Pharyngula

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 1, 2010 8:30 AM

That is Christian science?

What a fucking embarrassment to the human race!

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 1, 2010 8:35 AM

It's getting late for me, so I'll just be lazy and second Anubis' comment.

Posted by: vanharris | July 1, 2010 8:45 AM

... is a scanned page from a Christian Science textbook published by Bob Jones University.

Jumpin' Jeezus on a stick! Isn't there a law that prevents BJU from calling itself a university?

PZ, how much longer is this god-awful colour scheme going to be up? I don't know which is most likely to make me barf, the colour scheme or the thought of BJU.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 8:50 AM

This. . . this. . . this can't be real, surely you've been played, surely it's a Poe. I mean, electricity? Really? And here I always though electricity was one of the things we really had a good handle on. Silly me. Nuclear power plants, electric motors, Prius batteries, Ben Franklin, Tesla (the man and the car), but hey, we don't know what electricity really is. Sheesh. Apparently creationists have never seen lightning or read about Franklin's famous experiment.

They also misunderstand another key point: the sun is the source of all energyon earth (with the exception of earth's kinetic energy, the heat in the core, and some rather unusable cosmic radiation but that all came from the same process that created the sun, so in a way...I digress), not all electricity. Many things on earth can produce electricity, but if you trace back the source of the energy it is indeed the sun. But I guess if you think electricity is a total mystery, you certainly don't understand the distinction between it and energy.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 8:52 AM

One word: Zeus.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | July 1, 2010 8:54 AM

Shit and Corruption!
Are STILL using that one?
Tried to use that on me at confirmation class and that was half a friggin century ago.
Curate never did answer my 'Wot about lightning?'
Didn't work then
Don't work now

Posted by: a.f.diplotti | July 1, 2010 8:58 AM

Christian science is to science as Christian love is to love.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR | July 1, 2010 9:03 AM

Jesus loves electrons, so they gather at his side;
When he sends them off, pretentious graven images get fried.
When electrons saw the monument, with arms raised to the sky,
It was time to come to Jesus, by and by.

Posted by: OurSally | July 1, 2010 9:08 AM

Oh, yes, you can feel electricity. I have done so myself, and it hurt, and it picked me up and threw me across the room.

Posted by: Shifty | July 1, 2010 9:08 AM

I plug everything into a current bush. Red current is 220, Black is 110.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 1, 2010 9:10 AM

I nominate Alice Bluegown for Thread Winner! BJU indeed.

Posted by: Ewan R | July 1, 2010 9:15 AM

"well, we certainly believe in micro scale electron movement, however we simply don't buy in to the atheistic mythology that posits macro scale movement"

This almost makes me a little fuzzy insinde - it's not just evolution they don't get, it's literally everything.

Although I'm guessing they don't have too many biologists weighing in on their theories of electromagnetism. (thanks physicists and engineers!)

Posted by: griffiths.guy | July 1, 2010 9:17 AM

The first paragraph reminded me of this video (Feynman talking about magnets):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

The only real differences are:
* Feynman is talking about magnets
* Feynman is much more eloquent
* Feynman doesn't talk for two sentences and then descend into the depths of ignorance and stupidity

If you have a spare 10 minutes, it's a winderful video, and I think it'd be nice if someone reads the original post and ends up learning something about magnets from it.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 9:21 AM

At one point we convinced him that before he called our European partners he had to convert time to metric. Ten hour day with hundred minute hour and a hundred second minute.

Posted by: Zeno | July 1, 2010 9:25 AM

And wind, you know, is God's way of balancing heat. BP apologist Joe Barton told me so.

Posted by: llewelly | July 1, 2010 9:26 AM

BJU:

Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it.

Posted by: llewelly | July 1, 2010 9:31 AM

OurSally | July 1, 2010 9:08 AM:

Oh, yes, you can feel electricity. I have done so myself, and it hurt, and it picked me up and threw me across the room.

Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism. | July 1, 2010 9:35 AM

electricity is a mystery

And if that's really true then how do you explain this mysterious medium that we are all using to communicate? Did god get bored and mysteriously poof computers and the internet into existence as well?

The stupid in that graphic is almost unbearably strong.

Posted by: charley | July 1, 2010 9:40 AM

I love to rag on my Christian education, but my Jr. High (in the 70's) training on electricity rocked. We all built lead acid batteries, ammeters and ohmmeters from kits. We charged the batteries on a special rack and used them to conduct experiments running motorized winches to lift weights, teaching the concepts of power and work. These labs were more memorable than lectures and provided no opportunity for god talk.

Posted by: Amenhotepstein | July 1, 2010 9:44 AM

I am relieved to see that that young "Christian" girl is at least doing the decent thing and blow-drying her already dry hair while completely clothed!

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk25bzfeJzooxtW_G2Jo9aQu4IkVxU0jns | July 1, 2010 9:48 AM

Get yourself a a 9-volt battery. Put your tongue across the terminals. Mm-mm, tasty.

Hey, I did that when I was six. Not only did it hurt, my tongue turned a lovely shade of green, too.

Posted by: Ewan R | July 1, 2010 9:49 AM

- How the water manages to get on the other side of a cold glass on a hot day

Duh! Osmosis

(at least that's what I'm betting is the answer in the textbook under discussion)

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | July 1, 2010 9:50 AM

Feynmaniac (@27):

ARRRGH!! The very living, breathing reason I am now not an electrical engineer, but instead am an editor/publisher. Maxwell shoulda' stuck to coffee!

;^)

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | July 1, 2010 9:56 AM

"No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it. We can see hear and feel only what electricity does."
Just like we can only see and feel what tables do, or what bullets do, or what heat does. Actually, I think this book is a good example of what stupid does.

"Some scientists think that the sun may be the source of most electricity." [citation needed]

Posted by: James Sweet | July 1, 2010 10:21 AM

Apropos of very little, my wife has nearly convinced me that the ICP debacle is actually a really clever and subtle satire.

Another friend of mine says -- and I think I find this most convincing -- that it doesn't fit neatly into satire vs. serious. He sums it up by saying, in regards to ICP, "They know what they are." If his hypothesis is right, I suppose in a way it's almost Andy Kaufmann-esque -- where does the character end and the person begin? (Not that I'm comparing ICP to Andy Kaufmann in terms of talent or anything, don't worry)

This seems quite plausible to me. They don't seem to be bright enough to be doing explicit satire -- but on the other hand, I do not believe anyone could say "There's all kinds of magic up in this bitch" without their tongue at least grazing their cheek.

Let me try one more way... they are probably not explicitly trying to satirize willful ignorance and magical thinking. OTOH, I don't think they are speaking in their own voices, I think the song is written from the perspective, "What would an insane vulgar clown say if he were to try and rap about existential questions and the awesome beauty of nature?" The flaming stupidity of the results is mostly likely inconsequential to the "Posse" -- they are simply writing in character.

Or maybe they are just freakin' idiots.

Posted by: James Sweet | July 1, 2010 10:27 AM

Gus @8: The reason I find this plausible is because it is not too different from other shallow anti-materialist arguments. "You can't see your brain... yet you know it is there! Therefore, JEEBUS!"

Presumably on the next page, they go on to talk about the spirit being similarly ineffable and mysterious. "Scientists believe in electricity, even though they don't know what it is or where it comes from -- but they are hypocrites, because those same scientists refuse to believe in the soul just because they don't know what it is or where it comes from!" (A rare double fallacy! The conclusion does not follow from the premise, and the premise is false anyway)

Posted by: christopher.s.surridge | July 1, 2010 10:41 AM

Never felt electricity?!? By the time I finished undergrad, I could tell AC from DC by feel. In retrospect, I may have been a bit careless in the physics lab.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 1, 2010 10:42 AM

That lady had best hurry up and finish drying her hair so she's not late for the Alice auditions.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 1, 2010 10:49 AM

#54

By the time I finished undergrad, I could tell AC from DC by feel. In retrospect, I may have been a bit careless in the physics lab.

Apart from feel I used to be able to verify first impressions by the distance I ended up from the bench ;-)

Posted by: Kichae | July 1, 2010 10:54 AM

legistech @51

This is hilarious. I have a hard time believing anyone older than six falls for this.

One of my girlfriend's friends from work was attending one of the local community colleges (which, frighteningly, was just accredited by the province and is now considered a full blown university) to be trained in reiki. Her instructor apparently regularly hit his class with the "fact" that scientists "can't explain how electricity works" in order to illustrate that they weren't throwing thousands of dollars away on nonsense.

My girlfriend let her friend know that she wasn't a believer in reiki, and that they would have to agree to disagree. Except her friend simply couldn't hold it in, and had to convince the skeptic. So she hit my girlfriend with the "we don't understand electricity" bomb.

This woman wasn't 6. She was 24. She had simply been lied to by a person of authority (in her mind). A lie which was used to deflect criticism and obscure the fact that she had spent several thousand dollars to learn how to wave her hands around.

Posted by: Carl | July 1, 2010 11:07 AM

Fuck. Admittedly I was told by a creationist BSEE that the "fact" that the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can see is the SAME portion associated with colours was proof that we are divinely created.

Posted by: lykex | July 1, 2010 11:09 AM

One could argue that we don't really see people, what we do is gather photons that have been perturbed...

Actually, it's even worse. We don't observe the photons themselves, we only observe what they do, namely stimulating our photoreceptors.

Posted by: ugo.cei | July 1, 2010 11:14 AM

PZ sez:

they are machines that convert chemical energy into electricity that is used to power little dynamos that create stored chemical energy

You are going to regret writing this. I can hear an army of quote miners digging this post right now...

Posted by: jaranath | July 1, 2010 11:22 AM

Woah! PZ found the link! They're selling this thing NOW, and from the preview pages it sure looks like the real deal (same formatting).

Maybe I can get it used...

Posted by: Jeremy O'Wheel | July 1, 2010 11:24 AM

Wow, everybody has to watch this video now. It just became even better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCWA7uevo_Q

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 11:27 AM

Oh, thanks for the link to the BJU press site, PZ. They also sell a home teacher edition, so this lovely material is being promulgated to home schoolers, meaning the kids seeing it don't stand even a snowball's chance in hell of getting any accurate information. And what a weird book it is, the table of contents suggests that there was no attempt to have an over-riding theme or area of science covered (except the theme that God did it, so shut up and stop asking questions or you'll go to hell):

History of the Moon.
Insects, Arachnids, and Myriapods.
Electricity.
Plants.
Length, Area, and Volume.
Digestion.
The Moon's Structure and Motion.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 11:31 AM

Oh, i posted before I saw the second page of the table of contents. It just gets weirder. Apparently Trees get their own chapter. Guess they're not plants.

@Brian - My dad loves to tell stories of driving in Germany. He found the Ausfahrt signs amusing for a whole other reason.

Posted by: anne.claflin | July 1, 2010 11:33 AM

You would be surprised - or maybe not - at how many people of any persuasion think that electricity is installed in their home when it is built, and it comes from their walls. Communicating energy choices to consumers is tough when they think they can't purchase shares of wind power because they live in an old home. On the other side, we have to explain that no, we can't give you electrons that come from wind turbines, you are paying a little extra to get more wind generated power into the mix.

Posted by: creating trons | July 1, 2010 11:36 AM

I am the Creator of Trons...well actually I work in the field of power generation.

I know what it looks like (it will blind you), I know what it sounds like (stand next to an energized 13.8KVA transformer, it will scare you), and I know what it feels like (everybody makes mistakes but not everyone walks away).

I don't understand how some one can make this shit up.

Oh, I've been away for a week and come home to find that we have achieved some milestone and the reward is the lovely new color scheme. WTF?

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 11:40 AM

I can't stop looking at it. The section on the moon tells kids all the things an evolutionist would say about the moon and how it doesn't add up. Aside from being wrong about the moon, they once again miss the point that evolution doesn't say shit about the moon. They don't get that evolution is about how the diversity of species we find on the earth came about, not about how life began, certainly not about how the moon came to be. Science says these things, but not evolution.

Posted by: Ewan R | July 1, 2010 11:44 AM

Jesus Hiroshima Christ.

I advise everyone to actually flip through a few pages of this book - the history of the moon section is a free chapter - it appears to be an exercise in straw man building - the first theory of moon formation certainly isn't one I've ever seen - the whole section essentially boils down to "here's three theories scientists have put forward, arent they silly - here's what the bible says. pwned" while ignoring current opinion entirely - which perfectly mirrors the approach to evolutionary biology. Perhaps crocoducks live on the dark side of the moon.

Apparently we also believe the moon is a billion years old.

Posted by: cyan | July 1, 2010 11:46 AM

Ing @ #11:

To point out that natural selection is the basis on which chemical reactions occur: very apt and useful

Thanks

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 1, 2010 11:52 AM

Of course, being a biblical study guide, they must cover the "Purpose" of the moon...

And what is the moon's purpose? Why, the moon is a light, of course. You simply must read this section to comprehend the level of stupidity we are dealing with. It's as if they simply ignore that the moon isn't visible at all and reflects little no light for at least a week every month.

Just an atrocity.

Posted by: Multicellular | July 1, 2010 11:57 AM

Wow, I followed the link to the BJU (best school acronym ever) book site and looked at the sample chapter on the moon. Great Zombie's ghost, it is the most horrific perversion of science I've ever read. I especially like the part the part describing that the people who believe the moon came about naturally are called "evolutionists." They then present three "evolutionist theories" on the origin of the moon that had to have been pulled from a science book from the 1950s. They completely fail to mention the most current theory about collision of the early Earth with another planet (but that is not surprising as it explains the anomolies they exploit).

Posted by: James Sweet | July 1, 2010 12:00 PM

On the other side, we have to explain that no, we can't give you electrons that come from wind turbines, you are paying a little extra to get more wind generated power into the mix.

In fairness, this is counter-intuitive enough that I wouldn't fault anyone for having difficulty grasping it. I must confess that, although I understand the concept perfectly on an intellectual level, on a visceral level there is still a part of me that screams out, "But your electricity is still coming from coal! It's a scam!" I suspect I will never fully silence that inner voice. In fact I suspect virtually nobody can truly silence that Stone Age intuition -- we just learn to ignore it, since that voice is pretty obviously wrong.

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | July 1, 2010 12:02 PM

Golly gee willikers! There is a whole section about the moon turning to blood as a sign of the end times!! Wow. These poor kids are going to be freaked out every few years by lunar eclipses. I wonder if they mention Hell in the module covering the structure of the Earths interior?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 1, 2010 12:04 PM

IIRC, the currently accepted theory of the Moon's formation is as a result of a catastrophic impact of a planetoid with the still cooling proto-earth.

Every "theory" they cover in the book of stupid has been long since discarded by science, I believe. Yet the prevailing theory doesn't even get a mention. How very typical.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 1, 2010 12:08 PM

I knew the equations involving drift current and other aspects of electricity were all just a lie.

OTOH, I can't really agree with this:

Also, if that little girl did not use electricity, she would be dead. All of the cells in your body create charge imbalances by pumping charged ions across their membranes, and using the flow of ions back across those membranes to create chemical energy — they are machines that convert chemical energy into electricity that is used to power little dynamos that create stored chemical energy. We also use the gated movements of charged ions to generate electrical currents in our nerves and muscles, which is how we think and move.

That isn't really what is meant by "electricity" when that term is used. Sure, those are phenomena involving electric fields and electric charges, but not the bulk flow of electrons in a material as the term "electricity" generally means

Glen Davidson

Posted by: sqlrob | July 1, 2010 12:09 PM

"Some scientists think that the sun may be the source of most electricity." [citation needed]

I'd call that one true, although only in the most nitpicky sense.

Coal and Oil fired plants are ultimately from photosynthesis. Dams from the water cycle.

Get really picky, nuclear and chemical are from supernova.

Posted by: Bob L | July 1, 2010 12:12 PM

University level text book is saying that, but this is intro to electronics,... 0o.

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | July 1, 2010 12:13 PM

Good Grief!!!! Speechless. Just speechless!!! This is FUCKING CRIMINAL!!!!

This really is the "No logical fallacy left behind" program; they've covered them all.

Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism. | July 1, 2010 12:16 PM

@80

The section on the moon tells kids all the things an evolutionist would say about the moon and how it doesn't add up. Aside from being wrong about the moon, they once again miss the point that evolution doesn't say shit about the moon.

The enemy they are actually fighting is naturalism in any form, and I think (on some level at very least) they understand, and willfully misuse "evolutionism" as a pejorative against a naturalistic outlook.

"Evolutionism" is the perfect canard for them, because it underscores their main objection: that modern science deprives humanity of its specialness and divine origin by giving it a naturalistic genesis, and categorizing it as a type of animal.

Posted by: withheld | July 1, 2010 12:29 PM

From the "Home Teacher's Edition":

In this first lesson, you will have the opportunity to explain that science is limited. Since science is learned only through the senses, science must be limited. That is, science can be wrong, and it can also change. In face, there are many things that science cannot do. For example, since science is based on what can be observed, it cannot deal with beginnings (for example, the beginning of the earth, the moon, the solar system, the universe, or life). What someone believes about those origins is by faith, not science.

That what we understand from science can change when new evidence is found is a feature, not a bug. That we can't understand understand how something came to be based on observations of what we find now is a lie.

A lamp is broken in your house. Nearby there is a baseball, and little Billy is no where to be seen. You weren't there to witness the event, but I'm pretty sure you have a good idea of what happened.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 1, 2010 12:32 PM

We have to remember that to these people, ignorance is a good thing. They want to make sure those gaps in knowledge are plenty wide so their God will be comfortable when they cram him in. I often wonder why the more reasonable branches of xtianity don't just sew the fundies' mouths shut so they can't spout this crap.

Then again, when you believe in talking snakes, virgin births and transubstantiation...

Posted by: a.f.diplotti | July 1, 2010 12:35 PM

Carl @62:

Fuck. Admittedly I was told by a creationist BSEE that the "fact" that the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can see is the SAME portion associated with colours was proof that we are divinely created.

And a crocodile is shaped exactly as itself! Isn't it proof that the crocodile is a divine creature?

Posted by: Karl L | July 1, 2010 12:43 PM

Is it just me or is this a close analog of Mr. Weasley from the Harry Potter books? He collected "plugs", wire and batteries (from those clever muggles). And his fondest desire was to discover "what kept airplanes up".
L. Sprague deCamp also had a story where modern sorcerers enchanted electrons to move in wires.
Magic is a comin' back.

Karl L

Posted by: Zorya | July 1, 2010 12:47 PM

Electricity (god) is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it. We can see and hear and feel only what electricity (god) does.

Oops..I guess that doesn't work.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 1, 2010 12:48 PM

It is perfectly obvious that 'Science' is not best applauded in any of its various incarnations.
They tend to go at Evolution because it strikes the brain dead on a more emotional ...'I ain't descended from no monkey'...level.

But in the main they tend to distrust, even hate, all forms of 'Science' because it seems to them that it is the only thing that stands between them and the rapture fangdango!

The more verbal of the brethren tend to use 'Evolutionary theory' as a purgative for all their insecurities.
So anything that strikes uncomfortable is lumped into Evolutionary theory, a handy bogeyman basket.

Of course rationality is also a facet of evolutionist thinking.

In fact by their analysis anyone that does not go all weak kneed at 'bhabi jeebus' is evolutionist in outlook and not to be engaged with at any level.

This book is a compendium of their rather vague uncertainties made solid.
Not joined together thinking at any level just wishful thinking for the terminally dumb.
If they say and repeat utter balderdash in the media and public as often as they can it might actually come to be true.
Kindergarten was never so childish.

'I think I can, I know I can, of course I can!' sort of chant in their confused and twisted logic circuits .

The 'university' should be stripped of its accreditation, toddlers are not that interested in such baby talk one does hope that no one else is.

And past students should get full refunds for being lied to, even if this trash is not taught in a classroom the mere fact the uni lends its name to such a ridiculous mish mash of tripe is enough to condemn it to being a laughing stock.

'Educational establishment', that is not wishful thinking that is just a blatant lie.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkMeAAyLWcCyk_BQXcHl2OxQtgREvf43ts | July 1, 2010 12:59 PM

Was anybody else reminded of this Mr. Show sketch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQaF4YXCXsc

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 1, 2010 1:15 PM

Thanks, studying biochem and realising everything at it's basic form is mechanical in operations and based on structure, tension etc was a big eye opener for me.

This is why I can't even understand what Behe i going for with "irreducible complexity" if you go mall enough everything is made up of the same parts just arranged in different ways. You can, assuming perfect atomic manipulation skills, break down say the flagellum and build up just about anything else that has the same chemical make up. That's sort of the POINT of eating. We break down supposedly 'irreducibly complex' biological mechanisms and rebuild them as the parts we want. I can't see how a chemist can make this claim...it makes no sense at any level.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 1, 2010 1:21 PM

"Now you can disparage the Bible all you want. That is your privilege and, frankly, it is nothing new and we are used to it. But just remember that, in spite of what you learned in public schools, there is no valid scientific method that can prove the age of the earth, the origin of the moon, the evolution of life or any other assertion of naturalistic scientism. The scientific data that is shoe-horned into evolutionary or neocatastrophism interpretations fits a biblical creationary interpretation far better. See Occam's Razor."

Phyically imposible event done by a being never documented, is logically self contradictory, and infinitely complex does not beat natural empiricism by Occam's razor.

Your education has failed you. You're a moron.

So tell me....how was there light before the sun wa made? You know...since the scientific data of nuclear fission supports creationism better than naturalism.

You know fucking nothing. In fact I'm taking Occam's razor away from you. I don't trust you not to hurt yourself with it.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 1, 2010 1:23 PM

Oh and I love "oh that's an old edition we don't really think that" followed right by "But it's totally right!"

Jesus Fuck Christ...how do you take a dump without accidentally flushing yourself to death?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 1, 2010 1:25 PM

"MIG-29"

Hey fucktard, you want to stay on topic and keep the posts to under a fucking novella?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 1, 2010 1:27 PM

@Fatboy

judging from the graduate we got, yes it's entirely real.

Posted by: jre | July 1, 2010 1:30 PM

People who accept the Bible believe that God made everything. They call God's description of how things began the Creation Model.

Those who disregard the Bible believe instead that everything got here by itself. They call this description of how things began the Evolution Model.

Evolutionists try to guess what events caused things like the moon.

Posted by: tradewinds | July 1, 2010 1:31 PM

Jeeze, my favorite blog has gone to all goofy colors. Hope you are just experimenting PZ?

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | July 1, 2010 1:33 PM

MIG, lay off it. This isn't a cancer thread. Go post in a cancer thread.

Posted by: Ewan R | July 1, 2010 1:35 PM

The inferences of historical science are directly based on the presuppositions of one's worldview.

No, no they're not.

there is no valid scientific method that can prove the age of the earth, the origin of the moon, the evolution of life or any other assertion of naturalistic scientism

Only in so far as there is no valid scientific method that can prove anything.

The scientific data that is shoe-horned into evolutionary or neocatastrophism interpretations fits a biblical creationary interpretation far better.

Only if you're smoking crack.

The creationary interpretation does not explain anything particularly well at all - the biblical view doesn't remotely match what is seen by empirical science. It does nothing towards explaining the cosmic background radiation, it gets the time of appearance of various lifeforms completely wrong, it does nothing to explain the obvious interrelatedness of all species as is obvious in both the fossil record, anatomical studies, and molecular biology (the first two are kinda interrelated, the second matching the first two is pretty frickin surprising) - does nothing to explain for instance the presence of bacterial type DNA in chloroplasts and mitochondria, doesn't explain the presence of the same damn viral sequences sitting in the genomes of closely related species. It is, in fact, a giant crock of shit which is as useful to constructing a meaningful view of "creation" as it is in constructing a useful modern view of morality.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 1, 2010 1:41 PM

here is no valid scientific method that can prove the age of the earth, the origin of the moon, the evolution of life or any other assertion of naturalistic scientism.

Posted by: sasqwatch | July 1, 2010 1:45 PM

I thought #124 was a crank's post until I carefully considered the stuff typed in all caps. Now I'm convinced. ...if only I could stop the shouting... the deafening, ear-blistering noise of ascribed status ringing in my ears...

And Pilgrim... sorry about that thinking problem.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 1:52 PM

Hey now, there are informed Christians who understand science, they're the ones who don't believe the Bible actually tells us how life, the universe, and everything began. Anyone who believes in creationism, particularly of the young earth variety, but any kind will do, or who thinks that science can't tell us anything about things we can't directly observe is not an informed Christian.

Posted by: raven | July 1, 2010 1:56 PM

The inferences of historical science are directly based on the presuppositions of one's worldview.

False. Presuppositionalism is just Postmodernism. Whatever one wants to believe is true is true. By that criterium, everything is true and nothing is true. But, there is a hidden assumption in there. That there is no real world, reality doesn't exist.

There is another crucial difference between science and religious fairy tales. Science works. It works even if you don't believe in it. Don't believe in the Theory of Internal Combustion? No problem, you can still start your car and drive away. Pretty neat, magic that actually works.

We scientists created modern Hi Tech 21st century civilization. What have the fundie xian kooks done lately besides assassinate a few MDs and attempt to brainwash a few kids? Nothing good.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | July 1, 2010 1:57 PM

FRIGGIN' CAPS LOCK KEY. HOW DOES IT WORK!!?

(/Also, why is my exclamation point repeating three times every time I press it?)

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 1, 2010 2:01 PM

Anyone who believes in creationism, particularly of the young earth variety, but any kind will do, or who thinks that science can't tell us anything about things we can't directly observe is not an informed Christian.

This was more or less what I meant above in my #141.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 1, 2010 2:04 PM

Yeah so to throw away science you have to bring up potmodernism (intentional spelling) and throw out objectivity. So to make creationism valid you have to make Mormonism, Muslimism and Hinduim equally as valid as Christianity.

Nice job breaking it, moron!

Posted by: Moggie | July 1, 2010 2:06 PM

#147:

Nobody seems to have mentioned the danger of using a hair dryer in the bathroom - something we don't recommend in the UK!

Don't forget that the Yanks use a weedy 120V, a gentle caress compared to the manly kick of our 240V.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 2:06 PM

@Celtic_Evolution - I know, but creationists can't read as many words as you wrote, plus they need lots of repetition.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 2:14 PM

@raven - Oddly enough though, the fundie strategy works well from an evolutionary standpoint - if you measure success as passing on your genes to the maximum number of viable offspring (or offspring of offspring) instead of in terms of wealth, health, well being, or happiness, then the fundies are generally more successful than educated people. And that's kind of scary.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 1, 2010 2:30 PM

Nobody seems to have mentioned the danger of using a hair dryer in the bathroom - something we don't recommend in the UK!

We'er trying to make the problem take care of itself.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 2:40 PM

I love when creationists try to use post modernism to tell us science is wrong. It's just like using quantum theory to tell us that God exits. Sorry guys, but scientists not only understand biology and cosmology better than you, but they also understand quantum theory and post modernism better than you. There's usually this class you take in grad school: History and Philosophy of [Name of scientific field or just Science]. Covers post modernism well. And yeah, if you say science can't prove one thing, you have to take the conclusion that science can't prove anything, we can't know anything, there is no objective frame of reference for the world. That means there's no reason to believe that you exist, let alone that there is a God. Post modernists think even less of the Bible than the rest of us, really. And that hoary chestnut about

The inferences of historical science are directly based on the presuppositions of one's worldview?

Posted by: Asclepias | July 1, 2010 2:46 PM

Anubis @ #116-AFAIK, BJU is not an accredited university. (They say it's because they choose not to be accredited, but it's really just because it would be an impossibility.)

Posted by: skeptifem | July 1, 2010 3:09 PM

Jesus fucking christ... I too had no idea how electricity worked at one point in time, so what I did was buy a book that was a beginner's guide to electricity. You know this shit after 2 chapters.

Posted by: Travis | July 1, 2010 3:10 PM

So apparently this book has changed and is like, totally not crap now. Even if that was the case this book apparently was written and used between 2004 and 2008. What does that say about the shitty standards of the publishers. That someone thought this was a reasonable book sometime in the last 100 years is laughable. Someone should apologize for the creation of it and the publication and/or be fired for having let it into the wild. But I imagine even this new edition, if it exists, is still a steaming pile of shit.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 3:30 PM

OK, I finally found the 3rd edition, but there's no look inside link, so I can't tell what mindless drivel is in there. Apparently their website was not intelligently designed, since selecting science from the category drop down gives you a random selection of two things from the category instead of everything or a listing of sub-categories.

Posted by: Travis | July 1, 2010 3:35 PM

Oh, I know it is still crap. I was hoping I would come across like a valley girl. The person above who said there was a new version made it sound like it had somehow been improved and I knew fully that it was still ghastly.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 3:39 PM

Here's a link to the 3rd edition, so it is on the website, we just can't see inside to see if it's any better. Of course, even if it tells us that we do know something about electricity, I bet it's still just making crap up about the moon.

In looking for it I also found Flood and Fossils and Space and Earth Science. The entertainment never ends. Sadly, Flood and Fossils also lacks a preview.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 1, 2010 3:58 PM

Ah! I think we have a sighting of a BJU graduate.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 1, 2010 3:59 PM

I see a schism coming between fundies who think electricty is "teh divine technological ambrosia of teh Lard!" and those who believe it is "evil, evil techno-witchcarft, the corrupting creation of teh Devil!"*.

Religious wars and oppression have occurred for equally foolish reasons in the past.

* Afterall, no electricty = no internet = less pron, and far fewer outlets for those demonic atheists to organise and create mind-reading satellites and brain-zapping atheism rays as part of the future fascist atheist dystopia

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 1, 2010 4:04 PM

Space and Earth Science tells us that:

Scientism is the religion behind the theory that the Earth evolved from a molten mass of rock to its present form.

But hey, they also have a section on theistic evolution that ought to be right up PZ's alley.

Man, I've wasted half my day on this shit, but it's so much fun!

Posted by: ljdursi | July 1, 2010 4:19 PM

What's most insane about this is that electromagnetism is the best-understood thing in all of human history. We understand it at the classical level; we understand it at the quantum level. Predictions based on Quantum Electrodynamics have been verified by experiments to 11 decimal places - one part in a hundred billion. We use our understanding of electromagnetics classicaly to build devices that can send messages through interplanetary space, and require quantum understanding to design computer chips.

Our understanding of electromagnetism is one of the pinacles of human achievement, built labouriously over generations by deep theoretical thinkers and ingenious experimentalists, and continuously verified and validated a million times a day in our electronic world. That all of this should be ignored by whackos saying "we cannot even say where electricity comes from; some scientists say most comes from the Sun" just crushes my hopes for much of humanity.

Posted by: Ewan R | July 1, 2010 4:24 PM

So apparently they don't believe in continental drift either.

It's kinda hard to believe in continental drift given the rate at which continents now drift and the timespan you generally view as encompassing all of "creation" - which would mean that if the theory is true the America's would be an easy swimming distance from Europe/Africa had they started drifting right after god separated the land and the water.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | July 1, 2010 4:35 PM

Vicki I was not making a negative comment,
It is just that I am amazed that we still use the water wheel and the boiler generate electricity.

uncle frogy

Posted by: raven | July 1, 2010 4:46 PM

So apparently they don't believe in continental drift either.

Creos don't believe in the ice ages either or they only lasted a month or two.

They also don't believe in the stone ages. In genesis, the 3rd and 4th humans were ranchers and farmers.

Never mind that past glaciation is obvious in most of the northern temperate zones. Never mind that much of the earth's surface everywhere is littered with stone tools, some dozens of feet below ground now.

When you are trying to cram 13.7 billion years of history into a 6,000 year old hole, some things just get left out, like the vast majority of reality.

Posted by: Roger Scott | July 1, 2010 5:13 PM

Speechless. Pure crap.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 1, 2010 5:19 PM

Asclepias...#164

AFAIK, BJU is not an accredited university. (They say it's because they choose not to be accredited, but it's really just because it would be an impossibility.)

I have absolutely no reason to doubt the point.

Considering the utter garbage they seem to be promoting I am not overly shocked.

Does make one wonder why anyone would bother wasting their life repeating rote utter nonsense and garbage for a 'diploma' that is either not recognised or not even offered and for what?
No degree no career, except in balderdash rehashing of course.

I suppose Pilgrim777 #119 is a fine example of such paucity of thought.

The BJU Press textbook featured in the OP is an old edition. It was substantially revised in 2008

and the statements you all objected to were replaced by more empirical ideas that are consistent with the ability of any fourth-grader to understand electricity

A substantially draconian revision then...from.

'We cannot say where electricity comes from'...

and the inability to...

'To say what electricity itself is like...'

To...

'empirical ideas that are consistent with the ability of any fourth-grader to understand electricity ...

That is not a revision that is a 180 degree turn about!

I'm not apologizing for what was written in the earlier editions.

Why?...you should grovel and beg forgiveness for the ignorance and stupidity it spread in its original form, because you apparently think it fair comment when it was misleading and wrong, in fact it was a complete lie!
Witnessed by the fact the rewrite apparently says the exact opposite.
You seem begrudging and pouty cos your dogma is revealed to be utter tosh.
And lying sends every good little xian to hell, for not being a good little xian and lying!

If you folks actually looked into how informed Christians understand science

ROFL...Gordon Bennet how can you look into a mirror in the morning.

you would realize that we view empirically-based science very much like secular people do (though for different philosophical reasons)

No you do not view empirically-based science very much like secular people do...because if forced into grumpily excepting any scientific basis for any phenomenon because the evidence is overwhelming you still claim privilege to believe the nonsense just disproved so pretending reasonableness is not really honest is it?

These hypotheses can be tested in the here-and-now and have produced wonderful advances in beneficial technologies

What hypothesis please!
Although hypotheses are useful in and of them selves they rarely produce advances in beneficial technologies, that is left to applied science using the laws that were developed from the hypothesized!

Then there is historical science

What like..
Darwin...
'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'

Or...
Galileo
'Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo'
(Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems)

Or...
Copernicus
'De revolutionibus orbium coelestium'
(On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres)

No of course not...
Not that historical and not that scientific methinks?

where questions of origins are dealt with

Like the 'wholly babble' perchance?
What other work is there you consider affective on 'questions of origins'?

This is where secular, naturalistic theories run up against what the Bible says

Mainly because the 'babble' is a crock of euphemistic allegorical gobbly gook!

The inferences of historical science are directly based on the presuppositions of one's worldview

Certainly for the jeebus addled for sure.

It is not surprising that different interpretations result from Christian vis-a-vis atheistic, secular worldviews

Yep rationality wins every-time...damned inconvenient for the theist it is presumed.

Now you can disparage the Bible all you want

We do not have to the tatty little pamphlet disparages itself very thoroughly without our help...that is if you actually read the nonsense instead of learning by rote!

That is your privilege and, frankly, it is nothing new and we are used to it

Yep! life is a bitch but wat ya gonna do Einstein?
Those atheists play so rough, they demand physical evidence, how unfair!
Woe is the xian...so intolerance stricken are we!

But just remember that, in spite of what you learned in public schools

Against what you 'learned' in sunday school you mean?

there is no valid scientific method that can prove the age of the earth

Actually there are and more numerous then makes jeebus lusters comfortable.
You absolute clown there are radiometric non-radiometric, dendrochronological references, geological and stratigraphic examples and very recently fossil evidence around 2.1 billion years for the first multicellular life form which might be a bit of an embarrassment, best ignore that evidence, like the rest for an ancient Earth.

Kindda blows a rather embarrassing hole in 6000year old mantra though does it not?
And that leaves the the babble rather isolated in the factual sense, seeing as 6000 years is an obvious human construct anyway.

the origin of the moon

Yes...errm well...we have seem the theist attempt at that one, not really impressive is an understatement methinks.
Besides again untrue claim, you go direct to hell and do not collect 200 bucks!

the evolution of life

The evolution of life is pretty much understood although as yet not performed in a lab, but it will be, just a matter of time.

or any other assertion of naturalistic scientism.

Careful your god dribbling is becoming errr!... unbecoming!

The scientific data that is shoe-horned into evolutionary or neocatastrophism

The jealousy is palpable and the only folks that shoe-horn facts are the religious because they have to cos they have no alternative, except to admit the whole fairy story is... errm!... a fairy story!

interpretations fits a biblical creationary interpretation far better

Lying for jeebus is still lying.
Cretinism pretty much stands alone in the corner with the dunces cap here, there is nothing in Genesis which is compatible with contemporary science and there are even two versions of 'origins' in the first couple of pages, which one fits?, anyone you want if you are dumb or naive enough I suppose.

See Occam's Razor

Maybe you should understand the principle before recommending it elsewhere...Occam's razor shoots your fantasy down in flames genius!
But I suspect you understand that as well as you do Science...which is hardly, if at all!

Posted by: withheld | July 1, 2010 5:26 PM

@alareth #185,
Actually, zombies knocked it over when they dragged little Billy out of the house to eat his brain.

The baseball was just a red herring.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 1, 2010 5:31 PM

Anubis Bloodsin the third #192

The evolution of life is pretty much understood although as yet not performed in a lab, but it will be, just a matter of time.

Evolution is performed in labs. You're thinking of abiogenesis.

Posted by: Alan(UK) | July 1, 2010 5:35 PM

Science 4 Home Teacher's Edition

This is the 1991 edition but it seems to refer to the old 2004 students book. It gives a good idea of the 'thinking' behind the lessons. The author clearly has no idea what science is, nor what a theory is, nor what a law is, nor even what a phenomenon is.

There is no way that a child could possibly learn any science from this book. But then the author seems to want to ensure that the child does not learn any science. It achieves its objective perfectly.

Posted by: LE | July 1, 2010 5:41 PM

Pilgrim777@119

The BJU Press textbook featured in the OP is an old edition. It was substantially revised in 2008, and the statements you all objected to were replaced by more empirical ideas that are consistent with the ability of any fourth-grader to understand electricity. I'm not apologizing for what was written in the earlier editions.

Well someone damn well should. Are you seriously trying to argue that the fact that there's a revised edition of this travesty makes up for the fact that they published it in the first place? Unless this version of the book was published pre-1900 (and the photo of the girl with the hairdryer makes me doubt that) then they deliberately published a book full of lies and bunk and marketed it as a science textbook for children. It's not like our understanding of "how electricity works" changed fundamentally in between editions. If the authors didn't have the basic science training to understand that what they were writing was a lie, then what the hell were they doing writing a science text?

You don't want to be tarred with the same brush as these "uninformed" Christians? Stop being an apologist for them. And frankly it would probably be best not to turn around and prove in the same paragraph that you are not among the "informed" by repeating that old saw about empirical vs historical science, as if it had any basis whatsoever in fact. The historical sciences, like all science, are based on the accumulation of evidence and validation or rejection of hypotheses. Just like "empirically-based science." There is no fundamental difference between them unless your bible-blinkered "worldview" forces you to disagree with the results they produce.

Posted by: Kichae | July 1, 2010 5:54 PM

Sastra @173:

The more I read religious crap, the more it sounds like spiritual crap. And vice versa. Ironic that both sides seem to think they're on totally opposite ends of the spectrum, with the atheists in the middle. No. Both traditional religion and 'cutting edge' spirituality are variations of the same old supernaturalistic pseudoscientific garbage derived from folk intuitions based on loose analogy (spirit is like electricity which is like air.)

It's no coincidence. They're both targeting the same demographic, and they're both utilizing the same tropes and archetypes to do so. So you replace "Jesus" with "the Goddess", "prayr" with "meditation", "spirit" with "chi", blah blah blah. The more heavily western influenced strains of "eastern spirituality" are little more than liberal Christianity with some of the names changed.

Hell, some strands have even stopped bothering to change the names and have simply absorbed Jesus into the pantheon. Panspiritualism lives and breathes the kind of subjectivism that only the loosest bound pomo strawman (or the most fervent and dedicated post modernists - they tend to be self-parodying) would espouse.

As does any zealously held and guarded belief that flies in the face of easily observed reality.

Posted by: kc5tty | July 1, 2010 6:14 PM

Lektrisity is majikal. only da zombie jebus can make lektrisity.

only da zombie jebus can unnerstan lektrisity.

braise jebus .....

.... BJU .... waste of concrete, water, lektrisity, and air.

(I met a guy from Bl** J** University the other day and had to laugh at his choice of schools. I told him it was one step below being homeschooled from Larry Curly and Moe. )

And really Larry Curly and Moe would actually teach people things.

steve

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 1, 2010 6:34 PM

I continually get zapped at work by static electricity, as a result I keep touching metal to discharge before it gets too big. Granted it might be demons biting my skin to make me think it's static electricity...

Posted by: Xplodyncow | July 1, 2010 6:48 PM

The common creationist argument that we can only know what we directly perceive with our unaided senses [...] .

Ah, so which of their unaided senses do they use to know god?

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 1, 2010 6:55 PM

Oh noez! Too many people have made comment about wanting a copy for amusement sake, but you still end up financially supporting Moronics 101. Wait 'til someone rips one off from the BlowJob University library, convert it to a PDF and upload it to Rapidshare. Then you can laugh hysterically to the stupidity without having actually contributed to the further propagation of shitwit. I wouldn't normally condone the piracy of scientific books or literature, but since there's no science or literacy at all in it, GO HUGE!

Posted by: rpresser | July 1, 2010 7:04 PM

Pages 9, 10, and half of page 11 are all about the age of the moon.

"How old is the moon?" This question has puzzled scientists for centuries. Evolutionists assume the moon is billions of years old because their model requires great spans of time for things to happen by chance. But creationists believe the moon is much younger, perhaps only 10,000 years old.

Can't get more than two sentences in without attacking the enemy, eh? This isn't a science book. It's propaganda being dropped from an airplane during wartime.

Oh, this is golden:

Suppose you figured out that 0.0001 inch of dust gathers on the moon each year. An evolutionist would multiply 0.0001 inch per year times one billion (1,000,000,000) years. And he would say that the moon had one hundred thousand (100,000) inches of dust! But a creationist would multiply .0001 inches per year times 10,000 years. And he would say that the moon has one inch of dust. How much dust did the astronauts discovere when they were on the moon? They found only a very thin layer. Does the moon seem to be old or young?

Um, yeah. Like 100,000 inches of dust would seem THAT MUCH DIFFERENT than solid rock. And of course the dust never goes anywhere after it settles, right? And the astronauts sampling one small spot on the moon is sufficient to describe all of it. Uh-huh.

If this is how the current generation of creationists are being educated, then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. They'll probably drown in their soup.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 1, 2010 7:18 PM

Moondust?

Serious, fucking moondust?

  http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html

Fucking morons.

Posted by: LE | July 1, 2010 7:50 PM

Re: moon dust

I can't believe they are still trotting out this canard. I had a dorm-mate plop this one on me over dinner during the first week of freshman year of University (it was a State Uni, but with a large evangelical population, such that all us freshlings got heavily proselytized to in the dorms and social groups). I knew it was fundamentally flawed then, but it wasn't an argument I'd run into before so I didn't have an effective way to refute him (beyond pointing out that one "gotcha" factoid wasn't going to destroy the underpinnings of modern science). Turns out the estimate he was using for dust accumulation came from measurements made on the top of Mauna Kea (I don't know about anyone else, but I was under the impression that that was well within the troposphere) and that it had been known to be inaccurate for something on the order of 6-8 decades by the time he trotted it out for me in the early 90s.

Posted by: mick.long | July 1, 2010 8:15 PM

The stupid...it burns...

Posted by: bionode | July 1, 2010 8:47 PM

Obviously, electricity is a miracle. I trust ICP to know these things.

Posted by: mkbilbo | July 1, 2010 8:54 PM

No, no, no. You're misunderstanding their use of "we".

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 1, 2010 8:59 PM

I have done the Sixty Cycle Shuffle. I'm familiar with how electricity feels.

Posted by: KyBoiler | July 1, 2010 9:35 PM

Sorry if someone else has already posted this, but this is assumed to be the textbook in question...

http://bit.ly/bmovqo

There is a sample first chapter available. It explains how the moon magically poofed into existence and how scientists are stupid because the think the moon formed from a cloud of dust at the same time the earth did...

Someone please tell me this is an entirely fake website set up to troll people. Teaching this shit to innocent kids makes me rethink freedom of speech...

Posted by: Marella | July 1, 2010 9:52 PM

Fundie xians on average end up lower on the socioeconomic scale. It isn't all bad though. Someone has to do our laundry and mow our lawns.

I have only really known two fundies and they both cleaned my house.

Posted by: cameron | July 1, 2010 10:00 PM

This whole thing reads like an episode of 'Look Around You'. Except not a joke.

Look Around You is hilarious, if you haven't seen it:

Look Around You

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 1, 2010 10:49 PM

She looks almost chimp like to me.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 1, 2010 11:43 PM

Wow, they even suck at writing propaganda. After a quick glance you will notice how they constantly hint at the possibility of another interpretation (a non christian one). This is supposed to be aimed at kids who don't know any better.

Posted by: SeeDubya | July 1, 2010 11:57 PM

I wish my dog was as clever as some of the other posters. I've been trying to get my dog to whistle for the past three hours to see if I could hear it and I don't think he's even trying.

Is there Christian dog training manual?

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 2, 2010 12:00 AM

I wish my dog was as clever as some of the other posters.

So do you have anything else to add beside poorly constructed insults?

Posted by: SeeDubya | July 2, 2010 12:08 AM

Oh! Poor grammar on my part. "Posters" was meant to be possessive. I wasn't calling you dogs, I assure you. Play on words humor... fell flat. Oh well.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 2, 2010 12:42 AM

Going through the examples people have been posting here that they pulled from the textbook, I really had no idea that these cretins could be so disingenous and manipulative. I always thought it was pure ignorance that drove their spew of tripe, but here and there are things that no adult anywhere could ever believe, but they are dishing it out purely for the sake of child indoctrination.

Hitchens was 100% correct when he said that religion was child abuse. Presenting pure fabrication as science to coerce children into mindless repetition of twaddle is abhorrent and these sick twisters abuse their constitutional right to free religion when it turns into pure child mental abuse.

Christians always crow their so golden morals, then they piss all over their kids with lies to keep them in the cult. I guess they forgot that their invisible sky buddy hands over people who do what they're doing to some guy named Stan so he can shove a pike up their arse and roast them on the beach bonfire like marshmallows (or so they say).

What does it say about a religion where the protection of sheer ignorance for appearances in front of their friends is more important than the reverence of its deity? They really are that fucking stupid and mendacious...incredible.

Posted by: Mumon | July 2, 2010 12:59 AM

We know more about electrophysics than pretty much anything else; as Halliday and Resnick mentioned, in electrical physics, (at least as of 1975) we can measure constants to a precision that is unavailable with any other natural mechanism.

Because of that, Maxwell's equations have been experimentally verified to a degree (again, as of 1975) beyond any other discipline. It is why we can make a GPS system that can find people on their phones.

It is why we figured out that in the latest Chilean earthquake the earth lost 1.26 microseconds of its day.

This textbook is a defective product, and its publishers and the maker should be sued for fraud.

Posted by: TWalker | July 2, 2010 1:03 AM

PZ, you would be harming that poor cat just because you could!

Oh wait.. yeah... that really is god-like. Sorry; please continue the discussion.

Posted by: DLC | July 2, 2010 1:14 AM

Looking at these Bob Jones books makes me wonder why they bother,when keeping their children from even learning to read in the first place would seem to fit their needs better.

Meanwhile:
Man, I hope this clears up soon.
I'm down to the ray gun and some molotov cocktails, and I'll probably be siccing the plants on the zombies if this goes on. . .
ray gun
http://www.popcap.com/extras/pvz/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94

Posted by: RobertL | July 2, 2010 1:44 AM

My favourite electricity story:

When I was in high school, I had a typical McJob in the next suburb. I used to catch the train there.

One rainy evening, I got off the train and decided to walk along the train tracks. (I know, very naughty and unsafe, but something that I did regularly.)

Anyhoo, I heard this annoying buzzing noise. Upon investigation I found that there was a spark arcing from the metal spike of my umbrella to the wet fabric. I felt nothing - but it made a noise. A bit of experimentation showed that the spark would actually change in intensity as I raised or lowered the umbrella - to be nearer or further from the overhead power lines.

That's what really worried me - that 10 or 15cm really made a substantial difference to the spark!

ps. The van der Graaf generator in physics was pretty cool, too!

pps. What's with the ICP? I must have missed something...

Posted by: MJP | July 2, 2010 2:10 AM

Also, it appears that the person who posted that link is nothing but a spamming asswagon here to promote his stupid book.

Posted by: Philip Legge | July 2, 2010 2:20 AM

Better still, given that it’s essentially spam from MIG-29, just delete the post entirely...

It’s a pity that deliberate lying to children in the guise of “education” isn’t a prosecutable offence. These “science textbooks” are nothing more than poisonous religious fiction, offensive trashy propaganda. Consider me stunned that this ignorance is so readily available in print, sample chapters available to view.

Posted by: Joe | July 2, 2010 3:16 AM

I have in front of me THE GEOLOGY BOOK, by Dr. John W. Morris, a Wonders of Creation Science/Home Edition book (paid a dollar for it at our Friends of the Library annual sale). If you were to just flip through the pages, it looks normal: diagrams of mountain-building, formation of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks, volcanoes, earthquakes, even a explanation of how radio-metric dating works. The bulleted topics on the back cover are mostly reasonable, though the first one is, What really carved the Grand Canyon. There are two mountains mentioned specifically in the index: Mount Ararat (three page references) and Mount St. Helens (seven page references).
From Chapter 6, Great Geologic Events of the Past (I. Creation, II. The Fall, III. The Flood, and IV. The Ice Age), let me edify you with THE FIRST LAW OF SCIENCE and THE SECOND LAW OF SCIENCE (following are excerpts):
Today, an important scientific law has been discovered. In fact, it is probably the most important and best-proven scientific law. It is often called the first law of science.
This basic law says that in the present world nothing is being created out of nothing. It also says that nothing that exists can be uncreated—That is, go out of existence. Thus, creation from nothing is scientifically impossible. But yet, creation is here.
From this we can conclude that when God did create, He was using processes...
******
It appears that God passed (sic) that first law of science at the end of creation week. Now all of His creation obeys that first law. The process of creation is over.
******
THE SECOND LAW OF SCIENCE
Scientists have observed that in every process or reaction in the universe the components deteriorate. Every experiment has verified the truthfulness of this statement. Through much study and observation , scientists were able to state this decay tendency in a scientific law now recognized as the second most important law of science.
Where could we look on planet Earth and see things not affected by the curse of death on all creation, as described in this law of science?

Posted by: Harbo | July 2, 2010 4:18 AM

As The Good Doctor Said.
The argument was lost, when they put lightning rods on churches.
So Now,..... we don't understand this invisible stuff.......... but we'll earth the building.
I'm going to hit my head into the wall a few dozen times, chant a bit, then pray for closure of the oil leak.

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 2, 2010 5:16 AM

The UK mains voltage was standardised to 240V back in the 1960s. [...]

Thanks, I had no idea.

Today, an important scientific law has been discovered. In fact, it is probably the most important and best-proven scientific law. It is often called the first law of science.
This basic law says that in the present world nothing is being created out of nothing. It also says that nothing that exists can be uncreated—That is, go out of existence. Thus, creation from nothing is scientifically impossible.

What a silly and misleading wording of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

It appears that God passed (sic) that first law

There's nothing wrong about "passed". These people haven't understood that "law" is a silly metaphor and believe it required a conscious decision by a lawgiver.

The process of creation is over.

Heretic.
</Catholic mode>

Scientists have observed that in every process or reaction in the universe the components deteriorate. Every experiment has verified the truthfulness of this statement. Through much study and observation , scientists were able to state this decay tendency in a scientific law now recognized as the second most important law of science.
Where could we look on planet Earth and see things not affected by the curse of death on all creation, as described in this law of science?

What a silly, stupidly metaphorical interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | July 2, 2010 7:30 AM

Ok, find yourself a pair of keys and an outlet ...

Done that with a childs electric motor when I was really, really young.

Bright lights, black hands and wall socket, 1 life less and a lesson learned.

A friend of mine told me the story of how he was calculating the distance to a summer storm by timing the gap between the lightning strike and thunder clap, whilst leaning against a metal window frame.

Strike 1 he got to 12 hippopotamus. Strike 2 he got to 10 hippopotamus. Strike 3 he got to the word one before getting enough of a shock to make him leap backwards.

ps. The van der Graaf generator in physics was pretty cool, too!

Nothing to add, I just felt it needed repeating.

Posted by: IanM | July 2, 2010 8:50 AM

This is the most extraordinary revelation about the nature of Creationist faith: "I was a bad student in high school... ergo God." or "Science is hard... ergo God" or "I am stupid, ignorance or just plain lazy... ergo God."

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 2, 2010 9:28 AM

#264

This is the most extraordinary revelation about the nature of Creationist faith: "I was a bad student in high school... ergo God." or "Science is hard... ergo God" or "I am stupid, ignorance or just plain lazy... ergo God."

Not so much a revelation more in the way of a trusted tried and tested xian default setting.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 2, 2010 9:54 AM

"How did the dust and gas come together? Have you ever heard of it happening before?""

Yes damn it. You see gas becoming solids all the fucking time. I mean jesus.

a) Clouds form from vapor coming together around sediment dust in the atmosphere
b) condensation: vaporous water coming together to form a corporal state
c) I'm pretty sure we've seen condensation of debris we've shat out in space.
d) I'm DAMN positive we've seen solar bodies condense naturally from stellar gas from our space exploration.

"Have you ever heard of it happening before" NO damn it, that's why I'm reading a science book. YOU HAVE TO TELL ME!

Posted by: Colin S. Miller | July 2, 2010 10:20 AM

#265

Take several Teflon(R) coated, bar-magnetised ball bearings...

Posted by: withheld | July 2, 2010 11:12 AM

Abstruse Goose answers the Insane Clown Posse:
A Mini Tutorial

Posted by: skeptical | July 2, 2010 12:12 PM

@Pilgrim777 post 119

"But just remember that, in spite of what you learned in public schools, there is no valid scientific method that can prove the age of the earth, the origin of the moon, the evolution of life or any other assertion of naturalistic scientism."

Proofs are for mathematics, in the real physical world we have to rely on reasoning to the most likely explanation. Despite this, methodological naturalism has served us well so far. A few thousand years ago it was in fact nothing more than a wild assumption that the world was intelligible through natural investigation as opposed to revelation, but we have long since passed that point.

You statement about not being able to demonstrate (not prove) the age of the earth is incorrect. While it might be true that radiometric dating, standing on its own, could be doubted, reasonable doubt must vanish if it is calibrated against a completely separate age measurement technique. The drift rate of the Pacific plate is known as is the fact that the Hawaiian island chain has been produced by a single, still active, hotspot. The age of each island/atoll in the 5K mile long chain can be calculated using min/avg/max drift rate observations and then plotted against a K/AR radiometric dating for the same. If they don't agree then either 1 or both methods are wrong, but it would be incredibly unlikely that they would both be wrong in precisely the same way since drift rate has nothing to do with radioactive decay. I have done such a plot and both methods agree to an astonishing degree. If the average drift rate is plotted the K/AR dating falls almost exactly along the line. This cannot be an accident, which means K/AR dating is in fact accurate or there is a Deity of singular malevolence attempting to deceive us. Take your pick.

"The scientific data that is shoe-horned into evolutionary or neocatastrophism interpretations fits a biblical creationary interpretation far better."

I'm sorry, but this is nonsensical. Long before Darwin it was known by devout creationists that the fossil record showed a faunal succession that was incompatible with a single creation event. Many hypothesis were proposed by the devout to explain this discrepancy, such as proposing numerous creation events, and some creationists still propose this. The bottom line is that it is known now and has been known for hundreds of years that the Biblical creation story does not match observation and must be unrecognizably twisted from the text to fit fact.

That people feel the need to perform such mental gymnastics out of fear of damnation is a fact I find rather depressing. I used to get annoyed by these antics, but now I find it all rather sad. What a terrible waste of mental effort trying to force fit every new and wondrous discovery into the cramped metaphysics of bronze age ignorance. I hope one day you and others like you will be able to truly reconcile belief in a Deity with the reality and majesty of the Universe that science reveals to us.

Posted by: DesertHedgehog | July 2, 2010 3:24 PM

When I was in grade school my friends and I would look at comics or bad old horror films and puzzle over electricty. Why was it yellow-white? Why did it come in jagged arcs or "bolts"? Why couldn't you shoot electricity from a ray gun like they did in comics? I was laughing about that when reading the main post above, and then realised...many years and/or graduate degrees later, I actually...ummm...don't know the answers. (I don't get 'grounding', either...or what the third prong on an electrical plug is for).

Somehow..."this stuff is hard, ergo [random inexplicable Azathoth-related stuff] is looking better as an explanation.

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 2, 2010 6:31 PM

I don't get 'grounding', either...or what the third prong on an electrical plug is for

A way to discharge an object is to distribute its charge over as large a volume as possible. That's grounding (the Earth is the largest available volume).

The third prong is connected to the exterior of the device, not the interior. If the interior has a leak and the exterior gets charged, that would give you problems if you touched it, unless the exterior is grounded and can't get charged.

6th year of school, 1st year of physics (i. e. a subject called "physics" as opposed to "everything including science, history, and geography").

Posted by: Citizen Z | July 2, 2010 6:40 PM

The BJU Press textbook featured in the OP is an old edition. It was substantially revised in 2008, and the statements you all objected to were replaced by more empirical ideas that are consistent with the ability of any fourth-grader to understand electricity.

What, did they get a fifth-grader to write the new edition?

I'm not apologizing for what was written in the earlier editions.
If you folks actually looked into how informed Christians understand science..

Like a fifth-grader?

But just remember that, in spite of what you learned in public schools, there is no valid scientific method that can prove the age of the earth, the origin of the moon, the evolution of life or any other assertion of naturalistic scientism.

Well, it only took them until 2008 to learn how fucking electricity works, maybe they'll figure out evolution by 3728.

Posted by: jupiter9 | July 2, 2010 10:16 PM

Posted by: Graham1 Author Profile Page | July 1, 2010 7:07 PM

Why would a girl have a framed picture of a racehorse in the bathroom ?

I'm surprised she's allowed to dry her hair in the bathroom, not because of the danger of shock, but because you don't get unnecessary bathroom time in a fundieproductive family.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 4, 2010 9:14 AM

@GusSnarp #156

if you measure success as passing on your genes to the maximum number of viable offspring (or offspring of offspring) instead of in terms of wealth, health, well being, or happiness, then the fundies are generally more successful than educated people. And that's kind of scary.

It is even scarier when you remember we live in democracies.

Posted by: MikeD | July 5, 2010 9:28 PM

Let's be honest. Editors always try to "jazz up" the writing. Surely no person with any kind of scientific training, creationist or ordinary, wrote this (unless it was written in the 1700's).

Blame the editorial process. I'm sure they've been embarrased by it for awhile, but the recall costs were too high.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 6, 2010 12:26 AM

the authors of the elementary textbook published by BJU are not even attempting to explain electricity.

You're living in denial.

the text quoted from that book is not dumbed down for kids, it's just plain WRONG.

so, for anyone wondering what kind of moron BJU produces... thank-you for providing such an excellent case example.

This is what some of the best scientists have to say about the role of mutations in evolution??? If I had the time and desire, I could dig out my copies of "Molecular Biology of the Cell" by Bruce Alberts et al and give similarly absurd statements.

frankly, based on your "analysis", it makes me wonder if you actually DO know how mutations work, what the percentages are of negative vs. neutral mutations, etc.

oh, please do stay and educate us??

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 6, 2010 3:57 AM

oh, and as to your first question:

What is the grade level to which it is written?

if you had followed the link to the item in question, you could have discovered that for yourself.

but no, being the lazy, dishonest ass you are, you of course avoided looking up actual information relevant to the topic of discussion.

Indeed you ARE a wonderful representative of a BJU graduate.

you do your alma-mater proud.

Posted by: BJUMicroPhD | July 6, 2010 9:24 AM

You're right, I didn't click the link, but I shouldn't have to. If the individual who started this had any sense, he'd know that's the kind of imformation that should be provided.

I never made the argument that this a "great secular educational resource", so please don't attribute quotes to me that I did not make. Nice try though. The Bible verse at the bottom of the page makes it very clear that this is most definitely not secular. I never defended

Yes, the information IS dumbed down for kids (4th graders as it would appear), but wouldn't you agree that the mutation example by Griffiths et al, in addition to being very flawed, is dumbed down a bit as well?

I understand very well how mutations work. My particular area of research focus is cancer immunology, so mutations are a major part of what we study. It seems you think that Griffiths et al gave a wonderful example. That being the case, I would implore you to go buy a gun (if you don't already own one) and LOTS of bullets, go out to your car, lift the hood and start firing randomly into the engine. Fire a few million bullets into it then come back and report to us any gain of function.

And, yes, I do feel I'm a fairly representative graduate of the BJU science department. I went to the evolutionist graduate school, played their game and I won...all while outperforming most of my evolutionist counterparts. I have my PhD, a pretty decent publication record, and NIH grant money. What more could a budding scientist ask for?

Posted by: ben.bubnick | July 6, 2010 10:03 AM

You can have fun by replacing some of the words (like mad libs):

God is a mystery. No one has ever observed him or felt him or heard him. We can see and hear and feel only what God does. We know he makes light bulbs shine and irons heat up and telephones ring. But we cannot say what God himself is like.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 6, 2010 11:01 AM

BJU_fraud, How about the first line that says "Electricity is a mystery." This is bullshit. We know what electricity is. We know how it works.

And the part that says electricity comes from the Sun?

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot. Interogative?

Somebody was pounding his pud all over this text. Telling children such lies is utterly indefensible.

Posted by: dognahtanoj | July 6, 2010 2:11 PM

How does the above snippet from the textbook bear at all on the creationism/evolution debate? I am an electrical engineer and I agree that the statement could be better written. But, if the point was that there is much about electricity we don't know, then I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think the writers use of "mystery" is that we know next to nothing about electricity.

Posted by: BJUMicroPhD | July 6, 2010 5:03 PM

PZ Myers: Please show me where I said I think it is impossible for mutations to change function. Since you use this as a basis for calling me a religious moron, I think you should at least be able to provide my quote. I won't delve too far into the mutation debate, since that's a discussion for an entirely different forum. However, if firing bullets at a complex machine is considered an acceptable analogy for how evolution works then I'm quite happy to stick with the notion of an Intelligent Designer.

dognahtanoj: Thank you for that information. You can follow this link here to see a sample of the textbook chapter that deals with electricity: http://www.bjupress.com/product/239145?path=17748&samplePage=1#lookInside

As you point out, the snippet posted by PZ appears nowhere in the text. Not sure what's up with that. PZ, can you read the actual textbook chapter from the link I provide above and critique the chapter as a whole?

I also agree with you dognahtanoj that whatever is posted above by PZ isn't written very well (or clearly), but their point remains. We know some stuff about electricity, but when you get down to it, there's a TON we don't know. I think it would be the worst case of academic fraud to trick young, impressionable minds into thinking we've got it all figured out.

I can't seem to figure what it is with the group of scientists in this forum.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 6, 2010 5:29 PM

And, yes, I do feel I'm a fairly representative graduate of the BJU science department. I went to the evolutionist graduate school, played their game and I won...all while outperforming most of my evolutionist counterparts. I have my PhD, a pretty decent publication record, and NIH grant money. What more could a budding scientist ask for?

Wow. You managed to get through all that research, evidence and combined experience and still decided that you knew better sans anything other that your faith.

Impressively bad.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 6, 2010 6:52 PM

You're right, I didn't click the link, but I shouldn't have to.

IOW, BJU produces people who are intellectually lazy.

If the individual who started this had any sense, he'd know that's the kind of imformation that should be provided.

your laziness is not the fault of PZ.

Yes, the information IS dumbed down for kids (4th graders as it would appear),

I notice you still haven't acknowledged it's just plain wrong. Ignorance on your part, or denial?

but wouldn't you agree that the mutation example by Griffiths et al, in addition to being very flawed, is dumbed down a bit as well?

dumbed down for WHOM? a graduate student, or a college freshman?
Moreoever, you are playing a game of false equivalency.

I see the same thing coming from Catholic defenders of the CC of late. They like to use the fact that there have been reports of child abuse in other organizations to excuse the abuse within the CC.

It's a really poor argument to make.

I understand very well how mutations work. My particular area of research focus is cancer immunology, so mutations are a major part of what we study.

That's nice. Doesn't mean you understand shit about it. For all I know, you spend your time in front of a microscope doing cell counts.

It seems you think that Griffiths et al gave a wonderful example.

Funny, you didn't bother explaining exactly what was wrong with it, which certainly would have made your argument, for whatever it's worth, have at least SOME teeth to it.

so far, all you've done is make an irrelevant comparison, and you didn't even bother to analyze either element of it.

again, bravo, you do your alma-mater proud.

That being the case, I would implore you to go buy a gun (if you don't already own one) and LOTS of bullets, go out to your car, lift the hood and start firing randomly into the engine. Fire a few million bullets into it then come back and report to us any gain of function.

congratulations on extending your false equivalency ANOTHER LEVEL!

woot!

And, yes, I do feel I'm a fairly representative graduate of the BJU science department.

I'm sure you were at the top of your class, even.

*snicker*

I went to the evolutionist graduate school, played their game and I won.

didn't realize education was a game. Ever hear of Jonathan Wells?

..all while outperforming most of my evolutionist counterparts.

you're a moron, you know that? What the fuck are "eviolutionists", anyway. Never met one myself, and I have studied evolutionary biology for 25 years.

I have my PhD,

*yawn*

so do a lot of morons.

a pretty decent publication record,

how many with your name listed first on the paper?

and NIH grant money.

...through a lab, no doubt.

not that any of this makes any fucking difference at all to the lack of argument you are presenting.

authoritarianism runs rampant in you xian morons eh? Frankly, it fails to have an impact on whether your arguments are any good. That you idiots keep failing to realize this is humorous, if also a bit pathetic.

What more could a budding scientist ask for?

rational arguments, backed with real evidence instead of logical fallacies?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 6, 2010 7:07 PM

I can't seem to figure what it is with the group of scientists in this forum.

yes, we know.

there are a great many things your religion-addled mind will not be able to comprehend in your lifetime.

that there are people who actually attack false logic and lies is just one of them.

poor, poor, pitiful you.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 7, 2010 12:58 AM

heh.

nice.

Posted by: dognahtanoj | July 7, 2010 3:37 PM

Read the article below. It is written by an electrical engineer and trys to get at what the textbook was trying to get at:

http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 7, 2010 6:19 PM

It is written by an electrical engineer and trys to get at what the textbook was trying to get at:

if you mean, intentionally confuse the fuck out of the issue, then I don't see why you think that's a defense of the BJU text.

what it tells me:

electrical engineers aren't good at writing textbook explanations of things.

Posted by: extremofilo | July 9, 2010 5:53 PM

This is sounds so much like Poe's law, that if I hadn't seen with my own eyes posted on the internets, I wouldn't believe it.

Posted by: Two Replies | September 20, 2011 10:08 PM

I'm fine with religious nit-wits teaching this in their private schools, just as long as they keep it the HELL out of public schools.

Besides, SOMEONE has to make my burgers and collect my garbage.