Science

I was home schooled with Christian education most of my life. I grew up believing in things like the Flood and that the universe is 6,000 years old and that was far and away the norm in the churches we went to. Then I moved out, went to university and found out how science is actually done. Hearing that Intelligent Design is still taught to kids as if it's equally grounded in science REALLY upsets me because it wasn't intellectually or emotionally "free" or easy to deprogram myself. It was a rude awakening.

This law is a license to teach lies to kids before they know better. Period. I was going to say this is -like- getting the go-ahead to teach Flat Earth "theory" to kids if you want to, but the language of the bill might actually allow for exactly that. There's certainly no difference regarding the amount of actual evidence between Intelligent Design and Flat Earth so I have no clue how they'd draw the line in a legal sense.

Just to be clear, religion has never been banned from science classrooms, it just never made it in due to it's own failings based on a complete lack of evidence, and inability to be tested with the scientific method.

No laws are needed to "allow" religion anywhere, just to force it into spaces it has not earned the right to be in on its merit.

One of the most mind blowing things I learned looking into apocrypha was that the debate between religion and evolution goes all the way back to... Jesus (yeah, really).

50 years before Jesus is born Lucretius writes De Rerum Natura, where writing in Latin he can't rely on the Greek word atomos ('indivisible') so he uses the word for 'seed' to describe indivisible parts making up all matter.

At the same time, as a naturalist philosophy, he writes about how there's no intelligent design and what we see around us is just the result of these seeds randomly scattered and interacting.

Specifically, he regularly talks about how it was only what survived to reproduce which continued to develop, and in book five talks about how there were intermediate freaks of nature who weren't successful at surviving and so died out because "For any beast you look upon that drinks life-giving air, Has either wits, or bravery, or fleetness of foot to spare, Ensuring its survival from its genesis to now."

In book 4 he talked about how a grandparent's traits might come back from either parent's side because "For to comprise A child requires a doubled seed – from father and from mother." He also in book 4 talks about failed biological reproduction as if it "turns the furrow away from the straight and true Path of the ploughshare, and the seed falls by the wayside too."

So what the heck does all this have to do with the infamous Jesus?

Well, there's a heretical sect of Christianity that owes itself to a tradition from a female teacher and was following a collection of sayings that included female disciples that sounds quite a lot like Lucretius. See, cannonical Christianity was fairly adamant women should be silent (1 Cor, 1 Clement, 1 Timothy). But what those women were allegedly talking about was pretty wild given the above context.

Here were the described 'heretical' beliefs of the Naassenes regarding seeds:

And so it is that these (heretics), placing the originative nature of the universe in causative seed [...]

They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made [...]

That which is, he says, nothing, and which consists of nothing, inasmuch as it is indivisible — (I mean) a point — will become through its own reflective power a certain incomprehensible magnitude. This, he says, is the kingdom of heaven, the grain of mustard seed [...]

...the seeds scattered from the unportrayable one upon the world, through which the whole cosmical system is completed; for through these also it began to exist. And this, he says, is what has been declared: "The sower went forth to sow. And some fell by the wayside

• Pseudo-Hippolytus's Refutations book 5

Wtf!?

Not only are they explaining the parable about the "smallest seed" as referring to an indivisible point just like Lucretius, the parable of the sower is allegedly about naturalist origins of the universe, and seems to have even bogarted Lucretius's metaphor about seed falling to the wayside of a path.

In fact, the text this group is following, the Gospel of Thomas has several sayings that are probably best understood in the context of Lucretius, and even one saying directly regarding the origins of life, where it describes naturalism as a greater wonder over intelligent design:

If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.

Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.

• Gospel of Thomas saying 29

That explanation of the sower parable where what survived to reproduce is what multiplied as about the origins of the universe? That's literally the only extant explanation from the first few centuries CE other than the official one, which is presented as a secret explanation for what was a public saying (sus), and was the only secret explanation for a parable in the earliest cannonical gospel.

It's even more obvious what the parable was about given the context of the two sayings before it as it appears in the Gospel of Thomas:

"Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

And he said, "The human being is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish.

• Gospel of Thomas sayings 7-8

So no matter who eats who the end result will be human, because the human being is like a big fish selected from smaller fish (it's definitely the fish and not the fisherman as this seems to be employing a twist on the metaphor in Habakkuk 1, and in Matthew the - yet again - secret explanation for this parable also has the human as the fish)? Followed by a parable about how the seed which falls by the wayside doesn't survive to reproduce and only what survived to reproduce multiplies?

There's a significant amount of tragic irony to modern Christianity having come from roots of conservative and misogynistic propaganda against a version of Jesus kept alive by a female teacher engaging with contemporary Roman and Greek proto-evolutionary philosophy 2,000 years later being used to try and suppress those very same ideas, this time in the face of even greater evidence it's actually true.

It reminds me of another saying about seeds:

...is like a person who has [good] seed. His enemy came during the night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The person did not let the workers pull up the weeds, but said to them, 'No, otherwise you might go to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.' For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be conspicuous, and will be pulled up and burned.

• Thomas saying 57

This too has a secret explanation in canon (see a theme?). Though given elsewhere in Thomas it mentions harvesting 'understanding,' it's evident which understanding about seeds in all the above which may not have been clear at the time if it was wheat or weeds has since turned out to clearly be wheat, and which understanding turned out to be weeds that should be discarded as trash.

TL;DR: Even a historical Jesus probably would have been against schools trying to undermine teaching evolution with religious hogwash.

Hey, America. You doin' okay? Things don't seem to be going so well.

How about you just teach science in the science classroom? And religion can be taught in social studies where it belongs.

I look forward to what the Satanic Temple will do with this law.

They need to start a group of "fundamentalist scientists" who go to churches and start scoffing at what the preacher is preaching when he starts mentioning something "fantasy."

At first I read “New Law Abolishing Religion“ and got excited.

"We're going to kill your science."

This is what we get for not holding the line on pineapple on pizza. Sure it seems harmless enough, but if we allow one abomination, the next thing you know we’re looking back at the slippery slope and wondering why the crops won’t grow despite the generous helpings of electrolytes we’re giving them.

Well John Denver did say W. Virginia is “almost heaven”. Seems they’re taking steps to get a little closer.

I wonder which bunch of lies gets selected