Here’s an interesting example of Icelandic humor:

Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school.

In reality, however, many of the world’s leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.

Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.

4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.

5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.

6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.

(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and
Stork Science, University of Helsinki)

(English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research, University of
Alberta)

Via a Science Jokes page from somewhere in the Netherlands.

This would be a good time to think about the whole Red-state abstinence education business, which is sort of related to the storks-bring-babies joke.

It’s pretty clear that in Blue-states, or, more accurately, in places where comprehensive sex education is provided, rates of promiscuity, precocious sexual intercourse, venereal disease transmission, and unwanted/early pregnancy are much lower than in areas that take an abstinence-only approach.

The key question, though, is whether this is cause or effect? I don’t know. Intuition suggests that education makes a difference — I received very comprehensive sex ed (though church no less) and compared to our thoroughly red-state school-mates we didn’t have sex any more often but when we finally did we seemed to enjoy it more and we sure as hell got pregnant less frequently.

But was that a universal or local effect? The fact that our parents signed us up for classes developed by our comparatively progressive denomination, suggest we were already influenced by their values. Would a conservatively-raised kid from down the street have reacted the same way if invited to our program or would, as conservatives fear, it have the only further degenerated whatever passes for Red-inculcated moral restraint?