Creationists Upset About Science in Science Textbooks

The Christian Post reports that creationists are upset because the Texas Education Association approved a textbook that contains facts that they wish didn’t exist. Despite their criticisms of the textbook, the TEA determined that there were no factual errors in the book.

The approval of the Pearson biology textbook was delayed earlier this year over allegations of factual inaccuracy, and has been added to the approved list.

Debbie Ratcliffe, director of media relations for the Texas Education Agency, told The Christian Post about the process the biology textbook went through.

“The three reviewers found that none of the issues that were raised as mistakes or errors were actually wrong. So the book will now be placed on the approved textbook list,” said Ratcliffe…

In a 10-page report several issues were brought up, including when the earth began to cool (4 billion vs. 4.2 billion years ago), the extent of how fossils demonstrated evolution, and how many mutations are considered successful (“some” vs. “most”). The report also took issue with the usage of the fossil find Tiktaalik as an example of “chordate evolution.”

Pearson Education Inc., publisher of the proposed biology textbook, disputed all the listed errors and listed their rebuttals in the same report.

Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute told Dallas Morning News in November that he took issue with the Pearson biology textbook.

“[The textbook] will leave students in the dark about contemporary mainstream scientific controversies over Darwinian evolution,” said Meyer.

Let me translate that: “This textbook doesn’t include our bullshit claims about evolution and it’s just not fair. WAAAHHHHH!”

"Reality : I'm not shaking hands with that!"

Introducing Donald Trump to Reality
"I don't think chicken hawks like Dave D. have thought as deeply as you describe ..."

“Coach” Dave Blames Shooting on Sissy ..."
"You never went to college, did you.Only the uneducated would think that "EQUALITY" means "SAME ..."

The Problem is Toxic Masculinity, Not ..."
"I recommend thinking more deeply about Nick G.'s description of your behavior here vs. your ..."

“Coach” Dave Blames Shooting on Sissy ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • colnago80

    There is suspicion that, because the book in question was co-authored by Ken Miller, the creationist critics were busting his gonads over his testimony at the Dover Trial.

  • Michael Heath

    Based on the generally high quality of the comment posts attached to this Christian Post article, coupled to the Agree/Disagree vote results of those respective comment posts, it appears reality advocates are linking to this article far more than creationists. Hmmm . . .

  • dannorth

    “Creationists Upset About Science in Science Textbooks”

    Well it is part of their job description.

  • According to a 2012 Gallup Poll, 46 percent of Americans believe God created mankind within the past 10,000 years without any evolutionary aid.” (fm the link)

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

  • hunter

    “[The textbook] will leave students in the dark about contemporary mainstream scientific controversies over Darwinian evolution,” said Meyer.

    It’s hard to leave someone in the dark about something that doesn’t exist.

  • caseloweraz

    “[The textbook] will not leave students in the dark about contemporary mainstream scientific controversies over Darwinian evolution,” said Meyer.


  • caseloweraz

    In related news, the CP reports that:

    Creation Museum President and CEO Ken Ham said the museum’s recent move to allow children 12 years old and under to come and visit for free in 2014 is a response to evolutionists “indoctrinating kids in the pagan religion of evolution.”

  • Matt G

    What does it mean for a mutation to be “successful”? The mutations which led to lactase persistence I would say qualify as successful, but what about a mutation which turned a gene into a pseudogene (like in odor receptor genes)? Does “still being around” make a mutation successful? I suspect this is a case of poor journalism on the part of the Christian Post.

  • “Creationists Upset About Science in Science Textbooks”

    Well, why wouldn’t they be?

    I mean, they fucking HATE that history books have history in them.

  • “What does it mean for a mutation to be “successful”?”

    Well, for starters, that they’ve paid back their “mutation loans”. Then, and this is very important, they have to move from the seedy, nasty neighborhood that they grew up in (such as the urethra or cloaca) to a nice, upscale place like the brain.

    You’re welcome.