Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

His Noodly Appendage demands it!

So much ignorance in this thread.

When atheistic thinkers decided they don't like where the evidence is really leading.

The irony of these posts is palpable...

I lol'd. nice one.

OT: the day churches start teaching science, is the day I'm okay with science shows even allowing religion a footing in the scientific community. I have no beef with people who have faith/religion, but when you start using it as fact with "magic" as reasons, then you'll get constant eye rolls, I'll stick to my science that can be proven and explained over and over again.

 

[Haru17]

The article is mistaken in calling Faulkner "Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner". Creationism isn't a field of science, therefore it is impossible to be a creationist scientist. Creationism is at best a philosophical view and at worst a political one. Evolution and natural selection just make sense when looking at the world truly objectively. Natural selection simply means what is able to exist exists. A chimp mutates to have extra arms instead of eyes and it gets eaten because it's blind and dies out. A chimp evolves into a proto-human species and it flourishes in its environment and breeds because of its increased ability for critical thought; something creationism is devoid of.

Respect for religious views is different from denying obvious facts because people are scared to admit that they're just evolved animals. Because then humans wouldn't be special anymore and then they start to question whether there is an afterlife if they're not special anymore. Accepting hard truths, like the nature of the universe, is the sign of true willpower. Willful self-delusion is the sign of an immature mind. You die when you die, I know, it sucks. Ignorance of this fact is hardly bliss, in fact, opposition to scientific progress actively harms the rate of human development. We die either way, but by promoting science we get flying cars before we die.

An a practical note, the Cosmos series is already finished filming, as other posters mentioned. All TV shows film an entire season at once before airing. This whole thing is just a blatant political move to promote Faulkner and his pseudo science. We should all be paying attention to intellectuals and scientists, not conspiracy theorists like Faulkner.

 

[JarinArenos]

There is no "creationist theories". In a scientific context, "theory is the highest level of truth. Socalled "creationist theories" do not pass this test and can at best be call a "hypothesis".

Not even that. A hypothesis has to be "testable", which creationist beliefs are not.

 

[Spacemonkey430]

See, I figured out a way, while watching, to give creationists some lip service.

"We don't know where life originated from. Perhaps some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth, or perhaps it came from an asteroid from another world. We don't know."

Bam.

Is it me or did this just hit it on the head? I mean, you had to expect that posting something like this on the internet would only bring about the whole "I'm ok with religion because can be wrong dummy-heads all they want" cliche out in force. But it kind of amazes me that in the era of such "open mindedness" people can't see how creationism and science are not mutually exclusive. Believing that God created the universe does not supplant any sort of scientific evidence. The two can compliment each other. Some people don't choose to believe that the really abstract questions can be explained by a god. Some people do. I find that in this case the anti-creationist, hardcore science people are just as elitist and close-minded as religious fanatics on Fox News because they have science to wave in people's face. Case in point, this:

No. How about we keep the crazies away from our educational TV. It's bad enough that religious nuts indoctrinate children from birth. As someone who grew up in a religious family, I'm extremely thankful for the education I was lucky enough to get. I've been able to open my eyes to how truly miraculous the universe is, and how amazing it is to learn the truths behind how the universe began to how we theorize it is going to end.

I still wear the cross on my neck that I've had since birth, not out of faith. But as a permanent reminder of the narrow minded and slightly bigoted person I once was. I have never been a better human being as I've become after I turned my back on religion. I feel like I've made so much more progress in my life since leaving it behind and educating myself.

So yeah. Keep religion out of the classroom and keep it out of our science documentaries. You have every right to have blind faith that some omnipotent guy in a robe with a white beard that totally isn't Zeus ejaculated the universe into existence over six days. Just like we have every right to keep your nonsense out of our educational material and believe that the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago and continues to expand.

 

[Arakasi]

...

What the hell is a "Darwinist"?

Evolution is a very real, very well established FACT. The "theory" part of the "theory of evolution" is all about *HOW* evolution happens. There's absolutely no controversy that evolution does, in fact, really happen. The framework that describes the "how it happens" part of evolution is what "theory" part refers to.

Too true, we have documented EVIDENCE of evolution, its real, and it happens. Here is an example...
The rattle snake. Did you know the rattle snake is evolving, in our document history, to exist WITHOUT its rattle. Why you ask, natural selection I answer. Rattle snakes that "Rattle" are being killed off, thus rattle snakes that don't actually 'rattle' are surviving. This is removing the 'rattle' gene form the snakes gene pool, so there will be fewer and fewer rattle snakes that 'rattle' and possible one day rattle snakes wont actually rattle...THIS IS EVOLUTION VIA NATURAL SELECTION.

I don't mean to nitpick, but your example is actually forced selection, similar to how various dog breeds came into existence.

Since the human is just another animal, and such as part of the natural order, the example given is a particularly good example of natural selection. It just so happens that humans are the selective force, as opposed to say another predator or a lack of food supply.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Last I checked, creationism isn't a science, its part of a faith. So why would a show about science talk about something that's part of a religious doctrine? More over, what are they gonna talk about? Creationism is pretty much 'god snaps his fingers and there was life', not really a whole lotta anything you can do with that.

I've always found America's obsession with god in the face of literally all scientific evidence to be kinda strange.

Me to, and live there.

 

[ExtraDebit]

I'm not too worry, I think Seth Macfarlane the producer of the show is a smart enough guy to keep idiots from speaking in his show.

 

[VanQ]

See, I figured out a way, while watching, to give creationists some lip service.

"We don't know where life originated from. Perhaps some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth, or perhaps it came from an asteroid from another world. We don't know."

Bam.

Is it me or did this just hit it on the head? I mean, you had to expect that posting something like this on the internet would only bring about the whole "I'm ok with religion because can be wrong dummy-heads all they want" cliche out in force. But it kind of amazes me that in the era of such "open mindedness" people can't see how creationism and science are not mutually exclusive. Believing that God created the universe does not supplant any sort of scientific evidence. The two can compliment each other. Some people don't choose to believe that the really abstract questions can be explained by a god. Some people do. I find that in this case the anti-creationist, hardcore science people are just as elitist and close-minded as religious fanatics on Fox News because they have science to wave in people's face. Case in point, this:

No. How about we keep the crazies away from our educational TV. It's bad enough that religious nuts indoctrinate children from birth. As someone who grew up in a religious family, I'm extremely thankful for the education I was lucky enough to get. I've been able to open my eyes to how truly miraculous the universe is, and how amazing it is to learn the truths behind how the universe began to how we theorize it is going to end.

I still wear the cross on my neck that I've had since birth, not out of faith. But as a permanent reminder of the narrow minded and slightly bigoted person I once was. I have never been a better human being as I've become after I turned my back on religion. I feel like I've made so much more progress in my life since leaving it behind and educating myself.

So yeah. Keep religion out of the classroom and keep it out of our science documentaries. You have every right to have blind faith that some omnipotent guy in a robe with a white beard that totally isn't Zeus ejaculated the universe into existence over six days. Just like we have every right to keep your nonsense out of our educational material and believe that the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago and continues to expand.

You use me as a point in your case without knowing me.

If you asked me "What would it take to change your mind?" I would answer "Evidence."
If you asked someone religious what it would take to change their mind, they would almost always answer "Nothing."

Just take a look at the recent Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate. Generally speaking, a healthy amount of skepticism in everything, including our current model of the universe, as portrayed by science, is healthy. However, it's closed minded to not allow anything to change your mind, just because you're afraid of spending eternity in a fiery pit.

Keeping religion separate from science is all I ask for. We should not be teaching people -especially children- Creationism. We should be teaching them a scientific model of the universe based on observable evidence. If you want to call anyone closed minded, you'd be better off taking a stab at OP, since he seems to have mixed up the term Theory and Fact.

 

[BanicRhys]

The irony of these posts is palpable...

Unless the defininition of ignorance has shifted to the complete opposite of what it used to be, I don't see how my post was in any way ironic given that I was advocating the acceptance of alternative ideas.

Ermmm... i am not sure what school you went to, but we know A LOT more about EVERYTHING, universe included, than we did back in the Bronze age. Such as, what the sun is, how a solar system works, evolution, electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces. True, there is still a massive amount we don't know, but we do indeed know more than we did a few 100 years ago.

People have always thought they've "known" what the sun is etc etc etc.

The universe is infinitely more complex than we give it credit for, the limits of our knowledge are defined by the limits of our ability to comprehend, the one and only thing that I cannot believe is possible is that the human race has reached the pinnicle of comprehension.

Note: I'm in no way saying that I believe that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago by a singular god that incarnated into the form of a man named Jesus roughly 2000 years ago etc etc etc etc etc... I'm just saying, that for all we know, it's not compeltely outside the realm of possiblity that a higher intelligence had a hand in humanity's/the universe's creation.

We can't just blanketly rule out points of view because they seem outlandish.

Is it me or did this just hit it on the head? I mean, you had to expect that posting something like this on the internet would only bring about the whole "I'm ok with religion because can be wrong dummy-heads all they want" cliche out in force. But it kind of amazes me that in the era of such "open mindedness" people can't see how creationism and science are not mutually exclusive. Believing that God created the universe does not supplant any sort of scientific evidence. The two can compliment each other. Some people don't choose to believe that the really abstract questions can be explained by a god. Some people do. I find that in this case the anti-creationist, hardcore science people are just as elitist and close-minded as religious fanatics on Fox News because they have science to wave in people's face.

This post is kind of what I'm trying to get at.

 

[Kajin]

As a disciple of Neo Gundamism, I believe that the entire universe exists within the exhaust port of a giant robot. Where is my air time, huh?

Sarcasm aside, I think this guy is just being a prick. Creationism isn't acknowledged as a real science by anyone that doesn't already practice it. Of course a show dedicated to science isn't going to want to talk about it.

 

[Spacemonkey430]

See, I figured out a way, while watching, to give creationists some lip service.

"We don't know where life originated from. Perhaps some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth, or perhaps it came from an asteroid from another world. We don't know."

Bam.

Is it me or did this just hit it on the head? I mean, you had to expect that posting something like this on the internet would only bring about the whole "I'm ok with religion because can be wrong dummy-heads all they want" cliche out in force. But it kind of amazes me that in the era of such "open mindedness" people can't see how creationism and science are not mutually exclusive. Believing that God created the universe does not supplant any sort of scientific evidence. The two can compliment each other. Some people don't choose to believe that the really abstract questions can be explained by a god. Some people do. I find that in this case the anti-creationist, hardcore science people are just as elitist and close-minded as religious fanatics on Fox News because they have science to wave in people's face. Case in point, this:

No. How about we keep the crazies away from our educational TV. It's bad enough that religious nuts indoctrinate children from birth. As someone who grew up in a religious family, I'm extremely thankful for the education I was lucky enough to get. I've been able to open my eyes to how truly miraculous the universe is, and how amazing it is to learn the truths behind how the universe began to how we theorize it is going to end.

I still wear the cross on my neck that I've had since birth, not out of faith. But as a permanent reminder of the narrow minded and slightly bigoted person I once was. I have never been a better human being as I've become after I turned my back on religion. I feel like I've made so much more progress in my life since leaving it behind and educating myself.

So yeah. Keep religion out of the classroom and keep it out of our science documentaries. You have every right to have blind faith that some omnipotent guy in a robe with a white beard that totally isn't Zeus ejaculated the universe into existence over six days. Just like we have every right to keep your nonsense out of our educational material and believe that the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago and continues to expand.

You use me as a point in your case without knowing me.

If you asked me "What would it take to change your mind?" I would answer "Evidence."
If you asked someone religious what it would take to change their mind, they would almost always answer "Nothing."

Just take a look at the recent Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate. Generally speaking, a healthy amount of skepticism in everything, including our current model of the universe, as portrayed by science, is healthy. However, it's closed minded to not allow anything to change your mind, just because you're afraid of spending eternity in a fiery pit.

Keeping religion separate from science is all I ask for. We should not be teaching people -especially children- Creationism. We should be teaching them a scientific model of the universe based on observable evidence. If you want to call anyone closed minded, you'd be better off taking a stab at OP, since he seems to have mixed up the term Theory and Fact.

Ok so you could have lead with that. I whole heartedly agree people should learn about science in a responsible fashion and if they so choose they can have their faith as well. But you lead with the calling every creationist a crazy, then go on to talk about how you're so much of a better person now that you are not religious and put it down since you have an education as if all creationists are uneducated. So if I "use you without knowing you" I do believe I used what you said as a representation of you. I think the point people are missing here is the contradiction of denigrating people's faith under the guise of "its your choice" and then being just as close minded to the fact that science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Abomination]

America's obsession with the idea of Creationism is startling. I can't think of a single stable, developed nation that even entertains the notion that the words "Creationism" and "Science" should be placed next to one another without it being a joke.

"Hardcore anti-creationists" are just expressing an opinion of frustration. They are infuriated with the idea that people are either so stupid or manipulative to have pushed this concept into existence. Creationism is wrong. We do not know what is right, but we are as sure as is feasibly possible with unverifiable claim that Creationism touts that it is wrong.

The other issue here is how the Creationist benefits by their hypothesis being believed in more ways than just the potential scientific renown or credit. The more it's believes the more support they will receive from religious organizations who in turn benefit from this bullshit being believed in the first place.

Lies fueling lies. Science is not democracy. Stop treating it like one, America.

 

[mjharper]

I can't help thinking that Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' policy is relevant here. Be fair and balanced, but give theories their 'due weight', presenting "competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject".

In establishing due weight, Jimmy Wales wrote in 2003:

- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Which of those categories does Creationist Science belong in? Clearly, it belongs in the third category. There aren't many Creationist Scientists (regardless of how many Creationists there are), and there aren't any "prominent adherents".

Note that I'm not saying that Wikipedia is an absolutely perfect source; but that the question of discussing alternative theories in a show such as this is a practical one, and Wikipedia has a lot of experience and relevance in that department.

 

[coil]

Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

This is the closest I can come to believing in "divine creation of life" in any respect.

Science has presented plausible theories for the existence of the universe all they way back/out to the Big Bang. If you ask a proper astrophysicist what existed before the Big Bang, she will say "I don't know." So if I wanted to believe a god had any hand in creating our universe (note: the whole universe, not just Earth - we aren't special), the only thing that makes sense in the face of all our scientific observation is that a god started the Big Bang, laid out the laws of physics, and sat back to watch the longest game of Pachinko ever.

Everything that's happened since then can (or will eventually) be explained without any need for divine influence.

________

Regarding the rattle-less snakes, there is no effective difference between natural selection and dog breeding on a functional level. In either case, the animals that breed/survive are those with specific traits. In the case of dogs, humans are selecting traits they prefer (and it's worth noting that for all our tinkering, a "dog" is still more or less just a funny-looking wolf). In the case of the rattlesnakes, snakes with less rattly rattles are surviving to reproduce. Note that these aren't speciation events -- they are examples of changes over time in the frequency of certain genes in a single species. Another classic example of this is the Peppered Moth in England during the Industrial Revolution. It hid on pale trees, which became stained black from soot. In a span of 50 years, peppered moths went from nearly all (99%+) white to nearly all (98%) black, all because a mutation suddenly became better camouflage than the "original" coloration.

Naturally, there's the question of how a "rattlesnake" becomes "something other than a rattlesnake" -- how one species evolves into another. Evolutionary scientists have observed this in the modern world. A species is defined as a population that can viably interbreed, so it follows that speciation occurs when two groups of the "same species" change enough relative to each other that they can no longer interbreed. Unfortunately I can't find a reference for this, but the first example I read of this was a mouse in (I believe) the western United States. Three distinct populations, separated by mountain ranges, were observed. The central population was able to interbreed with both the western and eastern populations. HOWEVER, the western and eastern populations could NOT interbreed. They had diverged too far. I believe the three populations are categorized as subspecies.

And of course, on the very-long-time-frame scale there really isn't any such thing as a species "changing into another species." Whales used to live on land, but over thousands of years spent more and more time in the water. Whales born with smaller limbs and more streamlined bodies did better at it - a selection which repeated generation upon generation until whales were being born with truly tiny, useless limbs, and then entirely internalized leg bones. You could never look at a single birth event and say "yep, it's a whale now." Meanwhile, some pre-whales didn't go in the water. Over time they ended up looking like horses, hippos, and pigs.

Here are several more examples of observed speciation, including lab-induced speciation in fruit flies and observed wild speciation in fish, plants, and birds: http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html (sources at the bottom of the article)

 

[DragonStorm247]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

You bet me to that comment!! DAM YOU!!! But yes, a total oxymoron.

Edit: By definition someone who believes in the creation theory totally disregards any scientific 'facts' regarding the creation of everything, a scientist is someone who works purely on scientific fact, so yes, by definition, this is an oxymoron.

I'll play devil's advocate here (quite ironically), and say that it's possible, if difficult. If you look at the original Hebrew text, there are hundreds of ways to interpret each sentence. It's a stretch, but you can coincide the two.

Example: "The seven days of creation are measured in God-Days (read: astronomically inverse dog years)". I am told that, if you use some calculations done by rabbinic scholars way back, the time ratio of those seven "days" is actually fairly close to NASA's current estimation of the age of the universe.

I don't know how convincing that is, but I'd say it's interesting at least.

 

[Sight Unseen]

See, I figured out a way, while watching, to give creationists some lip service.

"We don't know where life originated from. Perhaps some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth, or perhaps it came from an asteroid from another world. We don't know."

Bam.

Is it me or did this just hit it on the head? I mean, you had to expect that posting something like this on the internet would only bring about the whole "I'm ok with religion because can be wrong dummy-heads all they want" cliche out in force. But it kind of amazes me that in the era of such "open mindedness" people can't see how creationism and science are not mutually exclusive. Believing that God created the universe does not supplant any sort of scientific evidence. The two can compliment each other. Some people don't choose to believe that the really abstract questions can be explained by a god. Some people do. I find that in this case the anti-creationist, hardcore science people are just as elitist and close-minded as religious fanatics on Fox News because they have science to wave in people's face. Case in point, this:

No. How about we keep the crazies away from our educational TV. It's bad enough that religious nuts indoctrinate children from birth. As someone who grew up in a religious family, I'm extremely thankful for the education I was lucky enough to get. I've been able to open my eyes to how truly miraculous the universe is, and how amazing it is to learn the truths behind how the universe began to how we theorize it is going to end.

I still wear the cross on my neck that I've had since birth, not out of faith. But as a permanent reminder of the narrow minded and slightly bigoted person I once was. I have never been a better human being as I've become after I turned my back on religion. I feel like I've made so much more progress in my life since leaving it behind and educating myself.

So yeah. Keep religion out of the classroom and keep it out of our science documentaries. You have every right to have blind faith that some omnipotent guy in a robe with a white beard that totally isn't Zeus ejaculated the universe into existence over six days. Just like we have every right to keep your nonsense out of our educational material and believe that the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago and continues to expand.

You use me as a point in your case without knowing me.

If you asked me "What would it take to change your mind?" I would answer "Evidence."
If you asked someone religious what it would take to change their mind, they would almost always answer "Nothing."

Just take a look at the recent Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate. Generally speaking, a healthy amount of skepticism in everything, including our current model of the universe, as portrayed by science, is healthy. However, it's closed minded to not allow anything to change your mind, just because you're afraid of spending eternity in a fiery pit.

Keeping religion separate from science is all I ask for. We should not be teaching people -especially children- Creationism. We should be teaching them a scientific model of the universe based on observable evidence. If you want to call anyone closed minded, you'd be better off taking a stab at OP, since he seems to have mixed up the term Theory and Fact.

Ok so you could have lead with that. I whole heartedly agree people should learn about science in a responsible fashion and if they so choose they can have their faith as well. But you lead with the calling every creationist a crazy, then go on to talk about how you're so much of a better person now that you are not religious and put it down since you have an education as if all creationists are uneducated. So if I "use you without knowing you" I do believe I used what you said as a representation of you. I think the point people are missing here is the contradiction of denigrating people's faith under the guise of "its your choice" and then being just as close minded to the fact that science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

To be quite honest, if anyone believes in creationism over evolution then they ARE uneducated. That's not to say they can't be smart people, but they simply aren't educated enough about evolution to make that call.

If anyone can look at and understand all of the evidence for evolution and then go "Nope. I'm still gonna believe in my sheepherder's book from the stone ages." then they are delusional. It's as simple as that.

Anyone who doesn't agree that evolution by natural selection is real doesn't really understand evolution. Scientists haven't figured out everything about it yet but what they do have is so sound that nothing has contradicted it yet and I doubt anything will other than maybe a detail here or there.

 

[Abomination]

I can't help thinking that Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' policy is relevant here. Be fair and balanced, but give theories their 'due weight', presenting "competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject".

In establishing due weight, Jimmy Wales wrote in 2003:

- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Which of those categories does Creationist Science belong in? Clearly, it belongs in the third category. There aren't many Creationist Scientists (regardless of how many Creationists there are), and there aren't any "prominent adherents".

Note that I'm not saying that Wikipedia is an absolutely perfect source; but that the question of discussing alternative theories in a show such as this is a practical one, and Wikipedia has a lot of experience and relevance in that department.

I'm sorry but Wikipedia is only one crowd-based encyclopedia. According to its own rules of viewpoints it can't be used as evidence for effective viewpoint rules.

 

[Snotnarok]

There's no reason to feature them in it because it's a science show, creationists do not live in a world of science they live in this strange world of lies, ignoring facts and using old information to push a message that is so incorrect it's painful.

 

[Smiley Face]

Odds are, creationism is just as likely to be correct as evolution and the big bang theory, so why not give it its fair share of coverage?

Oh boy... well, for a few reasons.. One, despite the reality that scientific theories will change as we discover more, the only responsible thing for an educational program to do is to acknowledge that, and then present the universe as we understand to be most likely - creationism is currently largely understood by science to be unlikely, therefore its fair share of coverage on an educational program about current scientific views is none.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, statistics don't work that way. When I flip a coin, there are multiple possibilities. It could come up heads, tails, edge, or roll along until some animal snaps it up and eats it. These are all possibilities, but they are not, as you put it, "just as likely to be correct", some are more possible than others, and some are almost impossible, and it would be irresponsible for an educational program to fail to make that distinction.

Which religion's version of creationism do they want to give airtime to?

I'd be interested in learning about ancient Egyptian, Greek and Norse creationism. How about those?

That would be pretty awesome. "In the beginning, there was a great egg. After a time, it hatched, and the great sun god Ra emerged. Ra then sat down and masturbated the universe into existence." Or how Odin and his brothers killed their father and used his bones to make the world (I think there was some kind of celestial cow involved, somehow, can't quite recall).

This is why religion never really tempted me - I grew up around children from various religious backgrounds, and by the time I was old enough to start thinking about that stuff for myself, I'd been reading ancient mythologies for fun. Even when existential crises did come knocking, what god am I supposed to believe in? I still know more about Greek mythology than I do about what's in the Bible.

 

[ThreeName]

Socalled "creationist theories" do not pass this test and can at best be call a "hypophysis".

The word is Hypothesis. The Hypophysis is another name for the pituitary gland, in the human body.

Oh God, that hurt to read.

OT: Posting news threads about religion is just begging for trouble. Shame on you.