Louisiana Middle School Textbooks On Dinosaurs, Earth, Creation

Buzzfeed has a selection of jaw-dropping excerpts from a 5th grade science textbook currently in use in state-sponsored schools in Louisiana. Included are the birth of the world thousands of years ago, dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark, the sham of carbon dating, and, as an added bonus, the constant and exclusive use of only male pronouns in reference to human reasoning, judgement, and knowledge:

86 Comments on "Louisiana Middle School Textbooks On Dinosaurs, Earth, Creation"

  1. cakey pig | Nov 21, 2012 at 11:30 am |

    Hahahaha I love the way it says that there were two of each type of dinosaur on the Ark 😀 Must have been very cramped for poor old Mr and Mrs Noah…

    • Maybe they sat on each other’s laps? Did you ever stop to think about that?

    • Liam_McGonagle | Nov 21, 2012 at 11:53 am |

      I love the way it says, “Evolutionists BELIEVE* that dinosaurs and man never lived on the earth at the same time.”

      Sure, the scientific method of empircally testing falsifiable hypotheses is a belief, no more or less valid than any other belief.

      * my emphasis

      • jimbo jones | Nov 21, 2012 at 2:33 pm |

        That’s the issue at hand. The scientific method never enters the room when it comes to evolution. What’s the Darwinian hypothesis? 1) Life spawned out of the primeval soup out of brute matter. 2) Freaks gave birth to freaks until we went from the amoeba to Darwin and his finches. 3) All of this accomplished under the magical mechanism of natural selection, which says that if you take a group of dogs and kill the tall togs, you’ll have yourself short dogs.

        The first statement is impossible to verify. The second statement contradicts ALL of recorded human history and experience, inasmuch as in all recorded history dogs have given birth to dogs, cows to cows, etc, no transmutation of species has ever been observed.

        The third statement is meaningless – those who survive, survive. OK.

        And that’s one problem with Darwinism and why people have been complaining for 150 years. Darwinism is not science, it’s metaphysics and religion. Dawkins himself said it – atheism (by which he meant Darwinism) is just spruced up pantheism. Darwinism is an attempted explanation at how a universe which is its own God works.

        So let’s not confuse Darwinism with science.

        • Simiantongue | Nov 21, 2012 at 3:20 pm |

          If you read the article and think to yourself “What’s the harm”? Well, here you go folks, imagine a nation full of jimbos.

        • So you’re saying that the theory of evolution is 1) unverifiable, 2) demonstrably false, and 3) logically a priori?

          Let’s not confuse your understanding of Darwinism with Darwinism.

        • Anarchy Pony | Nov 21, 2012 at 5:39 pm |

          That was some ignorant schlock right there.

        • bobbiethejean | Nov 21, 2012 at 6:29 pm |

          “The scientific method never enters the room when it comes to evolution.”

          Not true. Evolution is testable, falsifiable, and predictive. It is also the basis for our entire understanding of biology.

          “Life spawned out of the primeval soup out of brute matter.”

          That would be called abiogenesis, the study of how simple, self-replicating molecules eventually gave rise to what we now call life.

          “Freaks gave birth to freaks until we went from the amoeba to Darwin and his finches.”

          A creature with traits that are advantageous to surviving in his environment could technically be called a freak…. I guess, if you want to grossly oversimplify natural selection, sexual selection, survival of the fittest, the effects of environmental attrition, epigenetics, and change in allele frequency, among other things.

          “All of this accomplished under the magical mechanism of natural selection”

          There is nothing magical about creatures with disadvantageous traits dying off and creatures with advantageous traits surviving to pass on their genes. In fact, it is very logical and has been observed directly.

          “no transmutation of species has ever been observed.”

          That is not what evolution predicts. If a cat suddenly evolved into a dog overnight, that would actually confound scientists because if flies in the face of all we know about biology and the natural world. The process of speciation is a long, drawn out process that happens over millions of years….. unless we’re talking about bacteria, mold, fungi, insects and such. Those things have a very high turn over rate.

          “Darwinism is not science”

          No one is a “Darwinist” anymore. The proper term would be “evolutionist,” otherwise known as “one-who-is-not-fucking-stupidist.” Darwin got the ball rolling on evolution. He is basically the father modern biology in a way.

          “Dawkins himself said it – atheism (by which he meant Darwinism) is just spruced up pantheism”

          That is not what Dawkins said. He said that “pantheism is just sexed up atheism” by which he meant that pantheism is just atheism lite.

          • Anarchy Pony | Nov 21, 2012 at 8:14 pm |

            Hooray! Thanks for doing what most of us don’t really have the energy to do. i.e. call out trolls.

          • “The proper term would be “evolutionist,” otherwise known as “one-who-is-not-fucking-stupidist.”

            Best line of the day. You win this comment.

        • David Howe | Nov 22, 2012 at 10:53 am |

          Ladies and Gentlemen: we have a Ringer!

        • marvin nubwaxer | Nov 26, 2012 at 4:17 pm |

          sorry, evolution proposes that species have come and died out over time or have changed over time and there is so much evidence available that supports this idea that is a fact.

      • marvin nubwaxer | Nov 26, 2012 at 4:14 pm |

        no, science states a fact, not a belief, that man and dinosaurs could have not possibly lived at the same time and have mountains of facts to support that fact. i believe i am sane but i can’t prove it. i also believe in science. it seems to me the word belief or believe comes with a problem attached to it in that it can be used and misused by anyone. if you believe in god then good for you but science has nothing to do with you and would expect you would do science the courtesy of staying out of it as they stay out of your beliefs.

    • KittenMittons | Nov 21, 2012 at 8:49 pm |

      Somebody I know in real life actually said to me once that Noah brought baby dinosaurs onto the ark because their size would have been a problem. And then the dinosaurs died because we killed them off because they were a nuisance.

      • The stories of Alexander the Great speak of his men were afraid of the mountain caves in mongolia because of the dragons…dino?

    • A mated pair of brontosauruses on Noah’s Ark would have transformed it magically into a submarine.

      • Was it a yellow submarine?

        • only briefly as the bladders of every creature on board that couldn’t swim cut loose when they realized they were all going swimming anyway.

    • why would mr NOAH want to bring mama and papa saurus on board when he can find baby saurus around lots less feed?/huh/?

  2. I love when idiots get all bent over religion. Who cares if hillbillies want their kids to think the earth is 5000 years old, and Jesus rode on a pterodactyl?

    • I hope you never whine about how dumb Americans are becoming.

      • Liam_McGonagle | Nov 21, 2012 at 12:06 pm |

        Suspending practical considerations of having our old age medications being prescribed by semiliterate Bible thumpers, you do have to admit that the image of Jesus on the back of a pterodactyl is pretty badass.

    • The people of Louisiana don’t appreciate being called “hillbillies”. Crackers or peckerwoods would be more appropriate.

      • Are you also prejudiced against black people who are poor and don’t have access to adequate education, or just whites?

      • What_Dat? | Nov 21, 2012 at 12:59 pm |

        Wrong, the people of La. use wording such as “y’at” and “coonass”. Though I would be careful throwing around coonass, people are either proud as hell, or will beat you to death on their pirogue in the swamps! Urban Dictionary:
        Coonass is a controversial term in the Cajun lexicon: to some Cajuns it is regarded as the supreme ethnic slur, meaning “ignorant, backwards Cajun”

      • David Howe | Nov 22, 2012 at 10:57 am |

        Just so you know: Here in Minnesota, where there is a large and dedicated public sector and a high quality of life, there exist MASSES of ignorant hillbillies who superstition and stupidity would put the faithful of Louisiana to shame. Great masses of people graduate from high school having learned nothing yet manage to get mortgages in the exurbs and never learn or grow beyond early adolescence. The they will fucking hit you if object to their “rights” to their “beliefs”.

    • Because they can vote.
      If it wasn’t for that, I wouldn’t care.

    • bobbiethejean | Nov 21, 2012 at 6:35 pm |

      It matters because where do think science comes from? Magical science fairies? No. Science comes from scientists. Scientists come from the population. What happens when the entire population is full of nothing but ignorant, uneducated, stupid walking incarnations of Dunning-Kruger?

    • David Howe | Nov 22, 2012 at 10:54 am |

      I care because they grow up to vote and make meth

  3. Anarchy Pony | Nov 21, 2012 at 11:54 am |

    “Gods word is always accurate. We can trust it to be true, even in areas of science.”
    Really? I wasn’t aware that the bible contains advanced courses on all scientific fields.

    • Liam_McGonagle | Nov 21, 2012 at 12:05 pm |

      Well, my God Azathoth is on the job. Don’t know how some of them lesser tribal deities are getting along these days.

    • the Bible ≠ God’s word

    • I guess they didn’t hear of the Nicaean Council which edited the word of god by deciding what books went in and what books didn’t. The bible was, if not written by man, was edited by man.

  4. Riccardo Cabeza | Nov 21, 2012 at 12:13 pm |

    Some say the world is round. Theologians disagree on the age of the earth. Climate change is a theory. But 2000 year old sheep herders are much smarter than I am. Now lets go grab some stones and kill something before Advisable Sky Father gets mad at us again.

    • Anarchy Pony | Nov 21, 2012 at 1:40 pm |

      Is your screen name a round about way to say dick head? If so, kudos.

    • marvin nubwaxer | Nov 26, 2012 at 3:40 pm |

      Climate change is a theory? do you have a clue what a theory is? a theory in science is the best statement of facts available from observations and experiments. the theory of evolution is a fact supported by warehouse full of fossil evidence. the exact mechanisms of evolution what scientists are now studying and revealing.
      a consensus of scientists who have studied weather and climate data agree that climate change is occurring (consensus being about 99% of credible scientists). so, climate change most likely is happening but some questions of why, how and consequences are still open to discussion.
      if you do not believe in science then you should not have any science, which means you can go live in a cave somewhere.

  5. DeepCough | Nov 21, 2012 at 1:47 pm |

    I don’t get it: they mention God AND Dinosaurs, but no Raptor Jesus!

  6. This a cartoonish example of Young Earth Creationism, obviously. So its a Fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. So then the people that usually “come to the rescue” in these cases are similarly literal minded internet atheists.

    Left out of the discussion is everyone else, including anyone who appreciates mystery in the universe.

    • bobbiethejean | Nov 21, 2012 at 6:34 pm |

      One can reject the unprovable, unverified, untestable idea of magical, mystical forces yet still bask in the wondrous glory and endless mystery of the natural universe.

        • Derp.

          • I will say this (current, mainstream)evolutionary theory does a pretty good job explaining how things change over time but not how and why they also stay the same. Why for example should there still be be a coleacanth?

            I also don’t buy that the only explanation for extreme examples of cryptic coloration, you know like insects that look and act like leaves, is random mutations and natural selection over long stretches of time, without any awareness on the part of the organism.

            There has to be some type of teleology on the species level. It has to be some type of collective intelligence at work. It some kind of morphic field. Some type of way of storing knowledge.

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 21, 2012 at 8:21 pm |

            Why for example should there still be be a coleacanth? Not true. Evolution very well explains it. The coelacanth still exist because they are very well suited to their environments. They don’t change because they don’t need to. That’s the same reason sharks and crocodilians have remained virtually unchanged for tens of millions of years.

            know like insects that look and act like leaves, is random mutations and natural So you’re going to go with the magic, unproven, untestable idea instead of the one we know to be true, that we can test and see in action to this very day?

          • Well said.

          • Evolutionary explains that lobe finned fish posited as the for runners to tetropods should live deep in the ocean. Really?

            Anyway I never said anything about about magic. Anyway its boring talking to you because all you do is put words in my mouth and give canned responses to what you would say to a fundamentalist.

          • David Howe | Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 am |

            those are interesting thoughts, but I think it’s weird how your enthusiasm for magical explanations clouds your judgement. You are making an Argument from Ignorance. If you are interested in cryptic coloration, I advise you to look up the research instead of putting forth a hypothesis that has no basis.

          • marvin nubwaxer | Nov 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm |

            the coleacanth lives because it it has found its niche, which appears to be a small one, but aren’t crocodiles and sharks actually older and have remained unchanged because of completely adapting to their environment. in some ways these do not continue to evolve because in an unchanged environment any other adaptations would not make them better suited for their environment. in other words they are just about perfect as they are.

        • bobbiethejean | Nov 21, 2012 at 8:22 pm |

          I reject magical nonsense and I routinely bask in the wondrous glory and endless mystery of the natural universe. There you go.

          • To advance the contrarian argument implied by Ted’s comment a little bit, since “wondrous glory” and “endless mystery” are no more objective properties of the universe, and no more provable, verifiable, or testable than any magical or mystical forces, why is one subjective conception of the universe so agreeable and the other so egregious? You could argue that at least the theorists of mystical force are trying to make positive statements about the nature of the objective universe, whereas those who would cradle themselves in the outdated and anthropocentric terminology of religionists and muddled poets (“wondrous glory” and “endless mystery”) are consoling themselves with fairy tales, behaving as though the universe were somehow designed to tickle them personally with awe and provide an endless cosmic “Murder She Wrote” whodunnit to entertain them.

            And since brains are part of the natural, material world, and every thought is nothing more than a material event with no immaterial or magical properties whatever, then thoughts of magical nonsense are part of the wondrous waft and weave of the natural world no more or less than bacteria, trees, and stars. The manner in which atoms combine to produce matter and natural selection molds matter into the form of neuronal tissue and neuronal tissue produces the very precise and beautiful electrochemical signals which translate into linguistic magical nonsense should be a joy to the heart of any naturalist. I have myself the thoughts of Madame Blavaksky and David Icke embalmed in jars, along with my collection of beetles and moths, and to browse from one to the other gives one an awe-inspiring sense of the shuttle of nature weaving its endlessly variegated and wondrous forms, a mandible here, the Idea of an Interdimensional Reptilian there. All fashioned by the laws of physics and natural selection!

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 22, 2012 at 11:33 pm |

            Good gravy! That was an interesting read.

            There is a reason I replied to Ted as I did and it requires a bit of backstory. To spare you the lengthy, grueling details, I’ll sum up:

            Ted frequently makes claims for which there is absolutely no proof or even any real evidence. Such claims include gods, ghosts, spirits, an afterlife, and he thinks he is psychic. Any time one of these claims pops up, I reply with “prove it.”

            He replied to my comment about basking in the glory with “prove it” to make a point. I replied with the positive assertion that I bask in the glory. The counterpoint I made was that, considering the egregiously low standards Ted has for what he considers proof, my word that I bask in the glory should be enough.

            Make sense?

          • I never make any claims like that. You totally misunderstand my viewpoint. No offense but your responses seem canned and designed to shoehorn all opposing or merely differing viewpoints into an evangelical Christian lens for some reason.

            Its like you don’t listen to anything I actually say. I have no “faith position” on anything.

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 23, 2012 at 10:11 pm |

            I listen to you, Ted, and I hate coming down on you like this because you are a sweet, imaginative, and interesting guy. But when you start talking about insects choosing to look like leaves and morphic fields and psychics and such things…. what am I supposed to say? Oh yes, your unproven, magical explanation makes way more sense than the proven, facts.

          • You are a species of fundamentalist. Basically these Christian Fundamentalits are ridiculous and cartoonish know it alls that are completyely mistaken about most things regarding biology.
            But my point is that there is a lot of mystery left in the universe. You debunker’s are like “No, theres not. Current evolutionary theory explains everything.” You say you bask in the mystery, but actually you seem threatened by any type of novelty or ambiguity.
            That’s where the Christian Fundamentalists begin from also. They have a dumb pre-packaged worldview, yours is slightly more sophisticated but just as pre-packaged and just as much a closed system.
            Basically my position is no more than the fact that I am drawn to fringe ideas as possibilities. I’ve also had some strange experiences that don’t fit reductionistic materialist explanations. Basically my position is that of curiosity. Somehow you have decided that my position is that of “faith” and credulity. Give me one example where I have said That I have faith that something is true. I never once said it anywhere and its not my position.
            Some how you polished all these canned responses for people of faith, yet almost nobody that I have seen has that position on here. Did you grow up a Christian fundamentalist? Or possibly that is where this Skeptical debunker sub culture springs from.

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 25, 2012 at 5:07 am |

            You are a species of fundamentalist I reject this definition. Yes, I adhere to the fundamentals of science but it’s not like that rules my entire life. A fundamentalist is ruled by their beliefs. I hold NO belief so dear that it would ruin my life to change or alter it. I am not a fundamentalist because I am NOT closed to the idea that I might be wrong. I simply won’t believe until the burden of proof is met and is has emphatically NOT been met, EVER, in my eyes.

            You debunker’s are like “No, theres not. Bullshit. I believe there is PLENTY of mystery in the universe. Where does the matter that gets sucked into black holes go? Why is there something rather than nothing? What happens when the universe expands too far? Believe me, I could go on ALL DAY with mysterious questions like this. Just because I reject unproven bullshit doesn’t mean I think there is no mystery or wonder to the universe. I believe there is REAL mystery and wonder, not imaginary mystery and wonder.

            Current evolutionary theory explains everything. Evolution extremely well explains the richness and diversity of life on Earth. Abiogenesis very well explains how self-replicating molecules became the precursors to what we know as life. Big bang cosmology…. I’m still a little shaky on that but it describes how certain aspects of our universe may have happened and considering the lack of supernatural precedence, I’d go with bigbang/we-don’t-entirely-know over “god did it.”

            but actually you seem threatened I believe you are projecting. I believe you are the one threatened by the very real possibility that there is nothing special about you or us or this planet or possibly even this entire universe; that we’re all really just sentient globs of dirt in a universe that will eventually pull itself apart and expire.

            threatened by any type of novelty or ambiguity. If that were true, I would identify as a pure atheist and I don’t. I emphatically identify as an AGNOSTIC atheist which is to say ultimately, despite what I believe, I don’t really know. Ambiguity is fine but it is not a good excuse to make up bullshit.

            yours is slightly more sophisticated No, it’s really not. My worldview does not require any bullshit, no presuppositions, no prerequisites… only this: prove it- prove it within the parameters of the human experience or insofar as anything can be proven. Until then, don’t make ridiculous, unprecedented claims when naturalistic explanations suffice. There is nothing prepackaged or closeminded about my stance. it is simple, basic, cold, hard irrefutable logic.

            I’ve also had some strange experiences See, I can’t believe you and here’s why: You’ve already shown that you have a STRONG predisposition to assume the supernatural over the natural. For example, we have a perfect, OBSERVED understanding of how some insects have come to mimic leaves yet you go with morphic fields and the idea that insects are actually choosing in someway to look like that. I’m sorry but you are biased and your accounts cannot be trusted. I’d be far more inclined to believe a skeptic who does not have that predisposition and who has EVIDENCE.

            Basically my position is that of curiosity. Curiosity is wonderful. I always encourage curiosity. But it is STILL not a reason to make up bullshit and call it true. At the end of the day, you can’t expect people to believe your personal subjective experiences, even if they are really true.

            Give me one example where I have said That I have faith that something is true. Ooooh, stealthy backpedal and copout all in one answer. No. You specifically said that you think you’re psychic. You also specifically said you believe insects that look life leaves chose throuh “morphic fields” to look that way. You also said that you’ve had experiences right here and I can link to your comments.

            polished all these canned responses Now you’re just being baselessly insulting. No reasonable person would look at my responses to you and call them “canned.” You see it that way because you don’t like someone demanding proof for your absurd claims.

          • Reverend Wayne | Nov 27, 2012 at 12:26 pm |

            I can’t speak to the merits of Ted’s past comments, but it’s not really accurate to claim there is “no evidence” for psychic phenomena. There is a huge body of scientific work which purports to demonstrate a statistically significant telepathic effect, present at low levels in the majority of the population. Meta-anlayses conducted on these studies have claimed to show effects well beyond chance.

            You may take the position that there are flaws with the methodology of these experiments; you would certainly not be alone. But I think it’s disingenuous to state that no evidence has ever been offered in favor of psychic phenomena. Reams of evidence have been presented, it is now the business of critical-thinking people to decide whether it has scientific merit. It is my own critically reasoned opinion that the debunking has not been as thorough as many skeptics assume.

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 28, 2012 at 12:15 pm |

            There is a huge body of scientific work which purports to demonstrate a statistically significant telepathic effect None of which have ever passed the peer review process. There is a reason we have strict scientific guidelines for what constitutes proper evidence and what doesn’t. The criteria to positively assert the existence of psychic phenomena has not been met. This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the general scientific community. Maybe psy phenomena does exist. Maybe science simply can’t explain it. In either case, there is a severe dearth of even spurious evidence.

            But I think it’s disingenuous to state that no evidence Fine then, I’ll rephrase: No conclusive evidence has been found. As Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where’s the extraordinary evidence? Why aren’t there “No psychics allowed pas this point” signs in banks and casinos? Why isn’t there a psychic wing in our army? Why aren’t we making use of it in medical technology or education? Why aren’t we teaching it in our schools?

            Reams of evidence have been presented Much of which was refuted, rebuked, and debunked in the end. Whatever hasn’t been outright debunked has been unrepeatable and has failed to meet the burden of proof.

          • marvin nubwaxer | Nov 26, 2012 at 3:57 pm |

            incests? funny slip but i think you mean insects

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 26, 2012 at 4:42 pm |

            OYE! Thanks. Good catch. XD

          • marvin nubwaxer | Nov 26, 2012 at 3:55 pm |

            i don’t care about magic but trying to comprehend the age of the universe, it’s size, its makeup, especially dark energy and dark matter, as well as the tiniest pieces such as subatomic particles, completely mystifies, terrifies and begins endless imagination of the universe and our place in it. realities proposed by scientists are incredibly bizarre far beyond anything science fiction writing could ever dream up. and that’s all without a creator. if someone wants to insert one into his universe please keep your delusion to yourself.

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 26, 2012 at 4:41 pm |

            That’s pretty much how I feel. The universe is strange and bizarre and mysterious enough WITHOUT the supernatural to keep us curious and confused for probably millions of years into the future. And who knows, maybe there are supernatural forces in the world. But until they are proven in some way, it’s nonsense. And if supernatural forces really existed, you’d think we’d know about it for sure by now.

    • Taxpayer funded attempts to propagate religious beliefs that create mystery where none should exist are something worth being concerned with, particularly when they serve an elitist class-driven public agenda (addressed in another post)

    • I’d say you have an excellent point of we were talking about a much broader spectrum of human knowledge (and lack thereof).
      But seeing as we’re talking about frigging grade school science textbooks, there are plenty of opportunities to illustrate mystery in the universe without resorting to backdoor religious indoctrination.

    • David Howe | Nov 22, 2012 at 10:59 am |

      you are way off, man. This is not a war between two worthy sides of an argument. It’s really that simple.

  7. Apathesis | Nov 21, 2012 at 7:03 pm |

    It is a shame that people are so stupid they don’t believe in evolution. It is a crime they force their children to believe the same thing.

    • David Howe | Nov 22, 2012 at 10:51 am |

      I would use the word “believe” carefully, because the Creationists will say you are disrespecting their “beliefs”. They are so stupid that they don’t understand the the word “believe” can be used both to address matters of faith and matters of agreement or understanding. They are – honest to dog – not capable of understanding that not-very-subtle distinction.

  8. BuzzCoastin | Nov 21, 2012 at 8:17 pm |

    if you live in Louisiana
    and you receive a public school edumacation
    this bullshit is the least of your worries Jethro

    • Apathesis | Nov 22, 2012 at 11:49 pm |

      Their literacy rate is probably nothing to brag about. Hell, this nation’s (USA) literacy is pretty embarrassing as a whole. College graduates still can’t differentiate between there/their/they’re and still spell it “definately.”

  9. KittenMittons | Nov 21, 2012 at 8:46 pm |

    Here is all of the Activity page. It contains a chart separating the “Creationist Viewpoint” and “Evolutionist Viewpoint” and says the evolutionist believes the Earth is millions of years old. Millions.

    This is being taught to children at supposed non-secular schools?! Aside from Creationism being complete and utter bullshit, it isn’t even teaching the flip side correctly. It’s like they’re deliberately misinforming them.

    • David Howe | Nov 22, 2012 at 10:49 am |

      They ARE deliberately misinforming them. The math is like this: if the Bible is true, we should be executing homosexuals. That is their chief motivation for this crap.

    • marvin nubwaxer | Nov 26, 2012 at 3:43 pm |

      sorry, science says the earth is about 4.54 billion years old with enough evidence to establish this estimate a fact.

    • Calypso_1 | Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm |

      All but the fourth example misrepresent scientific viewpoints and only the third and fourth have anything to do with evolutionary theory.

  10. Looks to me like a way to use public education as a class differentiation tool. Parents who can afford to send their kids to private schools where this kind of crap is NOT taught will have kids with a far better chance of getting them into colleges and universities that give them a chance at professional and managerial positions. Go to a public school or publicly funded privatized McSchool, get brain-damaged education aimed at warm body minimum wage jobs.

    • David Howe | Dec 1, 2012 at 4:21 pm |

      public schools are what you get out of them. those who end up with warm body minimum wage jobs got nothing out of school except a place to wait. they don’t read voluntarily and haven’t written anything in years. And they didn’t really pay attention in science, so the churchy propaganda had a powerful, compelling effect on them. Religionists and politicians know this and take advantage of this, thus Republicans sometimes win elections.

      • alizardx | Dec 1, 2012 at 4:54 pm |

        Studying hard and getting good grades based on a curriculum that is known to be steaming bullshit and will teach that person things that will result in lower SAT scores which will keep them out of decent colleges impresses me as a losing proposition.

        Certainly, it’s possible to supplement this with access to Internet information or outside reading or free online courses, some of which are even available at university level. If one knows that one needs to. In the middle of a Bible Belt state, who is going to tell these kids? There aren’t that many people capable of completely unsupervised self-education.

  11. I felt like I travelled 200 years into the past reading this.

  12. Is militant new-ageism a new trend or is this ted guy flying solo on this, i hope the latter for all of humanity. Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint, but not their own facts.

  13. marvin nubwaxer | Nov 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm |

    louisana is heartland for ignorant bigot republicans.

Comments are closed.