A Note From Independent Lens

 

Independent Lens seeks to assure that its content offerings encourage a lively civic dialogue, and that they do not present only one point of view. In this spirit, this post has been removed but the comments left in place.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

View Talkback Guidelines >>

  • eclectra

    I was home schooled using A Beka books for a total of 6 years in the ’90s (many from the video looked familiar). I can testify that a) this does capture the basic flavor of the books, and b) it takes a while to get one’s brain unkinked in order to let in fresh air and more credible ideas after so much early-age brainwashing. Although science seems to be the focus of this feature, what stands out most in my memory is my 9th-grade government and economics book (A Beka), which was essentially a screed against communism and training in being a Republican. This struck me as odd, even as an isolated and brainwashed 14-year-old. Nonetheless, for a long time I thought that liberals were immoral, lazy freeloaders. Now I am one. =)

    • http://www.facebook.com/lordbeaker Eric Lilly

      You are a welcome addition ;)

    • tinwoman

      Congrats on thinking for yourself, Electra.

    • tinwoman

      I hear you. You are describing my whole family. It’s very sad.

    • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.p.wang.1 Andrew Patrick Wang

      Bad Christians are winning the publicity war in Christianity. If you want us to start believing that they are the minority, it is good to speak out against them. But I’d also suggest not insulting those whose good reputation you are seeking – in other words, you should have left off the last sentence, and possibly the second to last too, replacing it with evidence that you know many other open-minded homeschooling Christians like yourself.

      • http://www.facebook.com/tonicaddell.south Toni Caddell South

        I live in a small town now and am not in touch with other homeschoolers. I cannot give specific evidence but I know that a Christian curriculum for history we used had the readings of the Quran along with Bible readings. That curriculum is very popular and it is more open-minded in it’s viewpoint and encourages critical thinking. Why do I have to try and prove their are others open-minded homeschoolers when most on here are bashing homeschoolers and do not know much I assume about homeschooling at all. Where is their evidence that we are so narrow minded and want to take over America so they say? Ones posting here are basing it on some quotes that are probably taken out of context. The last sentence I said stands– Who on here is being open-minded about homeschoolers??They already have made up their minds.

        • http://twitter.com/ALifePaused Christopher Noyes

          “Why do I have to try to prove…..” Because when you make a statement as though it is fact, you need to cite examples to prove the truth of those statements. This is the most elementary of ideas behind an argument. Otherwise it’s really just opinion. Just the fact that you used argumentum ad hominem to try to defeat eclectra’s view proves that you lack the necessary critical thinking skills you purport to expound in your home schooling education. Add to that the fact that you are barely capable of spelling and grammar befitting a 7th grader, and the fact that you yourself made the claim that most faith based home schoolers are open minded, and critical thinking followed by your next post which said you didn’t know any other faith based home schoolers, and I’d say maybe your children would be better off in public school as you yourself lack the critical thinking skills necessary to have even the most simple of debates on the subject.

        • http://www.facebook.com/danton.mcdiffett Danton McDiffett

          You are homeschooling?? I hope you were just in a hurry typing your comment here, because you use “it’s” incorrectly (“it’s viewpoint” should be “its viewpoint”) as well as “their” (“their are others” should be “there are others”).

    • e123

      Of course religious education is going to be one-sided. They believe their religion is true so they are going to teach that it is true and that contradicting beliefs are false. And there are all sorts of groups that try to control the thinking of others and get people to agree with their views, religious and non religious. You can call them all cults, if you want. I agree though, there are different degrees of efforts to control and some groups are more deserving of being called a cult than others. Darwinists and anti-Christians believe what they believe and are going to be one sided as well. Bob Jones and Beka Books are going to say they are wrong. The view from this article is going to say Bob Jones and Beka Books are wrong. It’s good to have the freedom of opposing viewpoints to oppose one another under First Amendment freedoms. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.” Nobody’s voice should be silenced and nobody’s voice should be beyond criticism or dissent. Christians are some of the most open minded people I know. They are open to believing there is more to reality than what is observed in our daily lives. They are open to having faith. Sure, Christians can be close minded. Independent Fundamentalist Christians can be close minded. So can Muslims. So can Catholics. So can Hindus. So can atheists. So can anti-Christians, and so can Darwinists, who can be among the most closed minded from my own personal experience and observations.

      • Guest

        By the time a postulate becomes a theory it’s been tested and demonstrated over and over. where is your evidence that evolution is not fact in the science world? most scientists would disagree. BTW we still call Pluto, Pluto, it just falls under a new classification. Science itself evolves.

        • Phill

          A theory is a theory, it doesn’t become a theory, it always is a theory. Theories are explanations or webs of explanations, models, and ontologies of various complexity that we construct to understand the natural world. It doesn’t matter how well supported they are or how easily ruled out they are, they are still theories. String theory, for instance, has not be examined empirically, but it is still a theory, whether it turns out to be good or bad. Relativity theory was a theory before critical empirical predictions were observed–it just wasn’t accepted by physicists yet. I will go so far as to say that intelligent design is a theory, despite being an epistemic dead end. Irrespective of the fact that it fails the naturalism criterion, it is still a theory, no matter how problematic.

          The only reason I bring this up is that people often argue that theories are “proven facts” and that when religious people say “just a theory” they are mistaken about the meaning of theories. I would argue that both parties are mistaken, and that the argument itself is bad for science. First, scientists are generally not in the business of proving theories; they sometimes perform existence proofs, but this is more an exception than a rule. Mathematicians and logicians prove theorems, but scientists never (or rarely) prove theories, because proof is simply not possible the way it is in mathematics and logic (and even then, new discoveries in those fields sometimes render old proofs to be incorrect). Scientists (at least empirical scientists) engage in pragmatic interactions with the natural world to determine which theories best fit the consequences of those interactions. Second, as I suggested above, theories and facts are categorically different kinds of things. Evolution, as a phenomenon, can be proven to exist simply by the fact that flu viruses change from year. However, it takes an explanation, a variation and selection form of explanation, to understand why. Each year, enough human immune systems develop defenses against the prominent strain of flu virus to select it out, but variations of those strains that beat immune defenses are selected in. That’s a theory, even though it only applies to flu viruses. Evolutionary theory is more general than that, and it undergoes variations from time to time to account for different problems that arise in its study. However to treat it as a “proven fact” is naive and it denies science its power as a tool to root out errors and overturn extant problematic ideas.

      • Nick

        First of all, a scientific “theory” is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Evolution is not a “working theory,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Evolution is a proven “fact” in your understanding of the world. It’s how life as we know it exists, and has been observed and even controlled. Creationism, on the other hand, is verifiably false. The Earth is billions of years old, not 6500. Humans and dinosaurs never coexisted.

        Scientists also learn from incorrect hypotheses. Pluto is still a planet, it has just been reclassified as a micro planet because it’s actually less massive than Eris, another micro planet that rotates our sun. We’ll learn a considerable amount more about Pluto in 2015 as the New Horizons spacecraft passes it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/monica.barry.5 Monica Barry

        Your use of the word “Darwinist” pretty well indicates your anti-objective reality stance.

      • http://www.facebook.com/monica.barry.5 Monica Barry

        And here we have a perfect example of the harm that “textbooks” like those in the article cause.

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        remember when pluto was a planet

        Remember when the Earth was the center of the Universe?

        When science gets things wrong, they are corrected by science.

        When religion gets things wrong, they are corrected by science.

        Religion has yet to correct an error of science.

    • unity100

      hard work over many years into enlightenment is something more commendable than living in knee deep shit and then one day suddenly waking up when you go over the threshold. it means, you actually spent a conscious effort in a direction you vaguely felt to be true.

    • je

      If a passenger puts his faith in the pilots ability and training to fly the plane, it is still blind faith. We are all aware of human failings and limits- yet we get on the plane. You make logical points. I would not go to a mechanic whose only training was in ancient machines when my car was built this milenium. Nor would I get on a plane expecting angels to magically lift it up. I think many have operative misconceptions concerning faith and how it shapes the Christians view of the world and the impac on day to day life. Creation beliefs do not attempt to negate, dismiss, or disprove the laws of sience/physics. As a matter of fact most of the major scientific advances have been made by people of faith who most likely believed in a creation story. That is the undeniable historical context of science until recently. It bears proof that believing in creationism doesnt not inhibit one from engageiing in the scientific process when solving a problem or inventing a solution. Believing in evolution does not make a person automatically more qualified to be anything. I think what the quote meant was, that it is close minded to think that something can not be, just because it can not be proven in the present. The theory of the atom existed a long long time before technology evolved enough to prove the atom really existed.
      For most people of faith, creationism is a claim that the creation of the world wasn’t magic, chance or luck..that it was purposeful.. For most , Creationism does not attempt to say that the physical laws of the universe do not apply to how the world was created- but that there was a grand design, a master planner.The world exist, it didtn magically appear the same way sky scrappers and suspension bridges dont magically appear. The world was made according to the same laws of physics as buildings and bridges are made. To me the debate over whether or not there was an architect, is a silly thing to get hung up on and I usually do not engage in the arguement but there is a huge misconception about those “simple minded” believers and creationism. Articles like this perpetuate it. I really dont understand the negative emotion devout evolutionist harbor toward creationist. I learned and believed solely in evolution for most of my life and never once did I ever say to myself ” Man, if I didnt believe in evolution right now, I would really be screwed.” After converting to Christianity I have never caught myself saying “Thank God I dont believe in absolute evolutioin and the abscence of God any more or I would really be screwed”. Believing solely in evolution never contribute to my personal or professional life in any significant way-positive or negative. Believing in creationism it seems may have a negative impact not because of the belief but from the intolerance of others -judging from some of the vehement comments on here. THis PBS article is not well sourced and written from a vieled bias. In general practice, the Media highlights the crazy, fanatical and extreme. I am surprised PBS went with this as it does not meet the standards of well done journalism. I just wanted to share some insight with someone who seemed rational – creationism, as most christians interpret it, isnt as radical and unreconcilable with science as it is presented in this article. And we should not let the difference of opinion be used as a weapon to further devide and dehumanize those who dont agree with popular beliefs especailly when those beliefs really do no harm.

      • Phill

        “And we should not let the difference of opinion be used as a weapon to further divide and dehumanize those who don’t agree with popular beliefs especially when those beliefs really do no harm.”

        I certainly agree with you on that point. More harm than good comes from group polarization and the vilification of out-groups. I think that too often these discussions become about groups rather than about the more substantial issues at play.

        And I agree that for Christians and other theistic people, the idea that the universe and the lives of individuals have meaning and purpose bestowed by something bigger than the universe and individuals is important and seems to resolve a number of existential dilemmas. Personally, I think all that can be accomplished without recourse to supernatural beings and realms, but for most people, supernaturalism (as opposed to naturalism) is taken as being non-problematic. However, as a society, we have to be able to solve problems and make good decisions about how to approach them. Supernaturalism imposes impassable barriers to knowledge, which can make solving problems impossible. The reason for this is that supernatural claims can be neither evaluated nor falsified. They have to be taken at face value with no further inquiry possible. Most problematically, supernatural claims cannot be differentiated in terms of validity or veridicality, because without the ability to examine them (testing hypotheses about them, for instance), any one claim is just as good as the other.

        As for your point about evolution, maybe the theory of evolution was never directly relevant for any decision you have had to make, but the people who use models of biological functioning to produce, for instance, new or better treatments for diseases certainly need to understand and implement principles of evolution to do so. If kids are raised to believe that knowledge is just a matter of belief and faith rather than a matter of making decisions about how to solve problems, then our criteria for making decisions become subjective and solipsistic and make only incidental contact with the natural world. That may not be problematic for people who believe in an afterlife–after all, if you have eternal joy and enlightenment to look forward to, why bother making the best of this life and this world?–but for the rest of us it is crucial. Really, for all of us it is crucial.

        • je

          Creationism does not discount natural selection or the obvious observation that living organisms adapt over time. I appreciate your arguement but one of the foundations of our faith is that there is a very distict difference between wisdom, knowledge and faith. Faith can not be substituted for knowledge nor can knowledge be substituted for faith. Concerning this ” but the people who use models of biological functioning to produce, for instance, new or better treatments for diseases certainly need to understand and implement principles of evolution to do so.” For most of history, the scientific advancements made in western medicine were done so by Christians, who by account of their faith and upbringing, likely believed in the creation of the world by God. That belief did not inhibit them from discovering vaccines, pennicilin, radium (wich led to the use of X rays) pasturization – even Calculus was invented by a Christian. If you go back in history, the very idea that there was an entire unseen world was discovered, explored and pursued by Christian Men(a few women). Western culture during the lives of those scientist was much more influenced by faith than our world today- yet they did it. I suggest that history disproves your arguement.

          “That may not be problematic for people who believe in an afterlife–after all, if you have eternal joy and enlightenment to look forward to, why bother making the best of this life and this world?–but for the rest of us it is crucial. Really, for all of us it is”

          This though, really stings, this hurts my heart that people see christians in this light. Yes, we believe that this world is not our final destination but do you really truely believe that we dont care about this world, or making the world a better place while we are here? How did that happen? That idea is in absolute contrast to how we are called to live. Christian litterally means “like little Christ” What you say in your quote is not a reflection of Christ’s life or our faith at all. I am so sorry if your interactions with other Christians has left you with this impression….In our faith serving mankind honors God, we are called on to be “good stewards” of this world -in other words we should take good care of it while we are here. Also, above all we are told to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. If someone claims to be a Christian then you should at least see some evidence of those beliefs in their life. If you dont see any of that , then know that they are not living their faith as they proclaim.( this can be applied to Westboro! most Christians agree they do not represent Christ – Christ never called us to condemn) So I digressed a little. It is my hope that you will soften your heart and with hold judgement from us as a whole- instead discerning us individually . I really am saddened that non believers have that impression…….actually I am saddened by many of the things non believers think about Christianity. But the idea that we dont care about leaving the world a better place just because we have something to look forward too is contrary to our entire system of belief.

          • je

            All of this is well said. … “The difference is that religious beliefs can’t be overturned by rational discourse or by empirical evidence” Historically this is exactly where the CHURCH as a self appointed ruling body of the western world went wrong. So I see and agree with your arguement that when blanketly and legally applied religion impedes science.

            ” If Christianity was as powerful as you say to inspire efforts as making the world a better place, why are US people so reluctant to do anything about environmental issues?” Well, I think that even though we claim to be a christian nation we are not. Like you said, many think all there is to being christian is “getting saved” and going about buisness as usual. As a group we lack a conscience effort to do all of the things you said in your last note.

            “you should feel sad that other Christians have ignorant attitudes about Christianity.” you hit the nail on the head.

            “but for the sake of people who might become Christians”. I was not always a christian. It was the life example of an elderly neighbor that lead me to the understanding and acceptance of faith as I know it to be. “As for me, I will serve the lord , I will love my Neighbors, judge not, niether condemn and make a point to do and say only that wich will bring good. Good is Good” – JF He lived that way for my sake, and others like me. I hope I can do the same, that I can live my life in Christ as a good example and that through that example other people will be lifted up – as I was.

            I appreciate your conversation.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1464232292 Mary Smith

        Thank you je, perfectly said.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1464232292 Mary Smith

        Thank you je, perfectly said.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sean-Padden/100000288098239 Sean Padden

        If creationism isn’t reconcilable with science then there should be an experiment that can be performed in order to test the precept of creationism. Please come up with one.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1442953984 Larry Barthel

        I think you mistake “trust” with “faith”. Trust has proven itself with evidence. Faith does not.
        You don’t have to have blind faith in the pilot of your plane, but you do have trust in the authorities that have certified that person to fly the plane, that they have done the best job training that person possible, and that the person has passed any number of tests to achieve the position of pilot. You also have trust that the mechanics who service the plane, the designers who came up with the idea for the plane, and the scientists who figured out the mechanical and physical properties of the plane that allow it to fly, all knew what they were doing when collaborating on making the plane.
        No faith required. Evidenced trust based on the world around us is what is involved (i.e. these same principles apply when someone drives you around in their car, or when a dentists injects you with novocaine (rather than cyanide) in the dentist’s office, etc. It’s not faith, it’s trust.
        And when that trust is broken, we seek alternatives – a diferent dentist, not ever riding with that person again, etc. Blind faith would still have us going to that dentist or letting that person drive us into a wall again, etc., because it truly is blind and does not seek evidence.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=766470493 Ellen Ireland

      Oh I remember those lovely political and economics books. The ones that said liberals are tools of Satan to confuse believers (kind of like the devil put fossils in the ground for the same reason) and that trickle down economics is the only system that works because god made the rich and they’re his tools for keeping everyone else taken care of, and if you’re suffering or impoverished you shouldn’t be upset about it because it’s god’s will. I too had a lot of catching up to do after high-school. Luckily a lot of my favorite professors were liberal progressive types.

    • http://twitter.com/ALifePaused Christopher Noyes

      That’s just the thing though. What a family teaches their children about the world is well within their rights. That said there have to be actual standards in their OTHER education. See their advancement as members of society and their advancement as members of their respective family or church are two separate things. Neither should be thrown under the bus. Not using you as an example, but rather the article, it is not helping children to teach them that the slaughter of 4,000 Native Americans was G_d’s way of helping them. Or that the water is salty because G_d willed it so. That is dishonest, and also proclaims to know the mind of G_d, which by the way is a big no no.

    • Scott Glancy

      Sorry Toni but you can’t accept the true science of evolution and still be a Christian. Evolution is random mutation and natural selection – it is not god guided mutation and God guided selection. That is pseudoscience or junk science. It is an insult to the thousands of scientists who have logged millions of hours refining the true science of evolution. Humans may be the result of evolution but they are most certainly not the intended result. The fairy tales of Christianity have no place in science.

    • http://twitter.com/DarcyJackson Darcy D. Jackson

      I dont want to insult you but if an answer for ANYTHING is “GOD did it” then you’re nutz.

    • James Lewis

      You know… I really don’t think “Evolution through a Christian textbook” is worth anything at all, it’s Christian text books that are the problem…. you might as well say “I studied space travel through Krishna”.. What does that mean?

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    Look up ‘Endogenous RetroViruses’. Chimps are more closely related to us than to gorillas. In this day and age, with molecular genetics, to deny that you might as well say everything in the universe revolves directly around the earth and deny that Jupiter has moons.

    The real hard evidence is there. ERVs are probably the best and simplest but there are many more. Far from disproving, the scientific community is soundly behind evolution, and has repeatedly disproved all of AiG and The Discovery Institute’s arguments.

    This has nothing to do with religion. Most educated theologians (outside of the US) fully accept evolution. If you’re really open to inquiry, then do get either Dawkins’s book, or “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne from your local library.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    Aside from ID being re branded creationism (google: “cdesign proponentsists”) ID is not a scientific theory because it does not have any mechanisms to explain how anything happens. It is simply a set of refuted arguments against evolution. If they really were to teach ID, it would be in the evolution class, in a section called “failed attempts to disprove evolution”.

    If you watch the PBS documentary (available on youtube) “Intelligent Design on Trial”, you’ll see the ID people freely admit that.

    • rwgate

      Google “Dover v. Kitzmiller”, the trial that took place described by the PBS show, “Intelligent Design on Trial”. The entire ruling can be downloaded as a PDF and makes excellent reading. The judge ruled that there was no difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design, and that the textbooks violated constitutional restrictions on the separation of Church and State.

      There are actually very few scientists who subscribe to Creationism or ID. I challenge anyone to name a biologist who subscribes to either.

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        How about a molecular geneticist? Dr Georgia Purdom. Look for her talking with Michael Shermer on Youtube. The key bit is at 11m. “We know from scripture that the earth is no more than 6K years old, so anything beyond that is a problem”.

        (I can’t pass up a challenge :-)

        • rwgate

          Thanks- I googled Purdom and found out that she is the token scientist for the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis. There are pages of refutations by scientists concerning her “work” which is largely creationist apologetics.

          Also, how many fundamentalists believe the world is only 6500 years old and, like her, believe it comes from scripture? There is nothing in the Bible which makes any reference to the age of the earth. Bishop Ussher, a Irish Catholic in the 16th century, calculated it from the reported ages of the prophets, and now it is supposed to be “from the scriptures”.

          I’d be very curious if Dr. Purdom had actually published any peer reviewed articles by any actual scientific orgainizations.

  • AL_Nemesis

    No wonder the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in STEM subjects… and our economy is on the decline. We’re entering another Christian-inspired dark ages. How nice.

    • http://www.facebook.com/monica.briggsthompson Monica Briggs Thompson

      my son went to a stem school for 7th and 8th grade, and is miles ahead in math and science of his peers when we moved to an area without a stem middle school. my younger kids were being groomed by elementary for the stem program and are also way ahead of their new classmates. it breaks my heart that we had to move away from that! i can only hope that chevron makes good on their promise to support more stem programs here in CA!

    • RyanF1

      The Dark Ages happened when the post-Imperial Holy Roman Empire fell to tribes of uncivilized hordes from without. Only the Christian Churches held societies together, nurturing civilization not repressing it, and by their actions set the foundation for the coming of the Renaissance. Universities, those centers of learning in the Christian West that would later rival the centers of learning in the Islamic East, were started by Christian Monastic Orders during the so-called “Dark Ages”; a term which means nothing in light of actual history.

      • http://www.facebook.com/oberonjeff Jeff Smith

        This is true. The church needed to keep their version of civilization in tact so as to maintain power.

      • e123

        maybe Ryan got his history mixed up but there was a truth he was trying to get out there that Christianity, not necessarily organizations of power that held a Christian name, has had a positive and enlightening influence on civilization. I think what he should have referred to when he spoke of laying the foundation for the Renaissance was the Reformation, which opposed the corruption in the Catholic church and believed that every individual should be able to read and be able to read the Bible for themselves and think for themselves, and so it was the influence of Christianity that led to increased literacy and education, religious freedom in America, and was a driving force in many other improvements in society such as abolition of slavery. The list could go on

        • unity100

          no christianity didnt have ANY positive effect on civilization. at any point in history, even when it was fresh. it didnt take 100 years from the early ‘leave material desires behind’ teaching of jesus of nazareth to be turned into a system of ‘do what is told and you will get rewarded’ for control in roman empire. we are talking about 100 AD here. not even the times roman empire got into crisis. and then in 325, constantine nailed everything into place in council of nicea by editing many versions of bible and choosing the best for his reign and control over society as a ‘social glue’ – religion. and after that it was properly downhill. and reformation ? really ? reformation had NOTHING to do with christianity – it was basically a rebellion against RELIGION itself. it is the first major secular movement in europe – separating religion from politics and economy. there is NO relevance in between literacy and christianity either – church wanted to keep population illiterate so that they wouldnt read the bible – one of the reasons for reformation starting. and slavery ? really jessica. if you dont know shit about these stuff, why do you talk before actually studying ? religion of christianity was the one which created and perpetuated the feudal system and its serfdom – lords ruled in the ‘name of god’, by power given to them by god, backed by catholic church. revolt against lord was blasphemy. so basically christianity perpetuated SERFDOM throughout the middle ages. which is basically slavery.

          • Taibak

            This is pure anti-religious bigotry, frankly, and very little of this as any basis in the historical record. Even accounting for atrocities that Christians have committed (and there have been many):

            Christianity has had MASSIVE contributions to society. For instance, in the Roman Empire, most charities, including hospitals and soup kitchens, were run by Christian groups, the modern western university developed out of Church schools, many classical texts were preserved when Christian monks copied them, and some of the greatest examples of European art (Gothic cathedrals, the Hagia Sophia, many Renaissance paintings and sculptures) deal with explicitly religious themes.

            The Reformation was an *explicitly* religious movement, as is clear from the writings of most of the reformers. In fact, Luther absolutely supported the divine right of kings and promoted intensive Bible study. Calvin and his followers established an explicitly theocratic government in Geneva.

            Serfdom is not slavery. Slaves are property, whereas serfs have some (admittedly limited) rights.

          • unity100

            bigotry ? that is just history knowledge. running charities for a while to gather supporters in late roman empire does not exonerate christianity. after all, distributing food to the people was a common theme in roman empire, and it was regularly done in rome. afterwards, that was used as a justification to hold land and evolve into small princedoms among the kingdoms churches inhabited. so, its political. there was majestic art before christianity. and there would be majestic art if there wasnt christianity. reformation WAS a secular movement – separation of church from political power was as secular as it gets in freaking 15th century. luther naturally would support king’s right to rule – noone rocks the boat too much in any given era. if you think otherwise, just look at what is being done to occupy wall street protesters in a freaking ‘democratic’ country. serfdom is slavery. slaves in roman empire had similar rights with serfs.

      • unity100

        sack of rome in 410 ce is the END of all those invasions. those ‘hordes’ were not uncivilized, yes, but they are not christian either.

        • Taibak

          Actually, the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Lombards, and Vandals were all Christians when they invaded/migrated into what was Roman territory. Arian Christians, but still Christians.

          And saying that the invasions ended in 410 is a gross misunderstanding. The Lombards, Bulgars, and Norse would be shocked to know that the invasions ended in 410. For that matter, the Burgundians didn’t establish their first kingdom until 411, the Vandals didn’t establish their kingdom until 429 (and didn’t sack Rome until 455), and the Ostrogoths didn’t secure their control over Italy until 493 (and didn’t sack Rome until 546). And that’s before we get to the major Frankish conquests later on.

          • unity100

            you are wrong. none of those peoples were christians when they invaded. christianization of lombards was especially hard, it lasted well after roman empire’s downfall.

        • nullifidian

          Someone didn’t tell the Vandals that, then. They sacked Rome in 455 CE, and the final dissolution of the Roman Empire is commonly regarded by historians as taking place in 476 CE, with the deposition of Romulus Augustus by Odoacer (oh look, another Christian).

      • unity100

        slavery existed in nordic cultures. but it was not institutional, and basis of economy as it was in rome. it is not expected them to be democratic as today – that would be too advanced. however, the level of equality in between men and women, the way how the society took care of prosecutions and the concept of ‘outcast’, even in anglosaxon britain, and the fact that anyone can round up any piece of land for that season and till that land and harvest to leave it to someone else to till next year, the way chieftains are elected and not hereditary aristocracy establishments practiced, shows how much democratic they were. burgundians, frank and goths, are what we call those peoples and what we know about those peoples after they were subjected to romanization. even before they settled in roman territory, these peoples were neighboring rome, and they were already intertwined with it as allies and auxiliary serving in roman army.

    • Pooua

      More people accept evolutionary theory than at any time in our nation’s past. Our glory days in science were based on testable topics, such as physics and mathematics, not on speculation, such as the evolutionary origins of humans.

  • HP

    Oh please, have you ever taken a little look-see into who funded the idea of intelligent design, and what the ultimate goal of the intelligent design movement is? Do you know about the Wedge Strategy? Credible research can not come from such a biased place, and intelligent design has been refuted to the point where it is now an interchangeable term for Creationism. Since, most of the people who fund and promote “intelligent design” are in fact creationists….

    • GaryK21

      “Credible research can not come from such a biased place.” I agree completely. And when you cherry pick which ID proponents you cite while non-creationist proponents are ignored and blacklisted by liberal academia, you end up with a completely biased, one-sided “discussion,” that paints new-agey garbage like the Clay Theory as credible.

      • Common_Tator

        Gary, I must say you are the most intelligent sounding ID person I’ve ever read, it still doesn’t make you right. Sure, science can’t explain everything yet, but it’s gaining new insights every year, and every year more of these insights are proven. Religion, on the other hand has offered not one single shred of proof , ever. Religion has always been the words of men, science has always been the proof of ideas

  • Lawrence Tucker

    The Bristle Cone Pine trees are in a forest near Lone Pine, Calif. They are up high in these eastern mountains, at around timber line. They can be accurately tree ring dated, some of these trees date to around 12,000 years old. You are certainly entitled to your own conclusions, but your not entitled to your own facts. Some of these trees are way older than 8000 years!! I believe God did create everything, and used evolution and natural selection as a mechanism to work it all out. God is not so much a Creator as He is a Creating.

    • Andy Anderson

      If God created everything, what created God?

  • http://www.facebook.com/thealanmiller Alan T. Miller

    Both a whale and a fruit fly have DNA at their core, that alone should say something about how they are related don’t you think?

  • christopher Lopez

    all you need to read about is DNA and RNA. The biggest question is how did these immensely complex molecules form beyond chance and eons of time. This is the place where science isnt exactly the most convincing about evolution. Beyond this life has potential to take on any form and still be related.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Harrison/23417637 Michael Harrison

      Simple: IT WASN’T JUST CHANCE! The *entire point* of Darwin’s work is that evolution is driven by selective processes acting on differences within a population. He happened to be wrong about where these differences come from — that was Mendel’s contribution — but Darwin’s insights into the selective process are central to the subject.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=575493950 facebook-575493950

    Most if not all of the scientists rolled out by the creationist mafia are not even remotely specialist in biology or geology, most of them are engineers who can be debated are not scientist but more like cooks who use technology to make things not discover principles of science.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=574401415 Denis Freeland

    I dont know why people keep saying “IF there is evidence” . It is precisely BECAUSE of the evidence that evolution is an accepted “theory” (scientific usage , NOT english usage).

    Go to your local museum, look on the internet, check your local library, ask your local biology teacher etc etc. It is one thing not to have yet confronted the evidence, but to have rejected it, KNOWING that the evidence is there AND you havent bothered to ask, would be a tad disappointing.

    And there is nothing wrong in a Christian accepting evolution – the Catholic church and over 10,000 US clerics of various denominations accept it.

  • Aseija

    Breaking news! I’ve been explained the cell through evolution in a basic college level biology course.

    We know all of these you are just choosing to ignore the research and actual science.

  • MichaelPeden

    Now I really don’t know about the aims of the KKK (!) but did dinosaurs and people co-exist? Certainly! It goes on to this very day. People put up and take down stupid notions all the time; year after year; evolution I guess you’d call it. It’s the desire/ability to think and observe independently, while being given a broad educational background, that should probably be encouraged/taught. IMO our ignorance of God is simply astounding. Given the expanse of time that has obviously existed on our planet and our relative newness in it all, how could it be otherwise?

  • marylamb

    As a parent, how can you teach kids about Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, drugs, alcohol, religion without thinking to the future…someday they will think I lied about EVERYTHING! Best to keep them informed of everything as it becomes age-appropriate. Wouldn’t want to be eclectra parents when she goes out in the world, arguing her way is the only way and to find out everyone else has proof. Kind of borders on child neglect to shelter them too much. Was raised to be open; raised my kids that way to have an open curious mind. Would have preferred home-school but the times weren’t ready for that. Religion can move you forward or hold you back—parents consider this when you force a child to join your “cult”.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    I’ve heard something about crystals tossed out there, and Dawkins say something like “it’s an interesting idea” and Creationists jump on it as if he believes it. Heck, if you believe “Expelled” then Dawkins all things we came from space aliens. People love to quote mine.

    But the bigger problem is conflating abiogenesis with evolution.

  • tinwoman

    I was schooled with the PACE packets and they are indeed that bad. It set back my education terribly. What we need is a national curiculuum that is fact and science based and strict accreditation for schools. No more homeschooling. This is just creating storm troopers for the religious fundamentalists who are quite open about wanting to become insurgents. They’re also anti-democracy. We would be crazy to just sit back and allow this group to continue to dominate our national discourse. I moved to Germany and there is no homeschooling and excellent public schools and university is very low cost. The population is well educated and the economy is doing great. Take some lessons in what works, America, before it is too late.

    • http://twitter.com/lovemarley lovemarley

      Not all of us homeschoolers are Christian, just so you know. When you say, “No more homeschooling,” its worrisome to those of us who feel we should have a choice as to how our children are educated. And not for nothing, but many, many public schools are failing our children miserably, while homeschooled children are winning most of the National Bees and being recruited by Ivy League universities.

      So while I agree that Christian homeschooling like this can be detrimental, I’d just like to point out that there is an entire population of new homeschoolers who are not doing it for religious reasons.

    • Beverly G.

      Wow! It is hard for me to believe that this statement of broad brushed bigotry, stereotypes and fear, promoting dominance and subjugation, would get so many up-votes! Wow Again! I do agree that PACE packets are a poor excuse for an education, and I sympathize with the emotions evidently hindering you. I must also point out that at a certain point one becomes responsible for their own education and also emotions, and can no longer blame circumstances. This entire article and post are coming from an extremely aggressive and hostile stance, a fine example of propaganda, intended to vilify an entire group.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1087934624 Phil Thompson

    Ah yes, been to BJU a few times. Really disappointed they couldn’t get permission to have machine guns at the gate; might have kept them inside the fence.

  • Pingback: 10 Interesting Lessons from Creationist-Inspired School Books | Independent Lens Blog « Hey Vidya, look at this!

  • tinwoman

    My sister homeschools and homeschooling is very big in our small community. Her children are social, emotional, and academic cripples. I was taken out of school in the third grade and finally went back in the 11th grade under my own steam. I was a social, emotional, and academic cripple. As a high school junior I had never seen a table of the elements. Why would anybody do that to a child? Why? I honestly can say today that I hate my parents for making my youth about 100x more difficult than it needed to be. I hate them. I don’t even try to figure out what they were doing any more. I don’t care. I consider them abusers.

    • http://www.facebook.com/tonicaddell.south Toni Caddell South

      That is a terrible thing that happened to you. But homeschoolers don’t have to be labeled radical as most are doing in these posts. Your parents did not see that you were socially or even educationally well off. You have a right to be mad. I don’t know how old you are but with both of my parents gone now it is very difficult. They are still your parents. Try not to give up on them and try to rid yourself of the hate. I’m so sorry.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.gilman.1291 David Gilman

    Just remember; evolution is ONLY a theory – kinda like the theory of gravity or the theory of motion…

    • Westsider50

      Don’t forget the theory of relativity…..it was only in theory that those atomic bombs exploded, because it just a theory, right?

    • Westsider50

      “But no more supported by evidence than evolution.”
      Surely you jest? Have you never taken a high school chemistry of physics class? Have you never take ANY mathematics?
      High Schoolers around the country PROVE atomic theory every day they do lab course work…
      Go take a science class or two….
      OF COURSE there is PLENTY of evidence to support atomic theory….just how in the hell do you think the world works.
      I suppose the bombs dropped on Japan were only “theoretical” bombs? do you think guesswork created those devices?
      No, proof of atomic theory is what caused the Us to develop atomic weapons. They are REAL, not theoretical….

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        Funny that you think I’m casting doubt on atomic theory. I’m not. And no, nobody PROVES it, at least not in the strict mathematical sense. That’s why it’s a THEORY, JUST like Evolution.

        What I’m saying is that they are both considered by the scientific community to be very well supported facts. It is only because of religious and political propaganda that anyone things evolution is somehow in doubt.

        • Westsider50

          So you are telling me that in a “strict mathematical sense” the atomic weapons used against Japan were only “theoretical” and that the damage and deaths were only “theoretical”???
          If you knew anything about transuranic elements they exist ONLY in the “strict mathematical sense.”
          It is ONLY through “mathematics” that these elements are created. And why do chemists and physicists do such things? To test AND PROVE a THEORY.
          The “Theory” of Relativity is a very real thing. The atomic weapons that proliferate in the world are PROOF that Atomic Theory is a FACT, not a theory. Stop conflating the word “theory” to mean something that is unproven.
          Again, every day that American High Schoolers do chemistry lab work they demonstrate via practical experimentation AND strict use of mathematics (is there any other KIND of mathematics, I mean “strict mathematics is kind of redundant, wouldn’t you agree?) that the theory is correct and a FACT.
          Repeated experimentation and mathematical calculations PROVE IT.
          Go pick up a Chemistry textbook and read. Go to your CC and take a chemistry class. You will come out a much more informed individual.
          My high school chemistry teacher was a devout Catholic nun and she brooked no nonsense regarding “creationism” “sloppy science dictated by religious dogma” and the conflation of “Theory” with “unproven.” She would have laughed at you polemics.
          Yes, Atomic “Theory” is a proven fact. Just go ask anyone who has survived an atomic attack….
          smh…..

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            Oh Good Grief. You are COMPLETELY missing my point. You are so full steam ahead on explaining to someone that atomic theory is fact that you completely miss that I said the exact same thing.

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Just because we don’t have the time to replay evolution on the scale you want doesn’t mean the theory doesn’t have extremely strong evidence and testable predictive power. Go read either (or both) Coyne’s and Dawkins’s books.

  • Lorelei

    Nice way to shut down any sort of intellectual curiosity. What a bunch of crap. How do they expect their great Amuricah to stay great except through military dominance if people aren’t supposed to try and figure out how things work, and invent new things?

  • Bob Schwabik

    However many times I hear/read about creationism, “intelligent design” or whatever theory seems to motivate the so-called religious right, one thing sticks in my mind. All of this comes from the bible. Where is their second source or other conformation of the story? The religious right seems to base all of their concepts on, what seems to be, one book. This means it wouldn’t qualify to be published in a newspaper as they require conformation of a story from multiple sources.

    The church in the middle ages was all about control – think my way or you are a heretic, and eligible to be burned at the stake. What’s also fascinating is that the centers of learning in the Arab world existed until a scholar (Imam Hamid al-Ghazali) who put forth the idea that mathematics was the work of the devil – SO, look where they are today!

    • mfbarry

      You are so right here. And when they site the bible as their proof and/or reason they are essentially saying “I believe in what the Bible says because the Bible tells me it’s right.” Which, ya know, is kind of nuts.

  • http://rickladd.com Rick Ladd

    I’m afraid your level of comprehension leaves something to be desired, not to mention your propensity to generalize, Ms. South. I was referring to those who teach that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old or humans co-existed with the dinosaurs. I have been studying this phenomenon for well over 40 years. I also know lots of people who homeschool; some of whom are Christians. I have no problem with homeschooling, though I do think it can – and frequently does – shortchange the children.

    My issue is with the leaders who foist this anti-scientific crap on those who entrust their children’s education to them. They are charlatans, in my opinion. This points out the basic problem with many religious people. They ignore reality and are incapable of spirituality; a feeling of oneness with not only their fellow humans, but with the entire universe. One doesn’t have to believe in God in order to have a sense of awe and wonder at the majesty and grandeur of it all.

    You sound a bit more balanced and open than those who lead this anti-scientific effort I was addressing, though you might want to seek a little therapy to help you deal with your defensiveness.

    • http://www.facebook.com/tonicaddell.south Toni Caddell South

      ” I might want to seek therapy”. That’s hysterical. Of course I would get defensive. Homeschoolers work hard to do the best for their children.You go through and read these comments against homeschoolers . We are being called “sociopaths, danger to Civilization, and even accusing Christians will start another Dark Age. In our current society with overall failing educational system, homeschooling is a viable option for many for the educational benefits alone. It is YOUR opinion that it shortchanges the children. I know there are Homschooling families that do not provide a good education and not see to it that there children are involved in social activities but again you are making a generalized statement that that is the case with many homeschoolers. Our whole school system should be changed. Public school children only learn how to interact with their peers. That is not the real world. When you graduate and have a career you may have a boss that is 20 yrs older or younger than you and work with people of all ages. My children know how to carry on intelligent conversations with adults yet maintain their friends from public school.

      • http://www.facebook.com/tonicaddell.south Toni Caddell South

        Well I told myself I wouldn’t write again but we have something in common. We adopted a son from Thailand when he was 2 years old (he is now 19). He had severe attachment problems. There is no way he needed to be in public school. It took him years to recover and he needed to be near me as much as possible. You are taking extra steps to educate your children I don’t think the “average” family takes the time to do that. Why is America so far behind in Math and Science. The Khan videos are great from what I have seen. But Sir I get in several intelligent discussions with people about many topics but I would never stoop to calling someone any name especially a “moron”. Again, you don’t know me. You think you do but you don’t.

        • e123

          Toni and Rick, you both obviously care very much about your children and I admire you both for adopting. That is the most important thing, that parents care about the education and formation of their children. Christian school teachers and students and homeschoolers are among the brightest, nicest, and most peaceful and caring people I have ever known. To demonize them or label them as sociopaths or attempt to raise an alert against them as being a danger is just wrong, to say the least. I don’t think whether a child grows up believing in evolution or creation or intelligent design, an old earth or a young earth will really affect that much whether they become a sociopath or a danger to society. It would be more appropriate to say that parents who don’t care about the education of their children, or don’t care about their kids much at all is something that is dangerous and is more likely to produce sociopaths. I wouldn’t say teaching evolution to children is an imminent danger or something that will turn children into sociopaths but it would be more likely to contribute to a view of the world in which a person thinks they can do whatever they need to do to their fellowman in order to survive, get ahead, or get what they want. That’s where that worldview logically leads, although it doesn’t have to. And it’s more likely a belief in creation of mankind by a God who instilled value into each individual would lead to a view of the world in which one must live in peace and harmony with one’s fellowman and respect their dignity, even going as far as the Bible’s teaching to do unto others as you would have them to unto you. In my opinion intelligent design would be an appropriate subject to be included in the science curriculum of public schools when dealing with the issue of origins of life, although biblical creationism should be left for private schools or parents to decided whether or not to teach.

          • http://rickladd.com Rick Ladd

            I’m not demonizing the children, rather the adults who teach them things that are clearly wrong. You obviously believe evolution is defined as “the survival of the fittest”, which is incorrect. You are confusing the so-called cultural Darwinism the political right has used to justify their selfishness, not the theories of Darwin and others. Please do some research. Seriously, there is a huge difference between how the general public views evolution and how science views it.

            I repeat. I am not saying the children are the issue, though if they are taught to believe in things that are clearly incapable of being proved (taken on faith) and they accept such an approach as adults, we are destined to fall farther behind in STEM than we already are. This does not bode will for our country and economy. Punto, final, y redondo!

      • http://www.facebook.com/Anadarko1987 Dennis Daniels

        That would be their children, not there children.

  • JoeMyGod

    Adam Lanza was home-schooled.

    • Pooua

      Using what curriculum?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003019541865 Louie Campos

    Wow, I did not know it was this nuts.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IKVVNPKPMBDXQJDAIREAS5IQLM Mike

    One out of ten ain’t so bad, compared to the headline that implies they were wrong ten out of ten. Though I must concede that one out of ten isn’t exactly brilliant either.

  • http://www.facebook.com/danie.francis Danie Francis

    Wow. I knew many Christians could be stupid but this blew my mind. Racist, sexist, unintelligent idiots…Goddess. No wonder American Christians cannot be taken seriously.

  • http://twitter.com/meralynndis Christine Knopp

    Thank you for giving a good name to religious folk. I feel so bad for my Christian friends who almost have to hide their religion due to how absolutely CRAZY many loud spoken Christians are today. I don’t know why faith and logic seem to have such a hard time co-existing today.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.p.wang.1 Andrew Patrick Wang

    I’m going to go out on a limb and say the article *is* balanced, and not biased – because lies that bad don’t exist in evolution-based curriculum. Therefore, this article would have been the same had it just picked at random 10 terrible lies from “either side” of the argument.

  • http://www.facebook.com/stacy.k.davis.mistress.rachel.harpist Stacy K Davis

    I home-schooled both of my daughters from the time they were born. One is in college as an Opera student at a private college. The other is a High School Junior, and is a Ballet dancer. We are not Christian, and used a variety of books and other resources in their education. Not all home-schoolers are Christian, nor fundamentalist, nor radical. I taught my children at home because I saw the failure of our public school system and the daily violence that children are subjected to in public school. The drug problem is out of control in most secular private schools, and I did not want my children going to a religious private school. In addition, home-schooling allowed us the flexibility to pursue artistic endeavors that would not have been available if they were in traditional school. However, I am appalled that these (above quoted) textbooks are used by *anyone*, yet alone by any publicly-funded schools.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1208943584 Marc Calvert

    The worst part the will grow up believing ever word, then teach their children this ignorance

  • http://www.facebook.com/Anadarko1987 Dennis Daniels

    Learn some spelling while you’re at it. I know from your writing that you are not well educated.

    • http://www.facebook.com/tonicaddell.south Toni Caddell South

      Oh, so what if I had some misspelled words. When you are trying to make a point about something who is thinking exactly about the spelling. You have no idea how much education I have had.

      • e123

        when people’s ideas and thoughts are being defeated all they can resort to is namecalling or nitpicking

        • Westsider50

          Facts defeat the lie of religion every time.

  • angie497

    My guess is that you’ve chosen to ignore ‘some real, hard evidence,’ and I would also guess that debating the issue with you would be an exercise in frustration, given that your statement ‘there’s no way anyone will get me to believe’ doesn’t really give much indication that you’d actually look at that evidence you demand. But I can’t help but point out that while you say that the idea that everything came from a common ancestor is foolishness, your religious dogma includes a belief that everything had a common creator, and that all of mankind is descended from a single pair of humans made by that creator. It seems foolishness to me to believe firmly in the second while dismissing all possibility of the first.

  • helfk

    The Cherokee who were forced along the Trail of Tears had already been converted to Christianity at that point (this was one reason why most Americans opposed the illegal death march). I very much doubt seeing a tribe that had bent over backwards to play ball with whitey being massacred & having their land stolen anyway convinced very many other Natives to convert, unless it was out of pure terror.

  • http://rickladd.com Rick Ladd

    I am exercising my freedom, and suggesting others expose (at every turn and in every way possible) those who push this unscientific education. If families wish to teach their children demonstrably false information, forever crippling them and, by extension,the rest of us, I would be the last person to stop them physically. However, the moment it creeps into the classroom of schools that are paid for by our collective taxes is when I believe they should be stopped; legally or in the court of public opinion.

    Last time I looked, the people who have been the most judgmental, the most punitive, and the least tolerant of beliefs other than their own have been the very same people who are teaching this blather. I’m just sick of it. It IS dangerous. It leads to uninformed decisions on the issues that drive our economy. It is crippling us right now and making us a damn laughing stock. So why don’t you stop projecting? I’m not advocating rounding you up. I’m advocating ridiculing your lack of knowledge and laughing you out of the room.

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      The religious-right only whine about the “war” against religion when you fight back.

  • mfbarry

    You are obviously a troll. Several times now it has been pointed out to you that no one is disparaging religion or home schooling in GENERAL so much as this particular curriculum yet you continue to return to this “generalization” argument. You are either a troll or very thick headed.
    If it is indeed the later, I will tell you what most of these kind people here are too nice to say: You are a fool. It’s you and ignorant, superstitious people like you who are ruining this country and our children’s future. This next generation coming up will in no way be prepared for the world stage on which they must play. With your ridiculous beliefs and home schooling ideas you are literally dooming them to a dead end life.

    Religion is superstition, responsible for more death and violence on this planet than anything else. God is a myth. An ancient tale told to children who were too young to understand death and to calm their fears about it. Much like the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. And any adult who believes in such nonsense is laughable and has no place educating children much less designing school curriculums.

  • mfbarry

    What?!! What?!!You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. When did science become opinion? Because it didn’t! It’s called “Evolution Theory” not because of what we DO KNOW but because of what WE DON’T. WE KNOW evolution happened. It’s fact. It is not up for debate! Some of the paths it took, branches, exact times, etc are bandied about and debated. BUT not the idea as a whole. It’s a fact. It happened.
    Somewhere along the way this idea took hold that “if there are areas of a theory that are unknown that means the whole theory is questionable” and that is just not true.
    There are huge areas of the ocean that no man has ever seen. We theorize about the creatures that may or may not live there. We don’t know. This lack of knowledge in this area does not put up for debate the existence of the ocean.
    This is also why it’s called the “Theory of Evolution” and not the “Hypothesis of Evolution.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1061425948 Dorothy Matteo

    Am I the only person on the planet that believes that the “Christian Bible” is a compilation of writings, parables, myths and stories written by jewish men and taken out of context without including all of the “Nostic” writings and not to be taken literally?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Jamieson/1411029199 Scott Jamieson

    Well, I’ll give them one point: “Dinosaurs and humans were definitely on the earth at the same time…”

    The dinosaurs just happened to have been dead for a long, long time.

  • unity100

    harmless ? conditioning and brainwashing from young age into obedience without no recourse and choice, is harmless ? that creates masses of people who are easily manipulated, obedient and radical enough to engage in social/physical action to enforce whatever the manipulator wants them to. the effect of religion on politics in usa is an example, the effect of religion in countries of middle east is a major example.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=766470493 Ellen Ireland

    A Beka knowingly prints outright lies in their texts to push their agenda. I remember reading in one of their”health science” books that no one should ever have premarital sex because condoms and the pill are completely ineffective at preventing pregnancy and the spread of STDs. It also said in one of the many anti-choice rants that abortion is wrong because fetal heartbeat begins 8 days after conception, which is an easily discredited, bald-faced lie.

  • Katie H.

    I think this is a very poor representation of some of the intelligent arguments of creationism in Christian science texts. I noticed you did not site Apologia or Answers In Genesis, which is surprising considering they have a very large scale museum from a Creationist perspective and also produce excellent materials for homeschool and Christian Schools.

    Evolution is a religion as well- it takes faith to believe it. It is the theory that nothing – or floating gases (where did they come from??) very slowly over time evolved into all of the amazing things we see today through a “Big bang” and billions of years. It takes faith to believe that, just as it takes faith to believe in an amazing designer articulating all we see into existence.

    I am saddened by this as I enjoy PBS and my children often use it as a resource- but their intolerance for Christians- and mockery of them through this article highlighting the “radicals” has disappointed me. There’s weirdos on all sides… be fair.

    • Pooua

      I can drop a rock to test gravity. How are you going to test the theory that those bones in Africa are human ancestors?

      • Taibak

        The genetic testing that’s being done now comes to mind. Seems to be confirming it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.gilman.1291 David Gilman

    Your grandmother was brilliant. I have no problem reconciling evolution with creationism – that is if creationism doesn’t have to follow strict literal interpretation. Why someone needs to think that this mechanism (evolution) exist outside or apart from God (or a greater Force) is beyond me.

    • linda

      Thank you, David. She really was. She would go to battle over the subject of evolution with anyone, even though she was a very gentle soul. She absolutely couldn’t understand why there had to be such a hard line drawn in the sand, so to speak.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Stanton5 Stanton Fink

    When the bigoted authors at A Beka books write that “God used the ‘Trail of Tears’ to bring many Indians to Christ,” do they mean Christian missionaries forcibly converting survivors, or do they mean Indians actually dying and going to Heaven?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1464232292 Mary Smith

    There was a time when it was acceptable to believe
    ‘spontaneous generation’; and many so-called ‘educated individuals’ thought it
    made perfect sense. They believed it was ‘scientific’ – and indeed it was…for that
    time period!

    “Belief in the ongoing spontaneous generation of
    certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to ancient Greek
    philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th
    century…”
    “Van Leeuwenhoek took issue with the ideas common at
    the time that fleas and lice could spontaneously result from putrefaction, and
    that frogs could likewise arise from slime. Using a broad range of experiments
    ranging from sealed and open meat incubation and the close study of insect
    reproduction, by the 1680s he became convinced that spontaneous generation was
    incorrect.”

    Finally, hundreds of years later, it was accepted that this
    theory was indeed ‘incorrect’.

    The same thing is bound to happen again. The scientific
    community, as well as all of the followers of unproven evolution will find that
    their theories no longer hold up under new discoveries and facts. Their ideas
    will seem ludicrous and outrageous, just as the old theories of hundreds of
    years ago seem to us.

    It seems to make much more sense that, although we aren’t
    quite sure how it all exactly happened, there was indeed a greater purpose and
    power behind all living things – a perfect design. And along the lines of what Einstein once said, it seems outrageous to think that ‘perfect order’ could emerge from ‘chaos’ or just by some random chance – a chance so miniscule – that to believe it would
    take much more faith than the faith it takes to believe and understand that statistically it is more probable that we are from an absolute intelligent designer/creator/power, maybe something so very far from our human ability to even conceive.

    “No one has yet synthesized a “protocell”
    using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the
    so-called “bottom-up-approach”).”
    “The Nobel Prize winning chemist, Christian de Duve, argues
    that the determination of chemistry means that “life has to emerge
    quickly… Chemical reactions happen quickly or not at all; if any reaction
    takes a millennium to complete then the chances are all the reagents will
    simply dissipate or breakdown in the meantime, unless they are replenished by other
    faster reactions”
    “There is no “standard model” of the origin
    of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the
    framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella,
    however, is a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the
    following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:–“

    From there, the article goes on to post numerous hypotheses
    which all contain problems that cannot be solved to this day.

    • Aquarama

      Per your first paragraph, I don’t think you understand the definition of the scientific method.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1464232292 Mary Smith

    I totally disagree – Children that grow up to
    question today’s so-called science are the pioneers of new scientific
    discoveries. The ability to question and doubt has allowed us to move forward
    in science and in scientific exploration. This is a good thing – not dangerous, as you have suggested.
    And on the subject of the text books – You can be certain that
    most children who are homeschooled have a much higher level of critical
    thinking skills and curiosity than the average student (just as the poster
    above) and no text book will ever take that skill away from them. They will
    question and seek for more information as they grow and they will formulate
    their own ideas much more quickly and broadly than
    the average public-schooled (factory churned) student.

    • http://rickladd.com Rick Ladd

      That you use the term “so-called science” is a dead giveaway you don’t have a clue. Science is not dogma. There may be some scientists who become uncritically attached to their theories, but there are always others who will either prove or disprove the value of those theories.

      No, I am not assured “. . . most children who are homeschooled have a much higher level of critical thinking skills and curiosity than the average student . . .” when they are using textbooks that are clearly anti-scientific and based on narrow-minded religious dogma.

      I do agree public school churns out students based on a model that is over a century old, based on the theories of Fredrick Taylor. However, they are not generally indoctrinated with a centuries-old world view based on fantasy and blind faith. As with all science, there’s always room for improvement. The educational materials and attitudes this article points out just don’t fill the bill.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1464232292 Mary Smith

    Hey, many public school textbooks are flawed and /or biased as well. The kids who suffer through all the propaganda in the mainstream curriculum have to learn to seek out other sources and do a little research on their own -outside of the school text book, as well.

    “And on the subject of the text books – You can be certain that
    most children who are home-schooled have a much higher level of critical
    thinking skills and curiosity than the average student (just as the poster
    above) and no text book will ever take that skill away from them. They will
    question and seek for more information as they grow and they will formulate
    their own ideas much more quickly and broadly than
    the average public-schooled (factory churned) student.”

  • TommyNIK

    “Many Bible-based Christian schools accept government-issued tuition
    vouchers for public school students. And some public school districts
    are teaching creationism alongside evolution. In both cases, tax dollars
    are at work.”

    MY tax dollars? For nonsense like this? Oh, no…..this will not stand.

  • Larry Kelly

    PBS, the agent of Satan using your tax money. Waitng for the INDEPENDENT LENS, “Obama, phony as anything in Creationist Textbooks”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/zachary.macintyre.1 Zachary Macintyre

    This level of religious indoctrination on children is absolutely disgusting. To blatantly discredit accepted scientific theories and teach children that they’re all “guesswork” while filling their impressionable minds with religious propaganda is immoral, unethical and will likely trouble them for the rest of their lives. These children aren’t being taught how to think critically or the scientific method and so can’t separate fact from fiction later on in life. Con artists and pseudoscientists prey on these people, using them for money and support, so by doing this to them you’re giving them a bad start on life and preparing them to go about brainwashing the next generation.

    • Pooua

      I really can’t tell which side of the issue you are on.

  • Pooua

    Evolutionary theory goes beyond merely postulating change; it suggests common biological ancestry of all living organisms. What is more, evolution is used to explain all observed variations; if the Creationist oversimplifies by claiming “God did it,” the evolutionist oversimplifies by claiming “Evolution did it.”

  • Godlesspanther

    hese are not textbooks and do not deserve to be in the same category with textbooks. They are brainwashing tools.

    The religious right complains about the growing number of people leaving their religious faith. If they were honest enough to look at themselves and realize that people really don’t like to be lied to it would help them retain their flock

    If you feed this garbage to kids — many of them will grow up to resent all the people who were supposed to have supported them and helped them grow and learn.

    Christian right parents and school teachers: If your kids grow up to resent you — it’s your own fault.

  • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

    I suggest you read my short article for the National Center for Science Education on crystals, the origin of life and the propaganda film “Expelled.” “Why Re-invent the Crystal” Reports of the NCSE 2008, Vol. 28: 5–6 Page(s): 54–55

    (There seems to be an undocumented local rule against posting helpful URLs. You will need to use Google, or other search engine).

  • Aquarama

    Does not look like “christian stereotyping” to me. The author did not say that all Christians believe all of this claptrap.

  • http://www.facebook.com/uncdoug Doug Crump

    I’ll stereotype Christians all I want. They stereotype us atheists, so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • http://www.facebook.com/uncdoug Doug Crump

    Tax dollars shouldn’t be subsidizing indoctrinating children without parental permission in our public schools. Keep your faith out of our schools, or the government should tax your church. Your faith is stupid, antiquated, and has been proven wrong. Period.

  • Cindy Reynolds

    I really don’t know whether to laugh or cry…..

  • Pingback: Notes From The Pastor’s Office #10 – “Lessons From A Creationist Textbook” | Notes from the Pastor's Office

  • Pingback: Hundreds of Voucher Schools Teach Creationism in Science Classes | Independent Lens Blog

  • rwgate

    Susan- Very funny! Surely you meant to put /snark at the end of your post for those of us who are challenged by humor? If not, perhaps you’d care to cite any of your statements. Wow, dinosaurs that could belch out methane and ignite it with a spark from their teeth. Isn’t it more likely that the vegetation and methane in their stomach would find a more convenient place to exit the body? Would that, coupled with an inconvenient lightning storm, possibly have caused numerous dinosaurs to “explode”? Also, wouldn’t a dinosaur with teeth most likely have been a meat-eater, rather than a plant eater?

    Yes, there are many things we don’t know, but there are no facts in your assertions. The amount of water vapor in the air (whether you believe in Noah or not) has absolutely nothing to do with long life spans. If you accept the Bible as a history book, where is the story of the meteor you postulate destroyed the atmosphere? If Noah was in there, why wasn’t the meteor strike, since it supposedly occurred later?

    Oh, I’m sorry. That was /snark.

  • rwgate

    Michael- Isn’t that the point of the article? The problem is, that those two publishers have an inordinate influence on what is taught in both religious and secular schools. The article wasn’t about a comparison between religious and secular books, it was about the use of religious teaching in school textbooks. You don’t have to examine every book to find examples.