Pharyngula

Posted by: Dave Gilbert | January 28, 2011 11:55 AM

How did the US get from the genius of Richard Feynman and walking on the Moon to the stupidity of Sarah Palin and creationism?

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | January 28, 2011 12:02 PM

It's really depressing that it still works the same as it always has- create a climate of harassment and fear and most teachers will back away from teaching evolution, even without the creotards actually being able to get any of their garbage into the curriculum. Given that creating that climate is all they need to do and that it's easy to do, this is a very tough problem.

Posted by: JolietJake | January 28, 2011 12:05 PM

Gotta say, I was seriously deprived in this regard by my teachers. The first serious treatment of evolution I encountered was the "Ape to Man" special on . . . was it the History channel? Learned more about the evidence for evolution from that show than I did in elementary, high school or college.

More recently, I read "The Greatest Show on Earth" and was wholly fascinated by how much I didn't know I didn't know.

Trying to encourage some of my friends to even consider reviewing the evidence (let alone accept it) is like trying to hammer a block of wood through a 10 inch steel plate. It's really a sad state of affairs.

Posted by: alowry8 | January 28, 2011 12:06 PM

I actually experienced this in high school. The general science teacher, a Mr. Stump, skipped over the chapter on evolution in the textbook and informed us that there would be no quizzes, tests, or classroom discussion of the topic due to his beliefs.

Whetstone HS, Columbus, Ohio, 1972.

Also had an elementary school teacher who required the class to pray, but those were different times.

Posted by: Angie80 | January 28, 2011 12:13 PM

I remember learning evolution in 8th grade biology. I also remember the teacher bringing up Adam and Eve and that view. He made it sound like there are two views, evolution is one of them. This was in 1994 or so. I don't remember really learning it in 10th grade biology.

I'm interested to see how my children are taught when the time comes.

I have to say though, I was always interested in science as a child and learned a lot on my own, by reading and watching nature programs. So, I learned about evoluation that way. If I didn't learn on my own, I probably would have had very little knowlege of evolution from my middle/high school education.

Posted by: RT, not RTL | January 28, 2011 12:18 PM

My degree is in biology, and I taught biology and chemistry for six years at the high school level. I taught biology from an evolutionary perspective (naturally), but I did work with someone that avoided it completely because he feared the attention that he would get from the hyper-religious in our small Alaska town.

We agreed that he should no longer teach biology. I took over his biology courses and let him teach freshman science courses. I got plenty of flack from the community and even had parents complain to the principal because I had turned their children away from god, so I guess at least I knew I was being effective.

Very religious students would challenge me in class sometimes with goddidit. I had no problem with very directly addressing that. Here is the problem though: although I gave my students the best education I could, I lost many students along the way. Parents started pulling students out of school and started homeskooling them. Hyper-religious students were often told by either parents or pastors to write god-type answers on evolution exams. Obviously, that earned them a failing grade and as biology is required in this state, they simply dropped out of school.

This is clearly not good. The quality of education that they receive at home is questionable to say the very least. Altogether I estimate that I lost 10% of my students in one way or another. This was too depressing for an educator like me. I don’t teach anymore; I got tired.

Posted by: Jeanette | January 28, 2011 12:26 PM

Ugh. I went to high school in Orange County (I'm a first year college student, so this is recent, too!) and of the 5 teachers that taught biology from my 6th-12th grade, 4 of them were creationists. To one's credit, he refrained from talking about it in the classroom, but 3 of my 5 biology teachers straight up taught that evolution was an incorrect belief :/

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | January 28, 2011 12:31 PM

I learned evolution in high school. But the biology curricula I specifically followed was International Baccaleureate, IE run by godless foreign commies. I wish I knew what everyone else dealt with.

...without actually tradingmy good classes in, somehow.

Posted by: VacuousPlatypus | January 28, 2011 12:33 PM

I am in the process of getting my teaching certificate to teach high school science in Texas. While I'm determined to teach evolution correctly and as completely as appropriate for high school, I'm dreading the potential backlash from parents/administration/students. My education instructor told me to "stick to the curriculum and nothing more" to cover my ass...but this is the Texas curriculum we're talking about. It's not exactly comprehensive.

I hope I can withstand everything and not be driven to quit. I think science teachers need to stand up for the evidence and not back down under parental/administrative pressure, but I know it's hard.

Posted by: te24hours | January 28, 2011 12:45 PM

How shoud we respond to the "controversy"? I mean, suppose I'm a biology teacher, and I'm going through evolution and life science and whatever (in real life I know nothing of biology, so I can't even fake it here.), and some student brings up creationism. What is the right way to respond? Not just truthfully, but also tonefully (aggressive? contrite? comedic?)? How should a public school teacher respond to religious nonsense in a science class? Or to a parent about the class?

What's the best option for not backing down, but also not needlessly fanning a fire? Or should that fire just be fanned?

Posted by: RT, not RTL | January 28, 2011 12:48 PM

@19 I always responded with "there is no evidence for that".

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | January 28, 2011 12:51 PM

Here is the problem though: although I gave my students the best education I could, I lost many students along the way. Parents started pulling students out of school and started homeskooling them. Hyper-religious students were often told by either parents or pastors to write god-type answers on evolution exams. Obviously, that earned them a failing grade and as biology is required in this state, they simply dropped out of school.

Posted by: RT, not RTL | January 28, 2011 12:57 PM

Here is the problem though: although I gave my students the best education I could, I lost many students along the way. Parents started pulling students out of school and started homeskooling them. Hyper-religious students were often told by either parents or pastors to write god-type answers on evolution exams. Obviously, that earned them a failing grade and as biology is required in this state, they simply dropped out of school.

and this, in a nutshell, is why I think it's virtually impossible for US education standards to improve: when NOT going to school is a valid alternative to learning, that's precisely what will happen

Posted by: RT, not RTL | January 28, 2011 1:07 PM

Well, you can see how that approach worked for me. (see #11) I lost students. It sucked, but it was honest. Maybe there is a better way.

Posted by: raven | January 28, 2011 1:11 PM

Every once in a while we hear that there is a shortage of qualified science teachers in the secondary schools.

Then we constantly hear of people who teach science for a few years in secondary schools and get harassed out of their job for teaching.....science.

PS: The only evolution I had in biology class was a thorough course in the 5th grade. Taught by a Mormon teacher who was quite knowledgeable. Is that strange or what?

Posted by: heteromeles | January 28, 2011 1:12 PM

I'm going to throw a couple of crap bombs here. First off, I have that PhD in biology, spent a long time TAing various biology classes, and "taught" evolution a bunch of times.

The teaching: here are Darwin's X number of points and what he learned from it. Memorize this, regurgitate on the next test, and forget it when you purge your short-term memory.

I have about the same memory of the bible stuff I learned too. Don't ask me to list the ten commandments from memory. I can't.

Now, for EITHER of these categories, why does anyone on this list think this is learning? You don't get to be a scientist, or a good Christian, by memorizing stuff for a test. You've got to have that experiential learning part in both cases.

If you want a real example of painfully crappy biology training, look at microscope use. As someone who set up lab exams using every student's microscope, I can say unequivocally that >20% of the students in a freshman lab at a major university had screwed up their microscopes so badly that they couldn't see anything through the scopes (I fixed each one on every test). Worse, 5 students used each microscope, and none of them said anything. And we accepted this as normal.

Since I did a lot of microscopy for my PhD, I can tell you that it takes weeks to learn to use one of those things properly. Many people have trouble resolving the slides, many get headaches, and many simply lie their way through biology apparently without learning how to use this basic piece of technology. If you're one of the people who thinks that 20 minutes teaching the scope is sufficient, go slam your fingers in a door, because that pain is equivalent to the headache you just carelessly gave some of your students. It's the same one their teachers have been giving them for years.

If you actually care about the students learning something, you have to work with them for weeks, individually, to make sure that they've got it. For a microscope, it's worth it (yes, work the basics on every scope lesson), since it takes away the pain and lets them see the world in a new way. Ditto for evolution. A few minutes of memorization is insufficient in all cases if it's important.

Posted by: Stonyground | January 28, 2011 1:16 PM

It might be worth mentioning European history where the advanced civilisations of Rome and Greece descended into twelve centuries of ignorance and barbarism due to Christian obscurantism. It also might be worth mentioning that the Bible strongly implies that the Earth is flat and states that it is stationary and doesn't move. Balaam's talking donkey is always good for a laugh too.

Posted by: te24hours | January 28, 2011 1:23 PM

@34: an inspiring response. Also: may I have one of those pies?

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | January 28, 2011 1:24 PM

It's sad that I don't have as good a quality education as I could have had when it comes to evolutionary theory. I've spent a good portion of the past year trying to re-educate myself and I'm still not sure where I should be. Blame homeschooling fundie parents for that (although they did provide a great education besides biology.)

@keeperofthepies:

Me too.

Posted by: te24hours | January 28, 2011 1:29 PM

UBS:

The requirements vary from state to state. But in general no, as many teachers study education, rather than a particular subject. But they are uniformly required to have a bachelor's degree, and many states require further and/or specialized education as well.

Posted by: RT, not RTL | January 28, 2011 1:37 PM

@31 Agreed. The pedagogy that you describe there sucks.

Posted by: Psych-Oh | January 28, 2011 1:44 PM

This is exactly why educated SECULAR parents need to stay on top of everything their child is learning in school. You have to be just as loud as the whackos. I am learning this as I go along.

I looked into our state standards - and if a biology teacher is not teaching evolution, then they are not teaching to the standards and should be dealt with accordingly. And by that I mean, harshly.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | January 28, 2011 1:49 PM

OK, so I'm a homeschooler and can't really speak to the specifics of public education, but how, exactly, can one convey any coherent understanding of biology without having evolutionary theory as the overarching paradigm? That makes it just a bunch of random factoids to be memorized. On second thought, I think for most people science is just a bunch of random factoids.

*sigh*

I'm not sure my kids can remember a time before they knew the basic idea of adaptation and descent with modification, and since I've been doing dangerous things like having them read Richard Dawkins or schlepping them to hear PZ speak, it's only gotten better. I would recommend more reading of field guides and science books written by actual scientists and less use of textbooks. I've found that textbooks work best when they're a supplemental resource rather than the main event.

Posted by: uppity cracka | January 28, 2011 2:01 PM

one of my friends typed up this poe-ish screed. if anyone feels like writing a rebuttal to it, i'll gladly cut and paste it for my creationist friend. i'm not that good at it.

"Observation: I can't think of the last time I saw or heard of one genus/species become another, because even the closest primate to us is just that, close, but isn't human. It's like turning lead into gold, only a few more protons and... ... Repeatable: It cannot be repeated, we don't know and never will know the existence/makeup of the primordial ooze and the situations under which it occurred will never happen again, since the landscape has changed drastically, maybe next time we'll get unicorns. Measurable: There's really nothing to measure, it's either happening soooo slow, it's already done, or it never happened. I never said don't teach it, ever. I just say don't teach it as fact/truth. There should be a preface, "this may or may not have happened, here is what we think..""

thanks!

Posted by: raven | January 28, 2011 2:02 PM

This is exactly why educated SECULAR parents need to stay on top of everything their child is learning in school. You have to be just as loud as the whackos. I am learning this as I go along.

I'd love to saddle up my horse "Darwin" and ride into the schools waving my sword "Peer Reviewed Literature" around. But I have no idea what is taught in the local schools these days around here.

I doubt creationism is a problem though. We had some huge battles decades ago over religion in the public schools. Religion lost. There is a group of secularists who watch the schools pretty closely and the schools know it.

Posted by: skeptical_hippo | January 28, 2011 2:12 PM

When I was in high school, my biology teacher sent home a letter announcing the dates that evolution would be covered in class, and allowing parents to sign a form to "opt out." If your parents opted out, I think you were either sent to study hall or shuttled into a different class for the hour. Fortunately my parents chose to keep me in -- they were adamant creationists but believed that "my faith would be strong enough" to see me through.

That being said, my high school biology teacher was terrific. I already had plenty of doubts about creationism by that point (hello, talking snakes?), but bio class sealed the deal for me. I remember even trying to discuss some of the facts with my parents at home, but met with the "then why are there still monkeys?" argument and gave up.

Posted by: truthspeaker | January 28, 2011 2:24 PM

I didn't take any biology after 6th grade, but I remember evolution being covered pretty well. I'd thank my science teacher but I don't remember her name. I'll thank Brighton Central Schools instead. Like another poster, my education was supplemented by reading and TV watching on my own. My father is a chemist and my mother is just interested in science, so there were National Geographics just lying around and we were encouraged to watch "Nature", "Cosmos", and "The Ascent of Man".

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | January 28, 2011 2:25 PM

1995: My tenth grade biology teacher actually did a pretty good job teaching evolution. Started with Lamarck, mentioned Mendel, and explained the basic concepts fairly well, from what I can remember. Then, on the last day of classes, he shared with the class that he didn't believe a word of it.

I was shocked. It hadn't really occurred to me at that point that someone might not "believe" in this detailed scientific theory. I mean, it's science right? You don't believe or not believe in the speed of light. It just is.

There was a class discussion about it. It was unsatisfying because how are 10th graders going to argue convincingly against their teacher? He's the one with the knowledge and the status. Still, I knew he was full of it. Even though he was a really nice guy.

Posted by: abb3w | January 28, 2011 2:59 PM

PZ Myers: 40% of the teachers in conservative school districts reject evolution entirely, while "only" 11% in liberal areas do.

This looks to be factually inexact. The 40%/11% conservative/liberal statistic is (as the paper reported) for teachers who reject human evolution, not evolution in its entirety.

From the supplemental materials (ignoring rows with no value on one or the other), using the "cosmo index" of (I think) conservative/liberal values of 0.3 and higher (the 13% most conservative), the q4 standard Gallup style evolved/guided/godidit question tallies to 12/59/43; for values of -0.2 and lower (the ~20% most liberal), the breakdown is 87/68/6. (Cosmo index is rounded to one place for IRB privacy requirements, which limits ability to fine-grain selection of exactly the top/bottom 15%.)

More accurate values for "rejects evolution in its entirety" would thus appear to be 38%/3.7%; at least a marginally happier condition, albeit perhaps still less than delightful.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | January 28, 2011 3:22 PM

My secondary-school biology course more or less ignored evolution in favor of descriptions of a bug, a fish, a reptile, a bird, a mammal. But I never noticed as I was reading books on human evolution at home, complete with Piltdown Man, as well as books from the library about the myth of race and the natural superiority of women and the way in which science had been twisted to avoid acknowledging it (thank you, Mr. Montagu). It was only later that I realized we'd been getting not science but a menagerie.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | January 28, 2011 3:40 PM

@31

I really hope your post wasn't intended the way it comes off because you sound very ignorant of the situation on the ground for public school teachers. This quote in particular strikes me as a bit clueless:

"If you actually care about the students learning something, you have to work with them for weeks, individually, to make sure that they've got it."

No shit. I would have loved to spend weeks on simple subjects, exploring their intricacies so that my students would get robust knowledge of a few topics over the course of a year, but the curriculum does not allow it. Teachers are asked to cover a whole bunch of topics in very little time so their students can pass a test. Nevermind that a science teacher has to spend half his time re-teaching basic math and reading skills. As for working with individuals, well science isn't important this year so it's OK for a science teacher to have a class of 27 kids, a third of which present serious behavior and/or learning issues, without an aide or any intervention from administration as far as discipline goes.

It's hard to work with individuals when you can't let your gaurd down for even a second without risking the safety of children in your class.

If, on the other hand, you meant that schools need to provide resources for teachers to teach properly, then you are absolutely correct. More than anything we need smaller classes, better pay for teachers, more resources provided to teachers, more trust and support given to teachers from administration and parents, and more reenforcement at home.

Posted by: greame | January 28, 2011 4:09 PM

@47
"I can't think of the last time I saw or heard of one genus/species become another"

What you can tell him is that this is NOT what evolution says! It never has been! The idea of a chimp giving birth to a human is a gross misunderstanding of evolution. That would be like me saying "Well, the bible can't be true because it says Jesus turned himself into a chicken..."

Of course the bible doesn't say that. It's the same thing with this whole "one species turning into another". That is by no means what evolution says. Suggest to him that he learn something about a given topic before trying to dispute it.

Posted by: RT, not RTL | January 28, 2011 4:24 PM

mikerattlesnake @ 61

@31

I really hope your post wasn't intended the way it comes off because you sound very ignorant of the situation on the ground for public school teachers. This quote in particular strikes me as a bit clueless:

"If you actually care about the students learning something, you have to work with them for weeks, individually, to make sure that they've got it."

No shit. I would have loved to spend weeks on simple subjects, exploring their intricacies so that my students would get robust knowledge of a few topics over the course of a year, but the curriculum does not allow it. Teachers are asked to cover a whole bunch of topics in very little time so their students can pass a test. Nevermind that a science teacher has to spend half his time re-teaching basic math and reading skills. As for working with individuals, well science isn't important this year so it's OK for a science teacher to have a class of 27 kids, a third of which present serious behavior and/or learning issues, without an aide or any intervention from administration as far as discipline goes.

It's hard to work with individuals when you can't let your gaurd down for even a second without risking the safety of children in your class.

If, on the other hand, you meant that schools need to provide resources for teachers to teach properly, then you are absolutely correct. More than anything we need smaller classes, better pay for teachers, more resources provided to teachers, more trust and support given to teachers from administration and parents, and more reenforcement at home

This

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | January 28, 2011 4:49 PM

The best intro to evolution I got was an AP entomology course. Why? First was phylogony illustrating the descent of Arthropoda from annelid like ancestors. Arthropoda are a great illustration because they're similar enough that you can easily follow how they're all adapted from the same ancestral body plan and different enough to show how these adaptations can create massive differing species.

I still remember the illustration of what was dubbed by the teacher "bug adam" and then all the slightly altered pictures of him showing how the Arthopoda orders emerged from that body plan.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | January 28, 2011 5:46 PM

Note to self.
When I have kids, and they started biology, I'm going to teach them the importance of evolution in relation to everything biology.

Posted by: Psych-Oh | January 28, 2011 6:16 PM

Uberfubarius

When I have kids, and they started biology, I'm going to teach them the importance of evolution in relation to everything biology.

Posted by: Kemist | January 28, 2011 6:25 PM

@47

You might try that:

Observation: I can't think of the last time I saw or heard of one genus/species become another, because even the closest primate to us is just that, close, but isn't human.

You have just proven that you don't understand evolution. What you're saying amounts to "I have never seen my bother turn into my cousin twice removed, therefore my brother and I can't have the same parents".

Repeatable: It cannot be repeated, we don't know and never will know the existence/makeup of the primordial ooze and the situations under which it occurred will never happen again, since the landscape has changed drastically, maybe next time we'll get unicorns.

If you're on about speciation : False. Re: Lenski's experiment. If you're on about abiogenesis, it's a different subject entirely, which has little to do with biology or evolution. Talk to a chemist, preferably a specialist of organic chemistry.

Measurable: There's really nothing to measure, it's either happening soooo slow, it's already done, or it never happened.

False. Re: Lenski's experiment. Antiobiotic resistance. Cancer. Happens all the time, on different scales both slow and fast.

I never said don't teach it, ever. I just say don't teach it as fact/truth. There should be a preface, "this may or may not have happened, here is what we think.

Gravity is a theory too. Things may continue falling or not. Should it be taught as "maybe you'll fall if you walk off a cliff ?"

Or maybe doctors should be taught not to worry about antibiotic resistance. Oncologists should not worry about chemo resistance of your tumors. After all, evolution is just a theory, there's nothing that tells you your tumor will someday stop responding, isn't it ?

Posted by: Kamaka | January 28, 2011 7:50 PM

@ Squigit

The basics of natural selection are pretty simple, really. (Keep in mind, there's no 'goal'.) And epidemiology is as fine a way of learning about it as any. Fascinating subject.

If you haven't already, go read Coyne's "Why Evolution is True". It's an easy read and should help.

Posted by: JP Stevens | January 28, 2011 8:32 PM

I noticed in the comments (and threads in other forums) the copious use of the epithet "Creotards" as in comparing them to the mentally challenged. Now I'd like to point out that that's very politically incorrect, unfair, and insulting to anybody who's retarded.

Posted by: RT, not RTL | January 28, 2011 8:54 PM

I think it is time to nationalize our standards for educators. At the secondary level, there is no reason for people with BA's in education and a couple of science classes to be teaching science. Perhaps they should major in what they teach. In every state. Of course, we'll have to pay the going rate.

Posted by: Kurt1 | January 28, 2011 9:06 PM

Here in germany, the biology classes, in my experience, often lack good teaching of evolutionary biology. But it´s never questioned either. "Evolution is a fact, now let´s talk about something else". Maybe because it´s no controversy over here.

What interests me is: doesn´t the teaching of creationism outside of sunday school goes against the freedom of religion? I mean, what do they tell the buddhist or hindu pupil in biology class?! Our god made everything, while yours stood by and watched?! They are not only teaching all the children bullshit but also discriminate against the kids that ain´t christians, moslems or jews.
Ok comapred to the miseducation of whole generations, thats a small factor, but the thought made me laugh.

Posted by: DarWINS! | January 28, 2011 11:04 PM

Hahaha @82-it already does! Anyways, I love biology, and therefore evolution. You can't have one without the other. It is so beautiful, and people have such a poor understanding of it, and I would like to explain it to everyone, especially the youngest little tots. I am so glad to hear that responsible parents are starting their kids on evolution early. But how can I best do that, and hopefully make a living off of it? I loved my biology teachers in high school, and so it makes sense for me to want to become a biology teacher. But even when I was in the thick of intro Bio, I was trying to make it mesh with Genesis. Now I know it doesn't, that the Bible is not scientific in any sense and does not include coded references to the Cambrian Explosion. So why should I think the majority of students, if polls of the general population are correct, won't be as or more uneducated about biology entering the class than I was? My family still talks bad about my first Bio teacher for teaching straight-up evolution and probably being an atheist herself, at least a non-creationist. I'll admit it: I like to be liked. I like situations where I don't have to constantly fight. And I hate standardized tests. Some of these posts have reminded me how superficial high school subject matter is, and makes me wonder if I'd even like teaching it. I wish I had the resources to open an Evolution Museum, an evolution camp, make educational toys about evolution, write children's books about it, become a speaker on the topic of why evolution is important and how to understand it, write a book explaining the beauty of evolution in simple terms for the everyday Jane and hand them out like Gideon Bibles. I just don't know if being a biology teacher would inspire anyone, if it would be worth the effort when it is said and done.

Posted by: chaseacross | January 28, 2011 11:41 PM

It's too bad, I think, that we only get the one high school experience, and in the one (or maybe, rarely, a number), of places. I grew up in King County, Washington. We got what amounted to a tablespoon of evolution in 7th grade, a sippy cup of it in 8th and 9th grade respectively, and then a full flagon in high school biology. It was never an issue, the teachers understood it, and when it came to the "controversy" they were respectful but firm: if you want to pass the class, you have to understand evolution. The bit that still sticks in my head today is the image from the textbook, a curiously cherubic Mendel puttering around in his garden.

It's a kind of weird, alien notion, completely contrary to my narrow experience, that junior high and high school students wouldn't understand the basics of evolution.

Posted by: Demonhype | January 29, 2011 4:33 AM

@66

I am not so sure you can force anyone to understand a concept that they aren't interested in

Well, this is true. But then I would have to suggest that they shut the hell up about something they aren't interested in understanding. Seriously, this is like my one aunt, who will preface every pig-ignorant thing she says with "well, I don't know much about the situation, but..." If you admittedly don't know the facts and clearly aren't interested in knowing them, then why do you feel the need to vehemently express your set-in-stone opinion? Of course, not every pig-ignorant person admits their own ignorance prior to expressing it, but it still stands.

@85:

It was never an issue, the teachers understood it, and when it came to the "controversy" they were respectful but firm: if you want to pass the class, you have to understand evolution.

This right here. They don't have to believe it, they just have to understand what it says. I can understand the claims of creationism without actually believing in it, and in fact it's impossible for me to even argue against it without understanding it. Without understanding what you're arguing against, you end up just making shit up and arguing against that--not very productive, really. You might as well just spend the same amount of time shouting at the wall or the floor or a painting of Elvis, since you'd get the same amount of value from such an activity.

I guess the religiotarded creotards have no ability to differentiate between the two though. When they teach creationism, it is Inspired Truth from the Holiest of Gods (xian only), and when they teach it is for the express purposes of indoctrination only, no questions allowed. Same mentality that allows them, when prevented from proselytizing/discriminating while using gov't funds in charities, to whine out collectively "what's the point then?" Because charity has no value if you're not using it to coerce conversions and increase the size of your flock. And teaching has no value unless you're using it to assume control the personal thoughts and beliefs of your fellow man.

Therefore, teaching science is, to them, nothing more than a competing indoctrination, and the children will obviously be coerced to worship the Grand High Darwin and Dawkins (evolution, science and atheism being one and the same to them) and give over their lives and minds to the Evil Atheist Conspiracy and their cohorts of evil in the Great Science Conspiracy, forbidden from questioning anything told to them by the Minions of Godless Science.

It doesn't help that reality has a clear godless bias, to paraphrase Colbert. (I think.)

Posted by: lordsetar | January 29, 2011 5:33 AM

RT #79:

I think it is time to nationalize our standards for educators. At the secondary level, there is no reason for people with BA's in education and a couple of science classes to be teaching science. Perhaps they should major in what they teach. In every state. Of course, we'll have to pay the going rate.

End result is that virtually the high school teachers I've had knew what they were talking about.

Posted by: Harmless Eccentric | January 29, 2011 9:22 AM

I'm a US teacher, and it isn't correct that most secondary teachers' degree is in education. Schools are penalized for having teachers at the secondary level who don't have a degree in their subject. It's one of the good parts of No Child Left Behind. Yes, No Child Left Behind has a few good parts.

Every year, I have to fill out and sign a form verifying that I am 'highly qualified' to teach all the classes I have this year - meaning, that I have a degree and a teaching certificate appropriate to each class. In fact, the requirements are so specific that I had to leave a position because I couldn't teach newspaper or yearbook without at least a minor in journalism.

It's true that when teachers get masters' degrees, they often choose to get them in education rather than in their subject areas, but I know very few secondary school teachers who don't have at least a bachelor's degree in the subject they are teaching.

Posted by: Louise Gordon | January 29, 2011 12:34 PM

Bad public school education in the US:

Cevin Soling's the War on Kids

Maybe not as bad as the Creation Museum, but bad.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn3yeqDAoctgwo6-DD2CLf7YxBquJvaSfc | January 29, 2011 1:22 PM

uppity cracka@47: Ooo, ooo, I can do this!

Observation: I can't think of the last time I saw or heard of one genus/species become another, because even the closest primate to us is just that, close, but isn't human. It's like turning lead into gold, only a few more protons and... ...

You need to learn how to use Google. Over a dozen new species have been spotted, ranging from bacteria to plants and even animals, the earliest being found a hundred years ago. Just because your pastor never mentioned it, doesn't mean it never happened.

Repeatable: It cannot be repeated, we don't know and never will know the existence/makeup of the primordial ooze and the situations under which it occurred will never happen again, since the landscape has changed drastically, maybe next time we'll get unicorns.

We've had, what, sixty years in the lab and a few dozen gallons of material to duplicate what took nature hundreds of millions of years and billions of gallons? Next you'll be claiming the Eiffel Tower was God's work, because I haven't made it out of a sugar cube in my spare time...

Measurable: There's really nothing to measure, it's either happening soooo slow, it's already done, or it never happened.

Try looking up "Mutation Rate" on Wikipedia sometime. We have no problems measuring slow or tiny things; you've taken a few tests in your lifetime, right?

I never said don't teach it, ever. I just say don't teach it as fact/truth. There should be a preface, "this may or may not have happened, here is what we think.."

Aww, you feel sorry for our ignorance and want to toss us a bone. I'm flattered!

HJ Hornbeck

Posted by: Emily (luvtheheaven) | January 30, 2011 4:13 PM

What alowry8 wrote in #7 reminds me of my school's policy on sex-education. She wrote the word "abortion" on the board and informed us that we were never ever going to be discussing that and please do not bring up the subject, and as for condoms she couldn't show us one nor how to use one, but she informed us that the instructions were on the box.

However what CalliopeJane said in #58 is what my experience in terms of evolution education was. I learned in like preschool that humans & bears/dogs/cats/etc. were mammals vs. dinosaurs/lizards which were reptiles, I knew I needed glasses in 4th grade because of genetics and the fact that both of my parents also needed glasses around the same time, and that my scoliosis I was diagnosed with when I was 8 was thanks to my grandfather's genes. I knew evolution was just sort of a given for how and why the world was the way it was lol, and learning more specifics about it was cool. I learned about evolution in 5th, 7th, and 10th grades in Maryland Harford County Public Schools. Despite Harford County being mainly conservative, the teachers were pretty liberal, and my education was thouroughly secular, as it should be! I had a Catholic biology teacher in 10th grade who felt VERY strongly that we all needed to accept evolution as true, and he even showed us a film on the evolution of the human eye BECAUSE a common creationist counter-argument to evolution was "but the human eye is too perfect". I know we had one creationist in our class - only one. She also wasn't allowed to read Harry Potter, nor date anyone until she was 16. But in general most of us weren't fundamentalist Christians around there, so somehow science was just accepted as science and most people didn't have any problem at all with it.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | February 6, 2011 5:53 PM

I have just read this thread, and am staggered. I had known intellectually of the problem before, but I have now taken it on board emotionally. What a fucking mess.

Posted by: realsmarts | February 14, 2011 6:03 PM

Recently, a thought captivated my mind that proves that the theory of evolution is a big hoax. The thought is simple and yet profound ... why is there no recorded history before approximately 4,000 B.C.? The answer is obvious ... there was no history! Think about it! Evolutionists claim that man evolved over billions of years (that's billions with a "B"). If there were any truth to these false claims by unscrupulous scientists, then man's historical record should span back at least hundreds-of-thousands of years, if not millions. There is no record of a cataclysmic event that destroyed mankind prior to 4,000 B.C. And if there were, surely some of the survivors would have passed this information down to generations to follow. The Bible dates creation, as we know it today, at approximately 4,000 B.C. Thus, it was approximately 6,000 years ago that God, Jesus Christ, created the heavens and the earth in 6-days. It was 6,000 years ago that Jesus Christ spoke the stars into existence. It was 6,000 years ago that Jesus spoke animals, fish, plants, and land into existence. And it was 6,000 years ago that God formed man out of the dust of the earth.

Such Biblical claims seem absurd to modern evolutionists, who have convinced themselves that the earth is billions of years old. Ironically, they have absolutely NO EVIDENCE of such longevity. Evolutionists have sought out dishonest scientists, who distort the facts, use faulty testing methods, and make erroneous assumptions (unethically stating such assumptions as if they were facts). Evolution is at best still a THEORY. Yet, children are brainwashed in godless public schools all across the world, with evolution, which is taught as if it were a fact. This is evil. It is evil to deny students the Biblical account of creationism. The Word of God makes infinite more sense than the fairytale of evolution.

One of the simplest and best proofs that evolution is a joke, is the FACT that there is NO recorded history prior to 4,000 B.C. The world's history is CLEARY defined by SIX world powers since time began: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Since Rome's fall in 476 A.D., there have been no world-powers (many super-powers; but, no world-powers). At the time of Moses, Egypt ruled the world. The Israelites were used as slave labor by Pharaoh to build the pyramids. Before Egypt, there is absolutely nothing recorded in history about a world-power. It is NO coincidence that Revelation 17:10 speaks of these world-powers, "...five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." At the writing of Revelation, Rome was still a world-power. The Apostle John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells us that Rome is the 6th world-power, and there is one more to come. The 7th world-power will be the beast system, the kingdom of the antichrist. This diabolical New World Order is quickly forming now (i.e., a universal religious view, global centralized government, a one-world economic system, a cashless society, etc.).

Do you think it's a mere coincidence that the Word of God is so concise on world history? The Bible records the beginning of mankind at about 4,000 B.C., and secular history is eerily silent before 4,000 B.C. for those who claim to believe in evolution. If I were an evolutionist, I would be extremely disturbed by this FACT. Prove me wrong! I dare you. I triple-dog dare you to show me any recorded civilization before 4,000 B.C. And I don't mean some pottery jug or item that you claim is 14,000 years old--Show me any evidence of civilization prior to 4,000 B.C. You cannot. In fact, it is difficult to find much recorded history before 2,500 B.C., because the flood of Noah's day destroyed most of it. How can evolutionists be so naive and foolish as to totally ignore this incredibly obvious fact? There is NO recorded history prior to 4,000 B.C.--no writings, no carved stones, no battles, no wars, no countries, no nothing! It's as if mankind just suddenly began (which is exactly what the Bible teaches happened). God created man out of the dirt, the elements, of the earth.

There were no humans before approximately 4,000 B.C. Hard to imagine? Why should it be? There is no history to indicate that humans existed prior to 4,000 B.C. This fact is irrefutable. Oh sure, some stubborn evolutionists are going to start talking about carbon-dating, archeological findings, etc. BUT, the bottom line is that the history of mankind should be traceable far beyond 4,000 B.C., going back million of years IF evolution were true.

Why 7,000 Languages?

If, as evolutionists claim, all of mankind evolved from the SAME primitive life-source, then how did we end up with 7,000 different languages? The Bible teaches that God created all the different languages at Babel... "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech ... Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth" (Genesis 11:7,9). It is far more reasonable to accept the Biblical claim that God created all of mankind's different languages; than it is to believe that some space-dust from a massive chaotic explosion somehow became life, and then took on intelligence, and then from the same evolutionary process ended up with 7,000 different languages. That makes no sense at all.

There are no "primitive" languages. All languages have a system of sounds, words, and sentences that can adequately communicate the content of culture. This is evidence of a divine Creator. The languages of the so-called "primitive" peoples are often very complex in their grammatical structures. If mankind had advanced through an evolutionary process, then there should still be developing languages today; but in fact, one languages disappears every 2-weeks...

Posted by: realsmarts | February 14, 2011 6:13 PM

OH..almost forgot, #101 is

-Proof that Evolution is a Hoax

by David J. Stewart

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 14, 2011 6:18 PM

It is evil to deny students the Biblical account of creationism.

where did you first hear about the bible?

does this source still exist?

so then, are you actually being denied anything?

NO.

now STFU.

If you actually ever denied legal access to a church or to your bible, do come talk to us again.

or hell, just go straight to the ACLU.

Posted by: realsmarts | February 14, 2011 6:25 PM

@73 - if you walk off a cliff you fall..that has been proven since forever.Its even been used for recreation (cliff diving) and suicide. Obviously since this (if you walk off a cliff you will fall) is a fact, it isn't one of the things contributing to gravity being a theory

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 14, 2011 6:27 PM

How did the US get from the genius of Richard Feynman and walking on the Moon to the stupidity of Sarah Palin and creationism?

IMO, nothing has really changed but what the media chooses to focus attention on.

as mentioned, there were morons in abundance all over the world in the days of the moon landings, too.

they just weren't encouraged to become president by massive media exposure and there wasn't a coordinated group of morons given political will by an inane attempt to produce a political grass roots voting block by right wing politicians over the last 40 years.

so, there are still just as many Feynman's walking the earth, if not more. They are just lost in the clutter of the rush to inanity.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 14, 2011 6:32 PM

Obviously since this (if you walk off a cliff you will fall) is a fact, it isn't one of the things contributing to gravity being a theory

Posted by: realsmarts | February 14, 2011 6:37 PM

If the Bible is true, and the earth is only about six thousand years old, we should find evidence that debunks the evolutionist theory about the Grand Canyon. We do. For example, the top of the Grand Canyon is over four thousand feet higher than where the Colorado River enters the canyon, meaning it would have had to flow uphill for millions of years. Additionally, in contrast to all other rivers, we do not find a delta (a place where washed-out mud is deposited). This alone makes the evolutionist interpretation impossible.

The evidence does, however, point to a great, global flood. Even today, we see two beach lines from what used to be two large lakes near the Grand Canyon. Creationists believe that after the flood, the lakes got too full and spilled over the top. When water overflows a dam, the weakest point is instantly eroded. Thus, the Grand Canyon would have been formed quickly, supporting the creationist interpretation.

So, which interpretation is right? Knowing that rivers don't flow uphill and no leftover sedimentary deposits are found, evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the Grand Canyon. The Bible, however, says that a great flood covered the whole earth (see Genesis 7:18-20). There is archaeological evidence for this over all land masses and even at the top of the tallest mountains. This means we should find places where the water drained. The Grand Canyon is one of those places. It is a washed-out spillway and provides great evidence for a great worldwide flood. Plus, nearly every culture in the world has some story from their ancient relatives of the past that speak of a great flood that happened, and it's often associated with being near to the birth of their nation. Interesting. This appears to be very much like a cultural universal.

- Jack Wellman

Posted by: realsmarts | February 14, 2011 6:40 PM

left margin
Science and the Bible
green bar
gold bar
left margin

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere. Many concepts and notes on this page are adapted from ideas and statements that appear in The DEFENDER’S Study Bible.[1]
Paleontology Statements Consistent With Paleontology

* Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. We think you will agree that 1½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot—since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible. (Actually reading the Bible would help, though. smile ) Click this sentence to see our Dinosaurs page if you would like more information in this subject area.

Astronomy Statements Consistent With Astronomy

* The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.

Genesis 22:17
Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.
Jeremiah 33:22
“As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”

Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 1021 stars—which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 1025. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)
* The Bible also says that each star is unique.

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others.[1] (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)
* The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe.

Jeremiah 31:35,36
Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
“If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”
* The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

Meteorology Statements Consistent With Meteorology

* The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.

Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
* The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.

Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.

The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.[1] (If you are a physics enthusiast, please ignore our omission of the terms mass, gravity, and density from this comment.)

Biology Statements Consistent With Biology

* The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood.

Leviticus 17:11
‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.[1]
* The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

Genesis 1:11,12
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.[1]
* The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.
* It is a proven fact that a person’s mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health.[1] The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC.

Proverbs 12:4
An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.
Proverbs 14:30
A sound heart is life to the body,
But envy is rottenness to the bones.
Proverbs 15:30
The light of the eyes rejoices the heart,
And a good report makes the bones healthy.
Proverbs 16:24
Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.
Proverbs 17:22
A merry heart does good, like medicine,
But a broken spirit dries the bones.

Anthropology Statements Consistent With Anthropology

* We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men.

Job 30:5,6
They were driven out from among men,
They shouted at them as at a thief.
They had to live in the clefts of the valleys,
In caves of the earth and the rocks.

Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually.[1] (Go into a bad part of your town and you will see this concept in action today.)

Hydrology Statements Consistent With Hydrology

* The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.[3]

Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
“And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”

In these verses you can see several phases of the hydrologic cycle—the worldwide processes of evaporation, translation aloft by atmospheric circulation, condensation with electrical discharges, and precipitation.[1]
Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?

This simple verse has remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.[1]
* The Bible describes the recirculation of water.

Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.
Isaiah 55:10
For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower
And bread to the eater,
* The Bible refers to the surprising amount of water that can be held as condensation in clouds.

Job 26:8
He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
Job 37:11
Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.
* Hydrothermal vents[4] are described in two books of the Bible written before 1400BC—more than 3,000 years before their discovery by science.

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Job 38:16
Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?

We discuss the “fountains of the great deep” further in our Creation Versus Evolution page.

Geology Statements Consistent With Geology

* The Bible describes the Earth’s crust (along with a comment on astronomy).

Jeremiah 31:37
Thus says the LORD:
“If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the LORD.”

Although some scientists claim that they have now measured the size of the universe, it is interesting to note that every human attempt to drill through the earth’s crust to the plastic mantle beneath has, thus far, ended in failure.[1]
* The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.

This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, “theologians” of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)

We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties—an effect we still feel to this day.

Physics Statements Consistent With Physics

* The Bible suggests the presence of nuclear processes like those we associate with nuclear weaponry. This is certainly not something that could have been explained in 67 AD using known scientific principles (when Peter wrote the following verse).

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
* The television is a practical (if not always worthwhile smile ) device that uses electromagnetic waves (which transmit its video signal). The Bible contains passages that describe something like television—something that allows everyone on earth see a single event. (Note: such passages typically refer to the end of time. It may not be long before all of us learn for sure whether the Bible is true or not.)

Matthew 24:30
Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Revelation 11:9-11
Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth. Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.

Things In The Bible That Science Can Not Explain

The purpose of this page is not to explain what a great science text the Bible is, but to show that it is consistent with scientific facts. Still, the Bible mentions some things that we can not explain. Yet, if God is really God, He should have the ability to do some things we can not explain.

In the last 100 years (and especially in the last ten) scientists discovered many proofs that confirm the Bible’s accuracy. Since these proofs support the accuracy of the text we can understand scientifically, it makes sense to trust the Bible’s text that we can not yet understand. (For example, how many people knew what hydrothermal vents were 30 years ago?) If you would like to see the proof we have for the accuracy of the Bible, click on the link below.
Click here to learn some facts that confirm the Bible's accuracy How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

If you like reading books, a good one that addresses the facts that support Christianity is Know Why You Believe by Paul Little. There is an advantage to a book—it does not change as a page on the Internet can. Plus, a million copies of Paul Little’s book have been printed (about 40 times the number required to be called a “best seller”) which proves it is not an isolated person’s opinion.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 14, 2011 6:46 PM

OK, that's it.

realsmarts is realdumb.

I vote it off the island, on the grounds of posting extensive irrelevant biblical verses.

Godbotting: Making an argument based only on the premise that your holy book is sufficient authority; citing lots of bible verses as if they were persuasive.

Posted by: Iris | February 14, 2011 6:49 PM

Wow, realfarts. That is some seriously awful copypasta. So much stupidity, so much inanity, so much insanity, I wouldn't know where to start. But I'll just address this:

(Actually reading the Bible would help, though. smile )

Actually, reading the Bible is why I am an atheist. It is just so batshit crazy, I still cannot fathom why anyone would take it seriously.

And one other thing: please get back on your meds.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 14, 2011 6:51 PM

Actually reading the Bible would help

tell us what Genesis 30 says about how to breed animals with stripes then.

Posted by: realsmarts | February 14, 2011 6:57 PM

@108 its not jebus its jesus u dumb nut

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 14, 2011 7:01 PM

@108 its not jebus its jesus u dumb nut

*headdesk*

Posted by: Iris | February 14, 2011 7:03 PM

realsmarts:

@108 its not jebus its jesus u dumb nut

It is too Jebus. Nerd says so right there at 108.

The meds: they are your friends.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 14, 2011 7:06 PM

I didnt write this stuff...people with brains did.

do you think Darwin had brains?

what about PZ, think he has brains?

what about the rest of us, do we have brains?

well?

Posted by: realsmarts | February 14, 2011 7:10 PM

Today atheists, skeptics and opponents of Christianity believe that they have the intellectual high ground when it comes to matters of logic, reason, science and faith. The reality is that the exact opposite is true, but our churches are doing a miserable job of equipping us to defend the faith. Hopefully blogs such as this will change all that. If you like what you see here, then please help spread the word about this site.

o.k here's a proposal... instead of steadily criticizing each other (pointless,and getting nowhere) lets just commonly share beliefs fair?

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 14, 2011 7:10 PM

why are atheists so bitter and aggressive?

I've asked this several times now:

why do you enjoy being ignorant, to the point of parading it in front of us repeatedly?

or have you never been asked that before?

you obviously seem to think that the items you copypasta'd from other sites were from minds far greater than your own.

why do you think that?

why do you think we are any less knowledgeable than the people who you think are more brainy than yourself?

can't you answer even ONE question?

Posted by: realsmarts | February 14, 2011 7:14 PM

"If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain." -Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Video Series

Posted by: Iris | February 14, 2011 7:17 PM

One thing about religion and it's like their period started.

Oooh, look: misogyny. Color me surprised.

Posted by: realsmarts | February 14, 2011 7:18 PM

Y ARE YALL STILL TRYING TO STAB ME IN THE BACK FOR THINGS I DIDNT EVEN SAY ... OTHER PEOPLE WROTE THIS I'M SIMPLY POSTING THIS BECAUSE I WONDER WHY WITH SO MUCH PROOF OUT THERE.... Y ARE YALL SO STUCK ON ONE IDEA?????

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 14, 2011 7:27 PM

SO MUCH PROOF OUT THERE..

indeed.

millions of published articles worth of proof, in fact:

http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?q=evolution&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

have you read any of it?

Y ARE YALL SO STUCK ON ONE IDEA?

well, we're not, but it IS a rather simple but important one nonetheless.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"

-DOBZHANSK

btw, in case someone doesn't have it for their reprint collection, that is a link to Dobzhansk's original 1973 article.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | February 14, 2011 7:31 PM

Looks like we got ourselves a delugionist!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 14, 2011 7:37 PM

realdumbs #116

1. The Bible claims it's true

The Koran and the Upanishads make the same claim. A book pushing a particular religion will naturally say it's true because the priests and other religious con men trying to get suckers to believe in their particular fantasies will always say their religion is true.

2. Jesus claims it's true

Other than the Bible, we have zero historical evidence Jesus even existed, let alone made any claims about the Bible.

3. The Bible is a morally and ethically superior piece of literature

The King James Bible is a masterpiece of English literature. This is rather surprising considering it was written by committee.

I've read the Bible three times cover to cover. What I discovered was Yahweh was a sadistic, narcissistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. He killed people just because he could. Jesus isn't much better. If that's moral and ethical superiority than I'm not impressed.

4. The Bible has the power to affect us

You can make the same claim about Harlequin romances or the works of the Marquis de Sade. Also see my comment about item 3 above.

5. The Bible has extraordinary unity

Read Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. They tell two completely different stories about the creation. Sorry but this claim is more wrong than most of your pretenses.

6. The Bible is historically accurate

The Egyptians kept good records for thousands of years. Nowhere in their records is there any mention of the details of Exodus: no bunch of Israelites living in Egypt, no plagues, no armies being drowned in the Red (or Reed) Sea, none of that.

7. Bible prophecies are fulfilled

This is meaningless. If you're writing the sequel to a book you try to tie the events in the first book to the events in the second book. Incidentally, Tolkien did a better job tying The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings than the gospel writers did tying the New Testament to the Old. But then Tolkien was a better writer than Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

8. The Bible has been extraordinarily preserved

During the Babylonian Captivity (597-538 BCE) the bulk of the Old Testament was edited into final form by Jewish priests trying to maintain their religion in exile. That version is still the official Bible (or Torah) of the Jews. Every error, every inconsistency, every discrepancy became codified for ever and ever. Amazingly enough, that part of the Bible hasn't changed. Other parts have. For instance, certain books which Catholics claim are Biblical are considered Apocrypha by Protestants and vice-versa. For that matter, Catholics and Protestants (and Jews) can't even agree on what the Ten Commandments are.

9. The Bible writers endured great persecution for what they saw

Ever hear of Horst Wessel? There's even a song about him. He was a Nazi martyr. People die for all sorts of reasons, including delusions. Plus other people make up stories about real or fictitious martyrs. Just because there's a story about someone being persecuted or killed doesn't mean that person was persecuted or even existed. Horst Wessel actually existed. Mark etc. may not have have.

10. The Bible changes lives

Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (usually called Wealth of Nations) changed my life. After reading it I decided to become an economist. Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto and Das Capital also changed lives. If we're going to restrict this discussion to religious books then the same claim can be made about the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and the Bhagavad Gītā. There's all sorts of books which change lives.

Sorry, you'll have to come up with some real reasons why we should accept your favorite myths and delusions over any other flavor of godbotherer fables and stories.

Posted by: Scorpy1 | February 14, 2011 7:53 PM

Don't bother replying ill never read it.

Liar.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 14, 2011 8:07 PM

Before you make that statement you should know that in the bible it says that all you need is faith the size of a mustard seed.

then you are lacking even that amount of faith, that you must rely on hacks on support?

again, you have failed at your own religion.

don't you think it's time to move on and see what else there is to see?

can't you see how much pressure simple reality is putting on your poor, tired little brain?

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 14, 2011 8:22 PM

or maybe...

he's just full of error.

quick!

beam him into space!

Posted by: Iris | February 14, 2011 9:59 PM

Everyone slips up our flesh makes it hard for us to perfectly follow everything in the Bible.But,that's no excuse for not trying

Of course it is.

Jessa 136 - Is there an echo in here? Besides the one in realfart's head, of course. ;)