6 ms·

How 19-year-old activist Zack Kopplin is making life hell for creationists

93 points by rmah 14y ago

michaelfeathers 14y ago
If you read the article, make sure you watch the video. It's a rather hilarious take down of a state senator.
AdamFernandez 14y ago
It's interesting how some groups are actively trying to hold humanity back. -edit, and by those groups I mean creationists. I don't know why this was downvoted.
- Zikes 14y ago
  Because those groups would rather attempt to silence a viewpoint that disagrees with theirs than to address it directly and civilly.
  - panzagl 14y ago
    Hacker News tends to down-vote the r/atheism love that tries to leak over from that other site.
- colin_jack 14y ago
  Same for climate chande deniers.
- rthomas6 14y ago
  Knowing several people who disbelieve evolution or climate change, I think this is not really true and the wrong attitude to take. People that want to teach creation along with evolution in the classroom truly think that evolution is a weakly supported hypothesis that does not fit the scientific evidence. Not just because they believe it contradicts their religion, but because they believe it's physically, literally wrong and is scientifically falsifiable. There is a minority of disbelievers that want biblical literalism taught in the classroom, but I think most truly believe that evolution is probably untrue, and at best, unproven, and simply want what they feel is the evidence taught in the classroom, instead of one unsupported or weak theory taught with cherry-picked evidence. Yes, that's really what they think. Obviously they are wrong, but I think if most of the evolution-deniers truly understood the modern theory of evolution, and understood that it is separate from abiogenesis, I think they wouldn't have a problem with it.
  - MichaelGG 14y ago
    Having grown up going to anti-science schools, it's because they simply don't understand the basic idea of evolution. They literally think it's "one day a fish just started walking on land" or "an eye just randomly appeared", which _is_ nonsense. Understanding evolution requires understanding some of the subtleties, a bit of game theory, speciation, and so on. They need to understand that while mutations are random, survival on average is not. Without that understanding, it comes down to "so we just evolved from monkeys? My grandma isn't a monkey!", which is rightfully a stupid idea to believe in. So given their lack of knowledge of what evolution is, they have a perfectly logical stance.
  - jakeonthemove 14y ago
    Believing something does not make it true... And hey, if the world was created 6000 years ago by some omnipotent being and made to look like it's several billion years old for some reason, I'm cool with that, but showing me a book written by humans as proof is just goddamn stupid.
    - nthj 14y ago
      I'd consider myself a creationist, but I never understood why so many creationists argue for a 10,000 year old earth. If you'll permit me quoting the Bible, here, to explain my point: there is every logical possibility of 60 billion years occurring between $WHEN_TIME_STARTED and $BIBLICAL_FIRST_DAY_WHICH_MUST_BE_NO_MORE_THAN_10_000_YEARS_AGO. > In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. <hypothesis: stars are created here. some 60 odd billion years go here, giving plenty of time for starlight to reach the earth> > 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. [Also, not really interested in getting into discussions of which scenario is more likely or whether I'm a fracking idiot. I just wanted to point out that I find it an intellectual curiosity that many creationists get so hung up on the young earth thing, since I'm not convinced that a 60 billion year old earth & biblical literalism are mutually exclusive.]
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  I don't know why this was downvoted 1) Your comment is politically loaded 2) Your comment contains little actual content outside the political payload.
bfe 14y ago
The article says Zack was 16 in 2008 and is 19 in 2013. Has Zack been impressing the importance of scientific literacy by promoting it from a relativistic spaceship? Or should he also start promoting numeracy to journalists?
- jtheory 14y ago
  Presumably someone asked him "when did this all start?", and he said "when I was, I think, 16? -- Louisiana passed this act and I...", and he didn't stop to calculate it carefully. And it looked about right, and if he was off by one it's completely irrelevant, so quite rightly no one put any thought into making absolutely sure that the numbers were exactly right.
jakeonthemove 14y ago
I don't mind creationism being taught side by side with evolution. But replacing the latter with the former is plain idiotic/dumb/stupid. Obviously, if you teach them side by side, anyone with half a brain will sooner or later realize that creationism is simply bullsheet, which is probably why these people want to silence the inconvenient (for them) truth...
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  Creationism has no relation to science so it should not be on science class.
  - jakeonthemove 14y ago
    True, but try to tell that to the millions of people who believe creationism IS science... To make it simple, just let the kids choose and decide for themselves...
    - shitlord 14y ago
      yes, but how can the kids choose when the information will inevitably be provided in a completely biased manner?
    - guard-of-terra 14y ago
      I'm trying amn't I. It is not science and it's not a question of beliefs. You should not lie to kids. By telling them about creation in science classes, you lie to them.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      The millions of people who believe creationism IS science are wrong. It's imperative for people to let them know (politely, of course) that they are wrong, especially in the science classroom
    - shakesbeard 14y ago
      > To make it simple, just let the kids choose and decide for themselves... No, that's not how it works. By that logic we also would have to teach about ghosts, dwarfs, <stroke>astronomy</stroke>astrology, or just claims made by other religions or folklore. There's a reason we teach our children sciences. They are objective, observable, testable, falsifiable, etc. We want a rational society, not despotism.
ScottWhigham 14y ago
Why is this on HN with 41 upvotes (as of this writing)? Is he creating a company? Is he building a startup? Is he writing javascript, putting together something really interesting, or what? I see nothing here HN-worthy. This is the kind of thing I expect to find elsewhere (and do, in fact, look for this sort of content there). HN is a niche site for hackers, entrepreneurs, and money folks. No need to bring excessive religious topics/debates here - keep that on reddit/etc.
- uptown 14y ago
  For a guy that seems to know how HN's promotion system works - you sure don't seem to understand how HN's promotion system works.
- Zikes 14y ago
  Becoming the face of a major political issue at such an early age is an impressive accomplishment, regardless of the subject matter. What this young man is demonstrating can easily carry over to other forms of leadership, in business and in politics, and there are many things we can learn from his example.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  People who force creationism on us are trying to create a future where you won't have any start-ups because you will die young, ill and poor. Therefore the topic is important in the long run.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    you will die young, ill and poor I was ready to dismiss this as pure fear-mongering, but when you think about it, there's something to it. Would you want to trust your life to a doctor or medical researcher who, for non-scientific reasons, refuses to consider the main organizing principle of all life sciences?
- abstractbill 14y ago
  "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
rmah 14y ago
I did not post this article to incite another evolution over creationism debate. But rather, because it highlighted the journey of a young man who is trying to change the world for the better. A young man who is not trying to enact change through destruction, hyperbole or negativism. Nor is he simply trying to build "awareness". He is trying to actually change things in his state by using rational discourse, reasonable publicity and rallying both popular and distinguished support.
- Cowen 14y ago
  It seems to me like Zack Kopplin has the spirit that is so often idealized around here, he's just not applying it to the market. He saw a problem, he saw that no one was fixing the problem, so he set out to disrupt the status quo and fix it himself.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  I did not post this article to incite another evolution over creationism debate You're implying that there even is a debate there, where there hasn't been one for a very long time.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    Depends on who you have on your friends list. I have a few from my days of living in Mississippi, its always quite interesting what they believe, and maybe quite shocking.
cpursley 14y ago
Is this reddit?
zplesivcak 14y ago
I don't find it acceptable to budle up issues of creationism/evolution and climate change. Writer is being devious when he's doing it so lightly as he did; especially when climate change wasn't mentioned in the title.
- randomknowledge 14y ago
  Hardly. The Lousiana law also made allowance for "supplemental material" on climate change, and Kopplin himself mentioned that "We don't just deny evolution... We are denying climate change and vaccines and other mainstream science...". Evolution denial is in the title but climate change denial is not because evolution is the main issue Kopplin has focused his activism on.
rorrr 14y ago
The fastest way to repeal this garbage law is for the non-christian teachers to start bringing Islam-related supplemental materials and start teaching it to all the Christian kids, and failing them on tests if they answer "incorrectly".
brownbat 14y ago
We could do worse than teaching Creationism in schools. Especially why it's wrong. I've learned more about the theory of evolution from the [Index of Creationist Claims](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) than from almost any other source (and I studied primatology). You become convinced of nothing so strongly as when you study the flaws of its critics.

93 points by rmah 14y ago

If you read the article, make sure you watch the video. It's a rather hilarious take down of a state senator.

It's interesting how some groups are actively trying to hold humanity back. -edit, and by those groups I mean creationists. I don't know why this was downvoted.

Zikes 14y ago
Because those groups would rather attempt to silence a viewpoint that disagrees with theirs than to address it directly and civilly.
- panzagl 14y ago
  Hacker News tends to down-vote the r/atheism love that tries to leak over from that other site.
colin_jack 14y ago
Same for climate chande deniers.
rthomas6 14y ago
Knowing several people who disbelieve evolution or climate change, I think this is not really true and the wrong attitude to take. People that want to teach creation along with evolution in the classroom truly think that evolution is a weakly supported hypothesis that does not fit the scientific evidence. Not just because they believe it contradicts their religion, but because they believe it's physically, literally wrong and is scientifically falsifiable. There is a minority of disbelievers that want biblical literalism taught in the classroom, but I think most truly believe that evolution is probably untrue, and at best, unproven, and simply want what they feel is the evidence taught in the classroom, instead of one unsupported or weak theory taught with cherry-picked evidence. Yes, that's really what they think. Obviously they are wrong, but I think if most of the evolution-deniers truly understood the modern theory of evolution, and understood that it is separate from abiogenesis, I think they wouldn't have a problem with it.
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  Having grown up going to anti-science schools, it's because they simply don't understand the basic idea of evolution. They literally think it's "one day a fish just started walking on land" or "an eye just randomly appeared", which _is_ nonsense. Understanding evolution requires understanding some of the subtleties, a bit of game theory, speciation, and so on. They need to understand that while mutations are random, survival on average is not. Without that understanding, it comes down to "so we just evolved from monkeys? My grandma isn't a monkey!", which is rightfully a stupid idea to believe in. So given their lack of knowledge of what evolution is, they have a perfectly logical stance.
- jakeonthemove 14y ago
  Believing something does not make it true... And hey, if the world was created 6000 years ago by some omnipotent being and made to look like it's several billion years old for some reason, I'm cool with that, but showing me a book written by humans as proof is just goddamn stupid.
  - nthj 14y ago
    I'd consider myself a creationist, but I never understood why so many creationists argue for a 10,000 year old earth. If you'll permit me quoting the Bible, here, to explain my point: there is every logical possibility of 60 billion years occurring between $WHEN_TIME_STARTED and $BIBLICAL_FIRST_DAY_WHICH_MUST_BE_NO_MORE_THAN_10_000_YEARS_AGO. > In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. <hypothesis: stars are created here. some 60 odd billion years go here, giving plenty of time for starlight to reach the earth> > 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. [Also, not really interested in getting into discussions of which scenario is more likely or whether I'm a fracking idiot. I just wanted to point out that I find it an intellectual curiosity that many creationists get so hung up on the young earth thing, since I'm not convinced that a 60 billion year old earth & biblical literalism are mutually exclusive.]
sliverstorm 14y ago
I don't know why this was downvoted 1) Your comment is politically loaded 2) Your comment contains little actual content outside the political payload.

bfe 14y ago

The article says Zack was 16 in 2008 and is 19 in 2013. Has Zack been impressing the importance of scientific literacy by promoting it from a relativistic spaceship? Or should he also start promoting numeracy to journalists?

jtheory 14y ago
Presumably someone asked him "when did this all start?", and he said "when I was, I think, 16? -- Louisiana passed this act and I...", and he didn't stop to calculate it carefully. And it looked about right, and if he was off by one it's completely irrelevant, so quite rightly no one put any thought into making absolutely sure that the numbers were exactly right.

jakeonthemove 14y ago

I don't mind creationism being taught side by side with evolution. But replacing the latter with the former is plain idiotic/dumb/stupid. Obviously, if you teach them side by side, anyone with half a brain will sooner or later realize that creationism is simply bullsheet, which is probably why these people want to silence the inconvenient (for them) truth...

guard-of-terra 14y ago
Creationism has no relation to science so it should not be on science class.
- jakeonthemove 14y ago
  True, but try to tell that to the millions of people who believe creationism IS science... To make it simple, just let the kids choose and decide for themselves...
  - shitlord 14y ago
    yes, but how can the kids choose when the information will inevitably be provided in a completely biased manner?
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    I'm trying amn't I. It is not science and it's not a question of beliefs. You should not lie to kids. By telling them about creation in science classes, you lie to them.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    The millions of people who believe creationism IS science are wrong. It's imperative for people to let them know (politely, of course) that they are wrong, especially in the science classroom
  - shakesbeard 14y ago
    > To make it simple, just let the kids choose and decide for themselves... No, that's not how it works. By that logic we also would have to teach about ghosts, dwarfs, <stroke>astronomy</stroke>astrology, or just claims made by other religions or folklore. There's a reason we teach our children sciences. They are objective, observable, testable, falsifiable, etc. We want a rational society, not despotism.

ScottWhigham 14y ago

Why is this on HN with 41 upvotes (as of this writing)? Is he creating a company? Is he building a startup? Is he writing javascript, putting together something really interesting, or what? I see nothing here HN-worthy. This is the kind of thing I expect to find elsewhere (and do, in fact, look for this sort of content there). HN is a niche site for hackers, entrepreneurs, and money folks. No need to bring excessive religious topics/debates here - keep that on reddit/etc.

uptown 14y ago
For a guy that seems to know how HN's promotion system works - you sure don't seem to understand how HN's promotion system works.
Zikes 14y ago
Becoming the face of a major political issue at such an early age is an impressive accomplishment, regardless of the subject matter. What this young man is demonstrating can easily carry over to other forms of leadership, in business and in politics, and there are many things we can learn from his example.
guard-of-terra 14y ago
People who force creationism on us are trying to create a future where you won't have any start-ups because you will die young, ill and poor. Therefore the topic is important in the long run.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  you will die young, ill and poor I was ready to dismiss this as pure fear-mongering, but when you think about it, there's something to it. Would you want to trust your life to a doctor or medical researcher who, for non-scientific reasons, refuses to consider the main organizing principle of all life sciences?
abstractbill 14y ago
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

rmah 14y ago

I did not post this article to incite another evolution over creationism debate. But rather, because it highlighted the journey of a young man who is trying to change the world for the better. A young man who is not trying to enact change through destruction, hyperbole or negativism. Nor is he simply trying to build "awareness". He is trying to actually change things in his state by using rational discourse, reasonable publicity and rallying both popular and distinguished support.

Cowen 14y ago
It seems to me like Zack Kopplin has the spirit that is so often idealized around here, he's just not applying it to the market. He saw a problem, he saw that no one was fixing the problem, so he set out to disrupt the status quo and fix it himself.
MartinCron 14y ago
I did not post this article to incite another evolution over creationism debate You're implying that there even is a debate there, where there hasn't been one for a very long time.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  Depends on who you have on your friends list. I have a few from my days of living in Mississippi, its always quite interesting what they believe, and maybe quite shocking.

cpursley 14y ago

Is this reddit?

zplesivcak 14y ago

I don't find it acceptable to budle up issues of creationism/evolution and climate change. Writer is being devious when he's doing it so lightly as he did; especially when climate change wasn't mentioned in the title.

randomknowledge 14y ago
Hardly. The Lousiana law also made allowance for "supplemental material" on climate change, and Kopplin himself mentioned that "We don't just deny evolution... We are denying climate change and vaccines and other mainstream science...". Evolution denial is in the title but climate change denial is not because evolution is the main issue Kopplin has focused his activism on.

rorrr 14y ago

The fastest way to repeal this garbage law is for the non-christian teachers to start bringing Islam-related supplemental materials and start teaching it to all the Christian kids, and failing them on tests if they answer "incorrectly".

brownbat 14y ago

We could do worse than teaching Creationism in schools. Especially why it's wrong. I've learned more about the theory of evolution from the [Index of Creationist Claims](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) than from almost any other source (and I studied primatology). You become convinced of nothing so strongly as when you study the flaws of its critics.