NOTE: If you are 1 ) easily offended, 2 ) mentally challenged, 3 ) humor challenged, 4 ) challenged, 5 ) boring, 6 ) righteous, 7 ) myopic, 8 ) gullible, 9 ) boring, or 10 ) an anal-retentive omniscient non-existent being, then please read THIS either now or at minimum after you’ve read the following.
DNA Sculpture exhibit at UC Berkeley playground turning heads, sparking complaints1
2
PTA president asks school’s parents to file complaints with the county
By Richard Vernon, P.O.E.
State of Protest
July 27, 2009
EAST BERKELEY – Think of Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man . . . zoomed in to an ungodly scale.
The large, plastic and metallic sculpture parked outside UC Berkeley’s Lawrence Hall of Science, is stoking the angry fires of parents of children who attend nearby Claremont Park Elementary School.
“My daughter suggested that it was funny,” said John Copeland, whose 7-year-old daughter attends summer camp there. “She shouldn’t be talking to me about this. Now I’m forced to explain genetics to her, and why the Bible doesn’t say anything about it.”
The genetically correct structure is part of an ongoing exhibit titled “DNA Sculpture,” created by acclaimed artist Ashe Kutchya, which represents “genetic material from an enzyme,” according to Lawrence Hall of Science’s website.
It depicts a DNA double helix — two congruent helices with the same axis, differing by a translation along the axis. The structure is larger than life, and elongated. Its genetic analogy to human life is subtle.
“It’s a piercing piece, quite abstract,” said Francis Pegro, the groundskeeper in charge of maintaining the sculpture as well as other displays in the playground. “It’s honest and natural.”
Pegro said he’s received some complaints, but also praise.
Although DNA Sculpture has been on display in various public parks and playgrounds, Jenny Garrotte, Claremont Park PTA president, said she found it distasteful and verging on obscene, and e-mailed parents Wednesday morning, asking them to file complaints with Pegro and with Alameda County Code Enforcement.
“Everybody is entitled to their own opinion regarding what art is,” said Garrotte. “If this piece weren’t visible to passersby and available for children to play on, I would not have a problem with it.”
Still, Terence Lythma, a teacher in the school’s summer program, said he has not heard any of the children talking about the piece.
“It’s the parents who have been talking about it,” he said. “The children don’t really make an issue of it.”
Kutchya, the creator of DNA Sculpture, could not be reached for comment despite attempts by phone. But it’s not the first time his sculptures have drawn public scrutiny. In 1996, the Oakland City Council made him modify the depiction of DNA so that it matched a dog’s DNA structure rather than a human’s until public pressure and national attention reversed the city officials’ position. He later reverted the structure to depict human DNA.
In 2006, The Ovum, a sculpture of a human unfertilized egg by Sonoma-area artist Nabry Gussom and installed at the Petaluma Community Center, generated complaints over its super-realistic undulations and dampness.
“It’s awful that people react to art in this manner,” said Amy Boswin, director of the Novato Ignacio Art Gallery near Petaluma. “If they opened a biology textbook, they’d see a lot more risqué stuff than that.”
Meanwhile, Copeland said he hopes the owner of the plaza removes the sculpture before school starts next month.
“There are 1000 kids in the school that are going to be exposed to it,” he said. “It’s vile and offensive, and kids have no business seeing what God thought fit to hide from our eyes.”
No word yet from local government officials, who apparently have their hands full with other depictions of human reality in art.3
—
- No one ever reads the footnotes. [<]
- Photo by Schnitzel [<]
- To paraphrase someone who eventually saw what I’m doing here, I’m not exactly satirizing the people who wanted to ban the naked sculpture (it’s not like they’re not easy targets anyway), I’m instead targeting the people who think that banning nudity is okay, but at the same time find the banning of a DNA sculpture to be over the line. I’m ultimately asking what the difference is. What rational standard could exist that would warrant perpetuating the right not to be offended by exposure of human flesh, but would prohibit that right not to be offended with regard to the building blocks that make up that very same flesh? At the same time, I’m chiding the so-called skeptical audience for not holding my article to reasonable skeptical standards that they’d apply, say, on religious, psychic, or other websites. Yes, it reads like news, but even reliable sources have their significant flaws (or, in this case, satirists). See my relevant article for more clarification and to learn how I got spanked by the Poe Monkey, too. [<]
Tags: art, bible, DNA, genetic, god, nude, nudity, playground, PTA, Satire
If God didn’t want us to see it He shouldn’t have invented the microscope, or computers or scientists or artists. What the hell is he up to anyway?
Wacky deity!
…or eyeballs!
If we weren’t meant to see DNA, God should not have invented X-Rays. They are the means by which we were able to see the molecelar structure of DNA.
by all means finding DNA offensive is retarded. it’s just that….your argument is retarded as well
it’s the “if weren’t meant to, then it shouldn’t exist” argument, that is.
If we weren’t meant to have intercourse with children, God should not given them genitalia. They are the means by which we were able have intercourse.
If we weren’t meant to kill, God should not have invented weapons. They are the means by which we were able to snuff life.
If we weren’t meant to voyeur, God should not have invented camera. They are the means by which we were able to invade privacy.
….i could go on
I’m christian, but i’m definitely not with these dumbass zealots. They embarass me. I think science is a wonderful thing, I love learning new things and this bugs me: “Now I’m forced to explain genetics to her and why it’s never mentioned in the Bible!”
Wait what?
The science itself didn’t exist back then, so how could it be mentioned, for one. Second, how is that really a problem? There’s zero information on genetics that’s in any way or manner blasphemous – in fact, I don’t see why she couldn’t marvel in the beauty of God’s work, rather than be repulsed by something she doesn’t usually see anyway.
Dumb bint. With her kind of reasoning, she shouldn’t be using her hands to touch anything, dirty human hand. Ugh. Drenched with all of that vile DNA.
If you have the time to concider this a really big issue, fly your butt over to Rwanda and make an actual difference.
Aephion: You’re a dumbass yourself. You have an imaginary friend. Presumably you’re an adult.
GROW UP.
Bravo, bravo. This is the most articulate rebuttal to this overused and pathetic argument. I only wish I had thought of it myself.
AMEN!!
Some people’s DNA is offensive. Try Karl Rove.
I’m with Al. If “god” didn’t want us to know about DNA and the genome then he wouldn’t have blessed us with the gifts of intelligence and innate curiosity!
What is wrong with the American people? It’s just DNA, a part of the human body! So looking to your own body is offensive???? Get a live and life the European way!!! Don’t be so prudish!
Yeah! If god didn’t want us to think then why did he give us a pre-frontal cortex?
I think we all know Jesus is a gay zombie. I mean seriously, he spent 40 days & 40 nights in the desert with a bunch of dudes, something’s bound to happen… Then, knowing he’s going to die, spends his last night with 12 guys drinking from a single cup! Then he comes back from the dead! In conclusion, Jesus is a gay zombie, and if he’s the son of God, what type of God produces gay zombie offspring?
Why should we who love art be subjected to other people’s mythology? Perhaps those who are offended need to stay in their houses, away from anything that might cause them to question or understand the world around them.
Honestly – afraid of DNA? GROW UP.
Hear hear!
Now I’m waiting for someone to say:
“Honestly — afraid of Boobies? GROW UP.”
Waiting for someone… in Congress to say that. Waiting for… the President to say it.
I think I’ll be waiting for a long, long time.
WTF a DNA molecule is offensive?? The Bible has God command the Israelites to MURDER, RAPE, AND PILLAGE entire civilizations. The Bible doesn’t say anything about DNA, nor is it hidden from us. The only unfit, obscene DNA is that lady’s. She should be forcibly removed from the gene pool, Hitler style. The world would be a better place if everyone like her were to drop dead tomorrow.
I’m no literal believer in the Bible (or Torah or Koran, etc.), but the God in the Torah and Bible didn’t command Israelites to “murder, rape, and pillage entire civilizations”. In fact, the history of the bible and of those civilizations outlines in detail pretty much exactly the opposite.
But nice try, clownface.
Civilizations? I too can’t recall that off the top of my head. But as for never ordering rape? Tell that to King David’s daughter.
Examples:
Exodus 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
Leviticus 26:7 And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
26:8 And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.
Numbers 21:34 And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.
21:35 So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land.
I meant my reply to Deeman.
Have you ever read the Old Testament? Do you ever think for yourself or just believe what other people tell you to believe. Keep on searching for God,you’ll find her/him/you.
All Christian nut jobs should first go fuck themselves and then jump off a cliff. I mean, they’re already lemmings, let them destroy themselves so I don’t have to put up with their fucking nonsense. I hate right-winged, conservative, Christian idiots. Fuck them all!
Best response on the page.
This woman is a disgrace, this thing is absolutely beautiful, and a great way to introduce children to the truth about the world, not some fairy tales in a book.
Would you say the same about nude sculptures?
I would. Are you offended by the natural human body? Your god certainly didn’t see it fit to hide boobies. I find that particularly sad.
Then perhaps you can see why I wrote this.
(I find it sad, as well, what we allow to occur in our backwards society)
Paris is full of boobie sculptures and Rome is full of marble cock. And I approve.
And Philadelphia has a statue of Rocky and the red letter LOVE statue. Looks like we need to lobby the mayor.
I don’t believe it. This story isn’t corroborated by any credible news source, and not only do fundamentalists at least admit the *existence of molecules*, but they don’t live in Berkeley. I call hoax.
In fact, the only reference to “acclaimed artist Ashe Kutchya” in all the world is this article. And there is no Claremont Park in Alameda. There’s a Claremont near LA, and a Claremont Park in the Bronx.
Your attention to detail and research diligence is admirable. For that, I will grant you the key to the kingdom. Just click the last link in the article to have it delivered.
(I was hoping a local would show up with a skeptical microscope to examine this DNA)
Okay, the sculpture definitely exists at the Lawrence Hall of Science: http://www.lhs.berkeley.edu/visit/exhibits/dna However, it was actually designed and built by artist Michael E. Jantzen as visible on a photo of the plaque at http://www.eyeondna.com/2007/04/28/dna-helix-at-the-lawrence-hall-of-science/
I can find no reference to a Claremont Park Elementary School, either. There is a Cragmont Elementary fairly close to the LHS. There is also a Claremont Middle School nearby to the south in Oakland. But the school in question does not exist.
I, too, call hoax, as pretty much every detail in this piece is unverifiable at best, and flat out wrong at worst.
So, what was the point, then?
(oh, and you get a skeptic cookie, yay! but there’s more!)
STINKY! How DARE you call Procrustes a liar! I am shocked, shocked!
I hope this is a satire.
This is a joke. Tell me this is a joke.
PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS A JOKE so that I may stop assembling my Church Bombs. Jeeeeezus.
It’s very very serious. At least, what it represents is very serious. Click the last link and take a dive into the perpetual insanity of purism. Yay.
DNA? How is having a sculpture of DNA going to hurt the kiddies? Art is not supposed to be educational, it should be entertaining, inherently interesting and provocative.
I say take down the DNA! Replace it with a giant erect cock plunging into a huge slippery pussy.
Hide some speakers inside it so it moans and grunts and says, “F**k me! Oh my GOD, I love it!”
Every hour the cock can shoot great ropey strands of marshmallow silly string and all the kids can gobble it up! FREE CANDY! And condoms for everyone!
Now THAT’S educational.
I’m totally with you on that.
That is by far the most incredible idea I have ever laid my eyes on. I should by you a round of shots!
Total hoax. The footnote however is real and very irritating.
The giveaway to me is that someone that willfully ignorant of science probably wouldn’t recognize a double helix in the first place.
Heh, thanks for recognizing the point. (To point out the insanity of what these people really do, and how it’s just as stupid).
Also good point about the scientifically ignorant.
Very pointy I am today.
[By the way, your Cosmic Octopus Necklace is awesome. Ooh, and I especially like your Silver-toned Purple Trilobite Necklace. I think I might have to buy one of each!]
I find it funny that you are bashing some of the BBC Atheists and Agnostics and giving a “here, here” to one of the people whose “Dogma” you are opposed to (not that I disagree with Michelle–I just find it all more than a tad ironic). *snicker*
Howdy. I wasn’t bashing, I was defending. When I’m accused of making atheists look bad while I’m trying to make an apparently too subtle statement about how atheists are the victims of oppression created by prudes, then I feel the need to respond. However, I took it all down just now because I’m really tired of being called “creepy” by people who don’t understand how site statistics work (and that I was getting numerous hits from a very odd sort of forum that I had no clue existed, no relation to, and had no idea would be remotely interested in an article like this). [Oh, and also because I'm respecting their privacy. Sorry about any inconvenience.] My visit there gave me a bit of surprise and dismay, so I felt it responsible to respond, but I didn’t want to register for an account (which would entail me bearing false witness).
Also, regarding the “hear hear,” I’m fairly certain that I was cheering in favor of a statement opposing those who feel they have a right not to be offended. I could be wrong, though.
Thanks for visiting and commenting.
The footnote is maddening.
No one ever reads the footnotes.
The reason commenters keep writing in that it was a hoax, by the way, is that there are people out there linking to this story as true. Which makes them dumb or liars, to be sure, but not every reader so brought will immediately realize this site is satire.
Well, the entire site isn’t satire. Just the articles posted in the Satire category. I always link to the source of the satire, and I always drop hints. I think the most effective satire is that which at least at first appears to be true. I also walk the Poe’s Law line — if such insanity is so believable, that says a lot about what readers expect is quite within the scope of reality, especially with regard to religious nutters who go out of their way to try to make life miserable for the rest of us.
as you well know, if kids begin to understand the microscopic building blocks of life, they will inevitably seek even more knowledge. They will learn about the atom and the power of nuclear fission.
We all know that anyone who has DNA, also has an atoms. Anyone with atoms probably builds bombs. Anyone who would build a bomb is a terrorist. ergo, anyone with DNA is likely to be a terrorist. We don’t want our children to know about the little things do we? we don’t want to raise a generation of godless atomic DNA terrorists. Wait… isn’t DNA an ACID? anyone with DNA is a drug user!
The entire concept of DNA is a lie from the pit of hell, as it contradicts God’s Word:
Gen. 30:37-39: And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
I’m sending a large donation to your organization, SCROTM. Thank you for your kind and insightful comment.
LOL this is a joke right ? u know what last time i pulled one of the hairs of mu balls i was wondering if it was a sin because they dont mention about pulling pubes of ur balls in the bible !
What the heck? A DNA Strand? Biology shows way more “riskier” things, heck, the miracle of life video pops into mind. I don’t see why parents are getting wound up over a DNA strand, it IS what we are made up of and GOD DID create our DNA so we would be different from each other. They should find something better to pick at instead of a freaking sculpture of something you’d see all over a science book.
Like who the hell didn’t know this already? Do you have to see a giant DNA structure to know DNA exists?
I think the religious right are unaware that they do not have the right to go through life without being “unoffended.” I find them offensive, and yet I’d still fight for their rights to spew hateful garbage and worship their invisible sky father. I can allow for differing beliefs in the world, but they aren’t satisfied unless everyone agrees with them.
read the footnote!
Okay, I can see why the kids laughed. First, it’s a VERY abstract representation of DNA, which is, of course hydrogen bonded stacks of proteins, and not one big molecule that looks like the banister on an impossibly long spiral staircase. Second, That looks like Cytosine up front there. Why is it Green? EVERYBODY know cytosine is light blue – cyan for cytosine…. sheesh! ;oD
*sigh* Yeah, it’s a damn shame that we have to expose our children to scientific concepts instead of good old-fashioned bull. Here’s one for you: If Gawd had wanted you to read the bible, he would have etched it into the insides of your eyelids instead of making Gutenburg do all the work. Better yet, if Gawd didn’t want your children exposed to DNA, he wouldn’t have let them see the damn sculpture in the first place!
Huh? What’s the big deal?
Yeah, about that ‘creation’ thingy, people.
See, I was eating nachos during that whole week-long light-it-up/let’s-make-a-universe keg party, and with this Glorious Flowing Beard, yeah, well, see, some guacamole (whackamole??) sort of ‘dripped’ off the beard into that ‘primordial ooze’ crap, and you dimwits popped up. Who’d-a thunk it? Scared the shit out of me, I can tell you.
But you are all much, much, much scarier now. Thanks.
Oh, and what’s-yer-name? It’s spelled ‘criticize’.
As for the rest of you, it’s a ‘multiverse’, not a ‘universe’. I’m not some one-trick pony, you know. Just because _you_ don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Now. Go forth, read a book, smell a flower, pet a puppy, eat some fruit (NOT apples, tho…); and for cripes sake, use those damn brains I gave you! And quit fuckin’ around. There’s way too many of you for a Class 22-D planet as it is.
Hugs and kisses,
Bob (AKA GOD)
Heh. I got it by the end of the first paragraph. Yay for me.
…only in America, pathetic country..Dont you guys have anything usefull to do overthere?!?Mofo’s
a bloke from Holland!
There are no ‘blokes’ in Holland.
And you can’t label just one area as pathetic. From where I sit, you are all pretty pathetic.
It used to be, ‘In one ear and out the other’… now, with your ‘internet’, it’s ‘In one eye, no pause to wake up any remaining, functioning brain cells, out the other eye’.
No wonder the poor satirist is dazed, confused, and mightily depressed.
Love,
Bob (you know who
)
Religion should be destroyed.
People have shit instead of brains.
I’ve been saying that for 6000+ years! Religion(s) are not my idea… you sick little monkies came up with that all on your own. And what you have done with all these religions, _then_, you turn around and drag _me_ into it! Well, get a life. In your wars, hate, and prejudice, I am on no-ones side. Man, that pisses me off! This “We will be victorious because Bob is on OUR side!!!!!” What a steaming load of human brains.
May I have mercy on your… whatevers.
As for the composition of those marvelous brains? Does ‘ashes to ashes, dust to dust’ mean nothing to you all? And you all must be full of it, because you shit every day, yet still have brains!
Me dammit! I need a break and a nice fattie.
Mellow out, you mud-monkies.
Sorry for the rant, those silly Scientologists are at it again. Now, _there’s_ some brains in the terlit.
Love,
Bob
How can this be true? Did I get redirected to the Onion? WTF?
This is exactly why dumb people should not be allowed to express their opinion.
“A small mind is easily filled with faith”
Read The Footnotes people… lol, he’s proving a point…
I give you humans all BRAINS, and THIS is how you use them?
You know, I do find it interesting that DNA lies at the root of this whole discussion both the elements that are aware of what underlies this discussion and those who evidently do not. I see this as two intertwined strands of reality mixing together and spawning new thoughts, some contributing further to the discussion and some merely dropping out without effect. Very well crafted. Bravo! Encore, Encore!
This sculpture just ruined my day… MY EYES ARE BURNING!!!!!
I grew up in Oakland, and I played on this structure when I was a kid. It’s been there for over 13 years! And now its being called offensive? Parents, get a clue. This structure helps open kids minds to science and all the possibilities that they can be a scientist, or a doctor, or a marine biologist! (I’m referencing the big whale that’s on the same promenade as the helix at LHS.) My parents are devout Christians, my mother especially, and she encouraged me to play on the structure! If anything, I’d be more worried about kids falling off the thing and breaking their neck. But let’s not get sue-happy here. It’s a great structure that gives kids some time to just imagine and play, while their parents can get some rest on nearby benches after prodding them through the museum for several hours.
all right, so I got conned by the article. everyone laugh all you want.
It’d be funnier, though, if you responded the same way to the original article, regarding the nude sculptures. I can see it:
“My parents are devout Christians, my mother especially, and she encouraged me to play on the structure!”
In a way, it’s kinda sad that we’re so scared of our own bodies (at least a relatively small portion of them), we accept without argument the idea that nudity of any kind is “offensive.” That, to me, makes no sense.
First off, God did not invent microscopes and cameras, man did. But he did allow man to make them as part of their free will.
Secondly, It’s art and as such will be interpreted differently by each person. Therefore, they are entitled to their own opinions, but may have over-reacted a bit.
I used to think I was jaded, but ignorance like this genuinely shocks me. Mr. John Copeland must be the smallest-minded and least enlightened individual ever!
This does irritate me. The Bible is not and never claims to be a scientific text book. Even though the letters “DNA” are no where in the Bible it is alluded to in PS. 139:16…
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were
written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
(Psalm 139:16, King James)
This is about stupid creationists trying to ban something they don’t like. Or just stupid people trying to ban something they don’t like. They shold be restricted so they don’t pose a danger to themselves or – especially – to others
Richard Vernon, you are a very, very NAUGHTY BOY! You march yourself upstairs THIS MINUTE! No supper for you, young man!
He definitely is a very naughty boy, and he’ll be getting another spanking when all this is over.
You’re right, no one reads footnotes. Which is kind of awesome, because it makes for some hysterical comments.
Oh, no! The parents actually have to talk to their children now?! OMG! that part pissed me off the most. hey, if the parents are religious, here’s an easy way to explain it, “DNA is the coding God used to create us.” knowing something about science is not going to make kids atheist. Kids are naturally curious, so they’re going to ask questions about everything they see. Some parents are just so stupid! The parents are the ones that are damaging them by making a big deal out of nothing.
ok, a minute later, and I feel stupid for writing a pissed-off reply to this. damn I’m tired, and I need to lay off the booze. I would’ve been able to read the footnotes before if my vision wasn’t so blurry right now
Sounds like me when I wrote the damn thing.
THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. That’s considered an invalid method of inquiry, rationality, or debate.
If you want to discuss whether nudity is bad or not, then focus on that. Although the naked body does not offend me, I can easily see why some people would be offended. For example the sight of DNA doesn’t make male penises become erect, or horny girls wet their panties. Someone who is against nudity could reasonably make that argument that DNA sculptures are okay, but not naked bodies, based upon the preceding point.
Please refrain from using strawman arguments.
The people who don’t want to see nudity are not mindless strawmen.
I accept that it’s an imperfect analogy — we don’t see DNA. However, the argument stands on its own that there should be a rational reason behind perpetuating the taboo against nudity. You imply that it has to do with the desire not to get hard or wet, but you don’t take it to the next level of the argument to determine whether there is something harmful in getting hard or wet. As a matter of fact, you’re implying that there is something harmful with our natural sexual reactions, which is exactly what I’m targeting — the behaviorally induced “ick” factor that has no rational justification.
Instead of attacking my argument based on what you see as a strawman, support your argument that sexuality ought to be allowed to be treated negatively, as taboo.
You are unbelievable !
Happy not living in the Ameria
Yes god saw fit to hide this from the naked eye but he gave man the ability to create a device (the microscope) to reveal unto us what we are made of. Get out of the bible and into reality! The bible is not meant to be taken word for word its a story of what happened 2000 + years ago. If you cannot accept real life without the bible being your planner than you need a reality check! I see nothing wrong with a piece of art that doubles as a playground piece awesome that it depicts the human dna! And if you’re afaid to talk to your 7 y/o daughter or son about dna I hope and pray they go to some one else to find out about sex and babies! Other wise they will go through their lives thinking ‘the stork brought me here!’ Get some balls and tell them the truth about human life yes god may have put us here but tell about of fasinating the structure of the human body is with the dna and cells etc! Don’t look at this in a negative light. Take it in your power as a learning opportunity and it will be better all around because if you answer their small questions about this it will prepare you for even bigger questions for when the get older. So its not only a learning opportunity for them but a growing opportunity for you!
[...] recent oft-misunderstood DNA satire article focused on a sculpture in Berkeley (although the basis for the satire was elsewhere with an [...]
I do not recall any where in the constitution or the bill of rights any reference protecting any of us from being offended. I myself am mightily offended by the following, a short list.
Churches
Crosses
Stars of david
Any large tax exempt property owned by a religious institution
Being gay, I am offended by all displays of heteroseualism
Public kissing
People with children who thereby demonstrate that they fuck
The two party political system
Rush Limbaugh
The Pope
Dust
The fact that at 57 I still get zits
Who the fuck to I write to to stop all these offensive things?
Hah, +1!
What kind of world do we live in where an aspect of life as important, and real, as DNA can be called obscene? It’s sad. It’s pathetic! I see statues of naked angels and men being crucified on a cross and THOSE aren’t obscene? Honestly, which is more scary to kids? A colorful strand of DNA or someone nailed to a giant piece of wood?
Satire win, LMAO
[...] Didn't you know DNA is offensive? If you didn't, you do now. DNA Sculpture is "Vile and Offensive" [...]
I suggest that every atheist, every scientist begin complaining about crosses displayed in front of or on top of churches. I find these offensive. I have to explain to my children why a wizard had to sacrifice his own son (which may or may not have actually been the wizard) by nailing him to a cross to forgive the sins of other people that he could have just forgiven.
I find the crucifix offensive. Why should my children have to see the horrific death of a person. That’s similar to me wearing a necklace with an electric chair and a death row inmate strapped into it.
I wonder what the effect of that would be. My guess is that it would just be more censorship. Just like Ireland. Oh no, them atheists are actually starting to get organized and criticize us! We can’t handle it, so we’ll outlaw it! Yeah!
It’s really hard to exercise rights granted by a constitution when the government created by that constitution is made up of people wholly opposed to granting those rights to anyone with opinions or beliefs that differ from their own.
So sad how so few commenters realized this article was a satire on another, real article. To all those who come after me, do yourself a favor and become acquainted with Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html.
There is a simple reason why the Bible says nothing about DNA….
The Bible is PURE FICTION – and farmers at the time didn’t understand anything other than looking up at the sky and singing prayers!
True enough.
I find it interesting, though, that the bible purports to say that originally nudity was acceptable, but then Eve committed the original sin, which manifested itself by having Eve and Adam ashamed of their nudity and covering it up. If even remotely accepted as a moral lesson, isn’t it that nudity is good because that’s how God made us, and that shame is bad? So, why do the religious become so offended at nudity and successfully impose that as a moral principle upon the rest of society?
I know there have been many excellent replies to this story, but I have to add my piece. I’m going to be up front about this and let everyone know that I am not very religious in the sense of worship. I am, however, educated in religion. I don’t understand how the double helix can be deemed offensive. It is a genetic structure that most often resembles a geometric sculpture. I’m sorry, but it’s not as if someone sculpted giant genitalia and put it on display. I mean, which would you rather have? A simple sculpture or a giant genital organ on the sidewalk?
So… what’s “offensive” about a sculpture of giant genitalia on display?
Personally, I’d rather have giant genitalia. Oh, sorry, yeah, on the sidewalk, too. Not every idiot knows what a double helix is, but boy, oh boy, they understand what big genitals on a sidewalk are.
According the bible? There should be nothing as stated earlier about Eve commiting sin therefore shouldn’t shame be the sin? Or is the story just to show that humans are sinful and that because of Eve, sin had to created, it all started because of her?
Ooh, deep.
And confusing. I say “NO” to the idea of sin, the idea of obscenity.
Isn’t obscenity a more modren and thought confusing way of saying sin though? Is it obscene to sin? Is sin obscenity? Or neither?
I’m confused… these people are offended by a scultpure of…. DNA?? seriously?
No. People were offended by nudity, and this article is a satire trying to show how silly it is to be offended by the stuff that we’re made of. Another purpose of the article is a skepticism test.
The people in this artice are ignorant morons who are blinded by thier faith and too narrow minded to realise that there are other people, with other opinions that are considerably wiser and better informed than their own. I personally think that the ideas behind the sculptures are inspiring and help children, and adults alike, to better understand science and the human biology. Also, I belive that if the people object so strongly to this, then they should be reacting equally ignorant and objecting to their childrens entire modern education!
I would like to add that I have no problem with Christianity or indeed any other religion, I only have a problem with ignorant and small minded people who use the product of science to insult science itself. If you hate science so much, go and join the Amnish and stop bothering the rest of us.
Would you apply that same analysis to all human biology?
wow people really don’t read footnotes.
satire ftw.
The subtlety of satire is relative. Yours got lost in the background noise.
we can prove it exists. you can see it. this it far more tame than the logo used by religious assholes that show the bloody murder of a man being nailed to a cross.thats fine to see, but fuck if we see some real science.