…and this is a 
Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself
Category: Creationism
Posted on: May 23, 2007 8:50 PM, by PZ Myers
It's becoming a trend: Evangelical Christian institutions that try to do science inevitably demonstrate breathtaking inanity of their own. The latest victim is the Pawleys Island Christian Academy. Take a gander at the first place winner in biology.
Brian Benson, an eighth-grade student who won first place in the Life Science/Biology category for his project "Creation Wins!!!," says he disproved part of the theory of evolution. Using a rolled-up paper towel suspended between two glasses of water with Epsom Salts, the paper towel formed stalactites. He states that the theory that they take millions of years to develop is incorrect.
"Scientists say it takes millions of years to form stalactites," Benson said. "However, in only a couple of hours, I have formed stalactites just by using paper towel and Epsom Salts."
This isn't just wrong, it's appallingly wrong. He's wrong on the facts, wrong on the interpretations, wrong on the understanding of how science works. If we're charitable and grant that a 14 year old has some reasonable excuse for ignorance, we can still indict his parents, his science teacher, and the judges at this fair on gross incompetence on multiple charges.
- This experiment has nothing to do with biology.
- Epsom salts are magnesium sulfate; stalactites are made of calcium carbonate.
- Stalactite growth rates are estimated to be around 0.1-10 centimeters per thousand years. If we assume his 'stalactite' was 10 cm long and use the slowest growth rate, that's 100 thousand years, not millions.
- Even if he had demonstrated an accelerated rate of stalactite growth, stalactite length isn't the method used to date the age of the earth.
- To quote the unquestionable authority, Terry Pratchett: "And all those exclamation points? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head." Mister Benson comes perilously close to the underpants limit in his title.
Comments
Oh man, that is funny. Non sequiturs for the win!
Posted by: j | May 23, 2007 8:53 PM
Lol thanks PZ. When I found it I didn't know whether I should have laughed or cried.
Posted by: Louis | May 23, 2007 9:03 PM
Pathetic.
PZ, do you think it is possible that in fifty years, newly discovered galaxies could have Chinese name? I truely, honestly hope not.
Posted by: mndarwinist | May 23, 2007 9:03 PM
Funny! Objective Ministries had a similar report in 2001, except theirs was a spoof:
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/sciencefair.html
My favorite, second place in High School:
2nd Place: "Maximal Packing Of Rodentia Kinds: A Feasibility Study"
Jason Spinter's (grade 12) project was to show the feasibility of Noah's Ark using a Rodentia research model (made of a mixture of hamsters and gerbils) as a representative of diluvian life forms. The Rodentia were placed in a cage with dimensions proportional to a section of the Ark. The number of Rodentia used (58) was calculated using available Creation Science research and was based on the median animal size and their volumetric distribution in the Ark. The cage was also fitted with wooden dowels inserted at regular intervals through the cage walls, forming platforms which provided support for the Rodentia. Although there was little room left in the cage, all Rodentia were able to move just enough to ward off muscle atrophy. Food pellets and water were delivered to sub-surface Rodentia via plastic drinking straws inserted into the Rodentia-mass, which also served to allow internal air flow. Once a day, the cage was sprayed with water to cleanse any built-up waste. Additionally, the cage was suspended on bungee cords to simulate the rocking motion of a ship. The study lasted 30 days and 30 nights, with all Rodentia surviving at least long enough afterwards to allow for reproduction. These findings strongly suggest that Noah's Ark could hold and support representatives of all antediluvian animal kinds for the duration of the Flood and subsequent repopulation of the Earth.
Posted by: Richard | May 23, 2007 9:03 PM
This one appears to be real. Suggested topics for a Creation Science Fair ...
http://www.tccsa.tc/fair/fair_ideas.html
Posted by: Richard | May 23, 2007 9:06 PM
Wow. That's really pathetic. I guess when people live in a bubble of ignorance everyone is a science fair winner. That project makes a baking soda volcano look brainy.
Posted by: MarcusA | May 23, 2007 9:11 PM
Wow Richard. That list is insane.
"How can I prove that evolution is true (and God does not exist)."
10. What was life like before the Flood?
12. Trilobites prove Noah's flood because they are curled up or not?
19. Can a dog run a maze faster than a gerbil?
23. Why do we have an Adams apple?
36. Why is snow 6 sided?
35. Why does the Bible say there is one glory of the sun, one glory of the moon, and one glory of the stars?
31. Why is the sky blue by day and black at night?
And some real gold:
28. What makes an animal wild?
53. Were all the animals friendly to man before the Flood? Idea: raise several baby animals like snake and mouse together to see if they remain friends as they are older. (Man that's cruel...)
112. What is the difference between cold and warm blooded? Why did God do it this way?
97. Why did God make birds to fly?
83. Why do people believe in Evolution?
84. What events caused them to become evolutionists?
Posted by: Louis | May 23, 2007 9:26 PM
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 23, 2007 9:28 PM
This isn't funny, it's appalling. Realize that these kids have no chance. They have been taught this stuff in school, and they have been taught to never question anything their Christian leaders say because then they won't be raptured.
Posted by: Rien | May 23, 2007 9:40 PM
But I admit it provokes some smirks :)
Posted by: Rien | May 23, 2007 9:42 PM
That Twin Cities science fair list can't be real.Number 18 asks if physical attributes or skin color influences intelligence.There is also a question as to whether humans are mammals.I guess the student should consult the tome The Negro As A Beast.This marvelous work could give him the answers to both questions.No Xian school should be without it.Most of that list is totally sick.I'm glad I am old without much time left.I can't take it anymore.There were nuts when I was younger,but it was easy to avoid them.Keep up the good work and send these people back to the hills from whence they came.
Posted by: spartanrider | May 23, 2007 9:44 PM
And...
72. What is God made of?
Sugar & spice, or the frogs and puppy dogs tails? (can't remember how the rhyme goes, but it would be in keeping with the hint of animal cruelty in the list)
Can we suggest another topic please...
199. Why are Creationists so obstinately stupid?
Posted by: pkiwi | May 23, 2007 9:45 PM
Sorry, if the formatting is off, it's my first time posting:
Wow, this is seriously depressing; for the love of mathematical constants...I...I think this might be child abuse. The absurd bit is that several of those projects seemed like pretty damned good ones for a middle schooler to investigate.
However, that list of Creation Science Fair topics...
2. How many shades of skin color are there? Use a paint scanner to test 100 people.
--My guess is that at one of these schools the range of skin shades would be remarkably narrow. A bastardized founder's effect perhaps?--
8. How much voltage or current can a human take before he is killed? Could do experiments on a plant.
--Sheesh, talk about being pro-capital punishment. Somehow this doesn't seem like the right model organism...actually nevermind it might suffice in their case.--
52. What was the weather like before the Flood?
--Rainy?--
69. Why do cats always land on there feet when they fall? Do other animals do this?
--I don't even want to imagine where a 12 year old boy and farm full of animals would take this one--
83. Why do people believe in Evolution?
84. What events caused them to become evolutionists?
--It's this whole thing with evidence and critical thinking. Oh yeah, that and satan commanded us to subvert good christian morals.--
Posted by: Mike | May 23, 2007 9:46 PM
I really like some of the brainstorm questions from the TCCSA:
"50. Why is blood blue in our veins but turns red when we are cut? If we are cut in a vacuum would the blood stay blue?"
I want to see the suggested experimental design for that one and will volunteer for data collection.
"106.Can plants affect your growth?"
I can think of a leafy plant native to North America which stunts your growth.
"93. Why do people eat and drink allot when they are depressed?"
Is "allot" an upper?
"83. Why do people believe in Evolution?"
Hey, Pikachu to Raichu. Who can deny that?
"30. Why does the ocean appear blue but when it is in a bucket it is clear?"
This guy must have gone fishin' for a whale with Simple Simon. Wait, Simon used a pail, not a bucket. "Whale" doesn't rhyme with "bucket."
"49. How does friction work?"
49a. And how does it lead to babies?
"43. Does commercial feed, corn and grits, or range feed, increase egg production in chickens? What about other animals and feeds?"
Does other animals and feeds increases egg production in chickens?
There's more.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | May 23, 2007 9:56 PM
Be careful, this young man's uncle may chastise you for breaking his poor little scientific heart :)
Posted by: Chris | May 23, 2007 10:23 PM
While I feel bad picking on kids who really are just victims of imbecile parents, this is just too funny to pass on.
I wonder who accredits this academy? Maybe it's time for a review of their status...
Posted by: MarkH | May 23, 2007 10:34 PM
Someone should be liable for damages to Mr. Benson. Surely, there's a civil, if not criminal case of abuse. It certainly doesn't qualify as education. That said, the education that all too many Christian schools dish out us not an education at all, but child abuse.
Posted by: Keanusk | May 23, 2007 10:35 PM
I not only feel sorry for the kid, I feel sorry for the school, that would nominate this as a 'science' project to begin with, I feel sorry for the parents, who are doubtless proud of their child's "achievement", and I feel sorry for the community this kid will end up in.
depressing all the way round, to see such destruction.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2007 10:44 PM
There's a debate going on right now as to the differences between Canadians and Americans. This item reminded me of that. I haven't heard of any science fair projects along these lines in Canada. Mind you, we do have Christian schools, and I am not familiar with the local news in our Bible Belt regions (Fraser Valley, parts of Alberta and Ontario etc.) If anyone has heard of such stuff, I would be very interested. I do believe that the religious right is much less powerful in Canada, although there are a few such people in our current government.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | May 23, 2007 10:45 PM
Yes, but now young Brian needs to tell us what brand of paper towel God used? And where in the world did he get all those epsom salts? The Epsom Salt Council may need to add a new subject heading to its website : Beauty, Garden, Health, CREATION!
Posted by: Kari | May 23, 2007 10:48 PM
Sorry to tell you, T.B.M., but there appears to be our very own creation museum opening in Innisfail...
Posted by: magista | May 23, 2007 10:58 PM
199. Why are Creationists so obstinately stupid?
that science project has already been done.
seen the most recent Science?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996
I wonder if they'll get a pretty blue ribbon for that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2007 11:00 PM
Gee, he could have done it in minutes with hot wax. I'm not impressed.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | May 23, 2007 11:01 PM
The best part about this? This kid is going to think he's a genius and is going to spend a lot of money to go to a big school to impress all us heathen atheists and end up being so humiliated when it's revealed that he knows nothing. And he's going to go back home, feel bad, blame us, and then not even realize what the real problem is because it's so tied into his own ego.
That's probably going to be the last straw for the Creationists. Incidents like this are going to produce a generation of dullards that are going to be openly mocked for this. Sure, it's tragic, but the humor alone from this is going to be hilarious.
Posted by: Zbu | May 23, 2007 11:11 PM
About cats landing on their feet...
I've seen a cat slip off a kitchen counter when startled, and it landed mostly on its ass. It splayed itself out as it fell, the ass hit the floor, and the critter flopped onto its side. Don't know what it proves, but I sure enjoyed seeing it. ;-)
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | May 23, 2007 11:14 PM
About cats landing on their feet...
I've seen a cat slip off a kitchen counter when startled, and it landed mostly on its ass. It splayed itself out as it fell, the ass hit the floor, and the critter flopped onto its side. Don't know what it proves, but I sure enjoyed seeing it. ;-)
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | May 23, 2007 11:14 PM
Hmm... I think I'll have to drop in on one of this school's "Biology" courses to whip up a batch of rock candy and say "Look, I made diamonds! Buy some for your mommy."
Posted by: Dan | May 23, 2007 11:19 PM
It's like they think no "evolutionist" has ever seen an icicle or something.
Posted by: Sophist, FCD | May 23, 2007 11:25 PM
Don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading that list.
64. Why do we sleep at night? Do we have to sleep to rejuvenate the rods and cones in the eye?
65. What affects skin color? Is one color better than another? What was God's purpose in this? WTF??
66. What color is our brain? Again, WTF?
67. What is the fastest speed something can go?
68. Why is a dogs nose wet?
Posted by: Katie | May 23, 2007 11:33 PM
53. Were all the animals friendly to man before the Flood? Idea: raise several baby animals like snake and mouse together to see if they remain friends as they are older. (Man that's cruel...)
Well, how long have Dembski and Luskin known each other?
Posted by: Science Avenger | May 23, 2007 11:35 PM
Sounds like a perfect candidate for the University of California.
Posted by: Science Avenger | May 23, 2007 11:45 PM
Cats always land on their feet, huh? Well, you know, I thought I had a cat, but I have definitely seen him fall off things and land on his head before, so I guess he must be a pseudocat, or an alien disguised as a cat.
As to #65, I could make a compelling argument that some skin colours are "better" than others, at least in certain circumstances. Right now, I'm really wishing I was a little less melanin-deprived than I am, since we've had several days lately with a very high UV index each day, and my pastiness can't take it. I'm going to pinken, freckle, and then turn white again (damn stealth red hair). I have a friend who has lovely milk-chocolate-coloured skin who didn't get his first sunburn until he was 17 and visited Thailand. Envy!
I don't think that's quite what they meant by "better," though...
Posted by: Interrobang | May 23, 2007 11:56 PM
That's probably going to be the last straw for the Creationists. Incidents like this are going to produce a generation of dullards that are going to be openly mocked for this.
marginalization is a powerful tool for social change.
...and IMO, the ONLY one that will end up having long term consequences in the "culture" war.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2007 11:58 PM
It should not be surprising that the fundies would choose to reward a student who has shown the aptitude to contort, misrepresent, slight and misapply science in order to promote their religious ideology. That's all they're looking for in a scientist, after all.
Posted by: Ex-drone | May 24, 2007 12:02 AM
104.Why do cats hate dogs and dogs hate cats?
I've always wondered this.
Posted by: McGarnigle | May 24, 2007 12:06 AM
Great. And another notch in the proverbial bedpost of stupidity for my home state. And right up the road too.
And Pawleys is such a nice area. Such nice hammocks.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 24, 2007 12:13 AM
PZ, do you think it is possible that in fifty years, newly discovered galaxies could have Chinese name? I truely, honestly hope not.
Why?
Posted by: truth machine | May 24, 2007 12:25 AM
Why do cats hate dogs and dogs hate cats?
same reason hyenas and lions sometimes attack each other; competing predators.
that would be my guess.
I'd also bet that mountain lions and wolves don't get along so well. I'm pretty sure of it, actually.
but that would be the dogs and cats thing again.
of course why Creobots think dogs hate cats is probably far too bizarre for me to even guess at.
anybody know?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 24, 2007 12:26 AM
It should not be surprising that the fundies would choose to reward a student who has shown the aptitude to contort, misrepresent, slight and misapply science in order to promote their religious ideology. That's all they're looking for in a scientist, after all.
hard to argue with that logic.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 24, 2007 12:28 AM
#22 - I think that aritcle link is possibly more depressing than the science fair topice. I mean the paper considers the oft observed: stupidity leads to more stupidity. But dang it - science has to go and prove it!
Posted by: pkiwi | May 24, 2007 12:28 AM
The TCCSA (Twin Cities Creation Science Association) creation science fair is real, and it's held in Minneapolis every February. Greg Laden was there this year and took pictures, and was even abused by the organizers. Check it out!
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 24, 2007 12:34 AM
ever since the tccsa list first appeared on my radar screen, I've never been able to get this particular suggestion out of my head:
Really, truly, I have no words. None.
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | May 24, 2007 12:38 AM
Dogs hate cats because they persisted in asserting their individuality, of course. Rudyard Kipling explained this in his authoritative tome on the subject "The Cat Who Walks by Himself".
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | May 24, 2007 12:55 AM
1. Sad but true. The writer of the story is outright lying about the rate of growth of Calcium Carbonate stalactites.
We recently visited Kartchner Caverns Arizona.
The tunnel leading into the caverns was dynamited into the cave between 15-20 years ago.
On the ceiling of the tunnel we noticed a 5-6 inch calcium carbonate stalactite growing. That's 0.3 inches per year. You can make the cm calculation.
The rate of growth needs to take into account many considerations including water pressure, water flow, and amount of CaCO2 among other things.
The author is an outright liar and I can testify to this from personal observation.
3. The PA law below describes Stalactites as being composed of one of the compounds Epsomite (Magnesium Sulfate).
All caves in the US are described by evolutionists as very, very old taking thousands if not millions of years to form.
Pennsylvania Cave Protection Act (1990)
No 1990 -133, SB 867, Signed into law Nov. 21, 1990
Prohibiting certain conduct with respect to cavers; and imposing penalties.
Section 1. Short title.
This act shall be cited as the Cave Protection Act.
Section 3. Definitions.
The following words and phrases when used in this act have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Speleothem." A natural mineral formation or deposit occurring in a cave. The term includes, or is synonymous with, stalagmite, stalactite, helectite [sic], shield, anthodite, gypsum flower and needic, angel's hair, soda straw, drapery, bacon, cave pearl, popcorn (coral), rimstone dam, column, palette, flowstone and other similar mineral formations which occur in caves. Speleothems are commonly composed of calcite, epsomite, gypsum, aragonite, celestrite and other similar minerals.
Posted by: Catalina | May 24, 2007 12:55 AM
#22 - I think that aritcle link is possibly more depressing than the science fair topice. I mean the paper considers the oft observed: stupidity leads to more stupidity. But dang it - science has to go and prove it!
yes, it's a dirty job, but somebody had to do it.
I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it so far, but it looks like an interesting paper.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 24, 2007 12:58 AM
if it looks like a stalactite, it must be a stalactite!
i don't blame the kid, it's the school--how can they call this education?
Posted by: b | May 24, 2007 12:58 AM
John C. Randolph wrote:
Speaking of cats, I remember an intriguing theory from the column at the back of New Scientist about a source of limitless power. The author noted that cats always landed on their feet and that buttered toast always landed buttered side down when dropped. He proposed tying a slice of buttered toast to the back of a cat and dropping them. The theory was that both the cat and the toast would try to land in their preferred attitudes with the result that the combined unit would hover just off the ground spinning furiously - a source of limitless power just waiting to be tapped.Perhaps this could be suggested as an experiment for a Christian science fair?
Posted by: Ian H Spedding | May 24, 2007 12:59 AM
The only thing creationists do well is claim victory. I'd dock this kid simply for titling his project in such a manner as to not only sound profoundly arrogant in assuming his piddling amount of "work" has handily trounced the harrowing efforts by thousands of professionals, but is also so assuming of so many variables as to show him to be completely ignorant of his subject. Thus, he shows this regardless, but I find it appalling that at every turn they spend all their time jumping for joy, high-fiving, and playing neener-neener point-my-finger at evolution, and they never prove anything. It's the intellectual equivalent of arguing with a 6-year old who needs his toy taken away.
My guess is they THINK this "proves" creation because he designed the experiment, and showed that something RESEMBLING a stalactite can be created via means man has discovered. They do not link - or indeed care or think necessary to restrict the scope of their argument as such - their "creation" specifically with biology, because they see everything as being designed. This of course has tethered to it the sloppiness of having to figure out explanations for every contradicting detail when and where it appears, and tying their entire regimen together under the heading "creation". They do not see breaking points, as from their perspective you cannot divorce geology from biology, because it's all a product of the same system or being.
That's my take on it.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 24, 2007 1:16 AM
Someone is teaching these children that science is just a physical form of quote-mining.
Posted by: Monado | May 24, 2007 1:19 AM
As someone who has to live with and married to an IE believer, I find this all to familiar. What we are arguing about and dealing with, is a difference of brain morphology. My wife was a skeptic with a religious background, then she hit her head and life hasn't been the same. I can attest to this injury causing a "born again" syndrome.
I still love her, this very difficult.
The hardest part is what to do with the children. I believe indoctrination is wrong. I also believe in freedom of religion and that at their age ( I try to stress the difference between truth and fiction at home. I do magic tricks, and let my wife spoil the magic.
We talk a lot about the little steps we take to get from here to there in our every day reasoning. Why does this happen... I talk about the other stuff people believe that clearly isn't real. I work hard to let them figure the math on their own. D-mode stuff.
I missing on the osmosis (hare brain) stuff that says that says that religion is wrong. How do you teach that?
Is there anyone else out there in this boat? I'd love to hear from you.
Thanks.
Norm
Posted by: norman | May 24, 2007 1:31 AM
Ian---no, the cat would overpower the opposing influence of the buttered toast and land on its feet, because it is much more massive. However, it might be slightly slower to turn floorward (and would have its downward force offset sufficiently to compensate due to the repulsion of the unbuttered side of the toast (facing catward) to the floor), in proportion to the ratio of the mass of the toast to the mass of the cat.
To get the hovering and spinning and limitless energy, one must attach enough slices of toast to the cat to equal the mass of the cat. And even then the equilibrium of cat and toast will only last until the cat's normal excretion, shedding, and the like causes its mass to fall below that of the toast, resulting in the toast landing butter-side down and the cat protecting its dignity by arguing that it hasn't landed on its back at all because it has spent the entire experiment lying on its back, relative to the slices of toast.
Posted by: Kyra | May 24, 2007 1:32 AM
Actually, it was demonstrated by Morpock and Sloe, (Science, Aug 1996), that once buttered toast cools down, the effect is no longer observered. The energy required to reheat the toast so that the effect is once again seen, is in fact greater than the energy generated by the cat/toast rotor, hence respecting the third law of thermodynamics.
Posted by: demallien | May 24, 2007 2:49 AM
Man, if that could win first prize, I'd hate to see what the other exhibits were like.
Posted by: RCP | May 24, 2007 2:58 AM
Re the dogs v cats question (comment #38), I think I do know why, though it's strictly from experience... not heavy-duty experimentation in a double-blind trial (hee).
Dogs express a desire to be friends by tail-wagging and bouncing around. To cats, this would be likely to resemble "I'm-ticked-so-you'd-better-clear-off" tail lashing, with a bit of challenging pounce stirred into the mix.
Conversely, when cats want to be pals, they avert their gaze and purr, which could seem similar to a dog's submissive body posture, with extra added growling.
There's no "hate"; they just don't have a common way of communicating.
Additionally, cats (much as I love cats) bring it on themselves by running off and stimulating the chase instinct in dogs, just when the cats least want to be chased.
Just observational conclusions of mine.
So, now, do I win some sort of Creation Science gold star? Maybe a scholarship to their lofty academia?
Posted by: Triumphal_Thusnelda | May 24, 2007 3:00 AM
@35 McGarnigle -
"Why do cats hate dogs and dogs hate cats?"
Because God made them that way, and God loves hate.
And that answer is the best kind of FundieMental Science, because all of the evidence that God loves to hate is right there in the Bible - from jerking people about to genocide. It turns out that the answers REALLY ARE in Genesis this time!
Posted by: Philip Storry | May 24, 2007 3:53 AM
Huh. Actually, if you look at the second and third place winners in the life sciences, you see pretty run-of-the mill science fair experiments. Also, the Life sciences category is the only one with an overtly creationist theme.
The overall winner of the competition was
"Rachel Harrison, eighth grade -- Can a Polarized Lens Affect a Digital Photograph?"
If you want to interpret this optimistically, it would indicate a lack of overtly creationist projects that were available to be judged.
Posted by: archgoon | May 24, 2007 5:09 AM
@#51/Kyra: Holy crap, that was funny.
Posted by: Dave Newton | May 24, 2007 5:15 AM
Funny how much time is spend trying to prove or diprove evolution.
Pray once and already you can tell that God exists.
Posted by: Marilynn | May 24, 2007 5:27 AM
Norman,
I guess the best advice is not to avoid religion but to actually teach your children about different religions and that they all tell their followers that every other religion is wrong. This particular lesson was instrumental in my own realization that they were all based on localized myths. So long as you can prevent your children believing in the idea of hell and Satan and teach them the value of critical thinking then they should be able to find their own way to reason.
Posted by: MartinC | May 24, 2007 5:34 AM
... or a blog troll. (Slightly closer to human than the average houseplant, but only slightly.)
Because otherwise that sappy John Ashcroft song would have been "Let the Eagle Plummet," and that just wouldn't have been the same!
Rien:
Just a passing thought: Do you suppose Xtian schools have Rapture drills?
I wonder what kind of grade a kid would get for demonstrating that God is made of pure, unadulterated imagination (with just the tiniest sprinkling of fairy dust)?
Um... Creation Science fairs?
Kari:
My guess is Bounty -- how do you think He cleaned up the Flood waters so darn fast?
John C. Randolph:
Hot Wax Stalactites -- good name for a Creationist rock band?
Zbu:
Nah. This dolt probably already has a full scholarship to Liberty University.
Sophist, FCD:
Can you prove that every single icicle isn't specially created by God? Huh!?!? No!?!? Then I've disproved evolution!!!!
(Wow. It's disturbingly easy to think like a Creationist. Well, I suppose it'd be even easier if you scooped out that part of your brain that insists on screaming, "What a load of crap!" But that's a small price to pay for Eternal Glory™.)
Posted by: Voice O'Reason | May 24, 2007 6:29 AM
Wow. I am speechless. He made crystals? I did that when I was like 8 with a chemistry set. I did not realize I had a science-fair-winning experiment on my hands!
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | May 24, 2007 6:36 AM
I just found the following link by following the thread oon Greg Ladens site.
Oh. My. God.
http://www.grandrivermuseum.org/Creation%20Science.htm
Can you guess which book they recommend people to read to find the truth about evolution ? (No, not that one, think even MORE evil)
Posted by: MartinC | May 24, 2007 6:48 AM
RCP:
You're thinking about it the wrong way. It's quite likely that the last-placed exhibit actually contained a bit of real science.
Posted by: Graham Douglas | May 24, 2007 6:53 AM
Well, let's consult the authority on such matters:
So... Sounds like life was a lot of fun before the Flood!
Ah, the classic fly-frigging experiment!
Back to the ultimate authority on such matters:
I think that's a "Yes."
Wow. THAT project would require some true dedication.
Finally a sensible question. Another question for the budding Creationist scientist: "74a. Why did God combine reproductive and eliminatory functions in the same organ? What kind of sick bastard is He?"
For a good laugh at how astoundingly stupid some of us can be...
Posted by: Voice O'Reason | May 24, 2007 6:58 AM
MartinC...you owe me a new computer screen now for attaching that link. I could have happily gone the rest of my LIFE without knowing which book they recommended. Blech!!! (oops..sorry for the multiple exclamation points)
Posted by: Dawn | May 24, 2007 7:51 AM
Oh my. I just followed the link, too. It's definitely worth slogging through all the text to find out which book it is. I think I need to go throw up now.
Posted by: Carlie | May 24, 2007 7:57 AM
Back in the 70's, I was involved in a kinesiology study involving cats landing on their feet. We used a high speed movie camera to film a cat being dropped from various heights, always starting upside down, to analyze the animal's movements during each fall. The cat was, initially, quite friendly and docile. During the trials, it became increasingly less so and, after the seventh trial, ran off, ending the experiment. BTW: that cat not only landed on its feet, it was always positioned to do so within less than a meter of the release point.
Posted by: ancientTechie | May 24, 2007 8:06 AM
O. . .M. . .G. . .
You'll know the world is coming to an end when they try to get THAT book into science classes.
Posted by: Alison | May 24, 2007 8:17 AM
On a positive note... I see that all the comments posted on that newspaper article express shock and dismay that such a 'project' could win.
On a negative note... it's sad there were only 4 comments.
Posted by: Ray | May 24, 2007 8:40 AM
I'm a creationist.
I didn't use to be, but I slowly evolved into one.
Posted by: davide | May 24, 2007 8:59 AM
Oh, this was fun!
No, no! The question is, how does a creationist get a clue stick?
As opposed to "inner" space?
But really, it would be amazing if a creationist, especially and YEC one, would get any of the properties of the cosmological scale universe correct. They should go get that clue stick first.
Catalina:
It is hard to understand what you are getting at, but since you use the signal word "evolutionist" in the usual improper manner (there are only evolutionary biologists) I take it you are a creationist. So I guess that you with the "writer of the story" is referring to the poster as being wrong. And that your comment is trying to show how.
#1. As you yourself supply material that clearly notes that rate of growth will vary in different locales, your single observation of stalactites only confirms a possible rate (in an artificial situation at that), but is not predicting any specific rate.
Just opening a cave disturbs the air and water so that the rates changes drastically. I am quite sure that your cave protection act includes not opening caves unnecessarily to save them for future research.
#2. Calcium salts ("calcite") are the most common mineral by far in this context, because stalactites forms mostly in limestone caves. Why do you think epsom salts are such a late discovery?
Of course magnesium salts ("epsomite") are natural (explaining the name "epsom") and will be observed at times. But it is rarer and behaves differently, it is very water soluble. "Epsomite forms as encrustations or efflorescences on limestone cavern walls and mine timbers and walls, as a volcanic fumaroles, and as rare beds in evaporite layers." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsomite )
If we are lucky a geologist will weigh in on the details. But the bottom line is that the post is correct. A model of stalactites to extract actual formation rates would be different than the strawman model proposed by the creationist.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | May 24, 2007 9:37 AM
God made me an evolutionist
Posted by: the man | May 24, 2007 9:47 AM
Catalina:
As usual when a creationist comments there are so many details wrong, besides the core issues. I should add to my previous comment that you are also directly disregarding details of the post.
You are mentioning "evolutionist" (with the only possible factual designator "evolutionary biologist") when the post directly notes that geology isn't part of biology.
Similarly, then the post notes that stalactites formation rate isn't used to date Earth, you are mentioning dating different cave systems as if the different and local times would have a bearing on the deep time which biology lives in.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | May 24, 2007 9:51 AM
Poorly titled article...thought I was going to read about the techniques followers of Mary Baker Eddy were usin' to proselytize
Posted by: Tim | May 24, 2007 10:03 AM
I don't understand why creation science is not a valid pursuit. There is a plethora of evidence demonstrating that evolutionary theory is unsound. Why not allow others to explore different theories? If no one seeks to find the truth, and we all assume that evolutionary theory is correct, then new discoveries will never be made. Sure some 8th grade student made incorrect assumptions in his science project. He's in 8th grade! Give him a break. One day he'll understand the faults in his current study.
My point is that science is not hard and fast facts like most people think. You can get science to say almost anything you want. Let people explore other theories. It can't hurt.
Posted by: PWC | May 24, 2007 10:35 AM
I don't understand why creation science is not a valid pursuit. There is a plethora of evidence demonstrating that evolutionary theory is unsound. Why not allow others to explore different theories? If no one seeks to find the truth, and we all assume that evolutionary theory is correct, then new discoveries will never be made. Sure some 8th grade student made incorrect assumptions in his science project. He's in 8th grade! Give him a break. One day he'll understand the faults in his current study.
My point is that science is not hard and fast facts like most people think. You can get science to say almost anything you want. Let people explore other theories. It can't hurt.
Posted by: PWC | May 24, 2007 10:38 AM
Ahaha. Man, do I hate creation "science".
But I don't hate it as much as I love Pratchett.
Posted by: Chinchillazilla | May 24, 2007 10:41 AM
The thing is, unless he's exposed to real science, he won't understand. Ever. And creationists tend to shelter their kids from real science until it's too late for them to reverse the brainwashing.
Posted by: Chinchillazilla | May 24, 2007 10:44 AM
I don't understand why creation science is not a valid pursuit. There is a plethora of evidence demonstrating that evolutionary theory is unsound. Why not allow others to explore different theories? If no one seeks to find the truth, and we all assume that evolutionary theory is correct, then new discoveries will never be made. Sure some 8th grade student made incorrect assumptions in his science project. He's in 8th grade! Give him a break. One day he'll understand the faults in his current study.
My point is that science is not hard and fast facts like most people think. You can get science to say almost anything you want. Let people explore other theories. It can't hurt.
Posted by: PWC | May 24, 2007 10:45 AM
PWC, if you'd take the time to extract your head out of the ground, you'd realize that "creation scientists" have shown that they have very little intention of actually promoting science, if they have any intention at all.
Furthermore, there is no alternate "theory" that can explain the diversity of life on Earth, as all other alternate theories have been discarded over the past 150+ years.
...
If "creation science" is indeed a valid alternative, can you show me how reading the Bible literally can teach me about trilobite phylogeny?
Posted by: Stanton | May 24, 2007 10:46 AM
Sorry for multiple posts...I'm having internet trouble and had no idea I was posting it so many times.
I would feel bad if the child was never exposed to any other ideas growing up. That may be the case. But Creation Scientists should have nothing to fear. The kid most likely will come across other opinions and if he has any academic integrity, he'll learn about them. But I doubt he'll change his mind about how the earth was formed. Which brings me back to the point that you can make science say whatever you want, even from the evolutionary perspective.
Posted by: PWC | May 24, 2007 10:50 AM
Sorry for multiple posts...I'm having internet trouble and had no idea I was posting it so many times.
I would feel bad if the child was never exposed to any other ideas growing up. That may be the case. But Creation Scientists should have nothing to fear. The kid most likely will come across other opinions and if he has any academic integrity, he'll learn about them. But I doubt he'll change his mind about how the earth was formed. Which brings me back to the point that you can make science say whatever you want, even from the evolutionary perspective.
Posted by: PWC | May 24, 2007 10:51 AM
Yes Stanton, my head MUST be in the ground. I have no idea what is going on in the world around me. All "creation scientists" have no brains and have no interest in real science. No other theory has any validity except evolution, so why even try to look other theories. Please read in my sarcasm.
If what you say is true, and that evoluationary theory is the ONLY valid theory, then why does science even exist in this field. We're done exploring. We've found the answer. Why pursue anything else? To me, this is the exact opposite of science.
Posted by: