards we have been degraded by sin, which explains all pain and suffering". Got to give it to them, slick answer, I replied with another couple of questions, "So, did incest cease to be a sin for a while" and "Did Noah and his familiy go through a similar 'sin is on hold' thing", they shuffled for a bit and said that "God chose for it not to be sinful", so I asked "OK, can you show me where all this is written down" (they said that it's written down as such, then they left).

      By the way, don't be tempted by this, even basic blood typing shows changes older than 15k years ago, for example type A is older than the creationsist timeframe.

      1. Tigra 07 Silver badge

        OK, here's another...

        I heard once that creationists believe the world is only 6000 years od, is that true anyone?

        Where do they think the dinosaurs came from?

      2. Faceless Man

        Just don't mention Lot...

        If you really want to stump them on incest, ask about Lot and his daughters after the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah. It's not like they had no other options, they just thought it was a good idea.

        Actually, Genesis is full of pretty dodgy sexual mores.

  48. Gusty O'Windflap

    Dinosaurs in the bible

    "OK, dinosaur fossils-- how does that fit into your scheme of life? What's the deal?" He goes:

    "God put those here to test our faith."

    "I think God put you here to test my faith, dude. I think I've figured this out."

    good old Bill!

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nothing to see either here or at the app. store.

    Isn't this app just for those people who are too fucking stupid to have used Google and Wiki to find first 'Phylogenetic tree' and then the Interactive Tree of Life ( web-project?

  50. W. Keith Wingate

    The implication being....

    "The new smartphone app for the iPhone, iPod, and iPad gives anyone the power to explore an area at the forefront of comparative biology and to find his or her place in the timetree of life ... "

    .... that the iKit is so easy that even .... a monkey could use it?

    One thing I'll give Apple: they specialize in building interfaces which are extremely easy to learn -- once you know how. :-).

    Mine's the one w/ my Palm in the pocket please....

  51. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Of truth and allegory

    I'm inclined to ask those taking the hard-line literal-truth interpretation of Genesis: suppose there was a Big Bang and all the rest. If God can do it in seven days, He can do it in 13 billion years, right? Then all that time passes, our humble species evolves and invents written language. If, then, the Bible comes to be by divine inspiration, is it going to describe all that literally? ("In the beginning there was a superdense cosmic 'egg' of matter which exploded...")

    They need to get it that the Bible is not, and does not pretend to be, a scientific text. They are making it one by failing to get it that to allow for the possibility that the account in Genesis is allegorical does not say it's any less true than considering it literally.

  52. David Eddleman

    It's a shame

    That despite having some really bright minds in this country, we have people who still believe -- and try to force others to believe -- in antiquated notions. Back when I lived in San Diego, an area that's heavily Catholic due to the influx of Hispanic immigrants, I could proudly openly exclaim that I am an atheist. No one would really care. But here in the midwest...there are times I think that if I state as such, I might get a lynch mob formed for hinting at it.

    I am a little disappointed at El Reg for using the word "monkeys". There's a notion used by Evolution bashers and more that describe evolution as claiming that we're related to monkeys, which is simply not true. Our closest common relative in the modern primate world via evolution are Chimpanzees, not 'monkeys'.

    "Christine O'Donnell, has stated that evolution is no more than a "theory""

    As someone's no doubt said, so is gravity. So are a lot of things that we take for granted in the world. So is creationism, if you want to get down to it.

    I'd be more than happy to allow creationists to teach in classrooms as long as they A) Keep religion out of it (as much as possible, trying to keep a neutral environment in schools) and B) Properly inform students of what it is (a theory, just as much as evolution) and C) Give the facts and evidence of each. Any student who will question and show the slightest shred of critical thinking and logic will pick the obvious choice.

  53. Scott 9
    Thumb Down

    Misleading at least

    Was Steve Jobs actually personally involved in this? The app is interesting no doubt, I just wonder if they cite references for the links they make, so those of us who do read up on these things can follow through.

    Aside from that this is little more than yet another liberal writer's attempt to start a flame war. (I wonder what will happen when they realize not every conservative is a creationist, but never mind).

    Rather than keep on drawing links that really aren't there (as in I doubt any of the people named in the article have used the app or even knows it exists) we could have had an interesting article about evolutionary theory and how useful and/or relevant this app would for real research, as opposed to the faux research of most liberals, i.e., "I'm smart because I used this app which told me something I barely understand."

    Instead we get juvenile taunting, hope you enjoyed the five minutes of attention.

  54. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Seriously a country in which religious zealots thing they should be allowed to control people in this way considers itself to be the leader of the free world?

    Words fail me.

  55. deadlockvictim Silver badge

    My faith is strong

    This app has not shaken my belief in Apple. My faith is strong.

    Now where is there a student journalist that I stone?

  56. Anonymous Coward

    Get real!

    Oh dear! It used to be that the Americans told us to focus on the actual facts as seen on the ground in order to make correct assessments and decisions. No more. The Bible overrules scientific facts, just as in Copernicus days, and that was in 1543. It seems politically incorrect to even say "scientific fact" about Darwin! Apple should censor apps that don't mentions "theory" and "alternative"! Religious fundamentalism? Not to mention what ideology prescribes. The facts about Iraq where know before the war, but that did not influence decision making; ideologically influenced ideas about how Iraq in theory should have been, did however and the result should be obvious to anyone.

    Pick up a copy of "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking to get a fresh view of things!

  57. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Steve Jobs in iPhone bitchslap to creationists, Tea Party

    "which should mean that the somewhat porn-free iPhone and iPad are her gadgets of choice."

    She's obviously doing it wrong as I've almost gone blind with the HTML5/iOS compatible porn sites out there.

  58. Ramon Zarat

    Creationists, return to school are read other books than the bible for a change...

    This is a false debate and we all know it.

    Evolution is, by many many order of magnitudes, the best paradigm to explain the whole tree of life we see on Earth, period. End of story. Everything match to the tee, Evolution by natural section corroborate with every field data we can throw at it. The whole body of science agree. What else do you need, god himself opening up the sky and shout ''I'M THE ONE WHO INVENTED EVOLUTION!!!"???

    Part of the ''confusion'' in some creationist's minds comes from the inability to distinguish the fundamental differences between the 2 following statements:

    ""Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor some 30 million years in the past""


    "You - and your mom - are descended from monkeys. Steve Jobs says so"

    The point is, not only Humans and monkey share a common ancestor, all life you see around you does as well! Isn't it great to realize that all life is interconnected and that we, Humans, are part of it? Absolutely lovely indeed.



This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019