It’s Real

I was recently asked by a friend whether the test in the photo below was real. Apparently it is, and comes from Blue Ridge Christian Academy.

Click through to see the second page. It is disturbing that a child sent to the school by a parent who had no idea this garbage was being taught there would get 100% on the test – indicating indoctrination and lack of understanding of science.

But not all recent news related to this topic is bad. While some schools use materials sold to them by charlatans like Ken Ham and his henchmen at Answers in Genesis, apparently increasing numbers of homeschoolersare seeking to incorporate evolution.

  • Nick

    Reminds me of the Vacation Bible School my friends invited me to as a kid. It was a very fundamentalist Baptist church with a screaming reverend who said that snakes are cursed animals and then the teachers told us that going to the movies was a sin lol. My parents had no idea.

    It’s unfortunate, but a lot of details can easily slip by parents when they send their kids to Christian schools.

  • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

    WIIIIIILLLLMMAAAAAA!

    • Perry T Platypuss

      who is wilma?

      • beau_quilter

        Fred Flintstone’s wife. Remember the Flintstones, the cartoon about cavemen who had talking dinosaurs for pets and domestic work animals.

        The Flintstones cartoons are the expert source materials for Answers in Genesis.

  • yalcrazy

    Honestly, I do not see the problem. The academy states blatantly that it is Christian in the title. If it was a muslim theology class test it would ask questions concerning Islamic traditions. the test even specifies that it is a test concerning scientific ideas proposed by “the gospel”, for those who do not know that is a religious text. so this is a test on religious ideas, being given out at a private institution that blatantly states it is a religous. this is a religous theory, sort of like evoloution. though i would agree that all propaganda “science”, like what is shown above, should not be taught until later on, at the very least in high school when the student is mature enough to decide their beliefs from themselves. however Darwinists are just as guilty. what I would find truly horrific would be a side by side comparison of this test and a darwinist progating test for the same as an illustration of the fact that neither group will admit what the other is, an equally viable scientific explanation. I feel I must state that either of these being propigated in secular schools to young children is not education but indoctrination.

    secondly a copious number of well educated scientist’s happen to believe in intelligent design, there is plenty of scientific basis for both intelligent design and evoloution. However, as someone who has read “the descent of man”, “the origin of species” in contrast too the creation stories of “The Bible”, “The Bhagavad Gita” and “The Quran” I see no reason why the scientific community refuses to settle this civilly, by teaching both intelligent design and evouloution as what they are theories. Textbooks should state blatantly that in order to accept Intelligent design one must assume an intelligent designer and the theory of uniformity, and in order to accept (Macro/Gelological/Cosmic-evoloution one must disregard the law of degrading returns, the theory of “Irreducible complexity”, and accept that that a superior Prokaryotic cell would evolve into a weaker Eukaryotic cell that would depend on its prokaryotic forefathers, yet would replace them.

    • stuart32

      Shouldn’t that be the theory of semi-intelligent design. The designer is, after all, prone to making mistakes. The male reproductive apparatus is one of them. The vas deferens (sperm duct) travels up from the testicles, loops round the ureter and then travels back down to the penis, instead of going straight to the penis.

      • rerty

        penis..works fin so shut up…mine at least.

        • stuart32

          Actually, that was very funny.

      • yalcrazy

        Good point, however just because something does not seem structurally perfect does not mean it is not. also as rerty pointed, it works, so yeah?

        though to turn the question on it’s head: if this is an imperfection would not have we evolved around this, or at the very least should not from an evolutionary standpoint, a small portion have a beneficial mutation in this area?

        I will look into the details of this though, definitely an interesting reason for a belief in evolution.

        • stuart32

          yalcrazy, imagine that you are watering the garden with a hose. You make your way up one side of the garden then turn round a post at the top of the garden and start making your way back down the other side. As you make your way back down you notice that the hose has looped round the post and you are having to stretch it further and further to get back to the bottom of the garden. That is probably how the anatomical situation that I described evolved in the first place.

          There are two points to bear in mind about evolution: the first is that it has no foresight. Evolution doesn’t know that it will end up having to go all the way back down the garden. The second is that evolution can’t afford to temporarily stop watering the garden while it retraces its steps and untangles the hose. It’s not the kind of thing that could be undone by one mutation.

          By the way, I must congratulate you. You are the first person I have encountered here who has doubts about evolution but who is interested in learning more. Since people like you are so rare I have decided to give up discussing the subject.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      The claims about “irreducible complexity” have not been found persuasive by scientists, and indeed much counter-evidence has been offered. And so why should something that the overwhelming majority of scientists find unpersuasive be taught in science classes, even at a Christian school? Does religion give you the right to your own science? What about history? Should Holocaust denial get equal time if one can claim that it is part of their religion?

      • Hatersgonnahate

        Tyranny of the majority is not a solid scientific argument.Lets remember that ancient greeks killed the discoverer (actually the european discoverer) of the pythagorean theorem because his discovery did not fit their perspective.
        And as to “Does religion give you the right to your own science?” there are many atheists who accept intelligent design, in fact many evolutionists do, they merely purport that aliens put us here. because God cannot exist. Chewabacca on the other hand is completely scientifically acceptable. hmm? I wonder why that is? oh yeah because chewabacca does not give people a moral standard. so long as aliens never ask us to love and respect one another they will be scietifically aceptable.

        • beau_quilter

          So what atheist scientists believe in intelligent design? Any biologists among them? How many is “many”? Can you name five? Two?

          • Robbyboy

            lots of secular scientists believe that terrestrial life was first implanted by alien life…..which is what he said in his post. so yeah read below to see my opppinion

            • beau_quilter

              No, Robbyboy, your cute fez-wearing Puffin notwithstanding, he didn’t say “lots of secular scientists believe that terrestial life was first implanted by alien life”, he said, “there are many atheists who accept intelligent design”. The hypothesis of panspermia, the idea that life on earth was seeded by extraterrestrial life, does not entail that extraterrestrial life has intelligence.

              Even so, to say that “lots of secular scientists” believe this is to grossly overstate the case. A few entertain the idea of panspermia. Even fewer could be said to “believe it”.

              But as far as “atheists who accept intelligent design” – again, try naming even a few atheist scientists who accept intelligent design. You clearly can’t rise to the challenge of naming five? Two?

              • Robbyboy

                panspermia is a type of inteligent design, and it is also the only actual arguement for the incipiency of life that darwinists have.sorry.
                Btdubs heres another puffin

                • Robbyboy

                  puffin. all i’m gonna say

                  • beau_quilter

                    Cute. But why two?

                    • Robbyboy

                      because, puffins are a very important factor in deciding important scientific discussions.

                • beau_quilter

                  “panspermia is a type of intelligent design”

                  No, Robbyboy, panspermia is not a type of intelligent design. Asserting a falsehood doesn’t make it true – so, yes, you should be sorry.

                  Panspermia is the hypothesis that life is distributed throughout the universe in the form of organisms that can survive in space, traveling on meteoroids, asteroids, comets, and other bodies in space. These organisms are microscopic, not intelligent. Though some science fiction (like the recent Prometheus film) spins yarns about the seeds of life being spread by intelligence, the hypothesis of panspermia merely proposes that microscopic organisms could survive the destruction of a planet or planetary impact and travel through space to be distributed on other planets. Nothing intelligent required in the hypothesis.

                  … and it’s not the only argument for the beginning of life – that also is a lie. Granted, the hypotheses of abiogenesis are still experimental and in the infancy of research, but there are far more research programs and experiments being conducted in abiogenesis, than there are in “intelligent design” or “young earth creationism”.

                  • Robbyboy

                    Iteligent design is the theory that human life was implanted by an inteligence. so Panspermia is inteligent design as an alien life form would be an iteligence.
                    And I did not say panspermia was the only theory, life being created by a twinkie falling into cosmic goo and coming alive is a theory (also it is about as provable as abiogenesis) but that does not make it a viable argument for the incipiency of life.

                    • Robbyboy

                      also I do not see how general consensus proves anything. In a tjousand years the scientists of the future will think alll of us a bunch of primitive fools arguing about coals when we should have been making fire.
                      and……………..obligitory puffin picture

                    • beau_quilter

                      You don’t understand the scientific process. Scientific consensus isn’t a popularity vote. It is about scientific research being reviewed and evaluated by peers in the field. All legitimate scientific research is confirmed by peer review. And legitimate scientists take note when errors in their research are pointed out through the process of peer review – they take criticism into account and adjust their research appropriately.

                      Not having peer review would be like a student turning in a math exam and telling the teacher, “you don’t have to check my work, I made an A – trust me”.

                    • Robbyboy

                      I agree with you there. however we should have papers and theories reviewed by both peers that agree with it and disagree with it, and yes there are those who do agree with it and not just Ham and associates, although I find him perfectly reasonable after all he did not write this test, but A.E. Wilder-Smith,Percival Davis and many others.
                      There will be no puffin referrence aghh! txt puffin!

                      ((“)>
                      I ) }
                      V k
                      ^^

                    • beau_quilter

                      “we should have papers and theories reviewed by both peers that agree with it and disagree with it”

                      This is, again, a description of a popularity contest, not a description of peer review. Peer review establishes the legitimacy of the study, the research methods, and whether the experiments support the conclusions of the researcher.

                      It’s not about for or against.

                    • beau_quilter

                      “Panspermia is intelligent design as an alien life form would be an intelligence”

                      No Robbyboy, saying it doesn’t make it true. The panspermia hypothesis doesn’t entail intelligence. Life would spread through space just as microbial life spreads through the earth.

                    • Robbyboy

                      alien inteligence would be an intelligece (you know like how a dog, human, cat,deity, or even a wait for it…….puffin is an intelligence) as it is a sentient life form.
                      that puffin is a perfect example of inteligent life. SEE THIS TIME IT EVEN APPLIED TO SCIENCE!

                    • beau_quilter

                      sigh …

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          Cranks and crackpots always complain about the tyranny of the majority. Scientists and scholars, on the other hand, know that consensuses exist only when strong evidence and compelling cases have been presented, and know that the onus is on us to make the case for changing it.

          • optimusheartsYHWH

            dont be jelly, just because your cow is purple and sad does not mean that you have to get all down about it.Sometimes you just need to eat a shrimp and bannana sandwich and move on. I realize that you are angry about jim getting eaten by that whale but seriously dont take it so personnally. perhaps you just need to dance more often, maybe if you had you would still be married.
            so dance, sing, write a sonnet, paint a happy sunset hug a friend, hug your sad purple bovine, do anything but please remember, the allspark must not be given to the decepticons.

            • jorel decker

              this guy knows whats up

              • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                Umm, this post seems to be getting some seriously weird spam comments today!

        • arcseconds

          so long as aliens never ask us to love and respect one another they will be scietifically aceptable.

          So you think scientists find Chewbacca scientifically acceptable, but not Yoda?

          • Guest

            Leave a message…

          • jimmyissad,hismomsasnail :(

            yoda is not scientifically acceptable because he has a speech impediment. therefore he is detrimental to the gene pool. that is why the darwinists forced him to become a celibate laser wielding frog man…creature.

      • Adamgrene

        no religion should not be taught as science I totally agree! Evolutionists do it to though.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          If you think evolution in the sense that scientists deal with it as a subject of biological research is a religion, then you clearly have been getting your impression about this subject from some other source than scientific publications.

          • Adamgrene

            I do read scientific publications, and that is how i get my view.
            “the nature of the beast is most apparent when he speaks in safety” -Max Stirmer
            wait, he was not scientist so you wont find his argument credible as he was never publicized in in a scientific journal

    • CRYGOD4HARRY&STGEORGE

      prokaryotic cell, is kind of like the master being from an evolutionary viewpoint, so why would we have evolved from tthat?

      • ugh, just ugh

        thats the point! *face palm for humanity*

      • Adamgrene

        that is the most basic and primal organism. so if some “simple organism’ were to pop out of no where, it would be that. fortunately we have proof that not only are prokaryotic cells able to pop out of nothingness on a daily basis, but also for the fact they they would need to evolve even though they are structurally perfect. here is the proof………wait..just a second….i know i left some proof around here some where….
        wait better idea someone post, not proof, but a good reason this would happen, and I will consider the rantings of my physics professor bearable (why does evolution have to be taught in physics anyways its almost like they realized if they stopped talking about it for two seconds someone might realize they have a choice in whether or not to believe in pseudoscientific religions.

    • beau_quilter

      You are ill-informed. What the Discovery Institute won’t tell you is that there is not a single scientific publication or research program that proposes a hypothesis, much less a theory, of intelligent design. The handful of papers referenced by the Discovery Institute as “intelligent design research” are either math or engineering models that have failed to garner support in their respective fields, or papers that do not support intelligent design, but are cited by the institute as being (in their unsolicited opinion) supportive of intelligent design.

      98% of the scientific community (probably more) support the theory of evolution. Among biologists, that number is a tiny fraction below 100%. There are hundreds of thousands of research articles supporting the theory of evolution, barely a handful that touch on peripheral ID topics (none proposing a hypothesis for how ID works).

      The way that matters are “settled” in the scientific community is research and peer-reviewed publication. “Intelligent Design” fails this basic test miserably.

      • jimmyhadanosenowhereallydid

        and so would evolution if those opposed to it were not automatically shot down as crack pots. darwinism requires just as much faith to believe as inteligent design but as that one dude who killed a bunch of people in the 40′s said “if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe it” by the way the lie he was referencing was that jews were biologically less evolved than humans.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          Only someone who has never opened a biology journal would call modern evolutionary theory “darwinism” and say that it requires faith.

          But since this rambling sentence makes little sense, it is hard to interact with it.

          • http://irrco.wordpress.com/ Ian

            and am a biology major

            If true (which I suspect), can you imagine the lot of his professors?

            • jimmyhadanosenowhereallydid

              I will agree with you there my professors tell me I ask too many questions. After all this is science, where we do’nt ask questions

              • yalcrazy

                this man truly understands science. the future needs more people who are willing to ask the questions that they are discouraged from asking.

                • beau_quilter

                  You’re right – we need more expert scientists asking tough questions, like Darwin, Chargaff, Dart, Crick, Watson, Beadle, Baltimore, Auerbach, Alexrod, and all the others who have changed the face of biology with painstaking research, and years of experimental observation.

              • http://irrco.wordpress.com/ Ian

                I was more thinking about the inability to spell, construct a grammatical sentence, or have a general knowledge of one’s subject. I can imagine that the kinds of questions you ask are painful to receive.

                And the fact that you are convinced their pain is because you have opinions that aren’t allowed, rather than your bombastic, invincible ignorance, adds to my pity for them.

          • http://irrco.wordpress.com/ Ian

            So I just realised that at least a few of the commenters on this post are sockpuppets. Can you see their IP addresses?

            • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

              Well spotted. I won’t ban that IP address yet, but if we continue to get this pretending to be multiple different commentators then I will do so.

        • beau_quilter

          Do you have any argument other than to promote lies about research you have never read?

          Incidentally, if the “dude” you are referring to is Hitler’s PR man, Joseph Goebbels, you should learn that the Nazi’s had banned Darwin’s writings since 1935.

          What the nazis promoted was the notion of eugenics (breeding humans), something that was practiced in animal husbandry centuries before Darwin published the Origin of Species. Darwin was categorically opposed to eugenics.

          • jimmyhadanosenowhereallydid

            Actually I have read the origin of species,mein kampf, and am a biology major. so i am not under educated on evolution and how close the modern ideas are to darwins, they merely have been tweaked to fit a less racist society. also if you want to say darwin was not an inspiration for hitler read Mein Kampf!
            postscript all books were banned by hitler so there goes that arguement. sorry beau

            • offspring fan

              the kids arent all right by the offspring! totally got the reference!( jimmy had a nose now he really did ) every one here is spazing about meaningless crap, but this made me laugh. though i am scared for that puffin guy. eesh, something might be very wrong there. I blame his parents.

            • beau_quilter

              If you read the origin of species then you know that Darwin notes that, unlike other animals, humans sympathetically protect the weakest members of their species:

              “Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”

              Hitler might have been abusing the predictions of Darwin (or Wallace or other naturalists), or he might have been drawing from knowledge that domestic animal breeders had known for thousands of years. But he certainly didn’t want Darwin’s true opinion about human evolution to be known. No wonder he banned “The Origin of Species.”

              “all books were banned by Hitler” – placing the word “sorry” after a lie does not miraculously make it true.

              • jimmyhadanosenowhereallydid

                all books of oppinion, were banned in fact here is a list of merely some of the writers who were banned

                Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Bertolt Brecht, Max Brod, Otto Dix, Alfred Döblin, Albert Einstein, Lion Feuchtwanger, Marieluise Fleißer, Leonhard Frank, Sigmund Freud, Iwan Goll, George Grosz, Jaroslav Hašek, Heinrich Heine, Ödön von Horvath, Heinrich Eduard Jacob, Franz Kafka, Georg Kaiser, Erich Kästner, Alfred Kerr, Egon Erwin Kisch, Siegfried Kracauer, Karl Kraus, Theodor Lessing, Alexander Lernet-Holenia, Karl Liebknecht, Georg Lukács, Rosa Luxemburg, Heinrich Mann, Klaus Mann, Ludwig Marcuse, Karl Marx, Robert Musil, Carl von Ossietzky, Erwin Piscator, Alfred Polgar, Erich Maria Remarque, Ludwig Renn, Joachim Ringelnatz, Joseph Roth, Nelly Sachs, Felix Salten, Anna Seghers, Arthur Schnitzler, Carl Sternheim, Bertha von Suttner, Ernst Toller, Kurt Tucholsky, Jakob Wassermann, Frank Wedekind, Franz Werfel, Grete Weiskopf, Arnold Zweig and Stefan Zweig. Victor Hugo, André Gide, Romain Rolland, Henri Barbusse, American writers such as Ernest Hemingway, Upton Sinclair, Theodore Dreiser, Jack London, John Dos Passos, and Helen Keller as well as English authors Joseph Conrad, D.H. Lawrence, H.G. Wells and Aldous Huxley, James Joyce, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Maxim Gorki, Isaak Babel, Vladimir Lenin, Vladimir Nabokov, Leo Tolstoy, Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Vladimirovich, Ilja Ehrenburg.
                many of whom, along with darwin, hitler cited as inspirations. he banned and burned their books anyways.
                p.s. on a totally different note, I completely understand why he banned Tolstoy, the guy is irksomly dull.

                • beau_quilter

                  “all books of oppinion, were banned”

                  It’s not clear how much research you’ve actually done yourself, but you are very good at copying and pasting. The only section of your comment with good spelling and grammar was the section you lifted quite neatly from wikipedia:

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

                  You neglected to copy and paste the sentence that followed the list:

                  “The burning of the books represents a culmination of the persecution of those authors whose verbal or written opinions were opposed to Nazi ideology.”

                  • jimmyhadanosenowhereallydid

                    Yes I copied it from wikipedia, did you actually think I had all those name down in the back of my mind? (hmm, I think trotsky was on there..and what about kafka?) and all books of oppinion that were against germany pretty much turned into all books, come on we have anarcho-christian utopians like dostoyvesky, democratic-socialists like sinclair, and leninist’s like…lenin..anarchists like kafka, humanists like freud, give me a school of thought that was not banned. all books stating an oppinion about german nationalism, a phrase which here means everything stating oppinion besides mein kampf was banned.

      • iamsammy

        this got a thumbs down just because you had to insultthat one dude as “uninformed when he clearly at the very least has informed himself. (any one know what that book is or do i have to look on wikipedia?)

        • beau_quilter

          You get a thumbs down for not reading carefully. I said that he was “ill-informed” which simply means that his information is incorrect. I proceeded, in the last comment, to show exactly how his information was incorrect.

          He, on the other hand, is going by the handle “yalcrazy”.

          • yalcrazy

            That is because, as I so succinctly put it….yalcrazy.
            wow, I came back here because my email had waaaay too many notifications about somebody spazing about whodjamawhatsit and whatchamowhozit. If it offends you that i believe in the freedom of open discussion on oppinions (especially upon matters of science as without debate from opposition neither idea can ever be added to, corrected, and tweaked for more scientific accuracy) I do not apologize.
            other notes : the Baghavad Gita is the hindu scripture. as such it is about as scientifically exact as other such texts (read it was written by those whose scientific knowledge was far less than our even though they created geometry and were otherwise very knowledgable) but should be considered equally in debates concerning inteligent design vs. macro-evoloution
            that puffin guy is crazy with those memes, but good for him i guess?
            purple cow guy, not really sure what to make of it buit I think he had the right Idea, lets be civil and witty, about are dissagreements so that we all can move on to a place of open debate about important life issues, such as this without having to degrade to insults and name calling (“darwinists are commies!”, “creationists are facists who hate th cinemas”)
            the guy calling Darwin a Lannister, funny but underhanded.
            lastly I incredibly glad that I have sparked this much discussion, thank you to every one who had my back, and especially to those who corected and/or critiqued me.
            Please debate on!

    • thirdjohntears

      Explain to me why this guy made a rational argument and was then greeted with half a tome worth of hate responses?

    • iamsammy

      What is the Baghavad Gita?

  • inbredcownumberfourteenhundred

    Hey look, it’s not just evolutionists who practice indoctrination. However this is utterly inexcusable, while Evolutionists indoctrinate to better mankinds intellctual prowess, creationists merely want to support religion. this is awful and completely different from evolution. evolutionists merely realizes that unless they are universally believed the world can never advance scientifically advance. Religous “Intellectuals” like Newton, Dostoyvesky, Bacon, Socrates, Lao Tzu, and Davinci have served no purpose in the betterment of mankind. Meanwhile evolutionists like Darwin, Marx, and Hitler have helped mankind by propigating the universal recognition of the fact that we all need to be told what to think by those smarter than us. i never would have realized that people like me of Jewish ancestry are a blight on society seeing as we are more “apelike” by myself. utterly brilliant! And Marx, man you were a genius, destroy the nuclear family, allow media to become a state run monopoly and encourage government totalitarianism and the stealing of the Bourgoisie’s millions, that one not bad i could use some money and if stealing it is social justice, love it! and Hitler, man not even going to touch that one. utterly beyond reproach, unlike that Newton guy, what weirdy he was. dumb religious idiot, gravity, ha1 what a laugh.

    • inbredscientistsmakemelaugh

      darwin = lannister