Creationist textbooks are garbage, creationist textbooks are garbage, creationist textbooks are garbage

27

 A report issued earlier this year by Harvard University’s Program on Education Policy and Governance concluded that U.S. students are failing to bridge the educational chasm separating them from their foreign peers1. “Textbooks” like this one will help ensure that things stay that way:

 

 


Written By: Robert T. Gonzalez
continue to source article at io9.com

27 COMMENTS

  1. There is a great Nova (a US science show on PBS) special called Judgement Day: Intelligent Design (ID) on Trial. Its about the case in the US where a Dover PA school board was taken to court by US citizens who didn’t want ID taught in public schools. The revelations about just how empty ID is as a theory, that its really just all a scam not actual science or even actual scholarship, was just so obvious. One of the things that the ID people always claim is that their theory is nothing like Creationism. A detailed look at one of their main texts revealed that someone had done a find/replace on the document to replace Creationism with Intelligent Design, and hadn’t even bothered to clean up things like resulting grammar inconcistencies. There are also countless examples where the ID people make empirical claims that are easily refuted. The distinction between rigor, integrity, and detail on the evolution side and “lets make it up as we go” on the ID side was quite dramatic. Its a great show, available on DVD.

  2. Wow… is that textbook for real? Really?

    If it is, then the USA is totally doomed – you cannot seriously expect your children to have a chance against their peers in the rest of the world in the future if you are filling their heads with such, well, garbage…

    It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad…

  3. In reply to #4 by Anvil:

    This wouldn’t be a textbook from a normal US school though, would it?

    I can’t seem to find a source?

    Anvil.

    I’d hope not… Hard to imagine a country that has the third highest number of atheists in the world (that stat must really make the Christofascists’ blood boil) letting something like that be part of the main curriculum…

  4. Red Dog…. I second your recommendation of this show. It bitch slaps these assholes. The judge at this trial was a creationist, appointed by George Bush!!! Even he was swayed by the testimony of the evolutionists and the lack there of on the part of the IDers. I show clips of the movie in my Advanced biology classes.
    In reply to #1 by Red Dog:

    There is a great Nova (a US science show on PBS) special called Judgement Day: Intelligent Design (ID) on Trial. Its about the case in the US where a Dover PA school board was taken to court by US citizens who didn’t want ID taught in public schools. The revelations about just how empty ID is as a theory, that its really just all a scam not actual science or even actual scholarship, was just so obvious. One of the things that the ID people always claim is that their theory is nothing like Creationism. A detailed look at one of their main texts revealed that someone had done a find/replace on the document to replace Creationism with Intelligent Design, and hadn’t even bothered to clean up things like resulting grammar inconcistencies. There are also countless examples where the ID people make empirical claims that are easily refuted. The distinction between rigor, integrity, and detail on the evolution side and “lets make it up as we go” on the ID side was quite dramatic. Its a great show, available on DVD.

  5. I suspect this is a textbook used by homeschoolers. After following this curriculum, the only job these students will be qualified for will be senators and congressmen.

    God help us all.

  6. OK, I’ll bite ! So “God created all things”, according to this spurius textbook.

    This could be quite a long list, but leaving out the nice cuddly furry animals, some with sharp teeth who could eat us, God also created the snake in the Garden of Eden, along with all other snakes and lizards. Let’s not forget all the harmful (to humans), bacteria, viruses, parasites of various kinds including Ebola, AIDs, T.B. malaria plus vector, along with the various forms of cancer, disease and all the other suffering that humanity knows about too well.

    And these authors want kids to worship Him ! Now what was His name again ? Yaweh, Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Thor, Zeus, Aphrodite, Dionysus, Ra,………… ?

  7. Mr Darcy

    That business about the talking snake has always intrigued me for one reason. According to Genesis, God created everything and it was perfect in every detail. He got Adam to name every creature, presumably incl snakes. Now everything , “pre-Fall” was supposedly perfect, no carnivores, no death, no tsunamis and so on.

    But the snake had evil intent. So it WASNT perfect.

    I have never seen a good explanation from a theist on this, a glaring contradiction in the first few verses. Most of them come up with lame, woeful arguments that simply dont ring true.

    Even the late James Montogmery Boice (a well respected evangelical of the less “shrill” variety) couldnt come up with anything other than this:

    http://www.ldolphin.org/satan.html

    Happy New Year!

    SG

  8. My answers to all the questions and points on the textbook page shown:

    What is obviously wrong with the statement “all matter evolved from nothing” is that it is not a valid statement of any part of the Theory Of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution only applies to living organisms and their origin. The origins of matter are described by the Big Bang Theory, the reason you mix the two up is because YOU ARE IGNORANT.

    This fact (or you are just lying, [or both]) also explains why you think “most honest scientists have been forced to embrace theistic evolution”, no GOOD scientist will have MAGIC as part of any scientific theory.

    According to Peter 3:5, Goddidit by magic, now THAT’S ridiculous and unscientific (to use your own words), one also wonders why you don’t cite the Book of Genesis as a source.

    We know how THE BIBLE describes those who reject GOD, but that does not amount to evidence for how God describes those who reject CREATIONISM, nor does it in any way amount to evidence creationism being right, nor for God’s existence.

    “God is saying …”: should read “We say (but we don’t have evidence)…”

  9. In reply to #18 by scottishgeologist:

    Now everything , “pre-Fall” was supposedly perfect, no carnivores, no death, no tsunamis and so on.

    But the snake had evil intent. So it WASNT perfect.

    If everything was absolutely perfect, then God created the devil intentionally to cause problems. If God would have been a better designer, Adam and Eve wouldn’t have lesser mental faculties to fall for his trick. Then Jesus his only son would not have to be sacrificed for a problem that God created. You would think that an all-knowing, omniscient, powerful being like God would have seen some holes in his plot. That’s why lots of religions/people decided to interpret the Genesis story as symbolic. By doing so, a pretty picture can be painted. Also, any inconsistencies in the story can be accounted and corrected. The problem then becomes – which symbolic metaphysical version of the Genesis story is the correct one? Ah! I know. It’s the one in which God creates humans equal to him, so instead Adam and Eve acted like rebellious teens and rejected their all-loving God the Father. It’s we humans that rejected God and left the garden. You have to leave the nest sometime after all. A deep sleep fell upon Adam causing him to forget his divine nature. That’s it! nowhere in the Bible does it say that Adam woke up; Eve on the other hand was wide awake – proving the spiritual superiority of women. Men, sleep walking through life, disliked this power that women had over them and desperately tried to control all females. Hence, we see the roots of misogynistic behavior.

    The whole problem with a metaphysical version of Genesis is that it is an event that never happened. To “rewrite” a false story to correct the perception still does not make it truthful. It just weaves more complex stories. People are then told to take it as a metaphysical story that is to represent some sort of personal journey you are on that will lead to understanding of yourself. OK, fine, but it is still an attempt to link your personal experience with a God belief. It does not take the extra step and question the existence or relevance of a God.

  10. Only three explanations can be given for the existence of all matter.

    No, I’m sure I’ve heard more than three.

    A. The collective consciousness of Us humans created the illusion of matter and this world.

    B. Anansi the spider had something to do with it.

    (I can’t seem to type 4 and 5; they change to 1 and 2)

  11. In reply to #18 by scottishgeologist:

    That business about the talking snake has always intrigued me for one reason. According to Genesis, God created everything and it was perfect in every detail. He got Adam to name every creature, presumably incl snakes. Now everything , “pre-Fall” was supposedly perfect, no carnivores, no death, no tsunamis and so on.

    I remember causing quite a controversy in my high school English class when someone argued that everything has beauty because God created everything and he saw that it was all good, and I remarked that God would naturally think that his handiwork was “good” because it was his own work! That everything is good is God’s biased opinion!

  12. First let’s dismiss the opening ignorant assertion: “Only three explanations can be given for the existence of all matter.”
    WRONG! – There can be as many explanations as there are hypotheses.
    Science will eventually falsify the mistaken ones (which have not already been shown to be false, unevidenced, or very unlikely) .. … and then will have substantiated theories remaining.

    Let’s take the questions !

    what is obviously wrong with the statement of atheistic evolutionism
    (ie That all matter evolved from nothing) ?

    What is wrong, is that the author is scientifically illiterate, incapable of doing competent research, and has mixed up points 2 & 3 on the list or ignorant assertions, describing RCC theistic evolution as “atheistic”. Science apparently does not get a mention!

    This is a Roman Catholic statement of theistic evolution!

    On God the Creator, the Vatican Council was very clear. The definitions preceding the “anathema” (as a technical term of Catholic theology, let him be “cut off” or excommunicated, cf. Galatians 1:6–9; Titus 3:10–11; Matthew 18:15–17) signify an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Faith (De Fide):

    On God the creator of all things  - [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution )
    

    1.5 If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

    Re. The following questions; – Anyone who takes this question begging nonsense seriously needs to write out 100 times:- “Only Education duffers regard the bible as a historical record, or a science text book, – and then they need to go and find some competent and honest teachers!

Leave a Reply