41 COMMENTS

  1. Even leaving out the God crap, there is so much wrong with this that I don’t know where to start.  “Evolutionists”? What’s wrong with saying biologists or scientists?  Oh, right – that would make evolution sound too credible.  And that whole description of fossils and geologic “layers” was just jaw-droppingly stupid and wrong.  My four-year-old nephew (a dinosaur fanatic) could point out the mistakes in it.  And they have us “evolutionists” claiming that the world is “millions of years old” – off by a a couple of orders of magnitude.  This isn’t presenting both “theories” – it’s just a thinly-veiled religious mockery of evolution.  And then people living in the Deep South wonder why they get caricatured and laughed at by the rest of the world.  Well…this travesty of education is one of the reasons.

  2. How can anyone expect children to achieve standards in science when their text-books are written by scientific illiterates who just make up their pseudo-facts and present ignoramus crap as equivalent or superior to scientific evidence – or in the case of these science  illiterates,  strawman pseudoscientific pseudo-evidence.

    @link –  “Evolutionist viewpoint –  man is the highest level of animal”

    Incompetent rubbish! – demonstrating an author with the lowest levels of intellect and research capability – even before we look at the creationist nonsense!

    Text book writer – school biology level –  Fail minus

    Write out a hundred times:
    The BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK! – and then go and do an introductory science course.

  3. It is so sad that these poor children are being fed such junk.  So much better if they could read *real* books on the subject.  One of my favorites was “The Map that Changed the World,” which tells the story of William Smith and how he came to learn how to read the layers in the Earth.  He wanted to learn how to find coal and he wound up discovering the immense age of the Earth. Let them read that!

  4. Wow, I’m astonished at the framing and language used, this reads like a hack job from some backwards ignoramus pastor.

    I guess this is what you get when you don’t have federal standards and leave everything to Tom, Dick, and Harry.

  5. Carbon dating for fossils eh?  Carbon dating is no good for old stuff. It only works up to about 60000 years. Much older stuff requires different radiometric dating methods.

    Carbon dating is more of an archaeological tool than a geological one.

    And as for that “simple life forms would all be buried in the lowest layer of rock” fails to take into account earth movements, folding overthrusting and so on. “way up criteria” are a critical factor in evaluating stratigraphical relationships.

    But then, i suppose if your timescale is 6000 years, and plate tectonics is all attributable to Noahs Flood, then, well, anything is possible.

    Poor kids, getting this sort of nonsense…

    SG

  6. So let’s have a look at this cretinist’s understanding of real science! 
    http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/stati

    Evolutionist Viewpoint –
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
    Earth and space are the result of a sudden explosion.

    ☺ The formation of the Earth from an accretion disk is far remote from the big-bang. Billions of years and light years away.

    The earth is millions of years old.

    ☺Wrong! The Earth is billions of years old.

    Fossils show the great geologic ages of the of the earth.

    ☺Wrong! For the most part the rocks show the ages of the fossils and of the Earth.

    Differnet kinds of life have gradually evolved over long periods of time.

    ☺ Hey look a correct answer! 

    Man is the highest level of animal.

    ☺ Wrong!  Evolution does not have “high or low levels”.  – Just levels of complexity or specialisation.

    It then goes on to offer cretinist books and articles, without any mention of scientific methods  or evidence.

    It also mentions Carbon14, (which is unsuitable for dating objects which are millions of years old because of its relatively short half-life).

    . . .. . . evolved into new complex forms of life.
    If this were true, simple life forms would all be buried in the lowest layer of rock.    … .. . . .complex and simple fossils are sometimes found in the same rock layer.

    CoRRR!  – Quick stop the headline news!  
    ☺ New Louisiana biological discovery!!!!!!
    Cattle and bacteria found to be living on Earth at the same time!
     
    Who would have believed it???????????

  7. @rdfrs-87115ae0d309915a4e8d74a706aeae16:disqus 
    This is exactly why (on another thread) I had a rant about the “standards” and testing school kids.  It is a bad joke, perpetrated on thinkers by groups of stupid people that have gained power.

  8. This is definitely disturbing (on many levels). However, to clarify, this textbook is not being used in Louisiana’s public schools. If you click on “some state-sponsored schools”, it will take you to this link, which explains that the textbook is apparently being used in some of Louisiana’s charter schools. Although charter schools do receive state funding, they’re technically not public schools (for reference, charter schools are roughly equivalent to England’s “free schools”). 

    Charter schools are extremely problematic for many reasons. For example, they take money away from public schools, and, worse, in some states (including Louisiana), there’s little to no oversight regarding their curriculum, etc. The fact that textbooks of this sort are being used in any school that receives state funding is extremely problematic and potentially illegal, but the schools in question are not public schools. That’s cold comfort, I know, but, if this textbook were being used in public schools, this would be a much bigger problem and would almost certainly be illegal.

  9. Theseare not public school or charter schools. They are (fundamentalists) private schools
    that receive public funds. As atrocious as this “science” curriculum
    is (and I abhor it) the public schools in Louisiana and in
    many parts of the south are so bad private schools are the only option. Forced
    bussing back in the 60s and 70s caused most white families to flee the
    public schools and killed public education. The courts are slowly getting rid
    of this non-sense, but there are no easy solutions. Most of the public funds are not
    going to schools that preach this garbage and there aren’t any good options for
    low and middle income families.  Watch “Waiting for Superman” and you will get an idea of why parents are forced to expose their children to this.

  10. Dear MiCe :) Here in the UK, last year, we had some “disturbing” Cretonist ‘science’ textbooks to deal with. But dont worry, our govt. Educ.Min.Michael Gove MP, has signed the petition below. (I think?) Also, you may like to know, that some UK university science librarians were sent a lovely copy of the creationist tome, “Explore Evolution” – and promptly catalogued and shelved it in the ‘Biological Sciences’ section – right next to Prof.Dawkins books. Wasn’t that so ‘accommodating’ of them! But don’t be disturbed – we dealt with those as well and had them removed to ‘Theology’.  http://bcseweb.blogspot.co.uk/

  11. It’s unbelievable that places as civilized as America are force feeding this total rubbish into young children’s minds. As a 14 year old student in south Yorkshire it is simply astounding that any adults could teach this on a curriculum to such suggestible minds!

  12. Hey Little Boy98,
    I am impressed that you are here and voicing your opinion.  Welcome.  i am a 45 year old Biology (and Chemistry) teacher here in the US and I need you and everyone else to know that this is not business as usual.  

    Where I teach, we have entire units spent on Evolution and I introduce every science class i teach with a lecture informing the students that all paranormal beliefs are bullshit as are ideas about magic and ESP and the Loch ness monster and homeopathy…etc….

    So, while many examples of this ridiculous drivel can be offered, most public schools in the US are delivering a good product.

  13. Science exclusively studies natural phenomena based on “hard”, independently verifiable evidence.  Thus by definition, science has no choice but to omit anything “super natural”. So then why are people who believe in the supernatural so intent on interjecting their worldview into a discipline that expressly ignores it?

  14. Words fail me…I am utterly outraged, along with all the other posters, at this foul presentation of reality to young minds!  Molestation of young intellects on a grand scale, nothing less.  On top of it all, ‘…man makes judgement; …a man who believes; when men  write… -what about women scientists?  What about scientists or science?  Not a mention but plenty of God instead!  I don’t care what kind of school it is meant for, it is wrong and ugly for the purpose of any school; I wouldn’t want children in a madrasa to be taught such drivel, shame, shame, shame!

  15. The states logic……I drink a glass of whiskey with water,I drink a glass of rum with water,I drink a glass of vodka with water,I drink a glass of gin with water,I get DRUNK,it follows then; that, because each has a common ingredient WATER then WATER causes me to get drunk.

  16. It seems that these books are used in state-subsidized religious schools, and they should be made to face up to the problems they cause in the real world.

    Students taught using these text books should be flagged as unacceptable for entry into public high schools, colleges or universities.  The re-education, time-wasting & disruption they cause will be expensive, and would be unfair to classmates who were taught real knowledge & critical thinking.

    If they have a tier of religiously funded education from grade school to university those students can stay within, then let them, and the limited & lower level careers available to them will drive their system into extinction.

  17.  “So, while many examples of this ridiculous drivel can be offered, most public schools in the US are delivering a good product.”

    If this were true USA wouldn’t be the only developed nation to have half of its population denying science.

    You have a huge problem.

  18. Just wanted to empathise with the majority of the comments posted here already.

    This is wrong on so many levels, it hurts just thinking about it…

    I truly feel sorry for the kids who have to put up with this ‘education’ – and who will grow up in a world where their country has been overtaken by China and possibly other countries too…

    Not that I have anything against China as such, you understand – but it will be such a culture shock to the average US citizen when they realise that they are no longer top dog on planet Earth – and so much of that will be down to a lack of education…

  19. rickysue
      When will the Flood return and drown these fools?

    Many of these evolution denying fools, are climate/ice-melt/sea-level denying fools as well , so a not too distant hurricane season could be the time.

    Louisiana was not well prepared for Katrina, and science is not a strong point in its rulers, or in its education system. 
    I suppose they could conduct an experiment with prayer, but I don’t think nature is likely to be very impressed with that!

    Let me think? 
    The power of the planet V the power of prayer? 
    Any bets??

  20. Does anyone have any info on that actual material depicted above and also on the buzzfeed site? Is it an actual textbook or some form of teaching notes. I am particularly intrigued by that “polystrate” fossil picture. I tried a bit of advanced googling for it and also the name of the photographer to who it is attributed. Cant find anything. Not a thing.

    I am not even sure what that is supposed to be in that pic. The caption refers to “a” (singular) “polystrate” fossil. But there are two objects that clearly cut the bedding in what looks like an iron rich sandstone.

    But there are two of these brown things which almost look like artifacts. One of them is clearly standing proud of the rock. Looks almost like some sort of iron/steel that has served some sort of anchoring purpose in the rock.

    On the LHS at the lower side of the pic is what looks like an enlargement of the same sort of thing, or is it another “fossil” cutting the strata but much wider. Kinda hard to tell.

    I am genuinely intrigued by what is in that pic. Need to run it past some of my more academic colleagues to get some ideas.

    Anyone got any ideas?

    SG

  21. scottishgeologist
      I am not even sure what that is supposed to be in that pic. The caption refers to “a” (singular) “polystrate” fossil. But there are two objects that clearly cut the bedding in what looks like an iron rich sandstone.

    Given that it is written by scientific illiterates, they may well think that “polystrate” is a species when copying from some cretinist text!!!!

    Frankly I don’t know or care what they cannot understand or what terminology they make up to try to impress!

     Fossils crossing bedding planes is not unusual – some actually were buried in (local) floods, tidal currents, shifting dunes, tsunamis or volcanic ash layers.

    I have seen loads of fossil tree-fern trunks, with roots in shale and trunks in multi layers of sandstone, where the wood has slowly rotted away after they were buried, and the “impressed mould” has later filled with sand to form a sandstone fossil.

    Polystrate fossil – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P
    A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum.[1]

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
    This term is typically applied to “fossil forests” of upright fossil tree trunks and stumps that have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata.[2]

    Within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata, it is also very common to find what are called Stigmaria (root stocks) within the same stratum.
     Stigmaria are completely absent in post-Carboniferous strata, which contain either coal, polystrate trees, or both.
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
    The word polystrate is not a standard geological term.
    This term is typically only found in creationist publications.
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ 

    The crentist inference is that multiple strata prove Noah’s flood! – But you can’t expect blinkered cretinists to actually scientifically INTERPRET geology!
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
    Ancient in situ lycopsid, probably Sigillaria, with attached stigmarian roots. Specimen is from the Joggins Formation (Pennsylvanian), Cumberland Basin, Nova Scotia.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi

  22. Yes, these fossils forests are very interesting. The thing is, there is some fascinating REAL geology to be found in situations like that. We dont need the fairy stories.

    I love the way that they have their own jargon  – that word “polystrate” for instance. Another good one is “Noachian” when referring to the Flood (note capital F). Sounds like some geological time period . As does that other ridiculous word “Pre-lapsarian”  to refer to the pre-Fall (another capital F) state of humanity…

    I think they reckon that these words convey a certain weight and kudos to the bilge they are spouting!

    SG

  23. scottishgeologist

    Have you come across “Baraminology” ? (Sometimes referred to as “barmy-ology” on this site.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B… – Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called “created kinds” or “baramins” (pronounced with accent on second syllable) according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible.
    Its proponents claim that kinds cannot interbreed and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.

    It is a sort of bendy ill-defined grouping of animals etc.

    ..A sort of simplistic moron’s alternative to the botanical/zoological, international rules of nomenclature!

    I think the purpose of such words is to spring them on those unfamiliar with this crap so as to appear intellectually superior in front of an audience.

    It would also obstruct poorly informed people who wanted to look up proper scientific terms.

  24. Alan4discussion

    Yes, I have come across that “baramin” nonsense before. From what I know about it , they derive the term from some vague ancient Hebrew word. Barmy would be a better term! Of course, like so much of this stuff that they derive from these ancient texts, nobody can be really certain. Its like Behemoth and Leviathin –  two more favourites of the YECs. Could mean anything, but they reckon that dinosaurs is what its about….  

    I like the way, that they have this term “baraminology” – the “-logy” bit gives it a patina of credibility (in their eyes anyway)  Makes it sound sort of sciencey .A bit like that useless word “theology”. Spoken of in hushed tones, of course,  brow furrowed, slight nodding of the head to emphasise the “intellect”, chin stroked gravely and much respect expected, nay, demanded!!!

    SG

Leave a Reply