My first reaction was, is that real?

Load of hogwash!!!!!!!

What can/should be done about it (if anything)?

Build myself a rocket ship to take me to a planet where people still actually use their brains.

You must be new on the internet.

I checked it on Snopes and they said it was real. source
The test was likely from the Blue Ridge Christian Academy.

This makes me sick.

@ragingloli LMFAO

Why does it make you sick, you already know there are people out there who think its true, so why would you assume they wouldn’t teach it to their kids? Have you heard some of the shit scientologists believe? Have you heard about the magic underwear Mormons wear? This test is nothing compared to that level of crazy, so I don’t understand your outrage.

There’s the “proof” that another 8 year old kid is being brainwashed into stupid. This affects so many other aspects of life. How will this kid learn and have a respect for real science?
How will that kid be prepared for a job in the future. A job that is supposed to pay for my social security?

I liked the pat answer the kid it taught to say when someone says the Earth is 4 billion years old. “Were you there?” I’ll have to use that when I hear someone saying the Earth was created in x days. Or someone did this to that, or whatever… “Were you there?”

I guess you havent seen this then…

No, no it’s not.

If it’s a joke, it’s not funny.
If it’s really an exam paper, the future is going to be another Charlton Heston on his knees on the beach screaming “You maniacs, goddam you!”

Fortunately this is not a public school. It’s a small “extremest” school with few members. The SATs, and the real world, will weed out the nonsense.

‘Were you there?” I love it!

My reaction: Everyone has an opinion, whether ultimately wrong or right. This leads to all the questions and assumptions about who’s wrong and who’s right and what rights does anyone have to teach their children what they believe to be ultimately good/right for the child.

Now, with regard to the material being taught, It’s obviously a grossly narrow perspective with an avalanche of evidence against its validity. But the central questions is do we have the right to force our interpretation of truth on them? Do we want them to force their interpretation of truth on us? No!

Therefore, what should be done about it is to react the same way you would want them to treat their disagreement with things you believe, live and let live, don’t try to oppress them or try to proselytize them.

I’m not on here a lot so I may or may not be around to reply to any responses.

@LuckyGuy, I think it’s the “small” ignorant entities we have the most to fear.

It’s real. The kid’s dad even made a statement. It was from a school in South Carolina (surprise surprise). He said he wasn’t aware this is what his child was learning and he said this will be her last year at that school. Apparently he only realized this was going on when his daughter made a comment, he tried to correct her, and she responded, “were you there?” I must admit that made me giggle, even though the fact that the school was teaching this bullshit to kids really pissed me off.

I think it’s so important to be familiar with what your kids learn in school. In not sure if I believe that he was unaware of this. As a patent, he never asked her what she learned that day or helped with her homework? What about the mother? There’s a chance this was a religious private school, but still…

Extremist fact haters. Idiocracy here we come.

Looking at the date in which the test was taken made it so much less justifiable.

Is it disturbing? Yes.

Is it as disturbing as @FutureMemory ‘s current icon? No.

Not at all. In fact, it makes me quite thrilled.
Nothing should be done about it. They have every right to teach creation, particularly at a Christian school.

I think many of you would be surprised by how not “fire and brimstone” (for lack of a better way to put it) most of the kids are who are taught this way.

@LuckyGuy if you really believe that your Social Security will ever be – can ever be – “paid for”, then you’ve already been brainwashed. And that would make me sad, because I’ve always had respect for your intelligence and independence.

As for “how can that person grow up to respect science and hold a job”, etc. About 30 years ago I worked (peripherally, “on the same project”, but for different contractors, doing different parts of the work) with an electrical engineer who shared many of these beliefs. At a social event one time he mentioned the age of the planet at around 6,000 years and mentioned something about dinosaurs being of relatively recent origin.

I tried questioning him in a friendly, non-threatening way, “How can you reconcile those things that you say that you believe with the knowledge that you obviously have about how the world works?” Essentially, what it comes down to, I guess, is that he was able to compartmentalize (as near as I could understand from his non-defensive explanation) “those things that he has to ‘know’ about science and engineering” from “those things that he believes as a matter of faith”.

I would have loved to have a longer discussion with him. It’s pretty easy to see how an electrical engineer can disassociate “ability to work in his field” from “dinosaurs, the age of the planet, and various statements from the Book of Genesis”, but I would have enjoyed finding out “what was it like when you started to study – and apparently pass – the various science classes necessary to achieve your educational degree?” He didn’t get a degree in engineering from a university that taught like that (or if he had, then he wouldn’t have gotten the job he held), and he was at least competent in his work, so I’d be curious how deep that compartmentalization can go.

@luckyguy Generally speaking, standardized tests will not be weeding out anything. Students who are taught creation as fact, usually learn the theories of evolution some time before graduating.
Most are well armed to conquer the SAT or ACT science portions.

@cheebdragon I have no ties to the Mormons or any belief in Mormonism whatsoever, but I think we would all appreciate if you would refrain from stating a “fact” that you know nothing about. Mormons do wear “holy underwear” but it is not intended for any “magic” or protection. It is worn as a private reminder to the wearer of their commitment to god.
It is much like protestant Christians would wear a cross symbol.

It’s pathetic. But I agree with @cheebdragon – there is no excuse for being surprised by it.

It is real and we should ALL BE PISSED! These are not schools. They are brain washing centers and forms of child abuse.

You beat me to it, Cazzie. This is child abuse in a most insidious form. These children are being cheated out of an education. They are being cheated out of the tools that can give them a good life. They are being condemned to live among the ignorant, disrepected and underpaid of developed society.

The only good thing about this is that their chances of holding a position of power over the rest of us in daily life is almost nil. But I’d rather see that they have a decent education and all the opportunities that go with it, including the ability to make an informed decision concerning the faith of their own choosing, if any.

Oh man….no comment, well, at least not one that would be appropriate.
Un-beeee-lieve-able!
Brainwashing and misguidance at it’s finest, not to mention yes, abuse. Feeding these kids the pap of bullshit and programming them, possibly forever, with a fucked up false belief system.

Oh brother!

Heh…looks like I commented anyway

@cheebdragon “Why does it make you sick, you already know there are people out there who think its true, so why would you assume they wouldn’t teach it to their kids?”

I think this just takes the abstract idea of people teaching creationism and makes it very concrete and real to see. I can picture a 2nd grader taking this test, and all of the emotions that accompany that image.

I certainly think people have the freedom to believe what they want, but it hurts to see children being denied an education. I’m not sure what the answer is. It feels like abuse (I worry about the rights of the child as well).

Maybe the answer is for colleges to not accept kids who attended “schools” that teach creationism. Perhaps that will disincentivize parents from sending their kids to places like this. Parent’s have the right to teach their kids what they want and colleges have the right to accept candidates who are qualified for higher education? Or does this just lock out these kids from ever having an opportunity to learn the truth about Science causing even more harm?

@genjgal Why does this thrill you?

@genjgal There is an entire section of the LDS church handbook, which is readily available on the LDS church website, devoted to temple garments. The handbook states that the garments “provide protection against temptation and evil.” Obviously they are not “magic” underwear, magic isn’t real. Unless you’re bat shit crazy and think your underwear will protect you from “evil”.

@gorillapaws But does this actually make it real to you? I think that everyone on this thread will make an outraged face, then go back to their daily lives without giving it more than a passing thought. Will anyone here act in a way that shows that they believe that this is real? Will anyone write one letter to a school official, or a politician, or reach out to families who teach this to their children?

@glacial It did make it real for me. The thing is, I’m genuinely conflicted philosophically about what the right course of action is. Is this like supporting the KKK’s right to demonstrate, where I disagree with what they say but vehemently defend their right to say it? or is this about potentially shutting down a young child’s curiosity about the world, denying them the tools to ask questions and answer them for themselves?

We don’t honor a group’s right to hurt their children physically in the name of religion (i.e. female genital mutilation is illegal here despite religious freedom).This doesn’t seem to rise to that level, and yet in some ways it seems far worse if it results in permanently extinguishing someone’s intellectual curiosity. I’m also terrified about what happens in a world where the government, or popular opinion, gets to police thought and ideas (religious or otherwise) and that seems just as scary.

I’m doing the only thing I know how to do in this situation, engage in a rational discussion about the issues before making up my mind—thankfully I had an education that allowed me to be open-minded enough to think this way.

I hope this child grows up to be a doctor.

Let’s just hope that this child will grow up to be an intelligent, free-thinking adult.

@genjgal I think a line should be drawn somewhere. I’m just not quite sure where. A lot of people grow up upon their parents’ beliefs and don’t even think to think on their own (because they intrinsically don’t), especially if they have a lot of respect for their parents. No one Practically nobody wants their kids growing up to be a Westboro Baptist or a KKK member because of their discriminatory beliefs, so why should we encourage this in our society?

@gorillapaws

Lawrence Krauss has a great and relevant quote “The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it”.

This is a case in point of validating ignorance.

Hehmant Mehta has a post on it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/30/blue-ridge-christian-academy-the-school-that-gave-fourth-graders-the-creationism-test-heard-around-the-internet/

as does PZ Myers

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/03/intolerant-atheists-viciously-attack-christian-school/

If we consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 26 affirms the right of everybody to an education.

https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

If we consider what education is defined as: “the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.”

Whereas to indoctrinate: “to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.”

This is not even in the ballpark of education. This is a “Science Quiz” requiring students to provide answers demonstrably at odds with scientific evidnece, and rewarding them for it. These students are being lied to. That’s not education. It’s religious indoctrination, pure and simple.

These students are being failed by their teachers (which is an insult to the word), and by society which allows such places to count as schools.

To be fair, even non religious teachers have been known to lie….

@gorillapaws “I’m also terrified about what happens in a world where the government, or popular opinion, gets to police thought and ideas (religious or otherwise) and that seems just as scary.”

This sounds far from scary to me. I am appalled that there is not already a national standard for curricula taught in all schools from grade 1 through high school. This is exactly the sort of thing that government exists to do: make sure that all citizens are on an even playing field, and protect the least powerful from abuse.

@glacial What happens if a wave of religious zealots take over and the official curricula starts to look like this quiz? It already happens with religious extremists stacking school boards.

@cheebdragon Some teachers will of course tell lies. But this isn’t about individual teachers behaving unethically. It’s about an organized and well funded process of treating little children as mere vessels for perpetuating dogma, rather than real human beings with a right to learn.

I notice that the answers expected to be marked “false” are all counter to specific fact-based statements that they will meet in the real world. It doesn’t say fanciful things such as “Dinosaurs were made of plastic” or “Dinosaurs built skyscrapers” that no one is going to claim. In the denial there is a kind of acknowledgment in itself.

(It also doesn’t claim that dinosaurs were a hoax invented by charlatans to test their faith. Maybe this is progress.)

@gorillapaws If a wave of religious zealots takes over your entire government, then I suspect you have larger problems than what is taught in a grade 4 science class. As a person who lives in the world, which is so annoyingly tied to what happens in American politics, I would have larger problems, too.

Frankly… if you wanted to spread religious zealotry to the point where that would be possible, what better way than teaching young children nothing but dogma, and keeping them from learning the nature and history of the real world?

I’m not surprised about the quiz. I used to live in Southern Virginia and had neighbors that attended christian schools. They believed this crap. I don’t understand how a school can teach reading and math but fails completely when it comes to science and history.

I went to Catholic school and we were taught science quite well because the pope said that “evolution was the way god decided to create our world”. Unfortunately they faild completely with history lessons.

I guess the difference between christian, catholic, and public school is the amount of fiction they present as history and science.

No, it’s not the most perverse/disturbing image I’ve ever seen. The most perverse/disturbing image I’ve ever seen was of ACTUAL abused children. You know, beaten, bruised, raped, mangled children.

The fact that everyone is so fucking “disturbed” by this is just laughable. It’s a school that teaches creationism, okay? Many people feel the same way about the schools that teach evolution. It’s just the opposite side. And you all are the same people who bitch about tolerance. The thing is, you only want tolerance for things that you believe in, you don’t give a fuck about tolerating what you don’t believe in. This is not perverse or disturbing; it’s the other side of the coin. Go buy a fucking clue.

These children will grow up to think for themselves, just as I did, after attending a private Christian school for quite a while. This is not child abuse, for fuck’s sake. Pull your heads out.

@gorillapaws “I’m also terrified about what happens in a world where the government, or popular opinion, gets to police thought and ideas (religious or otherwise) and that seems just as scary.”

Which is precisely why we want schooling to be built around evidence-based learning. Arguably the only reasonable basis by which we can hope to distinguish between indoctrinating children and actually teaching them is if we ensure that curricula are built on a foundation of the best available knowledge at the time. If we back that up with actually teaching children how to learn, and how to distinguish good and bad reasons for accepting a claim as true, then the kids will empower themselves.

@WillWorkForChocolate Well it’s the typical reactionary shite we see here, shouldn’t come as any great surprise.

@AdamF Are you kidding me? LMFAO such a huge amount of the crap they teach in history class is complete bullshit. How long have we been celebrating thanksgiving?…...who discovered America?…..

shall I continue?

@dxs It is very true that many young people never learn to think for themselves. Rather, they grow up on their parent’s beliefs or whatever they happen to be taught, whether that be a form of creationism and a form of evolutionism. I happen not to fit into that box. Yet, I believe in a 7 day creation, and a young earth. It’s not a conclusion I came to lightly, and I had plenty of doubt (and perhaps a bit of rebellion as well) as to the accuracy of my parents beliefs. I am quite independent about my beliefs.
No matter what you all may think of young earth creationists, you would do well not to force them into the brainwashed box.

@LuckyGuy see ↑, and you were so worried about the 8 year olds?

I was extremely disturbed by that when I came across it, too. One idea: Make rules that religious schools can only teach religion – leaving math, language, science, history, etc. out of their sphere. Leave it to non-religious schools to teach a factual education. You want your kid to learn about your religion? Fine, send them to religious school in addition to regular school.

@augustlan I have no right to tell a school that they can’t teach evolution, as atrocious and anti-logic evolution may be. Likewise, you (or anyone else) has no right to dictate what private schools can teach. I find it atrocious that in this “free” nation, public school teachers are reprimanded (or far worse) for teaching all sides.
If you want children to think for themselves (as many of you have expressed), then they ought to be presented with options of things to consider. They should be able to come to their own conclusions about the world. That would create a world of independent thinkers.
You cannot in your right mind deny that in the American public school system when there is only one view presented as a possibility, that that is putting a damper on free thinking.
As I believe I have stated before, many students of schools that teach creation, also learn evolution at some point in their education.
[I realize that this particular test is not from an unbiased standpoint.]

@genjgal All “theories” are not created equal, and they should not be given the same weight. A scientific theory is different than a faith-based theory. There is overwhelming evidence that evolution is, indeed a fact. There is no faith required to believe in it.

@genjgal I believe that schools should have a right to teach factual information such as most parts of evolution. Theories are interesting to learn about because they present interesting and sensible outlooks on things. Schools aren’t going to say that the Big Bang Theory actually happened—they will present it as a theory. Faith should be something between you and yourself; nobody should force it upon you. If you find inspiration in certain sets of beliefs, then that is something to consider on your own level because it is a personal issue. Teaching faith in public schools is too generalized.

@augustlan So scientific theories are not faith-based? Could you explain?

@genjgal Did you see the link I provided? No, scientific theory is based on evidence.

@genjgal “So scientific theories are not faith-based?”

Is that a joke?

@augustlan I know of no theory about the origin of the earth which can be duly tested according to the scientific method. Mind you I am including creation here.
When was the last time a scientist replicated the creation of the earth, or was able to witness the event? No scientist. Ever. Not ever. Evolution is not a scientific fact. Creation is not a scientific fact. Both require faith to accept as fact.

@genjgal So, “Were you there?” is essentially your rebuttal? That’s appropriate.

Evolution is observable and has been observed at small and large scales. The next time you take an antibiotic, tell me again that you don’t believe in evolution.

Well, if they grow up and don’t know how to do anything but argue on facebook they’ll be fine.

But they’re :trying”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider @genjgal

So god created the earth in 7 days, but he made it look like it had been around for a few billion years?

Thats pretty Antique Chic

@cheebdragon Age of the earth is one of the very things that made me choose creation. There is no possible way that the earth has been around for a few billion years.

@genjgal Of course it’s possible. In fact, nothing is more probable. On what grounds do you declare that it is impossible?

@genjgal Nobody is saying that we replicated the creation of the earth or witnessed it. Disregarding cosmology, scientific evidence has suggested certain things about our past. Similarities in species. Reactions to environment. Geography. Fossils. They all point towards possibilities of our past. Seven-day creation is based off of belief in a supreme being that inspired you, therefore it is faith-based. Adam & Eve didn’t leave a time capsule for us or anything.
No scientist is 100% sure of how the world was created, or if it even was created. Read @augustlan‘s link.
The earth is billions of years old. That is a fact. Geologists proved it by looking at the layers of the earth. Even most Christians support that. In fact, most Christians view the Seven-day creation story as a metaphor.

@dxs Addressed to the wrong person. ;)

@dxs Most Christians? Dare say that is new news to me. Any studies to back that up?

@genjgal Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about (and nothing to do with) the origins of life or the planet. You are confusing the two things, probably due to misinformation you’ve received somewhere along the way.

@genjgal I grew up in a Catholic environment and took CCD classes. Every Catholic that taught me (and we’re even talking nuns here) viewed the Seven-day creation story as metaphorical. They believed that the Earth was billions of years old, but that did not matter because God was timeless.
@glacial fixed it. thanks

@dxs True that. Even Pat Robertson doesn’t believe in a young earth.

@glacial The vast majority of dating methods indicate a relatively young earth. The biggest dating method that is held up in support of an old earth is radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is faulty in cases where disaster is involved.
Astronomers have been measuring the shrinking of the sun for almost 200 years. The rate of shrinkage fits perfectly into the time span of creation, but contradict evolution.
Not so long ago a dinosaur was found with evidences of hemoglobin and distinguishable red blood cells.
I could go on…

@genjgal “The vast majority of dating methods indicate a relatively young earth.”
No. You are misinformed.

“Radiometric dating is faulty in cases where disaster is involved.”
What sort of disaster are you referring to? I have never heard this before.

“The rate of shrinkage fits perfectly into the time span of creation, but contradict evolution.”
I’m not familiar with your sun-shrinkage story, but regardless – the age of the earth has nothing to do with whether or not evolution occurs. @augustlan was right about that. Evolution has occurred and does occur all around us.

“Not so long ago a dinosaur was found with evidences of hemoglobin and distinguishable red blood cells”
What does that have to do with anything? Is it supposed to prove or disprove something?

@dxs @glacial When it comes to creation, nothing but 7 days works. [Here comes Bible. You have been warned.]
The wages of sin is death, and before the fall of Adam and Eve there was no sin. Hence no death. No death before humans appear on the earth. No evolution. No evolution? Nothing but 7 days.
When God created everything He looked upon it and said that it was good. If God used evolution, then when He had finished creating He called all that death good.

@glacial Micro-evolution happens every day around us. Macro-evolution is what I have been discussing. I do not believe to macro-evolution has ever occurred, and it’d definitely not happening around us.

Galapagos finches = micro-evolution
Macro evolution is a change in species, while micro-evolution is variation within species.
Macro-evolution has everything to do with the origin of species.

@genjgal There is no god. QED.

See how we need to back up our claims with actual evidence? Otherwise, there is no point in us even talking to each other.

Sigh. The Galapagos finches are different species. This is macroevolution, even by most YEC’s definition. So, by your own rules, you have just admitted that evolution happens.

You don’t think death is good? How could we possibly live on an Earth populated with all the people ever born in even the last 6000 years, if you want to limit it to that? That would truly be hell.

@glacial
“The vast majority of dating methods indicate a relatively young earth.” No. You are misinformed.

“For every dating method indicating billions of years of earth history there are ten methods indicating the earth is far too young for evolution to have happened.“Dr. Russell Humphreys
I am not personally educated enough on dating methods to list off to you the ones which support young earth and those which do not.

“Radiometric dating is faulty in cases where disaster is involved.” What sort of disaster are you referring to? I have never heard this before.
http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates-from-the-new-dacite-lava-dome-at-mount-st-helens-volcano
The Mt St Helens eruption also created a mini-grand canyon (layers and all), which shows that the grand canyon could have happened very rapidly in a catastrophe rather than by millions of years of erosion and sediment being laid down.
The 600 feet of strata caused by Mt St Helens is nearly indistinguishable to those considered to be billions of years old.

The dinosaur bones show that that dinosaur could not have died more than a few thousand years ago. Hence the dinosaur would most assuredly have been alive at the same time as humans.

Shrinkage of the sun-
http://www.icr.org/article/165/

The reason I brought God into the conversation earlier is because we were the christian view on the 7 day creation in the Bible, since @dxs was talking about Christians who believe in an old earth.

@glacial Species – “A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.” I am not aware that the Galapagos finches changed species. If you can prove to me that they did, I will stand corrected.

@genjgal “Darwin’s finches are a group of about fifteen species of passerine birds” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches.

Regarding the blood cells, there is some controversy over what that researcher actually found: “These structures were interpreted first as blood vessels and osteocytes largely on the basis of their general morphological similarity to examples of these in the extant ostrich. The fossil structures, however, have been reinterpreted as the remains of recent biofilms that lined, but did not infill completely, voids inside the bone, thus generating hollow structures with a similar geometry to blood vessels and osteocytes.” (McNamara et al. 2010) Controversy of this kind is not a bad thing and is actually what science is about. Something was discovered – the next thing to do is to figure out what it is and what it means.

The researcher who found the cells is Mary Schweitzer. She has this to say about young earth creationists who use her work to support their claims:

“Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.” Source

Holy shit! The original quiz is really starting to pale in comparison to the mindfuck found in the last few answers.

It’s probably mean, but this picture had me in tears laughing..

@glacial I will look more into the finches.

I am aware of both sides to the dinosaur bones.

@genjgal Regarding radiometric dating, the simple truth is that the consensus is that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. You have found one of the few people who disagrees with this consensus. He has indeed presented a number of alternative dating methods (based on things like the amount of salt in the ocean, and other means), which have all been debunked.

The Mt. St. Helen’s claim is very thoroughly debunked here

“I am aware of both sides to the dinosaur bones.”
No. There are not “both sides” in the way that you mean. Actual scientists are not debating whether the cells are proof that the Earth is young. They are simply trying to figure out exactly what they are and why they were preserved. Only creationists take this for evidence of a young Earth.

The thing is, there are so few bits of “scientific evidence” put forward by the AiG crowd, that if you are honestly interested in learning more, you can put any one of them into google, add the word “debunked” to your search terms, and you’ll find that there are a dozen or so people explaining exactly why the claims are fallacious.

If you want to believe in creation, that’s your choice. If you want to believe that the Earth is young, that’s your choice, too. Enjoy. But please don’t pretend that scientific evidence backs it up. It doesn’t. Scientific evidence points to an old Earth. Anyone who is trying to convince you otherwise is lying.

Reading this thread….

Seems like it might be time for a (mostly) relevant Tim Minchin song.

It is not the teaching of creationism in itself that I take issue with, in this case. While I don’t personally subscribe to that belief, I maintain that individuals and private schools nevertheless have a right to teach it. But I do have a problem with the way that it was taught. Instead of being presented as a theory, as evolution is presented in schools, it is taught to the children in a way that makes it inherently unquestionable. In telling children to respond to any questioners with “Were you there?”, they are taking critical thinking from the child completely out of the equation- they condition the child to close off any contradictory information without a second thought, which has further consequences than just this. I don’t have a problem with anyone who chooses to have a belief or religion- but do these children really have much of a choice? Some children will eventually break free from this, but what about the ones who don’t?

I think describing this as child abuse is rather strong. Brainwashing would perhaps be a better word. But is there even anything we can do about it? When does something stop being protected by the first amendment and start being punishable by law? It’s such a fine line, I just don’t know.

Curious how the “all beliefs are valid” crowd would justify selecting from the following when designing their science curriculum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

@cheebdragon Sure, but don’t play a game of bait and switch. Your comment was 1) vague and 2) specifically targeted at “non-religious teachers” in a discussion about science curricula; as if there was some subset of organized “lies” that they were in-turn responsible for passing on. Hence my comment. You want to argue that the U.S. education system in general propagates nationalistic versions of history, I don’t think you’ll get much disagreement.

@Fly Yours is perhaps the first truly reasonable answer.

@AdamF So it’s okay to lie about historical facts, but it’s not okay to lie about science? Dont nitpick, teaching kids false history is just as detrimental as teaching them false science.

I’m with all the folks who don’t mind, or even advocate, the teaching of creationism in schools. Why not? The story is part of our cultural history.
But for <insert all favorite deities here>‘s sake don’t call it science.
@Fly is correct, when creationism is presented in schools as if there were good science behind it does the kids a disservice and does the beliefs a disservice too.

I’ve never understood why anyone would want to call creationism science, except as an anti-evolution gesture out of frustration. Calling the few and flimsy “facts” that are used to “prove” creationism is an insult to genuine scientific endeavor. ...and to what end?
The facts that @glacial has noted are just a start, if one has any understanding of science at all one will note the overwhelming orders of magnitude of evidence against creationism and will not claim creationist conclusions from the very few outlier facts that support it.
Science doesn’t work like that, it does not allow the scientist to pick the least likely conclusion through wilful ignorance of all the other information available. That just very simply isn’t science. At best it’s a contrarian opinion, and at worst it undermines the benefits of having beliefs.

If you ask me the worst effects on folks attempting to use science to ‘prove’ creationism is that it simply makes it easy to disregard/disrespect ALL of their beliefs. They are obviously unaware of what science means and how it works, for starters, so what sort of other ‘thinking’ is going on in their minds.

Beliefs are good and fine, they are what they are, they guide our hearts and souls, and as such are completely respectable.
Respect them for what they are, and respect the beliefs of others who don’t have the same ones. Use your beliefs to guide your choices and actions but don’t call your beliefs giraffes or buttercups or car parts.

Your hearts are in the right place, @dabbler and @Fly, but the issue here, and the reason why it really is child abuse, the results of which you can see right here on this page is the issue of brainwashing and mind control. From there it’s a short jump to “control of bodies”, hatred of outsiders and “where is my explosive vest?”

One hopes that, as other jellies have made their own often heroic recoveries from this kind of abuse and told their stories in this forum, the current victim will someday recognize her victimhood and recover her own ability to think and reason past the dogmatic straitjacket that she’s been trained to not only “accept” but “be proud of”.

Religion is fine for those who want it, and I’m all for the free exercise. I’m in favor of adults being able to drug themselves, to smoke, to engage in all sort of risky and questionable behaviors that put only themselves and their own well-being at risk, but it’s unconscionable to raise a child in this manner.

@cheebdragon Never said that. Never implied it. I’ll leave you to your straw man.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

@CWOTUS True fact, you’re right I didn’t address the effects on the school kids at all, except where I try to make the point that it’s important to avoid/quit mixing up beliefs with science and facts. They are orthogonal to each other.

I completely agree that giving kids a concept of science that is so distorted that is supports creationism over evolution is abusive. Those children when they grow up will not know how to use critical thinking for their own benefit, and will distrust useful (real) scientific information. They will also erroneously develop the thinking that it’s a valid use of faith to contest knowable material reality.

And it’s also abusive to mix up beliefs with science, as beliefs can serve us well when they are recognized for what they are.
This whole kerfufle makes me wonder what kind of relationship creationists have with their beliefs, and whether they can enjoy the real value of their beliefs when they are bent to serve an egoistic contest about who’s right about how we all got here. What’s the use compromising the power and benefits of belief with pretzel logic and wilful ignorance?
There’s no excuse for it and pisses on the gifts of belief that <insert favorite deities here> has provided.

In the grand scheme of things this physical “reality” doesn’t even exist.
What the hell use is it to argue about how it started?
Scientists agree it’s full of nothing but energy and the deeper and finer they are able to look there is still nothing but energy – whatever that is. All the major religions tell us more or less that physical reality is simply a manifestation of God’s thoughts.
Yet, here we are with a great deal of apparent consensus material reality we share and experience.
Believe a great story, live and let live.

@AdamF “This is not even in the ballpark of education. This is a “Science Quiz” requiring students to provide answers demonstrably at odds with scientific evidnece, and rewarding them for it. These students are being lied to. That’s not education. It’s religious indoctrination, pure and simple.—
These students are being failed by their teachers (which is an insult to the word), and by society which allows such places to count as schools.”

Judge them all you want, I don’t care, but they aren’t being any more dishonest than every other science or history teacher in the US.

I think our answers are generally the same, @CWOTUS. I certainly agree that this is morally reprehensible and is a step in the direction of child abuse. I also don’t deny that it has the potential to lead to other generally accepted forms of child abuse. That said, I am hesitant to label this as child abuse in and of itself, and I’ll explain why.

Firstly, I think some people who suffered through child abuse would take great offense to this. Though it is certainly arguable and probably true that this causes a form of psychological harm to a child, the would-be “abusers” don’t believe that they are harming the children, and the child doesn’t have any notion of the harm. To be clear, I am not saying that something can’t be considered abuse because the abuser doesn’t believe they are abusing the child, but that it is very subjective in this particular case.

Secondly, it hasn’t led to other forms of child abuse at this point, and we can’t yet see the effects of it as the children grow. As I said above, I don’t disagree that it has this potential, but potential is the key word. While we obviously don’t want to wait until it gets to that point, you really can’t prove that assertion until it does get to that point. For obvious reasons, this is not ideal, but there isn’t much of a choice. I would compare it to traffic lights; we all know that not having a traffic light at an intersection is very dangerous for drivers and pedestrians alike, but frequently, it is not until enough people are hurt or killed at an intersection that a traffic light is put in. Eventually, people learned to just put traffic lights in from the start, but it took that initial proof of danger to get to that point.

Thirdly, how do we define child abuse as a whole? There doesn’t seem to be one universally accepted definition of child abuse; we define individual acts of abuse, like molestation or neglect, but child abuse itself is usually more of a “you know it when you see it” term. Do enough of us “see it” to characterize it as such? I’m not so sure.

And lastly, let’s say that one of us does decide to pursue some course of action about this, to try and make this punishable by law- I can pretty much guarantee that anyone who tries to go about it by making a case for this as child abuse will get nowhere. Using a term that is so polarizing and gets this kind of rise out of people makes it effectively politically untouchable in the world of American politics. Sad, yes, but true. And the last thing we want to do is cause this argument to lose validity because of disagreements over word choice.

Child abuse? Child abuse?? That is absurd.
Why can a parent not encourage a religion? It’s better than parents beating their children. You can’t put these two things at the same level. Don’t always see the bad side of religion. It has built up society throughout generations, too. Most religions have a great set of morals. Religion will never go away, and religions in the countries we are from are not nearly as bad as some other areas of the world, so why try to outlaw it by calling it child abuse?
I was raised Catholic. I studied Catholicism for years and have concluded that it is not the religion for me because I disagree with its doctrines. It gave me great method of consolation throughout my childhood, however.
Children eventually start to think on their own. If they can’t, then clearly they aren’t a very smart person in the first place. And even if someone sticks to a religion, are they really going to become such an invalid to society as you make them out to be?

@dxs I’m not one of the ones calling this child abuse, but I think the part people might find abusive is not that a parent teaches a child religion, it’s the school doing it. It’s not the school’s job to teach a child religion. A religious school is one thing, but we can’t assume this was a religious school. A school should teach science, math, English, etc., not religion, as that’s the parents’ job.

I wouldn’t call it abuse either. Ignorance, but not abuse.

@dxs I think you misunderstand. It’s not the teaching of creationism itself that is a problem, at least not from my perspective. (@livelaughlove21) It has been confirmed to be a Christian school, so they have the right to teach it. I am more concerned with the way that they taught it. I wouldn’t call it abuse, either, so I agree with you on that front.

@livelaughlove21 @Fly You’re right. I jumped too far.
Is it naïve to think that beliefs like this will just die off due to progression in the USA? Yet so many people are becoming more and more intelligent. Are people really that ignorant?

@Fly Thank you for the link. I wasn’t aware that had been confirmed. That just confuses me, though. He didn’t know his kid was learning this? It was a Christian school, of course they’re teaching creationism! What did he think they were teaching? Evolution?

@livelaughlove21 Not all Christian schools are the same, and not all Christians deny evolution. Some Christian schools teach evolution, some teach creationism, and some teach neither.

@livelaughlove21 I would add to what @SavoirFaire said that the school that this appears to have come from was a non-denominational private Christian school, which makes it odd that they chose to teach only this creation particular theory. According to the Snopes link, he knew that the school would teach “science lessons [that] are creation-based,” but he did not know that they were teaching only this very specific creation belief or that they were teaching it in this manner.

Ah, okay then…

@Fly According to the Snopes link, the school teaches “science lessons [that] are creation-based” (this is a quote from the school’s website). But the father said, “I didn’t know that this was being taught to her until we heard a radio commercial together about the Discover the Dinosaurs exhibit…”

So according to the Snopes link, he did not know that this is what his daughter would be taught in science classes.

@SavoirFaire, do you think evolution and creationism are in contradiction to each other, other than it seems to contradict a literal interpretation of the bible? I know most in here don’t consider a designed creation a possibility but help me isolate this thought. Even if all the physical world that we know was created by God, how would evolution contradict that?

“Even if all the physical world that we know was created by God, how would evolution contradict that?”
Correct, evolution does not contradict that.

Evolution and geological sciences however have issues with :
-all creation happening in six actual days as we know them,
-a conclusion that the earth is around six thousand years old.
-the species we know today are all original species same as God created them originally.

@choreplay The problem here is that “creationism” can mean different things. Sometimes it refers to the thesis that God made all species more or less as they are now at the beginning of time (though domesticated animals, such as chickens or dogs, may be left out of this). Other times, it refers to the thesis that God created the universe. Evolution is clearly inconsistent with the first understanding of creationism, whereas it is not clearly inconsistent with the second understanding.

There is also the fact that many advocates of creationism and intelligent design employ a straw man definition of evolution. Take Kent Hovind’s infamous challenge to evolution, for example. He promised to pay $250,000 to anyone who could provide any empirical evidence for evolution. But by “any evidence” he seems to have meant “overwhelming and dispositive proof,” and by “evolution” he seems to have meant “metaphysical naturalism, including naturalistic accounts of evolution, abiogenesis, astrophysics, and cosmology.”

So long as we understand evolution the way that biologists do, there is no clear contradiction between it and the thesis that God created the universe. This is why many Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church, accept evolution. That said, there are philosophical and scientific reasons for thinking that evolutionary theory may have ramifications for other areas of science and that accepting evolution may undermine any explanatory role for God (thus leaving us with no need for that hypothesis).

“Were you there?” Wow. That’s like driving by a house that’s been gutted by fire. “Wow! Looks like that house had some serious fire damage!”
“Were you there? Why do you assume it was fire? You weren’t there to see it, so how do you know it was fire? Couldn’t it have just been God?”
“But…”
“WERE YOU THERE???”

Also in the Snopes link there was a picture of another test. The question was “What is a fossil?”
The answer was “Billions of dead things buryed (sic) in rock layers by water all over the earth.”
“How do you know that there are ‘billions’ of anything? Have you ever seen a billion of anything? There is no such thing as a ‘billion’ because That number isn’t mentioned in the Bible and no one has ever seen a billion of anything.”

Also, at the top of that other test was the question “Whom should we always trust?” The answer was “GOD!!!!!”
“What is the history book of the world?” “THE BIBLE!!!!!!!”
What is up with the exclamation marks?

@Dutchess_III I believe that was page 2 of the same test. ;)

I went to one of these schools and so it doesn’t really shock me. Maybe it’s because I held off going to Middle School, but none of this stuff ever fazed me. I just learned the correct answers to write in and wrote it in, not believe it at all. I remember watching these creationist videos and they basically would run scientists quoting evolutionary theories and then run a goofy Benny Hill style music with a laugh track in the background. I told my parents about it and they told me to play along and not mention that I thought it was BS. I survived.

What DID freak me out was my Science teacher telling us that sometimes he believed that none of us would graduate high school because the rapture would come two years before we graduated. Also freaked me out when the idiot brought in a wasp nest to his class room in the middle of winter and the wasps all came to life and filled the class room.

I used to be immersed in the Born Again culture. I had a girlfriend who read a book that “proved” that the rapture was going to come within the next 3 years. She was all freaking out about her kids and stuff.
I said, “When was that book written?”
She looked….and it had been written 5 years earlier.

She hated it when I did stuff like that.

@dabbler, the science subject I stuck with through college was geology. As a Christian I reconciled the timeline issue with the footnote in the second verse of Genesis. Genesis 1:2 says: “Now the earth was formless and empty…” BUT the footnote behind the word “was” reads “Or possibly became”. I have heard someone say the original text was actually more accurately interpreted as “became”.

See the ramifications?

To make sure my answer is crystal clear, I believe the earth is much older than 6,000 years, more in the 4.5 billion (that is where geology science marks it)

@choreplay That seems like a good way to get the most out of the Bible.
You get the important point of the information :
God creates the cosmos including Earth. <= That’s Fantastic!
The other details were channelled by layperson(s), for the benefit of non-scientists.

My point is a minority of Christians believe a literal translation. If I knew you better I’d know where your answer was coming from, otherwise your not making sense.

Yeah, I’d agree it’s a minority of Christians who believe in this literal creationism. When I was a believer, I had no trouble reconciling the idea of god with evolution.

@augustlan Unfortunately, almost half of Americans seem to think our species is only 10,000 years old.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

Which if true, means that after magically farting into existence, we seem to have immediately set about inventing beer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer#History

I hate Gallup polls, they are misleading and often unreliable.

(@AdamF Btw, if you want to make your links shorter just fill in the first __ with the word you want to display as a link, and the second ___ is where you put the address “___”:_____.

Christians seem to have no problem changing their interpretation of the Bible to reconcile with scientific evidence that they’re simply too intelligent to ignore. “Well, maybe it meant this instead…”

Similarly, they seem to have no problem molding their interpretation in the way that is most convenient for them. “Your sin is worse than mine, because I’d never do that. My tiny sins pale in comparison to yours.”

It’s not just Christians, either. Cognitive dissonance (the need to justify our actions, even if it means changing our beliefs in order to increase our own self-esteem) often makes fools of us all.

Even if you don’t take the Bible literally, there are certain passages that can only have one meaning. The excuses I usually hear for those things include, “Well that was the Old Testament” (which apparently doesn’t matter to Christians anymore?) or “It was a different time then” (But, again, they’ll only say this if the scripture doesn’t fit nicely into their own lives.).

It’s not religion I have a problem with – it’s the vast majority of religious people that rub me the wrong way.

@cheebdragon Quite likely. I know they’ve been criticised for their election polling. However, the results of this poll seem pretty consistent with other polls…a bunch are listed here.

Polling results

(thanks for the tip!)

@choreplay I was agreeing with you.

@AdamF I didn’t realize that 46% of Americans comprised the majority of Christians worldwide.

And of course we’ve had beer since the beginning. As so many people misquoting Ben Franklin like to repeat, “beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” ~

@livelaughlove21 It’s worth noting that Bible literalism is a new movement. The Bible didn’t exist during early Christianity, and it was not taken literally by its compilers. It seemed obvious to Christians of the past that a teacher who spoke in parables and metaphors had to be interpreted to be understood. And while there may be some passages that can only have one meaning, that does not mean their meaning is clear without any sort of philological analysis.

I don’t deny that many who say “it’s the Old Testament” have no good arguments to provide for their dismissals. That does not mean, however, that their conclusion is false. Many of the Old Testament laws are Jewish identity laws and were never meant to apply to anyone but the Hebrews (and possibly in a specific context). That is, many of them were social rules rather than moral rules. Sometimes, then, “it’s the Old Testament” may actually be a good reason (even if the person making the claim does not understand why).

@SavoirFaire A reason is never “good” if the person providing it has no understanding of their claim.

@livelaughlove21 Quite false, I’m afraid. The individual’s rationalization might be faulty, but the reason itself could still be sound. As an example, consider someone who copies and pastes an explanation of something that he does not understand, but that you do understand. The person providing it might have no understanding of what he is presenting, yet what he presents might still justifiably convince you of its content.

@SavoirFaire A person arguing about something they know little about gives no merit to their argument. It’s pointless, so their reasons mean nothing. And taking credit for an argument you don’t understand makes you foolish.

@livelaughlove21
The second mouse gets the cheese.

@AdamF “Unfortunately, almost half of Americans seem to think our species is only 10,000 years old.”

This is even more disconcerting, but an even greater number of Americans can’t locate Michigan or New York state on a map.

Most people say Kansas doesn’t even exist.

@livelaughlove21 You are conflating the person with the argument. Whether an argument is any good or not has nothing to do with who presents it, just as whether a statement is true or not has nothing to do with who says it.* So while it is true that a person who takes credit for an argument he does not understand is foolish, it is not the case that the argument he gives is itself foolish.

Thus it remains the case that a reason can be good even if a foolish person is the one providing it. If we fail to recognize this distinction, we fall into the ad hominem fallacy. And if we fail to understand the difference between a reason and the evidence provided for it, then we will not be able to explain why there can be both good and bad arguments for the same conclusion.

——————————

*Unless it contains indexicals such as “I,” “here,” or “now.”

@SavoirFaire I’m not trying to argue semantics, or even philosophy. My only point is that, if someone presents reasoning that he or she does not understand, I wouldn’t put any weight on anything they say. Therefore, their “reasoning” is irrelevant to me. It’s not even worth listening to, whether the actual thought has merit or not.

Interesting that the entire poll is not available, even Gallup links to a summery of results and not the details. Why would they do that?

@cheebdragon It looks like this is a poll that Gallup does every 2–3 years. The poll is called “Gallup Poll Social Series: Values and Beliefs. This was question 20; the whole list of questions is here, among other places. I think they present the results by question, so if you google each question separately, you might be able to find more information.

I have to pay for a subscription just to be able to see the details of the poll? Wtf kind of shit is that?

I was just thinking. If you think this quiz is the most disturbing thing you’ll see out of a Christian school, then you haven’t seen the abortion pics we were all forced to look at during one class. And I know it was just dolls, but it still creeped me out. We had to watch a video where they jammed hundreds of dolls into sand around the dead sea so we could see how many babies were aborted every day.

I’m telling you.. there is SICK stuff in those places. This test is piddly. It’s sad, but seriously… not the most perverse thing to come out of one of those schools.

@cheebdragon You don’t. Just copy/paste the question, throw it into google with “gallup”, and you’ll find the answers. I tried it with a couple, and they were easy to grab.

I still don’t understand why they can’t display the full details of the page instead of sending any and all skeptics of their results on a fucking scavenger hunt for it.

@cheebdragon Oh, I agree. They could totally display the results more simply and effectively. Clearly, that’s not their priority. They just send out their press releases, and assume that what they want to promote is what people want to read. But if they were trying to hide something… then they’d hide it. It’s easy to find, just not conveniently laid out.

@livelaughlove21 you seem to be missing a very excellent point that @SavoirFaire is trying to make (well, is making, but you’re not recognizing or acknowledging it). Truth doesn’t care who recognizes it or who doesn’t. You can even learn from fools if you listen to what they say and respond to the idea presented, and not whether or not “Well, he’s a fool, so he has nothing of value for me.”

If an idiot says something that he doesn’t understand, but which happens to be true, you can’t dismiss the fact just because “it’s just some idiot saying that.”

Relevant article here about how anomalous the U.S. is with respect to lack of acceptance of evolution. The link is from Richard Dawkins, but the article is reproduced from Science.

Science article

@SavoirFaire “I didn’t realize that 46% of Americans comprised the majority of Christians worldwide”

Well, you’re probably the only one who does.

@CWOTUS I’m not missing any point. As I said, we’re arguing separate things. And it’s certainly not true that I can’t dismiss an idiot’s rantings, because I do.

This is getting really off topic and I’m not sure why any of it matters in this context.

relevant: http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/wwjtd/files/2013/01/atheist1226b.jpg

Is terrible anyone teach such nonsense at children. Hope it not true.

It’s true @Shinimegami.

@gorillapaws “We don’t honor a group’s right to hurt their children physically in the name of religion”.....what about male circumcision?

Well, that is different, because it is our religion.~