By having the Dean have a book to “condemn” those who believe differently from the established scientific orthodoxy, a clear comparison is made with the typical way some theists similarly condemn non-believers to Hell. By applying the same principle of condemning someone to eternal/a lifetime of misery in a real-world setting, the unreasonableness of that particular belief is exposed.

Another aspect is the clever allusion to how creationists describe the persecution they face when they think they are entitled to get hired for jobs in which an understanding and application of evolution is required. It’s one thing if they can actually perform the necessary motions of the job despite their contrary belief, but it’s another thing to ask employers to trust them to handle and interpret evidence/data correctly when no one else is looking.

Well, if you want to be less than generous, yes.

They’re both retarded?

All kidding aside, they are going about it rather stupidly by letting religious beliefs get in the way of schooling. Education should be learning from an unbiased viewpoint. Whether that’s giving an equal view of theism and evolution or something else entirely.

I was raised christian. I believed atheism to be wrong up until about 14. That’s when I started taking a long look at my religion and others. From that point I realized I didn’t think anything I had been taught was right. So I looked or a religion that did seem right. Eventually I gave up on that. None that I found seemed completely right.

So I put myself under the label “Agnostic” for the sake of having an easy to understand label, and put together a system that worked for me. I don’t force it on anyone. In fact, I don’t think I’ve even TOLD anyone about it. But it’s what makes sense to me, and I’m fine with that.