Louisiana Set to Use Public Funds to Teach Creationism & Climate Denialism

By Sophie Bushwick | June 27, 2012 9:00 am

Louisiana’s new voucher program will kick in during the upcoming school year, giving students in failing public schools the funds to attend certain highly rated public schools and private institutions. Some of these private schools will be spreading ignorance to their students by using curriculum that openly clashes with modern science.

One textbook used by many private schools makes the creationist claim that no transitional fossils showing evolutionary changes have ever been found, which is simply not true. “This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis,” the book reads. “For the change, to have taken place many transitional forms would have been developed. However, no transitional fossils have been or will ever be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsman fashioned them all” [poor reasoning and use of commas theirs; emphasis ours].

This excerpt comes from a high-school science book used in the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curriculum, an educational tool in many Louisiana schools, like the Eternity Christian Academy in Calcasieu Parish, which is offering spots for 135 voucher students. British musician Jonny Scaramanga, who attended an ACE school while growing up as a Christian fundamentalist, has published this and other alarming textbook passages on his blog, Leaving Fundamentalism, including the creationist claim that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.

ACE isn’t the only company whose unscientific lessons stand to get a big boost from public funds turned loose in Louisiana. Some institutions, such as New Living Word in Lincoln Parish (which currently invites 315 scholarship students worth $2.7 million in state support), instead use the A Beka Book homeschooling program. Over at the Talk to Action blog, researcher and writer Rachel Tabachnick has recorded certain unscientific claims in A Beka Book’s educational material. Science texts describe evolution as belief-based rather than scientific, and the 1994 edition of an 8th-grade science textbook claims that “Creation, not evolution, is based on a reasonable faith.” In addition to creationism, one economics textbook denies global warming, calling it “simply not supported by scientific evidence…Global environmentalists have said and written enough to leave no doubt that their goal is to destroy the prosperous economies of the world’s richest nations.” And environmentalists aren’t the only ones to watch out for—other excerpts contain hostility towards non-Protestant religions and non-conservative politics.

One of the nice things about publishing creationist textbooks based on the unchanging Bible is that when you put out new editions, you don’t have to worry about modifying the text to include any new, inconvenient discoveries, like the “fishapod” Tiktaalik roseae, an amazing transitional fossil showing a key part of one fish lineage’s evolutionary journey onto land. When asked about whether ACE made any recent, substantive changes to Biology 1099, a science textbook now in its third edition, a staff member at the customer information desk said, “Most of our curriculum is solid. Most of our updates are cosmetic—as we grow as a company we’re able to update the look of [a book] more than the content sometimes.”

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Human Origins, Top Posts
  • Kaviani

    Nice horror story, but what are we doing about this?

  • JR

    Mustn’t there be a separation of church and state legal precedent that would prevent public school vouchers from being used in religious private schools (whether they are affiliated with a religious institution or not)?

  • Bryan

    I think it’s time to revisit the notion of letting the South secede.

  • Jeremy Bowman (@bowmanthebard)

    This article discredits itself by lumping together the rejection of evolutionary theory and the rejection of climate science. The methods of the two could hardly be more different, and any non-political reasons for rejecting them would be quite different. Evolutionary theory is an exemplar of the hypothetico-deductive method, a pinnacle of explanatory success and scientific achievement. The other is an example of non-explanatory Baconian inductivism.

    Anyone who really understands these different methodologies sees that they are to a considerable extent opposed to each other. The better one method looks, the worse the other one looks.

  • Drew Dutcher

    This is appalling.

  • RobCC

    I have always thought it strange that the lifeforms God created would all be eating each other to survive.

    In most cases when the preyed on were still alive.

  • http://looking-around.blogspot.com Karen A. Wyle

    Sigh. I do get tired of seeing creationism and climate change skepticism equated. Hundreds of respected scientists working in actually relevant fields have questioned various aspects of the climate change dogma.

  • mikel

    @RobCC: The christian response is to blame it on “The Fall”. Before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit there was no predation. According to Answers In Genesis before the Fall T rex , and I swear I’m not making this up, used his ginormous sharp teeth to eat coconuts.

  • kheun

    It is unfortunate that books like these are used to spread false information and condemn our next generation into stupidity. Worst of all, stupidity can lead to major disaster.

  • scribbler

    Stupidity???

    You need to read the article again. It is giving students money to go from schools where they get no education of value to schools where they get educations of great value.

    ALL books contain errors. What makes these worthy of condemning a greater education for their sake?

    Let me put it in a manner more understandable, WHY are you even thinking of condemning an education that is vastly superior OVERALL, based solely upon these two or three mistakes???

  • clarence

    Scribbler you don’t seem to get it. These are obviously NOT mistakes these are the core of their teachings. How exactly do you measure private schools as being greater education?

    America’s increasing anti-science ,don’t ask questions about the world around you just accept what you are told, attitude is actually scary.

    It’s a sad day when kids are being used to suck money from the government. And that is the point of all this I can assure you. Politicians getting buddy buddy with religious lobbyists.

  • Tony Mach

    Denying evolution is just plain stupid – it happened, your holy book is wrong, get over it. It may be an important fight on your side of the pond (Go teach those stupids!), but personally I find it boring by now. An objective report on their Climate “Denialism” on the other hand would have been interesting – unlike the reports on north carolina’s sea level law we had in the last few weeks. Oh well.

  • David Evans

    Mistakes?

    If the denial of global warming is a mistake, it’s likely to be the most costly one in history.

    These “mistakes” have one thing in common. To believe them, you have to believe that almost all scientists are engaged in a huge conspiracy to deceive the public. I’ve you’ve ever listened to what scientists say, you would know that’s incredible. They like nothing more than to prove each other wrong.

    Religion as a conspiracy – now that I could believe. It has the advantage that religions are much harder to prove wrong.

  • Deep thinker

    The issue is that science is based upon reasoning skills. Faith based Creationism is regurgitation based. While reading and arithmetic are subjects that can be learned by repetition and practice. Literacy is more than the ability to read ‘The Cat In The Hat’. Numeracy is more than the ability to make change for a $7.52 purchase.

    Thinking is more than recitation, regurgitation of statements and ideas previously forced into a mind by repetition, habit, and someone else’s agenda.

    The problem with Creationism is not ‘a couple of mistakes.’ It is fundamentally wrong to teach non-science as science. It prepares a person to learn to not reason. The first and foremost reasoning lesson it teaches is that opposing ideas can be ignored. Like the denialism about the existence of transitional fossils.

  • http://massimomusante.blogspot.com Maxx

    The oddest thing about creationists is their lack of faith in God.

    Why their God isn’t able to create a billions years old universe where life evolves? Why they believe in a God who create a parody of universe like the one in their teories instead of the magnificent one the science has discovered?

    I think they are looking for a proof of God existing because they don’t have enough faith to believe in God without proofs.

    Any creationist out there who can answer me?

  • floodmouse

    It’s annoying how this debate always degenerates into emotionalism: US against THEM. If people object to the textbooks that are in use, a more constructive approach might be to maneuver into a social position where they can have some input into the design of the educational materials (textbooks, video, etc.) Another approach would be to focus on getting the message out to the kids in their outside-of-school entertainment activities. Getting angry at people because they have been brought up to believe a certain tradition is probably not going to win you any friends in that social group, or get you any place you want to go in terms of educating them.

  • Maureen

    It makes me so proud to be an Atheist. However, having said that … it takes a long time to educate some people. Surely the scientific proof is there for all to read. Don’t get upset with the students blame the parents for allowing their narrow minded ideas to be placed on their children… talk about brainwashing…. this is the highest form of it. Parents are supposed to guide and nurture their offspring not impose their own thoughts on them Later in life the children will come to the right way of thinking. Why are public finds involved. I thought we has separation of church and State. And this is definitely a religeous group trying to impose their ideas on us…let me tell them it won’t work.

  • Gil

    @4

    Those aren’t honest mistakes, those are outright falsehoods used to perpetuate and propagandize a backward worldview. While I suppose they might learn math better at such a school, you’ve got to wonder about most of the other subjects.

  • JazzZyx

    As caprice would have it, a couple of friends and I had an email discussion about this topic this morning. Here it is

    1.) M: You know I just had an idea. Hope I have another before it dies of loneliness.
    I don’t see what all the fuss is about teaching that evolution is only a theory, not provable fact. That is how they teach math and no one is complaining.

    2.) J: I don’t think the fuss is about teaching natural selection in science class as a theory, but rather about teaching creationism from the bible as a theory in science class. Natural selection can be supported with peer-reviewed and empirical evidence and replicated research using the scientific method. Can the same be said of creationism? Furthermore, the theory of natural selection can be applied as a foundation for further science and technology. Can creationism? In fact, I believe that creationism could/should be taught as an example of POOR science. When I taught the theory of evolution in 10th grade science in Kansas, this is what I did, although in an indirect way. I did introduce the theory of punctuated equilibrium along with the empirical evidence supporting it, and the threw out the idea for discussion that this could be evidence for guided evolution or intelligent design. Actually got some good discussion out of that. I had several very good science students who absolutely refused to even listen in class to the state mandated module on evolution. Their wore earplugs. I suggested, and got through to all but one of them that they should at least listen to what the other side has to say so that they are better able to argue with them.

    3.) B: The theory of intelligent design does seem like shaky ground to me. On the one hand, I understand that evolution is taught as a theory on the creation of the world and modern species. Therefore, it seems fair to teach a competing theory. However, intelligent design is not science, so it seems that it wouldn’t belong in a science class. I would argue that it doesn’t need to be taught at all, because I find it to be total boo hockey, but I do see some value to offering competing theories in a class that is meant to be all about critical thinking.

    4.) J: My point exactly. But I’m defining intelligent design differently than creationism as described in the bible. Are you?

    5.) B: I guess I’m thinking of normal old-fashioned intelligent design… not sure what exactly you were getting at before with the alternate definition. Explain?

    6.) J: The notion of slow, evenly spaced, gradual evolution is actually not supported too well by the fossil, and now genetic, evidence. In fact the empirical evidence supports the theory of punctuated equilibrium … there have been periods of “great leaps forward” and expedited evolution, punctuated by long periods of relatively little change. Of course major climatic changes, and/or cataclysmic events of geological, biological or extraterrestrial events can be associated with most of these periods of great change. So in come the intelligent design folks who say that these episodes of accelerated evolution were in fact the hand of God shaking things up. A theory? Well, no, not really, because a theory has to be supported by empirical evidence, not merely belief. This was how I gave a nod to the creationists and intelligent design kids in my 10th grade classes, who of course were really just regurgitating what they hear at home and in church. It gave a means for me to discuss and differentiate between scientific theory and theological beliefs within the context of a 10th grade science class in the heartland of the bible belt.

  • scribbler

    Let’s try to end this “debate”: Someone, ANYONE, provide me with the PROOF that God did not Create this Universe.

    Please don’t bore me with alternate theories or so called facts of evolution for God could well have Chosen evolution to Accomplish His Creation. Please EITHER provide me proof that He did not Create the Universe or stop stating it as a fact.

    This is not rhetorical at all…

  • scribbler

    Now for a thought experiment: Let’s say that a being had the advanced technology to transmute matter on a level that makes it look like “magic”, even by todays standard. Let’s say this being transmuted water into perfectly aged wine. We use modern tools to establish that the grapes HAD to have been grown and turned to wine and aged while the eye witnesses saw water one second and wine the next.

    There are many things in the Universe for which our “modern” science is totally and laughably inadequate…
    ;-)

  • Chance

    @9 You’re going the wrong way..that’s not how scientific theory works..it’s not scientist job or responsibility to disprove the idea of God. It’s on the religious nuts to prove what they say they believe.

    It fascinates me how someone like 9 here can come and suggest we can’t disprove it so it must be true..but I’m sure the same person (#9) would argue that global warming has been dis-proven because there has been no proof of it’s existence. lol

  • Gil

    @10:
    You’ve helpfully illustrated why your position is not scientific. Your model is not amenable to empirical verification.

    Your question in 9 is irrelevant. Most mainstream religions to include catholicism, mainline protestantism, islam and hinduism have no problem with evolutionary theory as it is not mutually contradictory with theism.

  • Shannon

    10. scribbler Says:
    June 28th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
    “Let’s try to end this “debate”: Someone, ANYONE, provide me with the PROOF that God did not Create this Universe.”
    ——————————————–

    Actually, the burden of proof would be on you to prove that first a deity (God, gods, Allah, Ra, Isis, / myriad others that existed as “Fact” at one point in time or another according to local custom) exists, and secondly that said divinity used your proposed method for the development of life, “Creationism”.

    I find it interesting however that in the year 2012 there are those still so self-bound and blind because of faith as to believe something so incredibly arrogant that “THEIR” particular was the basis for all creation. -Astounding really…”I have faith, therefor it must be true…”

  • Harvey Yazijian

    What’s happening in Louisiana reminds me of what Einstein said about genius and stupidity. The difference between the two, he said, is that genius has its limits.

  • Shane

    In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. – Douglas Adams

  • scribbler

    11 and 12: DEAD WRONG! It is a perfectly tenable HYPOTHESIS that a being from another realm beyond space/time has the means to create our Universe…

    Here’s where you get to be DEAD WRONG: While there may be no proof that this has happened, there is EQUALLY no proof that it did not…

    Did you get it that time?

    IF you say there is no proof, I’m silent. It’s when you say that it didn’t happen, I ask for PROOF that it didn’t happen.

    And gentlemen, calling me names only shows your complete frustration at having none, what so ever…
    ;-)

    It is perfectly scientific to ask a person to either supply the proof of their statement or to retract it.

  • scribbler

    Global warming has been proven, to MY satisfaction, for whatever that is worth. What hasn’t been even remotely proven is that it is our/humanity’s fault and even if it is, what can or should be done about it…

    I sometimes envy people like you, if I may. How simple existence must be to label something, ascribe whatever properties to it you are comfortable with defaming and then thumping your chest when you deliver your “argument”…

    Still, I prefer actually examining ALL sides of an issue and reasoning my way to a conclusion…
    ;-)

  • scribbler

    12: “Most mainstream religions to include catholicism, mainline protestantism, islam and hinduism have no problem with evolutionary theory as it is not mutually contradictory with theism.”

    And there are many scientist who disbelieve evolution. Why all the uproar?

  • Bill Gross

    Interesting debate. One side says religionists are trying to push their worldview on kids; the other side says that scientists are trying to push their worldview on kids. Somewhere in the middle there is disagreement about whether acceptable “proof” for evolution or creationism does or even could exist.

    Gil, level-headed guy that he is, says the dividing line is “empirical verification.” The creationists are screaming that there has been no empirical verification of evolution. But rather than presenting their extensive proofs, like any reasonable, scientific, dispassionate researcher would do, the evolutionists begin making bare assertions, “It’s a FACT! And there is no God!!” The creationists respond, “Great. Prove it. Either one.”

    Then we get more bare assertions from both sides, almost as if the evolutionists are actually religionists in scientific garb; and as if religionists were trying to peddle their home-brewed science like snake-oil (I only say that because their textbook, the Bible, doesn’t reveal Science – it reveals God; so it’s gotta be a home-brew of some kind). The religionists are yelling, “Prove that God does NOT exist!” The evolutionists respond, “Prove that evolution is NOT true!” Frankly, I’m having trouble distinguishing between the two sides. They each have an agenda outside the context of the debate, and for BOTH of them, it concerns religion, and not science.

    I’m curious though. Is string theory empirically verifiable? If not, is it science, or is it mythology? And should it be taught in schools?”

    Just askin’…

  • John

    Actually this is a good thing. all those kids exposed to the lies of the wackjob religious right will come out of the system ill prepared, those that do not experience an “ah hah” moment will raise kids even more disadvantaged than they are. in the end HG Wells will be proven prophetic or perhaps Phol and Kornbluth in “The Marching Morons”

  • Gary

    The Theory of Evolution has been subjected to intense scientific scrutiny and testing for 150 years. Using the scientific method, scientists have not attempted to prove its correctness, rather they have made every conceivable attempt to disprove it. Scientists have applied the same rigorous attacks on all of the competing theories as well. Today, it is widely accepted that there is no other explanation for how species have developed since the beginning of life on Earth that can address the question as well. Indeed, nothing else comes even close. The term “theory” as it applies to evolution, gravity, and other proven scientific paradigms is different from “theory” used to mean hypothesis.

    Creationism is not a “theory” in the first sense; it is a hypothesis. It is part of a dogma that certain religious people have accepted as their belief. It has no basis in any fact and there is no way to subject it to the same scientific testing to try to negate it since there is no evidence presented to make an evaluation.

    As a scientist, my assertion is that there is no evidence that there are any gods or universe creators or intelligent designers. There is no evidence of the existence of angels or aliens or living creatures that have come back from death. I make no assertion at all about the existence or non-existence of such things. They are simply not part of my universe.

    To answer Bill Gross’ last question, string theory is “theory” of the second sense, a hypothesis that is still under study and one of many cosmological concepts being considered. If it is taught in schools, rest assured that it would be taught that way, not as an established fact.

  • Magoonski

    We should have a new law “Separation of Church and Science.” Let them have their beliefs but in no way are they to ever discuss their version of “science.” If they can’t do that, they can’t meet the minimum requirements for state accreditation, and therefore the students going to those schools won’t be able to attend college. No college, less money, less money, less political pull, less political pull, better chance we have of getting people with some common sense into the congressional seats to reverse this ridiculous practice.

    OR

    Leave it be. I did attend a Christian school and it taught Creationism, etc. and all the other things listed. Granted there was no taxpayer money involved and my science education was stunted but in the end I became a science teacher who is also an atheist. So it’s not the end of the world, have a little more “faith” in your fellow human being to eventually see reason.

  • BWA

    At a time when education funds are stretched, it is criminal for a state to be doing something as insane as this. Goes to show the whole perverted mentality of religious “education”!!

  • scribbler

    Well, as usual, this has degraded to everyone arguing what they think everyone else is or isn’t saying and dragging out the old, tattered straw man and beating it further to dust rather than reading what was said and answering the questions put to them.

    I will agree with one statement. If some of the so called scientist here think they are any different than those they decry as heretics, if it weren’t so sad, their hypocrisy would be laughable.

    (pasting convenient label on whole “discussion” and smugly tucking self assurance under tin hat)

    Later…
    ;-)

  • Shane

    Can anyone prove to me a flying spaghetti monster did not create the universe? Please don’t bore me with alternate theories or so called facts. Seriously, we’re mostly trolling here.

    From what I can tell scribbler is saying that even if evolution happened, it happened at the enlistment of God. That is not testable anymore than evolution happening at the insistence of the flying spaghetti monster. I’ll submit that evolution and faith can coexist if that is the substance of this argument.

    Quoting Scribbler: “Please don’t bore me with alternate theories or so called facts of evolution for God could well have Chosen evolution to Accomplish His Creation.”

    If folks can’t tell there’s a difference between a testable hypothesis (science) and an untestable hypothesis (faith) then there’s little point.

  • scribbler

    I was done but…

    The substance of this argument is to not make unprovable claims and call it science. I already admitted there was no proof God created the Universe speaking scientifically. My point was and is that there is no proof He did not, either.

    The reason I don’t accept alternative theories and so called facts of evolution is that they are not even close to the proof needed to validate such a statement and are not at all relevant, which is that it is unscientific to state that God did not create the Universe since that cannot be proven nor disproven.

    All you have done is agree with my point that there is no proof one way or the other. If your prejudice is so strong that you can’t see the importance of proving a claim before it is stated as immutable fact, I personally don’t see how your “science” has any value.

    To state that there is no proof one way or the other is perfectly scientific. To state that there is as much proof that a flying spaghetti monster made the Universe as there is that God made it is scientific, since there is none. To state that He DID NOT, is totally unsupported and is not at all scientific. Simple, perfectly reasoned science.

    Need a match, now?
    ;-)

  • Old Prof

    Let’s get out of the theological discussion, which is of questionable relevance, and discuss the public policy behind the Louisiana voucher system being criticized by the article. I suggest two points. First, taxpayers have a right to send their children to the “best” school available using their own public funding. Second, if that school is private, whether or not religiously affiliated, they have a right to direct the curriculum taught. Their children, their cash, their direction. That any self-appointed Theist or Atheist or whatever may proclaim their choices benighted is irrelevant and officious.

  • jeremy

    @scribbler
    I don’t think that anybody was suggesting they have proof god didn’t create the universe, I think its just widely accepted that natural selection has vastly more scientific basis behind it where creationism is based on what a book says.

    And you seem to contradict yourself with your comment

    ” It is perfectly scientific to ask a person to either supply the proof of their statement or to retract it. ”

    In that case I should suggest you provide proof of his existence or retract your statements in which you imply it.

    Furthermore, the previous argument was about discrediting natural selection in these new textbooks (not about discrediting creationism, which is a totally separate argument), which they can’t do scientifically.

    I think you aren’t reading the comments in the spirit they are intended. Yes there are two beliefs, one of them is based on science, one is not. If I were going to be teaching a science class I would probably focus on the science based theory.

  • Gil

    @28

    In the same post that you quote me in I state already that conflating evolutionary biology with atheism is false, and that choosing either evolution or religion is a false dilemma. You can go to any number of websites for responses to creationist’s imagined problems with evolutionary biology. This is a good starting place with citations: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    The facts of evolution are long established science at this point. You may as well argue that gravity is a lie from atheist physicists denying that the hand of god holds us to the earth.

    @27

    Far from a significant amount relative to the demographics I described. Historians don’t care of holocaust deniers, either, whether they are fellow historians or not. The scientific concensus has been more or less settled since the synthesis of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution. The nested hierarchies generated by modern genomics are icing on the cake.

  • http://www.stampsbythemes.com Mike Shefler

    2 + 2 = 5. Pass it on.

  • Julie

    Since they have so much faith and don’t believe there’s such a thing as global warming, I’d say that lets the rest of the country off from helping them out when they get inundated by the next hurricane. Oh and yes, it’s time to let the south succeed from the Union. Aside from these off the cuff comments, whatever happened to separation of church and state. If one goes back to the foundations of the western world and why we have done as well as we have, it is partly because we did make religion and govt. separate. We are De-evolving and soon will be back to tribalism and internal wars. Is this what we really want? Common folks, read up on your history of why the western world has done so very well while other parts of the worlds have floundered.

  • ed

    Thanks LA. The world needs a good laugh. Florida has been carrying the “Village Idiot” role all alone, for too long. Kansas is slipping from memory, as a laughing stock. Glad you guys have arrived to spell Florida, as the butt of jokes, for a while! Don’t worry about that flushing sound, its just a bunch of science-based jobs leaving your state. We’ve been turning off the medical and science industries for years now. You will barely notice the jobs, as they flee your state.

  • Ashley Cakes

    HA! Yes, let the south secede, I’ll GLADLY move! Ugh, my state, Texas, is just as bad. Stupid is as stupid does.

  • M

    It will be interesting to see how natural selection pans out here but I doubt I’ll live long enough. What’s scary is that people who don’t believe in global warming or evolution VOTE!

  • Sam

    It seems like there is a deliberate movement by the Church to return power to itself like its heyday in the middle ages. The clergy have the most to gain by fueling such teachings. Are we going to turn into a version of Iran?

  • Ruth Freese

    The best book I’ve ever read about evolution (sorry, Professor Dawkins) is “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry A Coyne. He touches on all sorts of topics: fossil evidence, including distribution of fossils, genetics, vestigial organs, embryonic development, and physiological ‘mistakes’ that make perfect sense if you consider the organism is the product of natural selection. I particularly enjoyed his discussion of animal life on different sorts of islands. Scribbler, you should force yourself to read it. You will find that your assertation that there is insufficient evidence for evolution is simply not true.

  • scribbler

    40, You should actually read my posts. I NEVER made the assertion that there is insufficient evidence for evolution. I merely quantified SOME of it as “so called”…

    I may have eluded to my firm experience that often you have perfectly reasoned and validated evidence that fits and explains everything and it STILL absolutely incorrect but I never said there isn’t enough evidence to convince the science community beyond argument that evolution is fact. I have, of course my own personal interpretation of the same evidence and know the reasoning behind my own personal disagreement with many conclusions held by many but that is another matter altogether…

    I see you brought your own matches (so you don’t have to actually read, that is in reference to my assertion that most here can’t see past their own, tattered and worn straw men ;-) ) so I won’t offer you any…

    (tucking matches and self assurance neatly under tin hat again)

  • scribbler

    I’m in a generous mood so I’ll even save you the trouble of reading my posts to make sure what I said was true by referring you to post 33 above which quotes me: “… for God could well have Chosen evolution to Accomplish His Creation…”

    Later…

  • thorvin

    isnt the lack of proof god created the universe also proof he didnt . i mean you cant disprove a negative. its like saying that a magic invisable dragon made gold and thats why its valuble then saying the disprove it

  • christina knight

    I have always believed that the real motivation behind so-called ‘school choice’ and voucher program initiatives is the desire by some parents to segregate and shelter their children from exposure to secular teaching and influences, or from sharing classrooms with minority students. The truth of the matter is that private schools can be selective, and refuse to take students that are underachieving (which are often minority students). Lack of parental involvement and motivation to suceed in low achieving students are the main reasons that they perform poorly. School choice is not the solution to this country’s education issues.
    University’s should require that students from religious schools that teach Creationism enroll in remedial science classes before being accepted into any science programs at the university level. The only way to stop the stupidity of Creationism is to make it costly for the schools to teach it to its students (by penalizing the students enrolled in these schools).

  • Sid

    At least all the bad students can just put down “god did it” and they will pass!

  • Sunny D

    It’s too bad religious people don’t realize Creationism is a myth designed to describe in poetic form how the Universe came into being, through the mind of God…

    And it’s too bad that athiests and scientists take pride in debunking Creationism which is so obviously a myth.

    Creationism should be not taken literally by anyone, including scientists. Anyone who does, arguing for or against it, makes a fool out of themselves.

    Then again, I take that back. Someone has to step in and beat those who take it literally across the head with a hammer.

  • Joycelyn Mason

    ok…GREETINGS,….I AM A NEW LIVING WORD PARENT & A FEW OF YOU GRABBED MY ATTENTION….MY KIDS HAVE BEEN @ THIS SCHOOL FROM DA BEGINNING & IF THE FUNDS WERE PROVIDED TO BETTER THE KIDS “WHY ARE SOOO MANY PPL HATING!!!! YEAH THATS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING…YOU GOT SO MUCH TO SAY BUT LITTLE DO YOU KNOW…IT SEEMS NONE OF YOU KNOW THE SITUATION HERE JUST READING FROM ARTICLE TO ARTICLE SOME UNDERSTANDS AND SOME OF YOUR MINDS ARE SO SIMPLE..THE CONCERNS HERE AS FOR US PARENTS OF THE KIDS HE HAS HELPED US !!! NOT YOU!!!! SO WHAT IF THE STATE HAS GIVEN TO HIS SCHOOL..I APPLAUD THEM FOR FINALLY WANTING TO STEP UP AND BREAK THIS SYSTEM WITHIN LINCOLN PARISH ITS SELF..OK WHEN YOU ARE A BLACK MOM OF 2 TEEN BOYS THIS GENERATION AND YOU KNOW WHATS AND WHO IS BEHIND YOUR KIDS THATS KEEPING THEM FROM …STEALING..KILLING,.FIGHTING,GANG BANGGING…etc. IT’S A MUST WE STAND WITH PASTOR ,PRINCIPLE,COACH BALDWIN…LET ME GIVE YOU A LIL PERSONAL INSITE ON HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS STUDENTS …FOR YOUR INFORMATION…MY EXPERIENCES WITH NEW LIVING WORD IS AWSOME,,,TO GOD GETS THE GLORY,NOT MAN!!! I GOT TO SAY @SID…SMH..ALL THE BAD STUDENTS CAN JUMP UP AND DOWN WHEN THEY PASS AND SAY GOD DID IT,HUH?? SAD COMMENT..BUT YOU ARE CORRECT..THEY ONLY THING IS YOU AND NOBODY ELSE HAS THE ROOM TO CALL ANY OF THESE KIDS BAD WHEN YOU ARE WHAT….MILES AND MILES AWAY!!!! STOP JUDGING FOR YOU WILL BE JUDGED…HALF OF YA STATEMENT WAS TRUE,I GIVE YOU THAT ..IT’S THE PART YOU SAID “THE KIDS WILL BE SAYING …”GOD DID IT!!!” REMEMBER THAT!!!@ MAUREEN…SAD SAD COMMENT..BUT HONEY I AM HERE TO LET YOU KNOW NOTHINGS ABOUT MY MIND IS NARROW WHEN IT COMES TO MY KIDS…REMEMBER..MY KIDS ,MY CHOICE,,NOW NARROW MAYBE SIMPLE MINDED WAS SHOWN CLEARLY HERE !!!@GIL…HA..HA…LITTLE DO YOU GUYS KNOW WITH ALL THIS ASSUMING…YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY USUALLY WE MAKE OUT OF OURSELVES FOR ASSUMING..HA..LET’S SEE…MY 9TH GRADER JUST COMPLETED…MATH,SPANISH..WHILE MY 11TH GRADER ….JUST COMPLETED A LITTLE FRENCH!! LOL..IT WAS A TASK FOR HIM BUT GUESS WHAT …HE PASSED IT!!!!! REGARDLESS THE STAEMENTS …GET YOUR FACTS!!! FOREVER FATIHFUL, #1 NEW LIVING WORD LIONS FAN!! OH,STAY TUNED TO THEIR ,TRACK,FOOTBALL &BASKETBALL SEASON 2012-2013) LOL..SEND YA HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL TEAM & LET’S SEE !!!!! OK..IT WAS, THE PARISHES RESPECT OUR SCHOOL …NOW IT’S THE WORLD THAT’S GONNA RESPECT OUR SCHOOL!!!! LOL…TALKING BOUT GOD INCREASING TERRITORY!!!! BIG BIG UP,PASTOR PRINCIPLE,COACH BALDWIN!!!!! YEAH,WE STAND WITH YA!!! L-I-O-N-S….NLW ALL DAY BABY!!!

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

80beats

80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day's most compelling topics.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »