Blue Ridge Christian Academy: The School That Gave Fourth Graders the Creationism Test Heard Around the Internet

The mystery has been solved.

A few days ago, I posted images of a fourth grade science test that was circulating online:

The story was that a Reddit user had gotten the images from his friend, whose daughter attended the unnamed school. Neither of them wanted to verify the name of the school… but the material was out there, so it wouldn’t have been long before we found out. Even the stellar Snopes website was on the hunt, saying they had contacted a school that could plausibly have given the test and were awaiting confirmation.

So the search continued… until today.

Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham was happy to reveal the name of the school as he criticized atheists for “lashing out” against the school, the test, the teacher, and everyone else involved in the embarrassment:

… take a look at the following quotes to give you an idea of some of the things that have been said by secularists who are undertaking this attack on Blue Ridge Christian Academy. The school received some vicious emails from atheists.

The “vicious” emails, as Ham quotes, are mostly from people who can’t fathom that any school would actually teach this bullshit:

This science test was originally posted on r/atheism. picked it up thinking it was a hoax. Surely, no one with their wits about them would teach a child these things. Sadly, this is an actual test. This is what passes for “science” in at least one Christian school.

I truly fear for humanity.

Science is not trivial. If the school fails at science THIS dramatically (giving wrong information is worse than giving no information), how good they are with other subjects hardly makes up for it . . . I won’t get into a religious debate here but religion is not science and does not help us know about the natural world. The Bible is a [word removed] textbook on nature. Belief is not scientific and does not belong in a science class.

Ham added:

These atheists have willfully suppressed the truth that there is a Creator and that His Word is true. We need to sincerely pray that these people will come to repentance and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ before it’s too late.

Science: A conspiracy run by atheists hell-bent on discovering reality.

In the article accompanying Ham’s blog post, Ham and colleague Mark Looy explain what happened in this class:

In South Carolina recently, a fourth-grade teacher at Blue Ridge Christian Academy (a nondenominational K–12 Christian school) showed students a DVD of a children’s program, in which AiG song-writer and dinosaur sculptor Buddy Davis and I are featured. In this DVD, we teach children the history of the universe from the Bible, with a special emphasis on teaching dinosaurs from a biblical perspective (as we do inside our Creation Museum). The teacher handed out a question sheet to the children to test what they learned from the DVD…

A friend of one of the parents who has a child enrolled in the fourth grade class posted the quiz sheets on the internet. The parent, like all parents who have children enrolled at this academy, had signed a statement, which acknowledged an understanding that sending their child to this Christian school would mean they would be taught biblical Christianity. The parent expressed dismay that his daughter was taught a biblical approach to dinosaurs. The quiz’s posting to the internet resulted in a number of atheist websites reposting the questions and answers, and many of them responded in rage and vehement attacks on the school.

The school administrator, relatively new as the head of the academy, was shocked to find her school becoming the target of atheist attacks and even some threats. Articles on mainstream websites (like a Seattle TV station over 2,500 miles away), a UK website, and other places on the internet made the controversy grow even larger.

Now, this Christian academy is not a large school. Yet the atheists went after it with incredible fervor. The school administrator informed us she knew that the school would be involved in a spiritual battle after the quiz went public, but she was not expecting such ferocity. She told us she was shocked at the level of hate that the atheists poured down upon her, the teacher, and the school in general.

Obviously, no one is condoning hate against the school’s administrators or teachers. But criticism against a perversion of science? Absolutely. Keep it coming. And that’s what I saw across the Internet — jaws dropping everywhere over the fact that this is what passed for science in an American school (albeit a private Christian one), that kids were being brainwashed by Christian educators who have no respect for evidence or the scientific method, that this student was being led to believe she’s a good science student when in fact she’s probably learning very little about it.

Blue Ridge’s curriculum doesn’t hide what it teaches young children, either:

Science lessons are creation-based, student-centered and hands-on. Topics covered in the elementary grades lay the foundation for the sciences taught in middle and high school. Students are exposed to the natural resources surrounding us as well as the best of other resources and publications.

History is no better:

Our students are taught history in light of Christ’s supremacy.

Incidentally, I had contacted Blue Ridge’s administrators last week when trying to figure out which school was responsible for this test. Neither Administrator Diana Baker nor Board President Joy Hartsell responded to my inquiry.

However, one of the other school I contacted did respond to me. The administrator there said the test wasn’t theirs, but it might as well have been:

Dear Sir,

This particular student is NOT from our school… I would have to say that we completely agree with Mr. Ken Ham and his stand on a young earth. Like the school in the article, we firmly stand behind our beliefs. As the parents, knowing our stands, choose to send their students to our school, we do not apologize for our beliefs, nor what we teach to each student.

As an institution, we applaud the courage of this particle school to stand up for the cause of Christ.

So, yes, Blue Ridge Christian Academy lies to children about science and history and who knows what else. But they’re not alone.

I get why Christian parents would want to send their children to a school like this — it keeps them in a bubble and withholds the truth about the world that other students are exposed to from a young age. But for parents like the friend of the Redditor who posted the quiz online, this was a surprise. Ken Ham was right about one thing: None of this should have been news to the parents. It’s their responsibility to send their children to quality schools instead of ones like this, that use Ken Ham’s curriculum.

I’ll continue to stay in touch with the Redditor and his friend to see if there’s any pushback from the school over this. But really, the damage is done. I hope he pulls his daughter out of that horrible school next fall.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Stev84

    The idea that private schools should be able to do whatever they want is highly absurd and has led to disastrous results in America. There is no reason private schools shouldn’t and can’t be required to follow the same standardized curriculum as other schools. If they want to teach things in addition to that, fine, but they shouldn’t be able to do less.

    • Fargofan

      I agree. They should teach real, actual science even in that “particle school.” (Couldn’t resist.)

      • truthaswell

        science??? u mean a theory as it has always been admitted. U can’t even prove evolution no more than u were there when God created this world. Science can’t prove it either because it is a theory. I find it easier to believe the creation account though because it takes more faith to believe in evolution. and as far as private schools being made to teach ur theory, it is still a free country. Now if we were communist, which is where we r heading, then private schools would be required to teach that theory. My Fore Fathers believed in creation too. Even Ben Franklin, whom may have been atheist, he still believed the Bible to be credible and may have been swayed to become a believer and follower of Jesus. Educate yourselves by reading what the leaders of the greatest country the world has ever known believed. Read their writings. While your researching, watch the dvd by Lee Stroble. He used to be an atheist. See what changed him or better yet, who changed him. :) May my God, Jesus, creator of all that is, was, and ever will be, bless you. I pray that you all will see what you haven’t yet. ps. Did it ever occur to you people that God created the earth with age already? Also, why do liberals call for tolerance yet are so intolerant??? Just wondering…:)


          Gravity is technically also a “theory”. Care to test that “theory” by jumping yourself off a very tall building? According to you “theories” can’t be proven. Do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with what a theory is versus what a “scientific theory” is. You ignorant ****.

          • craig

            I seem to recall that gravity is a law, as it can be proven by repeatable experimentation. Evolution is not so, and never will be so.


              Einstein’s THEORY of General Relativity. Look it up sometime. A wonderful read.

            • Gabriel Rosa

              Evolution is a fact. It has been repeatedly observed in the wild as well as in the lab. The fact that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics over time is best explained assuming they change, survive and multiply, creating new resistant strains, i.e. they evolve. And who said it can’t be proven by repeatable experimentation?! Ever heard about fruit flies and their mutations?

              • jnbrfree

                I just stumbled on this and can’t truthfully understand how Evolution when it comes to the age / origin of the earth is a fact because fruit flies mutate or bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics. If I used that same logic in a courtroom to prove a man was guilty of murder, it would be something like this. Our prisons are full of people that have committed murder therefore this man is a murderer. That makes no sense.
                According to the theory of Evolution as I understand it, living organisms evolve into more complex and enhanced beings yet the laws of science state anything left to itself deteriorates. The gene pool for example has not gotten more pure. It becomes more diluted as time goes on. The observed mutations and evolutions you gave as examples are all digressions not progressions. It seems contradictory.
                Lastly if I accepted the theory of evolution and supposed that all living creatures indeed came from one organism through progressive evolution, what is the origin of that one organism. Where did it come from?
                I’m trying to have an open mind to evolution but in everything I have read on this forum or in volumes of books on evolution, the logic just doesn’t add up for me. The conclusion I have come to is no matter what side you believe, it is just that, a belief. And either side takes a certain level of faith no matter what way you present it.

                • Feminerd

                  That’s a lot of questions you have, and they are good ones.

                  First of all, the age of the Earth has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. One is geology, the other is biology. They have literally nothing to do with one another. Got it? Good.

                  You do understand the basics of evolutionary theory, it looks like, though there is no guarantee things will become more complex over time. Sometimes they simplify, if that works better for species survival. For example, we usually consider land animals more complex than sea animals, but whales’ ancestors were once land mammals. Whales effectively “devolved” back into sea animals.

                  You’re also misunderstanding a basic law of physics/chemistry. In a closed system, everything will eventually break down into entropy. However, the Earth is not a closed system. It gets a lot of energy put into it from the sun and the heat and movement of our molten core, so it is to be expected that things will continue to get more complex because the energy is there for them to do so. Whenever you input a lot of energy into complicated stews of chemicals, interesting things happen.

                  I don’t know what you mean by a gene pool getting “more pure”. That’s not part of evolution at all. Organisms evolve to better survive and reproduce in their environments, which of course encourages mutations and digressions and branchings off of new species. There isn’t any purpose to evolution- it’s all quite random what mutations occur, and a mutation will only survive if it is better than or at least no worse than the “normal” version. Evolution is a beautiful example of how complex systems give rise to immensely complex constructs without any conscious input at all. We’re just now learning to play with algorithms that simulate some of that, and they’re truly fascinating.

                  As for where the first organism came from, that’s called abiogenesis. We don’t know, though we have some pretty good theories. We know that many of the amino acids necessary to life can spontaneously form under conditions that are probably close to early Earth conditions. We’ve seen RNA assemble itself from a solution of ACGT bases and begin replicating. We’ve seen spontaneously formed proteins coalesce into forms very similar to cell walls. And since a virus is a strand of RNA inside a protective coating that can replicate itself, and viruses are a form of life or at least a precursor to it, we can figure out how life may have formed on Earth without any divine intervention at all. We may never know for sure, of course, but we have plausible theories about how it could have happened. None of them require anything supernatural. I suggest reading this article here for an overview of the different experiments that support abiogenesis theories.

        • wendy

          You want the Bible. OK. Where does it say the earth is “only 6,000 years old? Because that’s when the Exodus took place? Jaffa (or Joppa, sya it how you like), now a suburb of Tel Aviv has been continuously occupied for 10,000 years. How is that possible if the world is only 6,000 or even 9,000 years old?

          What does the Bible tell me about Alpha Centauri, or the Crab Nebula or black holes (note the school is calling the Bible “The History Book of the UNIVERSE,” not just our planet)?

          How does ONE FLOOD, (which even Bible experts say didn’t need to be world-wide, only big enough to include most of the then-known world) account for many layers of sediment, which we can observe even today only accumulate millimeters a year?

        • Pam

          Why do you want to believe in a God who made a world that lies? Because that’s what an already old earth would be; a lie.

        • olympe

          Very funny. You want to know something some Christians believed? Here you are.

          A couple of hundred years ago, the Church dogma said that the earth was flat. And defended this “truth” viciously. One of those believers, by the way, was Pope Sylvester II. So, shouldn’t you believe this, too? I mean, what does it matter that there’s actual proof to the contrary?

          Even if you are a good, faithful believer, you should know (or believe, if you prefer) that God gave you a brain. So why don’t you use it?

    • Chak 47

      Do we have a standardized curriculum? It’s my understanding that states have some standards, sometimes local school districts have standards, but there is no central, approved curriculum, AFAIK.

      • Stev84

        Yeah, unfortunately not really. As you say there are some state standards, but they are more like guidelines that schools can move in. Allowing every little school district – and thus unqualified idiots – to mess with the curriculum is another absurd idea.

    • C Peterson

      Great idea, but it won’t work until we have a federal education system, completely free of local and state control, and independent of local funding. We’re a long ways from achieving that.

      • Truth

        Yes, we need absolute control at the federal level. Centralized power has never failed before! Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler – all flaming successes! Forget local control – you can’t trust those locals with anything?

        You would have made Plato proud.

      • Truth

        Also interesting to note: Notice how when you reject God, you replace him with the State. The almighty State is now your god. It owns all children. It takes care of people from cradle to grave. It has absolute, centralized power. It is your god. But it will fail you as it always has in history.

        • smiley

          Notice how when your premise is incredibly false (when you reject god you replace him with the state), eveything else you say afterwards has zero credit, people who reject your god as factual in any sense of the word do not replace it with anything, you fail to understand that there is no need, did you replace santa or the easter bunny with anything ………always in history, like how the roman empire failed less than 100 yrs after becoming christian….note: when you make up facts and insert achiac belief be prepared to be treated like a moron

          • Truth


            First of all, calling people names does not constitute an argument. You atheists are an angry bunch.

            Secondly, did you not read C Peterson’s post? He is placing all his faith in a massive centralized government. His loss of faith in God led directly to placing his faith in civil government. Government will let him down though, as it is a poor substitute.

            • Amanda Nuchols

              It’s hard not to treat a moron like a moron and call them a moron when they speak and act like a moron. If you wave around a big sign that says, I”M A MORON, then you will be called a moron. It’s simply calling a spade a spade. There is No excuse for willful ignorance. Next, try to convince yourself Santa Claus is real and that seawater is healthy to drink. Also, not everyone who disagrees with your ridiculous creationist “science” is atheist or some other what-you-would-call Heathen. Many are Christians who are intelligent enough to reconcile Science AND the teachings of Christianity, without having to pretend that the planet is 6,000 years old or some nonsense. So yes, you are a moron. Angry? Yes, people, atheists included, do tend to get angry when morons like you brainwash your innocent children and march down the street shouting blatant fantasies and falsehoods as so-called-truths. You are no better than Kim-Jong-Il in that you have invented a lie and are force-feeding your progeny that lie. Finally, Truth, nice way to hide behind a pseudonym while many other posters have the decency not to post anonymously. Are you that terrified of your lie that you can’t even expose your own name? Truth? Really? Talk about an oxymoron. Pardon the pun. ;-)

              • Truth


                You have already established that you are angry and belligerent. What you need to establish now is WHY you are angry and belligerent. In other words, you need to produce something even resembling an actual argument. This is something your government education has obviously failed to prepare you to do. So I’ll help you. Saying “you’re a moron because you’re a moron” is not an argument. It is an assertion. An assertion by someone with a low vocabulary and a shortage of original ideas. You’ve simply osmotically imbibed everything your government funded teachers has indoctrinated you with. But they obviously haven’t taught you WHY you should believe what they teach because you are woefully unprepared to defend your blindly held dogma. So I’ll give you another chance, tell me why what i believe makes me a “moron” and why i shouldn’t be allowed to teach it to my kids?

                Ps. Why are you so worried about what i teach MY kids anyway? Aren’t you the one who will cry about me not “forcing” my views on your kids? How hypocritical.

                • mugasofer

                  Are you actually interested in having the evidence for and against “creation science” explained in a Disqus comment box?

                • Truth

                  What I was looking for from Amanda was anything even approaching an argument. If she wants to call me a moron for believing in creation, she needs to prove it. Mere name-calling is not productive or interesting.

                • mugasofer

                  True. I was just checking.

                  Out of curiosity, what *would* be the main points of evidence that persuade you of creationism? It’s all too easy to seal ourselves in a closed bubble where evolution is just sort of assumed.

                • Truth

                  Evolution assumes several things that are logically incoherent and impossible:
                  1) Something came from nothing. (Matter created itself? This would mean matter had to exist before it existed.)
                  2) Life came from non-life.
                  3) Rationality came from non-rationality (i.e., star dust)
                  4) We can account for all of human experience using materialism.

                  All these points are patently absurd, and we could talk about them for hours. However, you will see that they are all negative – why I DON’T believe in Darwinism. The answer to why I DO believe in creationism is simply because God said so. That is the starting point for my epistemology. If that is true, then the evidence should confirm it, which is does at every level and my faith is strengthened everyday.

                • mugasofer

                  Well, 1 is debatably incoherent but has little bearing on evolution as such. Atheism, maybe, but the two are only mildly correlated, and only in our culture.

                  2 is not strictly necessary for evolution – it doesn’t matter where the first replicator came from, could be aliens or even God, it will still evolve – but since all life is verifiably made of non-living materials, this doesn’t seem patently absurd. On the other hand, we don’t know all that much about the origin of life – certainly not as much as the course it took from there.

                  3 doesn’t seem that hard at all, so maybe I’m missing your point there. Could you expand on it?

                  As for 4, well, I’m hard-pressed to think of things we can’t explain that way (except maybe the occasional miracle, from your perspective) but I don’t think that’s required for evolution either. Heck, reality could be dualistic and animals might still evolve to … attract free-floating souls, or however that works … if it would make them smarter and thus less likely to get eaten and so on.

                  Finally, we come to your last paragraph. The claim that “God said so” is, obviously, debatable – if a Friendly superintelligence showed up and told me that I’d damn well believe them too, unlikely though that may be – but I’m interested in your final sentence.

                  I mean, the evidence seems to confirm my position; although I would guess we’re both predisposed to look at evidence from our own “side”. But things really do seem to look like they were evolved, rather than designed; bearing the marks of their history. And, after all, we can duplicate evolution in the lab, as well as occasionally observe it in the wild (usually when we accidentally mess with some creature’s habitat or other.)

                • Truth


                  I’ll reply to your other points later, but this one is really important: When has evolution EVER been observed in a lab? Not microevolution, but true macroevolution from one species to another?

                  This has never been observed in a lab.

                • mugasofer

                  Except that “macroevolution” is just microevolution repeated over a longer time period. Tiny changes piling on top of one another. Of course, even “microevolution” is just even smaller changes added together until we cant ignore ‘em.

                  Unless you’re saying God resets any species that strays too far from the platonic ideal He started with?

                • Truth

                  Macroevolution is not microevolution repeated over time. That is pure speculation, which once again, has never been witnessed in a laboratory and is thus not even true science. It is a philosophical speculation.

                • mugasofer

                  Well what, exactly, DO you get if microevolution repeats over time, then? That’s what I’m asking.

                • Truth

                  You just get a lot of variations within the same species. You get birds with different length beaks, for example. Dogs are an excellent example. Selective breeding has brought TONS of variations in size, color, hair length, etc. Yet they are all still DOGS!

                • mugasofer

                  That’s microevolution modifying the same base species in different ways, not successively modifying the animals that were already modified, which is what I meant.

                  Dogs tend to get used as examples by both sides for this sort of thing, but they’re actually atypical; due to quirks of their fetal development, you can produce greater apparent changes without much difference under the skin. A better example might be plants.

                  If you can make modifications, what prevents them adding up over time until the result is completely unrecognisable?

                • Truth

                  But isn’t this the very notion that is in question? If microevolution truly is the mechanism for macroevolution (species to species change), then we can’t possibly know it because it has never been witnessed in a laboratory. It is completely non-repeatable.

                  MIcroevolution may or may not result in marcoevolution, but that assertion is a mere hypothesis that is based on philosophical assumptions. Unprovable assumptions.

                • mugasofer

                  So you’re agreeing that if we observed “microevolution” having results that aren’t interfertile, your claim would be disproved? Great, now it can in-principle be verified.

                  But you still haven’t explained what’s supposed to stop the changes adding up, you know. So I’m not sure what, exactly, we’d be proving or disproving.

              • mugasofer

                Wow. Way to assume the other guy fits every point of a stereotype and then attack the strawman you’ve constructed instead of their (terrible) arguments.

                • Truth

                  Which argument was terrible and why? Substantiate.

            • mugasofer

              I actually think you have a point with the government-is-not-reliable thing, but you have flatly failed to demonstrate cause and effect there.

              • Truth

                Cause and effect depend on one’s anthropology. I happen to believe the Christian worldview which posits man as sinful and fallen. Man, pre-fall, was created to hold God as the Highest being and worship him as God alone. When man fell into sin, he took on the tendency to replace God with idols.
                How this applies to politics is simple. One must have an ultimate authority. It always boils down to either God or man. If God is your ultimate authority, you will believe in self-government as taught in the Bible. You will also see family and church as having proper spheres of government, in addition to civil government. Within this framework, there is balance, and care is taken to not let government overreach. Civil government is for justice; church is for caring for people and giving grace.
                When man rejects God and sets himself as the ultimate authority, he will always end up giving leaders (governors) immense power. This is because he rejects Biblical authority limitations and thus his whole construct becomes unbalanced. (The tower of Babel was the first example of centralized power.) People will begin to worship leaders (think of Obama) and give them more and more power. This always ends badly throughout history.

                • mugasofer

                  The tendency of human thought towards religion and pseudo- religion (such as personality cults) is well documented.

                  This doesn’t mean that a specific suggestion is caused by this tendency, though.

                  Also, I’ve seen plenty of people who were “officially” Christian fall into this sort of happy death spiral, so it seems clear the claim that if “God is your ultimate authority, you will believe in self-government as taught in the Bible” is, at best, referring to an extraordinarily narrow group. Plenty of Christian societies have been dictatorships of some kind, after all – though I’m assuming you would say they were doing it wrong.

                  (Also, doesn’t the Bible kind of support centralized government? David, Solomon, render what is Caesar’s unto Caesar etc. The Divine Right of Kings was a Christian concept, after all, supposedly biblical in origin)

                • Truth


                  First of all, thank you for your irenic tone. That is something I rarely encounter from atheists and/or Darwinists.

                  The answer to your question is that, yes, sadly there are many Christians who do not properly understand the proper roles of church and state. They want the state to do the church’s job and vice versa. What these Christians need is to be taught proper theology and to learn how the Christian worldview works itself out in everyday life.

                  No, the Bible does not support a large, centralized government. Samuel warned the Israelites, who wanted a king “like the other nations”, that the king would oppress them and rule harshly over them. They wanted a king to effectively “save” them, rather than looking to yahweh for salvation and provision. We have the same problem in America today with many/most people looking to civil government to do for them what only God can/should provide.

                • mugasofer

                  Well, that’s certainly an interesting interpretation. I’m not really enough of a biblical scholar to debate this, but it certainly sounds reasonable.

                  On the other hand, it seems worth pointing out that the precise opposite has been seen as the “obvious” interpretation in times past.

                  The interesting – although hardly conclusive – question is this: did you start out in favour or neutral to Big Government and change your mind based on the Bible, or start out conservative and later see the confirmation in the Bible?

                  (It’s also possible you were taught this line of argument as a child or converted to both conservatism and Christianity at the same time, say, but those seem like he most likely options.)

                • Truth

                  I have always been conservative.

                  All one really needs is to properly understand the fall and its effects on human nature to realize that power will always be abused. The only answer to this is to minimize government as much as possible.

                  There is much more that could said on this topic, but no time to write here. I recommend Joel McDurmon’s book “God vs. Socialism.”

                • mugasofer

                  Hmm. Looking at this from a purely engineering perspective …

                  This sort of “power corrupts” flaw in your humans doesn’t mean decentralizing is better, as such – it means you can never trust individuals. If each decentralized piece has very little oversight, you’ll get the same problems as a single person with very little oversight.

                  What you need is checks and balances, ways to keep people watching each other so anyone who steps out of line is denounced by the others, because anyone who didn’t would themself be denounced and so on – exploiting the co-ordination problems of you selfish actors.

                  It would be a hell of a lot easier to find some sort of incorruptible source of leadership – presumably that would require divine intervention, or perhaps advances in the field of Artificial Intelligence allowing us to build our own free-will-less “angel” to guide us.

                  God doesn’t seem to have lifted the burden of sin from His anointed leaders, AFAICT, or dispatched angelic agents to instruct them except in exceptional circumstances; still, the Heavenly Jerusalem is ruled directly by Jesus and/or the Presence, so presumably at some point He will change His mind about helping us with this little issue.

                  Hmm, I wonder if original sin is neurological in nature, and presumably in principle removable without damaging the other human qualities of the host.

        • wendy

          I suppose I’m an agnostic. I think there’s . . .something, the hive of soulstuff, if you will, that is the same as what Christians call God. But it is not an almighty “Father”; humanity is not some “Chosen” creation; and if there was an absolute “right” path that everyone was supposed to follow, it would be hardwired into us.

          • Truth


            You are right in your feeling that there is more to us than molecules in motion. We do indeed have an immaterial aspect of our nature called a “soul” or “mind.”

            However, I wouldn’t give up so quickly in believing in a personal God, a heavenly Father. After all, being created in the image of a personal God explains why we are personal creatures, so obviously set apart from the lower animals (although we are indeed “living creatures” and share many qualities with them since we were both designed by the same Designer).

            Think about it: if materialistic evolution were all we had to explain the differences between man and his “closest relative”, the chimpanzee, then why is there such a huge difference between us? I mean, they say we are 99% genetically similar to chimps. But why have humans accomplished SO much more with so LITTLE genetic difference? It sure does seem like there is more to us than atoms bouncing around hitting eachother. . . .

            We do indeed have an inner moral compass built into us. In fact the Bible teaches that God’s law is written on all our hearts. The problem is that sin has marred our consciences and the line can become blurry, especially when we harden ourselves to the truth. We can go so far in a sin that we actually sear our consciences.

            Don’t give up. Read John’s gospel and Paul’s epistle to the Romans. They speak directly to the issues we are discussing.

      • T Rene Miner

        One-size-fits-all education is not going to do us any favors, and never has.

    • UMac40

      Are they also allowed to teach kids that a stork might bring a baby instead of natural conception and childbirth? Or that 2+3 might actually equal 6??

      • Morgan Ravenwood

        The sky seems to be the limit! What a handicap for those poor children when they actually get out into the REAL world!

      • Anna

        Sadly, yes. As far as I know, there are absolutely no content standards for private schools. The school doesn’t have to be accredited, the teachers don’t have to be licensed, etc.

    • João Paulo

      Dude, I can say, here from Brazil, we have our basic educational system standardized. It’s just as you described, private schools can teach things in addition to what they’re obligated to, not less than that.

    • mugasofer

      … what if creationists get at *that*? A single point of failure adds to the possibilities for disaster as well.

      Is it better to stick with variation or uniform uncertainty? On an individual level, I’m guessing it averages about the same.

    • Spriglief

      I disagree. What
      happens when the state is wrong about the truth? Can’t you imagine a state that believes in
      Creationism and teaches it as fact? In
      that case, the freedom of private schools to teach what they want would
      preserve the truth for future generations.
      Also, what if “survival of the fittest” Darwinism is wrong? I know of an equally scientific theory that
      teaches that evolution is driven by “symbiotic cooperation”. Doctor Margulis theory has even received praise
      from ardent Darwinist and atheist, Richard Dawkins. Have enough faith in people to find the truth
      on their own.

    • Scott Bland

      Because then we’d have government-approved indoctrination. I’d rather people have freedom to teach / learn what they want than have a government I don’t trust instilling their dogma into everyone.

    • Dgulli

      You really should research your topic before you make such broad statements. Currently, local and state school districts determine what is taught in their schools–there is no “standardized curriculum.” The Federal Government is currently in the process of requiring every state to submit curriculum guidelines that meet Federal standards. Forty-five states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense Education Activity have adopted “Common Core State Standards.” However, these standards do not include Science. Only five states have adopted the “New Generation Science Standards.”

  • Kinky F.

    And the world laughs at the USA yet again. This is child abuse in its most insidious form.

    And to think these same people who force and inculcate children with this bullshit, then turn around and deride the islamists for teaching their kids that Mohammed rode a winged horse to heaven

    The lunatics are running the asylum folks.

    • Tom Carver

      You are so right? How are these idiots any different than madrassa schools with kids bobbing up an down while reciting the koran. Same amount of facts in both!

  • Michael

    As a general rule, if an organisation has to sell itself by putting a religion in its name, assume it has nothing else to offer but words.

  • Richard Wade

    These kids will be intellectually handicapped growing up in a world that every day becomes more dependent on solid, empirically-based science, and will require them to be able to think critically and logically. If “Were you there?” is the best argument the school is equipping them with, then they are not only utterly unprepared, they have an argument that immediately defeats their own assertions.

    • Carpinions

      Which means that people so religiously blinkered as these parents are pretty much damning their kids to living a cloistered existence apart from real society. Oh sure, they’ll probably interact with the wider society, but they’ll have two life modes: the menial job they have just to get by, and their door-closed church where they go to salve their woes by hoping someday a non-existent deity will bring them the riches they’d otherwise have but for their parents’ insistence on forcing nonsense onto their kids under the aegis of protecting their soul. Someone ought to tell these parents that The Truman Show wasn’t a documentary.

      • Anna

        It’s definitely a divided existence, but these people aren’t confined to menial jobs. Just look at the GOP! Think of how many prominent Republicans believe exactly the same thing about evolution. And it’s not just politicians, but people who work in almost any field. Fundamentalists are everywhere in our country. They’re doctors, lawyers, judges, teachers, etc.

    • mugasofer

      Yay! Equipped with terrible arguments, they will be easily deconverted! Clearly, this is the work of a closet atheist.

  • Rev. Ouabache

    As an institution, we applaud the courage of this particle school to stand up for the cause of Christ.

    I have a strong feeling that science isn’t the only class that isn’t being taught properly in this school.

    • Earl G.

      What was that word even supposed to be? I couldn’t figure it out.

      • b s


        Or piece of shit, it could go either way.

      • Anna

        Participating? I think their spell check goofed.

        • Rev. Achron Timeless

          Now now, we should be considerate of their superstitions. Christians don’t believe in spells, so it would be “prayer check”.


    • aurorahigh303

      And ‘knowing our stands’ did they mean stance?

      • Gabriel Rosa

        standing (?)

      • Darrell Ross

        Yeah that one was bothering me. They used “stands” instead of “stance” at least twice.

      • Bobbie McMillan

        Nope they meant their stand.

    • anniewhoo

      This is a K-12 school. How on earth will these students be ready to attend a university once they graduate? I just went to the website and the tuition is pretty high for a Christian school. For 6 grand a year you too can have your middle schooler brainwashed!

      • WallofSleep

        “How on earth will these students be ready to attend a university once they graduate?”

        Simple. They’ve got their own universities to funnel them to, and their own “institutes” that they can work at afterwards. These creationists have done very well at creating their own separatist, insular bubble where their willful ignorance can not only thrive, but also be quite profitable.

        • anniewhoo

          Good point. But surely there are at least some students who will venture out into a community college or state school. What happens to them? I used to teach a science methods course at a state university. It was in the college of education and I had several students over the years who came to me with similar educational backgrounds. As much as I tried, I don’t think I was able to truly educate a few of them. It saddens me so to think that graduates from such programs may go on to teach.

          • Artor

            They take remedial classes and go, “OHHH! When you put it like that, it totally makes sense!” or they flunk out, or they sue the teachers for offending their Xian sensibilities, like the schmuck who claimed he was being forced to stomp on Baby Jeebus recently.

      • Paul D.

        I went to such a school, and I was the first student there ever to go on to university. Generally, fundamentalist Christian schools do *not* want their students to go on to higher education. Their goal is to create religious automatons who will go into the “ministry” (boys) or become ambition-less homemakers (girls).

        Preparing students for university is the farthest thing from their minds. If anything, they want you go attend some fundamentalist Bible college after graduation, where you are supposed to meet your spouse.

        • Anna

          This one, though, actually bills itself as a college preparatory school:

          Blue Ridge Christian Academy is a private college preparatory school that is nestled at the foot of Glassy Mountain in Greenville County, South Carolina.

          Which I guess is better than the alternative. I couldn’t find anything on the website about where the graduates end up, but let’s hope that at least some of them make it to secular universities.

          • cag

            Liberty University

          • Matt

            Don’t forget Bob Jones is just down the road. I’d be surprised if most students didn’t end up there.

      • Roger Bauman

        They can go on to Bob Jones U. They won’t even need to leave the state.

        • Spuddie

          or learn how to read more than one book.

      • Alexis

        Not only that. Fundamentalist and evangelical schools are actively seeking students who might later become biology teachers, to further promote their ‘correct’ version of life’s origins.

    • Artor

      Particle School meets Triangle School. They have a fight. Triangle wins.

      • Aimee Reinert

        Now I can’t get that song out of my head. :P

        • eonL5

          Not that annoying… I can remember a lot of times I wouldn’t have minded Particle Man replacing what was stuck in my head. Why, the other morning, my brain decided to play John Denver (Rocky Mountain High) over and over and over. My brain can be so cruel some mornings, and each morning it’s a surprise. From now on, whenever I get a nasty brain worm, I’ll try to remember to think of Particle Man to replace it. Yay!

          • allein

            I had John Denver stuck in my head the other day, too. Now I can’t remember which song it was…

            • Spuddie

              My guess would be Country Roads (Take Me Home). Probably his most earwormy song ever!

              • allein

                Well if it wasn’t, it is now… thanks a lot! ;)

                • Spuddie

                  Could be worse.

                  Thanks to the anime film, Whisper of the Heart, the Olivia Newton John version of it was stuck in my head for days.

    • Rain

      I would laugh but I’m way too dependent on a spell checker myself. I can only cry.

  • sara

    I hope that the fuss over this test will wake up parents like the father of this girl to the need to research what these private schools are teaching their children. As much as no child should be taught this nonsense, there is no good reason for a parent to let it sneak up on them.

  • enuma

    Asking, “Were you there?” is a great comeback. Just imagine how useful it could be in other situations.

    “Your Honor, we have the defendant’s fingerprints on the murder weapon, which was recovered from the defendant’s home. The defendant’s right hand tested positive for gunpowder residue. We have a video of the defendant walking into the room where the victim was found, and the same feed shows the defendant exiting the room covered in what appears to be blood. The video’s time stamp matches the time of the murder. Blood-stained clothing was recovered from the attic of the defendant’s home. It matches the clothing seen in the video, and the blood on it was a DNA match for the victim. Spatter analysts say the spray patterns on the clothing indicate the defendant was standing at point blank range and at the same angle as the bullet’s trajectory.”

    “Ok, great, but were you there?”


    “Then case dismissed!”

    • Dan Marshall

      This is how every single episode of Matlock ended. True story.

    • Kellen Conner

      Not to mention that they are setting themselves up for an extremely obvious rebuttal:
      “Were you?”

      • Rev. Achron Timeless

        Yeah, I’ve love to see how they train them to handle that one. Likely, they haven’t thought of it yet. My response would be:

        Were you? No? Well since neither of us were there, let’s look at things which were there to figure it out. We call it “evidence”. Do you have any evidence? No, that’s a story book, might as well be using The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. etc. etc. etc.

        • Bill Santagata

          Their response is that God was there, and that God wrote the Bible….so yeah….if you try to engage any of these crazies you’ll just end up on a circular train ride to nowhere.

          • Artor

            Then you get into a debate trying to explain that the Bible is a badly-edited collection of forgeries and bronze-age mythology, but they keep insisting it’s the perfect word of god, and you’re a bigot for denying that. *headdesk*

          • Gus Snarp

            I think next time I find myself in the creationist loop I’ll just start answering “Were you there?” for everything.

          • cipher

            Yep. There is absolutely no arguing with them. I won’t even try.

      • Paul Reed

        “I know you are but what am I?”

        • Richard Raymond

          I see you watch the Simpsons too. LOL

      • Lagerbaer

        Or just inform them that, yes, you were indeed there. Were THEY there to disprove that?

      • Richard Amiel McGough

        Nope. They admit they weren’t there, but say they have an infallible record (the Bible) written by a person who was there (God).

        • Conuly

          And then you ask how they know, and they say the bible tells them so, and you ask how they know that it’s true and they say its the word of god, etc. etc. etc.

      • liu

        “If no one was there, why are we even in court?”

    • Balzaque

      Well for ppl that think that science is an atheist conspiracy to disprove their believes it would be just normal to refute all this “evidences”, that is a sad thing but it seems this is the way they think lol

  • Michelle

    Yes the parents knew what they were getting into. But I wonder if teaching children such nonsense should be allowed in private schools. This type of dogma will only cause them to become close-minded individuals, blind to the world.

    But I’m one of the people who believe that teaching religious nonsense to children is borderline criminal. You’re causing them mental distress, teaching them to be scared of displeasing a skydude fairy there is no evidence of. Follow his laws, even if you think they’re immoral and disgusting, or else you will burn in hell.

  • Danie

    I’m not an athiest and I think this ‘curriculum’ is completely asinine and irresponsible. You cant expect your child to do well in high school or university if youre misinforming them in the early years. Someone else mentioned the simplicity of the test compared to what you would expect a 4th grade test to look like as well. Its quite obvious that this is the dumbing down you hear so much about.

    • Constant Comment

      They’re all set if they plan on going to Bob Jones, Oral Roberts or Liberty U., which, in all seriousness, is where they’ll probably end up.

      • Stev84

        Those are just the most extreme.There are hundreds of other Christian colleges in the US.

        • Alice

          Yes, but a lot of them teach evolution now because there are almost no professors in the sciences who reject evolution and because of accreditation. Of course, if it’s for the latter reason, they won’t do a good job of it, but I think most professors really mean what they are teaching if they themselves had a decent education. I went to a small Christian college that was pretty conservative, but none of the professors rejected evolution except a couple of the older professors in non-scientific fields. My parents were horrified that their shelter plan had failed, but I was glad to finally meet Christians who weren’t afraid to be intellectual.

    • Diogeron

      This has nothing to do with “atheism.” It has everything to do with science. If people don’t understand that, they implicitly admit that religion is inherently antithetical to the best epistemological process to date for separating facts from fiction and reality from superstition.

      • Feminerd

        Whoa, now. “Implicitly”, “inherently”, “antithetical”, and “epistemological” are all very big words. You can’t expect graduates of a school like Blue Ridge to understand what you’re saying when you speak like an educated, erudite individual.

    • jnbrfree

      Will you people actually use some scientific method yourselves and do some observing of the facts. This wasn’t a test. This was a quiz taken after watching a video. Read people! This whole article isn’t even scientific. There are statements made in the beginning of the article and by the end of the article the opposite is stated. This whole entire post has so little scientific credibility it’s kind of ridiculous. I’m not even talking about creation vs evolution or whether the earth is a few thousand yrs old or millions of years old. You guys are calling something a curriculum when we aren’t even talking about a curriculum. By the very words of the publisher of what you all are calling the “curriculum” he said in his post that, by the way is also posted in this article, it was a video they watched and a quiz that they took after the video to test whether they paid attention. Ken Ham doesn’t publish a curriculum. Seriously if we are going to talk about how a school isn’t scientific and teaching good science, at least use a little scientific method ourselves in what we state. State facts people, not feelings or you are no different than the very people you are criticizing.

      • Antinomian

        So, are you saying the video shown and the quiz taken were for recreational or entertainment purposes only? Or was there some other purpose that you with your vast understanding of the “scientific method” could clue the rest of us into?

  • Gilbert Davis

    This is double child abuse – by the parents and by that school. Passing religion off as science and teaching the children such ignorant foolishness does them no favors. It warps their minds to actual science and truth and makes them incapable of being intelligent productive members of society. The more intelligent of these children might realize that what they’ve been taught is nonsense but the weak minded will forever remain ignorant. These are the American Madrassas – breeding ignorance and extremists (eventually)

    • Bill

      Please do not insult actual victims of child abuse by irresponsibly co-opting the term for your own benefit.

      • John Yaple

        Intentionally exposing children to harm is child abuse. Harming their minds and worldview to such that promotes ignorance and deceit is definitely harmful. I was a child abuse victim, I was beaten by my teachers and parents for years, and I do believe this is child abuse. Please do not speak on behalf of all child abuse victims, it is insulting to people who actually lived through it.

  • Drew M.

    While I am relieved this wasn’t a public school, I still feel really bad about these poor kids.

    Brainwashing sucks llama ass.

  • lorimakesquilts

    I don’t understand how this school is an appropriate stand-in for a public school. Surely the state educational standards must be met. That’s generally a requirement for homeschooling so why not a private school. There’s no way these kids could pass one of those horrid standardized tests if this is how they’re being educated.

    • Anna

      Homeschoolers have even less regulation in most states than private schools. That’s why so many fundamentalist parents opt for homeschooling. This type of false science and revisionist history is perfectly legal in both cases.

  • Secular Advocate

    Lying to children, and those who have never grown up enough to question what mommy and daddy told them, is essentially what religion is all about.

    Imagine how creepy this would look if it were from a Muslim private school.

    • Michael W Busch

      It would be exactly as creepy.

      • Anna

        True, but the irony is that fundamentalist Christians would be screaming about Muslims brainwashing their children. Apparently, that’s only a problem when other religions do it.

        Incidentally, not all Muslim schools teach creationism. I found a moderate Islamic school that uses secular textbooks for all academic subjects, not just science.

        The children in that school are obviously getting a much better education than those poor children in South Carolina.

  • Andrew L

    If only I had someone to pray to for these students.

  • Timmah

    I am both curious and terrified to think about what their “History” lessons are like. You can bet the idea of the US being a “christian nation” is hammered home hard.

    • Anna

      Maybe not quite as bad as their science lessons:

      Beginning in 3rd grade, students are taught an overview of world history in a three-year cycle. Curricula from The Story of the World: History for the Classical Child, Veritas, and Tapestry of Grace are used as the framework for teaching. These are enhanced with numerous other materials to provide a closer look at the cultures during each time period studied.

      The textbooks for Veritas and Tapestry of Grace are obviously biased, but at least they list secular supplemental materials, so the children aren’t kept completely ignorant and isolated from the real world.

      • Michael W Busch

        Well, at least the real world after a few thousand years BCE.

        • Feminerd

          Indeed. Considering some cultures go back over 6,000 years, I’d imagine a lot of early cultures are given short shrift indeed.

          It’s really not much better in public school, of course, since they gloss over a whole lot of early human cultural development. But the acknowledgement that really old cultures existed is at least there.

          • Michael W Busch

            “It’s really not much better in public school”

            Depends on the school. My teachers did a good job, but I am conscious of having had a very privileged education.

    • Alice

      If I remember correctly, the years that I studied the ACE curriculum there was a lot of Crusades-apologia.

  • JD929

    How could the school have been repeatedly “attacked” if it wasn’t even named until ol’ ignoramus named the school?

    • Anna

      Yes, how were they getting “vicious” e-mails if they hadn’t been identified?

  • Carpinions

    Whenever someone claims private schools are the de facto best model for handling the majority of youth education in this country, show them this. This is exactly why a public, secular school system – at least when we’re contrasting both on paper – is far and away more desirable. Ya sure there are science and tech privates, but what’s the percentage of those to religious schools when looking at the nation? (I honestly don’t know but I think I’d be safe in guessing religious privates win by multiples.)

    Intentional miseducation like this falls just short of real violence on the minds of youth. These kids – many of them – will grow up in the bubble their parents prepared for them, and never find a decent job because they think Noah fit every animal on a boat (that can’t even float, btw).

    The question needs to be hammered to Ham: What are you really preparing kids for anyways? Where is the market for jobs where the key educational requirement is wholesale allegiance to blood red superstition? Parental rights is one thing, but stark instances like this rise extremely closely to the same level as those who practice “faith healing” and end up with dead kids. These schools may not kill kids, but they kill human thought and development. They might as well send their kids to North Korea on a student visa.

    • Stev84

      Private schools can have a place as long as they are held to certain standards. But they shouldn’t distinguish themselves by a completely different curriculum. There is plenty of other things they could offer a better or different service: for example more teachers, better facilities, different teaching methods. In short, they should be more about how they teach and not what they teach.

      • Balzaque

        private schools are the best schools in my contry, what they are missing here is standards and a way to validate the quality of what is being thaught to the childrens.

        the least they could do would be to prohibit then to say they are a school if they refuse to follow a proper curriculun.

  • Anna

    Ah, yes, Blue Ridge Christian Academy was one of the schools I came across when I was looking for possible candidates in South Carolina.

    Others that list creationist science textbooks as part of their curriculum:

    Calvary Christian School, Southside Christian School, Anderson Christian School, Greenwood Christian School, Grace Christian School, Easley Christian School, Florence Christian School, Tabernacle Christian School, Conway Christian School, Crosspoint Christian Academy, Hawthorne Christian Academy, Hilton Head Christian Academy

    That’s just the tip of the iceberg. There were a lot more, but I got tired of checking websites. As I mentioned on the other thread, I actually think it would be harder to find a Christian school in South Carolina that doesn’t teach creationism. I only came across one that seems not to:

    That’s based on the stated curriculum, but it’s unclear whether they actually
    teach the students to accept evolution.

  • raytheist

    The University of California has already rejected any science credits toward enrollment of any student from this sort of anti-science curriculum. Many parents would opt for sending their child to a private Christian school, but that merely delays the student’s exposure to evidence-based reality.

    • Stev84

      Fear not. That’s why there are also Christian universities that teach the exact same crap.

      • Erp

        First the University of California system evaluates courses before grades from those courses can be used in calculating the GPA needed for admission to the UC system and the courses used to fulfill the High School coursework needed to enter (note there are several other ways of being admitted but taking approved courses and getting the necessary GPA is the most common for California students).

        Second, a Calvary school had a biology course, a history course, an English course, and a social science course rejected for failing to meet the UC standards a few years back. They took the UC system to court and lost (rather star studded collection of experts testifying in favor of the UC system).

        • Bubba Tarandfeathered


  • DesertSun59

    Parents who willfully send their children to a school that is well-documented now to LIE to the children in their care, should be arrested for child abuse. It is unconscionable that they have ‘deeply held beliefs’ that clearly contradict reality, evidence and the knowledge that the Earth is billions of years old. Period.

    • Bill

      Child abuse is a terrible thing. Please do not insult those who have been through actual abuse with kids who are being given misinformation.

      • Adam JQ

        I have seen you post this response a number of times and I have to say, I don’t think you understand the definition of child abuse. It is not just sexual or physical but also takes into account emotional abuse and neglect. So yes, this is a perfectly acceptable use of the term child abuse.

  • Bubba Tarandfeathered

    I know this is not the popular position to take here, but honestly we do not need a nation of citizens all possessing high educations. Maybe when industry is fully robotized and automated but not right now. If the American christians want to be known as the go-to guys for manual labor then who are we to stop or stifle their progress to that goal.

    • Michael W Busch

      Because this isn’t people choosing to not pursue higher ed, or choosing to pursue jobs heavy on manual labor (not at all the same thing, by the way).

      This is people teaching their children lies in place of actual science and other primary education, and so deliberately and artificially limiting the options their children will have in their lives.

      • Bubba Tarandfeathered

        Limited Options what is wrong with that. So in other words it’s Artificial Selection. Children with a Christianized Education will go on to breed with other christians producing more morons to fill low paying hard labor jobs. That’s fine with me.
        Still falling for the POE’s I see.

        • Anna

          But the problem is that they’re not limited to hard labor jobs. There are creationists everywhere, especially in the South. These children can go on to attend college and enter almost any profession.

          • Bubba Tarandfeathered

            Very true. But not for long.

            • Anna

              You’re more optimistic than I am!

        • Michael W Busch

          I have a problem with Poes. They are by definition indistinguishable from outrageous claims intended to be taken seriously. And so I treat them as being serious until proven otherwise.

          But that indistinguishablity makes Poes dangerous. The joke is not funny when there are many people who would actually say it and mean it. In other words: I think you need better jokes.

    • Michael Harrison

      Maybe not everyone needs high education, but our workforce does not currently meet the educational demands of our current economy.

    • JohnnieCanuck

      Amongst other things, you’re forgetting that they are allowed to vote while ignorant. Not only that, they can run for office and create legislation or rules based on and promoting their ignorance. Look around.

      As rhetoric to show why they shouldn’t shoot their kids in the foot, maybe your position could be useful.

      However proposing a society with an even stronger have/have-not division than currently found in the US is not so good. For one thing, that has been suggested as the best explanation for why the US is so religious in the first place.

  • Bubba Tarandfeathered

    If all a child needs to know about the world is in the bible why are the christians sending them to private schools. It seems like a big waste of money and time.

  • Patrick Brown

    It’s a private school. Why the fuck would I care if they teach Christian mythology or the Norse gods? Let it go. We’re not the education police.

    • Rev. Achron Timeless

      Interesting that you say this on a computer. Where were all the parts of it made? Wasn’t in the US except for a mere handful of components if you’re lucky.

      Know why that is? Because we don’t have an educated workforce that can even handle working in a factory producing these things, much less engineering them in the first place.

      So no, we won’t let it go.

      • Stev84

        That’s simplistic too. Electronics manufacture (aside from the engineering side) is largely automated. And most things are produced in Asia because production is cheaper there.

        • Rev. Achron Timeless

          Not familiar with the rather famous discussion Steve Jobs had when asked why none of the apple products were made in the US then.

          • Stev84

            Not familiar with the working conditions in Asian factories producing iPhones then.

            • Rev. Achron Timeless

              That’s relevent how exactly? He said that, obvious supply disadvantages aside, he would have trouble finding enough trained people to run an operation like that given 6 months when he could do it in weeks over in China.

              Yes, the working conditions are crap, but you might as well be bringing up pollution or the rapid spreading of desert biomes in China for as much as they have to do with this discussion.

              You’re running out of places to veer away from the point that keeping US citizens stupid, especially outright denying them basic knowledge, hurts the nation as a whole.

              I look forward to your next attempt to make this about something else, as I’m sure it’ll be entertaining.

      • Puzzled

        Actually, it’s because of Ricardo’s Principle.

      • Patrick Brown

        So this little academy single-handedly dumbed down the entire workforce. Go change the world then, but no one outside of your circle of influence will listen to your anger and hate. People on the “outside” still believe in religious freedoms.

        • Michael W Busch

          No. This school is one example of a disturbingly common form of denying reality. Hemant explained this in the post. Didn’t you read it?

    • Bubba Tarandfeathered

      I agree with you Patrick, Christian children should not have the benefits of higher education. We need people in our country devoid of high educations to work in our most menial jobs. Without them who would pick up our trash or flip our hamburgers? The future of employment looks sweet a massive Christian work force of obedient, god fearing automatons. Willing to work two maybe even three jobs to feed their large families.

      • JohnnieCanuck

        Please make it more obvious that your tongue is in your cheek. Or not.

        Social inequality may be the biggest cause of religious acceptance. If so your suggestion is going in exactly the wrong direction.

    • Question Everything

      Because these kids go into colleges, the workforce, and life. Why should we let these kids be force fed this kind of garbage in their education? Sure, if they want to get it in their Sunday School classes or whatever, go crazy. But not in the institution that is supposed to be preparing them for life.

      We need to be the education police. Even for small schools like this, the students still deserve quality education.

    • Mario Strada

      I honestly don’t give a flying fuck if a school is private or not. Education is not a matter to be left to somebody”s opinion. Not homeschooling parents, not a Christian school.
      You would think these hypocrites would use their own schools to show us how to “teach the controversy” like they want us to do in our public school. Instead they teach their unscientific drivel exclusively and then criticize public schools for teaching established scientific theories.

      Kids deserve better than this.

    • Michael W Busch

      Because they are teaching lies as fact. And all of us should care about the accuracy of education.

      As a professional scientist, I have a particular interest in people understanding at least the basic methods and accumulated knowledge science correctly.

      • Bubba Tarandfeathered

        But would you employ a creationist even if he correctly understands at least the basics, the methods and accumulated knowledge of science?

        • Michael W Busch

          If someone correctly understands the basics of science, they are not likely to be a creationist (although it has been known to happen).

    • Matt Potter

      As Mario already so eloquently stated., we should all be concerned with the education of the country’s children. I would also like to add that in a couple of years they will be of voting age. Having an educated population, neither (R) or (D) but just educated, is essential to our republic.

  • Anna

    From their website:

    The K5 – 12th grade program at BRCA is accredited by the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) and SACS-CASI (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools as part of AdvancED). We are a member school of Christian Schools International (CSI). BRCA’s K4 Program is not required to obtain state licensure. However, we consistently self-monitor our program using appropriate guidelines from both ACSI and state agencies.

    The Christian accreditations are no surprise, but how is it possible that this school is accredited by SACS-CASI? Don’t they have standards for the curriculum? How is it that a school teaching false science and false history would be accredited by a secular organization?

    What good is accreditation if the content of what the school teaches does not matter?

  • Balzaque

    Teaching lies as if they were truth is worse then teaching nothing. You can believe in whatever BS you want but brainwashing kids should be a crime.

    I really cant understand how USA have no standards for a minimun quality of their schools, how can they even have “teachers” teaching this kind of things? They should remove their license as a teacher and close those schools at the very least.

    Want to teach your views in religious subject? Fine, do it, but do it in a teology class and not in a science class. If you are teaching science you should be teaching science.

    • onamission5

      The US does have educational standards… for public schools. People get around those standards by either home schooling or opening private schools and then crying about freedom of religion when the government or citizens try to mildly suggest that kids could maybe stand to learn something supported by facts now and then. Hell, they write their own religious agenda into books printed by the companies they own and then call those textbooks, all in the name of freedom of religion. Then they have their flunkies go to school boards and lobby for vouchers so they can get state dollars to support their “private” religious institutions. It’s quite the scam.

      • Ewan

        I think the big disconnect seems not to be so much the schools as the exams. Over here in the UK you can go to a private school that’s not bound to the same curriculum standards as a state school, but if they tried to teach like this, as soon as their pupils took the normal external exams, they’d just fail.

        Somehow the US seems not to have any sort of equivalent.

        • baal

          The christians are privileged and have gone out of their way to ensure no accountability for their acts. It’s difficult to point out the absolute scope of their icky tendrils across US society.

  • Diogeron

    Wow. It’s hard to believe that this ignorance is being spread by an alleged “educational” institution. Glad my kids ( one at dissertation stage in her Ph.D. Program and the other a tenured prof) went to great public schools in a university town where this nonsense would never be tolerated.

  • WallofSleep

    “These atheists have willfully suppressed the truth that there is a Creator and that His Word is true.”

    Well, we’re doing a really shitty job of it, then. I mean, there are friggin’ christians everywhere. C’mon guys, pick up the pace. We’ve got some willful suppressing to do.

    • 7thSon

      We just have to do it gently…

    • Spuddie

      We can’t throw Christians to the lions anymore, its considered animal cruelty.

  • Gabriel Rosa

    If all kids would be getting an education based on science and critical thinking, who would fill all those mega churches in the future? Now that would be a real pity wouldn’t it?… :/

  • mike

    “Topics covered in the elementary grades lay the foundation for the sciences taught in middle and high school.”
    I curious as to what advanced creationism looks like. “Were you there” is Ken Ham’s life’s achievement and the pinnacle of his rhetorical powers. After mastering that in 4th grade, what do they talk about next?

    • Gabriel Rosa

      Advanced denialism.

  • Bob Level

    Real science is hard work you know, all that coursework, evidence collection and years of painstaking effort to try and ascertain how nature works.
    Christian science is easy. 1 book to read, then go look at what the scientists have figured out and dispute anything that disagrees with said 1 book.

    • Bubba Tarandfeathered

      Did you expect more, this attitude comes from the very nature of christianity, it is a lazy mans religion, accept J.H.C., and you will go to heaven. Early religions actually took some thought to practice.

  • chanceofrainne

    This is so ridiculous. As a kid I attended two different Christian schools – one Catholic, one Lutheran. NEITHER ONE taught us this kind of crap – in fact, I learned more about evolutionary theory in Catholic school than I did in public high school. There is no excuse for this.

  • SteveS

    Ken Ham is the vector of a serious mind virus. These poor kids are being inculcated into a cult. Not only are they being drilled in nonsense, they are most certainly being taught to recognize those bad people who believe in real science. And they are taught all the little recursive thinking tricks they need to keep the bad thoughts out of their little minds – so god will whisk them up into heaven (always soon). Some of them will be able to see through the hogwash but many, I fear will live a life dictated and governed by the future Ken Hams, Pat Robertsons, etc.

  • Matt Potter

    Ken Ham and others like him only use these ‘attacks’ to feed their ever growing persecution complex. Just like the case of the West Virginia high school senior who confronted the principal on the mandatory christian assemblies a few weeks ago, these children who attend this school will now also have a harder time being accepted into colleges(reputable that is) as they are associated with this story and this curriculum.

    • Michael W Busch

      You have the story wrong on the West Virginia case. Wellesley is _very_ happy to accept Katelyn Campbell.

      In this case, the problem is mainly that the students aren’t learning science, and will find themselves generally horribly under-prepared for good high-school science classes (if they take them). If they stay in this particular school through 12th grade, they will be generally under-prepared for any good college. And even those who are well-prepared will have the problem of the school’s negative reputation being known to admissions committees.

      • Matt Potter

        Let me clarify about my West Virginia reference. I do know Wellesley is happy to have Katelyn. I was referring to the remaining students and how their affiliation with that school could hinder their pursuits in higher education.

  • Kate

    This is truly horrific.

  • ecolt

    A “non-denominational” school? Last time I checked, many many Christian churches have no problem with science. I don’t understand how a school can claim to be open to all Christians, then be teaching such a narrow view that is not uniformly held by members of the religion.
    Oh, that and the fact that teaching this at all is just outrageous.

  • Canth Decided

    This test and the tripe that is its contents is not new.

    When I was a teen in high school in 1986, my ultra Christian father pulled me from my public school and forced me to attend one of these private ‘schools’… and I was forced to fill in answers virtually identical to these in the ‘Accelerated Christian Education’ workbooks that were what passed for education in them.
    My father was thrilled, because my grade point average was perfect… simply because these workbooks were a complete joke.
    I was horrified and disgusted with filling in these answers because I *knew* they were not true, and I was being forced to lie in order to get the desired grade.
    When I tried to fill them out according to what I knew was scientifically accurate, I of course got an ‘F’, and my teacher reported me to my father, who beat me for ‘defying Christ’s teachings’. He beat me quite a lot, because beating the shit out of your children is proscribed as good in the Bible.

    The ‘science’ workbooks were the absolute worst, but none of the other subjects were much better.

    • Alice

      Yes, when I took Western Civ in college, I had to unlearn many of the “facts” I had learned from ACE.

  • Tobias2772

    WOW, I was wrong. i repeatedly reported this as being Calvary Christain School in Greer SC. iIn my defense please allow me to quote from their web site.

    “Our curriculum is comprised of several publishers we feel address their particular subject best. We use Bob Jones, ABeka, Saxon Math, Easy Grammar, and Answers in Genesis. Each curriculum has been carfully chosen to maximize the educational experience for each child.”
    I’m not surprised that church schools teach this crap, I just didn’t stop long enough to think that there could easily be two such schools in such a small area. My bad.
    I wonder if someone has the time to research just how many of these idiotic schools exist and what happens to their students when they enter the larger (real) world. As a public school teacher this shit makes me so so sad.

    • Anna

      I found at least eleven others besides Calvary and Blue Ridge in South Carolina, and sadly I think there are probably dozens more.

      • Tobias2772

        Actually, there are at least 50 such schools listed in the SCCSA – the South Carolina Christian Schools Association. I started looking into some of them but it was making my eyes bleed so I had to stop for a while.
        By the way, I was trying to copy and paste some of the curriculum and mission statements and one one of the sites and a pop up said, “No right-clicking allowed” i never heard of such a thing, but it seemed so appropo in a number of ways.

        • Anna

          Well, I didn’t have anything else to do tonight, so I went looking. In addition to the thirteen schools already identified, here are others in South Carolina listing creationist science curriculum:

          Emmanuel Christian School, Charleston Christian School, Westgate Christian School, Fountain Inn Christian School, Hampton Park Christian School, Walnut Grove Christian School, Soaring Eagles Christian Academy, Spartanburg Christian Academy, Maudlin Christian Academy, Palmetto Christian Academy, Northside Christian Academy, Greenville Classical Academy, Bob Jones Academy

          So that brings the total to at least 26 in South Carolina alone.

          I excluded schools that did not specifically mention what companies produce their textbooks, even though it would seem that all/most of them would also be teaching creationism. There were a lot of those.

  • Graham Dennis

    I literally thought that paper was a prank, fabricated for laughs. My jaw dropped even further when I found out it was real!!

  • Free

    No folks. Everything we see, and apprehend through our senses, every intricacy in nature down to molecular and nano science not to mention the unending universe just decided to happen. We are so freaking lucky!!! Good for us that everything had to be perfectly positioned for life to exist etc… with no purpose, no cause. Just because. So we can with tiny limited minds in even tinier little bodies on a tiny planet in the middle of an incomprehensible universe can stand with so much certainty on what we think we know. Thank God we have discovered the earth was not flat. I could of seen that on the science test. Of course the confidence of those early scientist could not be shaken as all evidence seemed to point to such a conclusion. Let’s stop being so arrogant to think we actually know it all and keep our hearts and minds open to the fact that maybe there is some reality to what this simple test implies. Stop hating on what you cant explain or only hope to.

    • Kristen Fournier

      Where’s that academic decathlon judge from Billy Madison when we need him?

      • Stev84
        • Free

          Huh? Typical condescending answer that sounds intelligent but is really belittling prose. Consistent however with folks who do not understand faith or are opposed to it. No logical breakdowns of an argument rooted in anything more than mere human observation.

    • Bubba Tarandfeathered

      What is it you think we can’t explain? It appears that things are all perfectly positioned but in reality it is not. Cosmological Evolution puts us in that near perfect moment for “our” existence, in “our” tiny portion of the universe but don’t forget that it took billions of years of evolution and expansion to get here and yes we are lucky to be here but that was purely an accident. It is highly probable that life has existed elsewhere in the universe at different times in the life of the universe. But that is also irrelevant because saying that the universe has a history is essentially irrelevant. What simply this test implies is that the child, who took it, has been indoctrinated by theism. He, for the moment, accepts the myths that have been taught to him. To say that there is something more to this is to simply echo that indoctrination. A matter I suspect that you have little control over. You are the hater here because you hate that other people dislike and disagree with your beliefs. Evolution has been explained creationism has not. There is no evidence that supports creationism, you might hate that fact but I think you might be able to find it in your heart the ability to get over it.

      • Free

        Well if you can not explain it. Who cares? Let em live and be happy in faith. Since you and I are but dust after no more than 100 measly years what do we care? Our ideas ultimately are meaningless because there is no real reason we are here and no ultimate purpose. Who cares about what they teach if they are happy. Stop fussing. Myths can’t be myths if there are no absolutes. Maybe they are right. If they are, they won’t lose out when their life is over. Hater, I take mean whoever does not agree with me. We are all haters then. Such a weak foundation for an argument. Look either side seeks to find meaning for this existence.

        • Bubba Tarandfeathered

          There is no meaning, there is only the Absurd.

          • Free

            On point. Bubba! Can not have it both ways.

        • Michael W Busch

          “Since you and I are but dust after no more than 100 measly years what do
          we care?”

          I care because I care about other people and what happens to them. Do you really not care about the future of humans and of human societies?

          “Who cares about what they
          teach if they are happy.”

          Teaching lies as truth leads to bad actions, which lead to bad outcomes and less happiness.

          “Stop fussing”


    • CNNcommentor

      And when those early scientists and all scientists after them were presented with new evidence? They changed their minds. This is what science teaches us to do. Saying “God did it” is nothing more than a thought-ending cliche. It end the discussion.

      How can you thank God that we discovered the earth to be round, when this is in direct conflict with Isiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1, Job 38:13 and at least a dozen other verses? Shockingly, you provide one of the best examples of why the Bible should not be used as a science textbook, in defense of using the Bible as a science textbook.

      • Free

        Thank you for scriptural reference. However, the bible is clear in Job 26:10 and Isaiah 40:21-22 the the earth is a circle, a sphere. Job was written before Greece. Actually almost 4,0000 BC. The references to a flat earth are unbiblical and wrongly interpreted. The corners of the earth referred to in Revelation are describing the magnetic points of N,S,E and W. The bible should not be excluded in consideration of our scientific principles as pointing us to many realities we are now discovering. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water and dismantle the wisdom of our ancestors so smugly. Unfortunately, we are wrapping our lives around what we can “know” scientifically today with the understanding that we may be wrong. Happens all the time with new discovery. Not sure I would live on a soapbox when my foundation might fall in the near future. The reality of intelligence being the cause for what we know and experience is such a restful logical step in the right direction rather than our trial and error and bumbling way of current atheist thought.

        • Balzaque

          we humans exist on this earth for such a fraction of its existence, orbiting a small star in a galaxy with more then 200 billion stars, one galaxay between what? 100~300 billion galaxies on our observable universe? with or universe existing for even greater time then even our own solar system?

          your god seems really eficient to have build such an incredible place, incredible big and complex place, for one race to exist for an almost insignificant time on a place more insignificant to what a sand grain is in comparison to our planet. a race and a planet that will hardly exist for even enough time to be of significance for the galaxy or even for the entire universe.

          ofc 1 book based rehashed contents of older tales and mythologies with a ton of incosistencies should be a lot more accurate then hard work from scientists generations after generations accumulating knowledge, experimenting, discarding what was found to be wrong, formulating new ideas, consolidating ideas that withstood longer over an incredible long time of critiscism.
          really understandable for you to not trust science right, cause what have science accomplished of significance at all? i dont even know what to use as an example.. but ofcourse that the bible seems to be guiding us well.

          • Free

            Could it be that we are not the focus of our reality? Could it be that we are so obsessed with ourselves and making all of our reality about us? What if “God” simply created all this for His own glory first? What if all our discoveries in science and the future discoveries, continue to amaze us more and more and we really discover that all that we can apprehend in reality is not for us first but for Him first?. What is the chief aim of our science? In the end we’re simply dust right? Eat, drink, love and die. Why work so hard for humanity when we are here today and gone tomorrow. Are we really that “others focused”. What keeps you going? Hope? Hope in what? Is it really enough? Honestly? I have higher respect for you and your very existence to merely see your amazing life a product of mere chance and speculation. I know faith seems absurd but it does reveal a new level of Hope that does not disappoint.

            • Balzaque

              exactly, if there is a god why would it care differently about everything that he created? why would him favor 1 race, or a subset of that race over everything else that he created? why would him even create something that he didnt want to?

              we care abou what we do because we are the ones doing it, or planet is the most important planet in the universe because it is our planet. we are the most important beings in existence for us because we are what we are. we do what we do because we need to survive so we can keep being what we are.

              we go out of our way to find explanation to things we do not understand to satisfy our curiosity to feel better about ourselves, to try and find ways to improve our lifes and to make everything more enjoyable. we do it for our own good and because we like what we do. we go after those values and those activities exactly to make our lifes to have a meaning, a meaning to ourselfes and maybe to the ppl around us.

              it doesnt matter if an ant care about us, if any other animal care about us. most of the time it even doesnt matter what others think about us, what matter is what you think about you and how much value do you give by what others think about you. you live your life so you can be happy with yourself and have a feeling of accomplishment, doesnt matter how small or insignificant it is to everything else what matters is what it means to you.

              religion is an easy way out, it is easy to find confort in an extraordinary entity that makes everything have a purpose and put you in such special place of importance above everything else, that even cares what bad things you did during your life.

              it is hard to face everything else if you think about your existence as a limited and finite thing, and that it will come to an end as fast as it came into existence. that is probably why as soon as we got consious religion was invented.

              • Free

                I appreciate your thoughtful explanation. It seems very sincere and honest. It makes sense. I think an easy way of looking at faith is like looking at the back of a tapestry. You see faith and the God of faith the mess that the threads appear to be. You have a view of the back and that is all you know, can prove and possibly care to know. What you see seems senseless and well, ugly and without purpose-much like you see God. The reality however is that I saw everything the same until I met this God personally. Religion was not the answer, seeking only my good was enough, but once I met Him personally He showed me the front of the tapestry and it is quite beautiful. The hardest thing about having these types of conversations is that we can only observe and discuss what we see on the back of the tapestry. Faith opens the way to see the front side. At that point you just want to tell about the purpose of the threads and how they actually do paint an amazing and complete picture of things. Talking about it however to folks that can not see it is almost futile. Balzaque, trust me, I am no better than you or anyone else. It would be a joke for me to judge you and say because He has revealed Himself to me that it is because I’m special. I am so very grateful for this reality but it is for anyone willing to ask to be shown the front side.

                • Balzaque

                  sincerly i have no problem with any faith, i have a problem when faith, from any source, try to force its views in other ppls life, specially in ppls life that dont follow said faith.

                  you can believe in anything you like and you can try to pass your values to your children as best as you want. but disguising lies as if they were real science and as if it was a real school just harm those children undermining theyr potential and undermining theyr ability to compreend the world around then.

                  is it really needed for you to have faith and believe in something to dismiss every single evidence show to you on how our world is supposed to work? isnt that kind of reaction just like what it was when ppl denied with all theyr power that the world was spheric? or that the earth orbit the sun and not the other way around?

                  im sorry but nothing in this test is real, and yes in this case everything show in this tests are lies that even religious ppl should be able to spot.

                • Free

                  I think we just do not all agree on the big questions that we all have. To each side the arguments seem rational but at their most elemental base- unprovable. You can not prove there is no intelligence behind this existence. You can not prove there is. We are all humans trying to understand. Why it matters so much should be the object of many conversations. What I do appreciate about the mind of a child is that they have the innate sense of belief and wonder. Let them discover on their own based on their convictions. Since we can not absolutely prove our case, let them find their way. Dust to dust right? Does it really matter?

                • Michael W Busch

                  “You can not prove there is no intelligence behind this existence. You can not prove there is.”

                  You appear to have a serious misunderstanding. Science does not deal with proof. It deals with disproof by observation and with identifying the most likely explanations for the available evidence.

                  The most common versions of belief in gods are contradicted by evidence, and are therefore wrong (e.g. intercessory prayer has no effect on people who are unaware they are being prayed for, so there cannot be a god that does some supernatural effect in response to such prayers). The exception is an entirely non-interventionist god, which by definition is not disprovable in any way. But such a god is not what most religions advocate, and also is entirely indistinguishable from there being no god at all – which would lead to functional atheism.

                  And when all available evidence is consistent with there being no god, and all prior testable god claims have been disproven, then the null hypothesis of atheism remains the most likely and the correct inference. Only should sufficiently compelling evidence of a god’s existence at some point be available would that change.

                  “Since we can not absolutely prove our case, let them find their way. Dust to dust right? Does it really matter?”

                  It matters that people are being taught lies as facts, because that often leads to convictions that are wrong and those often lead bad actions.

                  e.g. I can’t “absolutely prove” that you won’t win the jackpot if you spend all your money on lottery tickets, but I can say that you have very high odds of ending up broke if you do. And this illustrates why everyone should understand the basics of probability and statistics.

    • Michael Harrison

      You do realize it’s been known since the ancient Greeks that the earth is round, right?

      “Let’s stop being so arrogant to think we actually know it all and keep
      our hearts and minds open to the fact that maybe there is some reality
      to what this simple test implies.”

      It’s always ironic when supporters of science are told this. Especially when the accusations of arrogance and closed-mindedness are prefaced by having *their* views ridiculed (“We are so freaking lucky!!!”)

    • Bubba Tarandfeathered

      Ah good old Pascal’s Wager, ’tis a time honored tradition of apologists to use this.

    • Balzaque

      it is not hatting on what you cant explain, everything on this test is known to be false. are you really that stupid?

    • phantomreader42

      “Free”, like all creationists, you are willfully ignorant of what evolutionary theory actually states and predicts, and the evidence supporting it, despite
      this information being readily available. Like all creationists, you
      misrepresent science. Like all creationists, you have had it REPEATEDLY
      explained to you how your strawman of evolution is a dishonest
      misrepresentation. And, like all creationists, you keep on repeating
      the same misrepresentations, knowing them to be false, because admitting
      the truth would make your worthless delusions crumble to dust.

      Why can’t creationists ever bring themselves to tell the truth?
      Isn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

  • Comput0r_h4x0r

    Even if you believe in a creator, taking the word of ancient cave dwelling knuckle-draggers about how it all happened (Over rigorous field work, sample testing, research and science) is completely retarded and should not be taught to children as fact. That’s 1. Irresponsible 2. Based on nothing more than fantasy and unsubstantiated claims.

    Christians everywhere should bow their head in shame and embarrassment.

  • Eddie Vroom

    Isn’t deliberately teaching children things we simply know to be blatantly false some form of child abuse? Where’s CPS in all this?

  • Michael Harrison

    I’m just sitting here, wondering, The guy who posted the test really did not see this coming?

  • Robster

    Jees, if they call their creation nonsense “science”, what do they call maths? Geography I’d suppose.

  • Karen Loethen

    NOT a homeschool kid.

  • Immanuel Goldstein

    My guess on the issue of why the parents sent the kid there would be that it was a divorced couple where one parent was a fundamentalist and the other not. The fundamentalist parent chose the school and soft-pedaled the nature of what was being taught there when selling the other parent.

  • cyborgkitty

    I actually think it could be very productive if tests worked the opposite way in the public school system.

    The school system should put a bunch of questions on the test specifically designed to lure out religious beliefs in the science curriculum, and if the students answer ‘true’ to nonsensical statements like ‘humans coexisted with dinosaurs’ ‘the world is approximately 6000 years old’ ‘our planet rests on the back of a giant turtle’ etc etc, those questions are worth enough of the mark on the test that the kids automatically get a failing grade, right then and there so they can be given the immediate remedial attention they need to strip away their indoctrination.

  • francesco

    Errata corrige: at the point 16 for the question: What caused there to be fossils? The correct answer is not Global Flood but Global Food.

  • Kenner

    lol u mad ?

  • JoeBahPot

    Of course, now that the school has been identified, the teacher will probably be able to recognize the printing on the “test” and be able to identify which student wrote it, and her parent.

    Undoubtedly they will both now face ostracization and harassment from the delusional Xtians both at the school and elsewhere for DARING to suggest that the “bible” is NOT SCIENCE and that the “correct” answers on this “test” are not scientifically correct.

  • JoeBahPot

    And of course, Ken Ham’s blog allows no comments – wouldn’t want anyone to be able to point out that no one is “attacking” the school” – all that is happening is that the invalid information they are presenting to students is being called out as the religious propaganda that it is, and that it is NOT SCIENCE and has no business being in a science class.

  • onamission5

    “this particle school…”
    Please tell me that’s your typo and not an administrative misspelling.
    Also, I wish I could send this post back in time to my friends who didn’t understand what the big deal was with the only remotely affordable child care in my area being super fundie religious, nor why my spouse and I decided to work opposite shifts rather than send our kids to one of those places that promises your kids will read, write and love jesus with all their heart by the time they reach kindergarten.

  • onamission5

    “this particle school…”
    Please tell me that’s your typo and not an administrative misspelling.
    Also, I wish I could send this post back in time to my friends who didn’t understand what the big deal was with the only remotely affordable child care in my area being super fundie religious, nor why my spouse and I decided to work opposite shifts rather than send our kids to one of those places that promises your kids will read, write and love jesus with all their heart by the time they reach kindergarten.

    • Hemant Mehta

      Their misspelling, not mine!

      • onamission5

        I was hoping the kids were at least being taught to proofread before clicking…

  • God.

    None of you can comment on this because you weren’t there. I was. I was everywhere.

    • John (not McCain)

      Do you still rape virgins?

    • JohnnieCanuck

      You’re not God. I can tell because you have declared yourself to not be omnipresent while making the claim that you once were. You were everywhere but now you aren’t? An omnipotent, omnibeneficent would not make statements that are ambiguous enough to be misinterpreted.

      Does this loss of power over time explain why you no longer do the miracles that used to be so common?

  • ENorth

    I have to acknowledge the fact the these people are screwing up loads of kids’ futures and destroying their shot at getting a proper education and effectively contributing to them failing at bettering themselves and their future families. And they do this with pride. Shameful.

  • Sweet Marmot

    Suppose the school teaches the kids what evolutionary theory says, just so the kids won’t be ignorant of it, even if they teach that evolution is false and here is why we don’t believe it. That way they can teach the Bible, as they want, while the kids will still be able to know what evolution says, even if they’re taught not to believe it. If one of you atheists quizes the kids on evolution they’ll be able to correctly answer all of your questions, then tell you you’re full of it for believing evolution is the truth.
    That should satisfy both sides without stomping on this school’s religious freedom.

    • PhiloKGB

      In what sense does a school have religious freedom?

      • Free

        It is a school based on religious beliefs. It does not have to advance the trends in science as you define it. It is not a public school that has decided to teach your thread of discovery. It is a religious school teaching creationism, paid for by parents and constitutionally protected. That is their religious freedom. Look saying things start with God does not mean that the scientific method of discovering and understanding His grand design is incompatible with science. Ask Anthony Flew.

        • Michael W Busch

          ” It is a religious school teaching creationism, paid for by parents and constitutionally protected. That is their religious freedom.”

          The people have religious freedom. The school as an entity does not. And religious freedom should not extend to teaching lies as science.

  • JWH

    One thing …. If atheists are truly “attacking” this school, then Ham should feel free to link to and/or share the attacks, complete with the identities of those who “attack.” Let readers judge the attacks for themselves … and if somebody is sending nastygrams to creationists, I’d like that somebody publicly shamed.

  • T Rene Miner

    Well, folks….you either believe in freedom of religion or you don’t. Pick one.

    • Stev84

      Freedom of religion means you won’t be thrown in jail for professing a certain belief. It’s not a license to do whatever you want.

      • T Rene Miner

        These schools are operating legally, aren’t they?

    • stanz2reason

      if freedom of religion means even a single penny of taxpayer dollars go to subsidize in any way groups that knowingly and willingly make children measurably dumber through this shameful pseudo-education, then no, I do not believe in freedom of religion.

      • T Rene Miner

        So it’s about the money, then? If private schools were truly private, you’d be okay with freedom of religion?

        • stanz2reason

          That religious conservative groups have been lobbying for a voucher system so that they can get their hands on public money is a certainty, but no it is not all about the money. I think that deliberately misinforming children and calling it an education does not qualify to be exempt from state scrutiny due to religious freedoms. The state has deemed it mandatory that all children receive minimal standards of education, whether in public, private or home schooling situations. Dinosaurs living with people does not meet any sort of real standard of an education. You can’t hide scientific illiteracy behind the veil of religious freedoms.

          • T Rene Miner

            Minimal standards of education = the three R’s and civics in my state.

            An atheist homeschooler who isn’t required to teach any science according to state law.

            • stanz2reason

              Those home schooling standards are low for 19th century standards. In the 21st they’re a bit of a joke. Incorporating basic science proficiencies into home schooling standards should be mandatory. I see no reason why homeschooling standards at a minimum shouldn’t be up to public school standards.

              Having the population as a whole be scientifically literate, at the very least a level comparable to the average public school 13 year old is increasingly important in the 21st century. The state has an interest in whether or not the next generation of it’s citizens, as a whole, are educated to the highest standards possible so that we’re competitive on the global stage. In order to accomplish this it establishes minimum standards of what they expect students to learn. In my opinion the interest of the state to set minimum standards of scientific education, even in a home school or private school situation, supersedes the interest of the parents to raise ignorant children.

              • T Rene Miner

                I didn’t say that science isn’t important. I said that it isn’t legally required to be taught in parts of the country, in response to your assertion that science is part of “minimal standards of education” per government.

                • stanz2reason

                  Understood. Out of curiosity, what’s your reason for homeschooling? Do you incorporate science in your kids studies? It seems like you would. Would you support efforts to include such things as minimal standards for homeschooling?

    • Balzaque

      freedom of religion have nothing to do with having proper education, by your logic it would be ok to have an entire hospital opperating by prayer? an institution recognized by its function operating in a way that ppl that dont know better can get hurt in the proccess?

      want to teach this nonsense make a teology class or a group of study on your church, dont try to make it look like it is a proper school.

      • T Rene Miner

        I’m an atheist. I don’t have a church. But you can’t tell people they’re free to believe and then try to standardize their beliefs. Why do YOU get to define “proper” education?

  • sane37

    This is why there should be no school voucher system. PUblic funds for public schools only. We should not weaken the wall between Church and State and a school voucher system undermines said wall.

  • J_M_Green

    The science-oriented mind is always looking forward, to new information and more accurate understanding. The fundamentalist mind is always looking backward to a supposed revelation of truth which they must defend against scientific progress:

  • Kylelivwalker

    Since when is it a surprise that a Christian school teaches creationism as it exists in the Bible? Now all the atheists have their panties in a wad and it really is quite comical!

    • Ewan

      It’s not a surprise, and more than it’s a surprise that the altars in Inca temples have drainage channels for the blood of their human sacrifices.

      It’s not surprising, it’s horrific.

    • Anna

      It’s only a surprise to people who are not familiar with the subculture. I wasn’t surprised because I know a lot about the evangelical and fundamentalist world, and I’ve read quite a bit about these types of schools. For most people in mainstream society, this kind of curriculum would come as a complete shock.

    • Balzaque

      it was a surprise for me, in my contry even christian schools teach proper education. ofc they have teology classes and have christian custons on their activities but at least they dont mess with the content of other classes.

    • Anna

      It should also be noted that not all Christian schools teach creationism. It is limited only to conservative evangelical and fundamentalist schools. Catholic schools certainly don’t teach creationism, nor do Episcopal schools, Quaker schools, ELCA Lutheran schools, etc.

  • Morgan Ravenwood

    I sure hope they aren’t receiving any kind of government voucher funds.

  • Whooo

    If you really want to be entertained, read the comments on Ken Ham’s facebook page. They’re, uh, quite interesting to say the least.

  • God.

    Absolutely ridiculous.

  • guest

    Smart kid. Got 100%. Good for her.

    • Ken Wayne Milota

      100% on a Brainwashing test. I wouldn’t call that good.

  • Gerry

    Keeping their children ignorant is the only way these insulated communities can even hope to have residents twenty years from now. Educate them and they’ll head for the city as soon as they can. Keep them ignorant and they’ll stay in your little town.

    Right where we all want to keep them.

  • jnbrfree

    My comment isn’t creationist or evolutionist. It’s just common sense about your article. Do some research here. Ken Ham doesn’t have a curriculum. Read your own article. They watched a video and took a little quiz about that particular video. They did not use a “curriculum” provided by Ken Ham. He doesn’t have one. His materials are only supplements. Why don’t you guys use some “scientific method” yourselves and do some observation of the material that you actually posted right in your article strait from Ken Ham. Your article is creating lies about the whole situation and you blame the school for teaching lies. That’s kind of a double standard. You don’t have much credibility yourself in your own article

  • Richard Raymond

    Next thing you know we’ll discover these faith schools have been teaching their students that 2+2=5. Oh, shit, you mean they’re already doing that?

  • Magginkat

    “The school administrator … told us she was shocked at the level of hate that the atheists poured down upon her, the teacher, and the school in general.”
    1 – Pray tell, did people call her and say, “Hello, I am an atheist and I hate you”??
    2 – Or did the school administrator just assume that everyone who was shocked & disgusted at what they are doing to innocent children were atheists?
    I’d bet on #2.

    • Bubba Tarandfeathered

      I called her and told her I hate her.

  • David Evans

    A good reply to “Were you there?” would be “Yes, I remember all my previous incarnations.”

    Followed by “You don’t believe me? ARE YOU INSULTING MY RELIGION?”

    • Balzaque

      lol i need to remember this one xD

  • ReformedBaptist

    For all this nonsense about creationists being ignorant Answers in Genesis and other groups actually deal quite extensively with “the other side”. They regularly engage evolutionary arguments from news sources, textbooks, etc., so it can’t be claimed that no creationist knows what evolution teaches. For all these complaints about allegedly suppressing evolutionary teaching, it should be noted that in public schools even merely criticizing evolution is met with suppression just as much. The hypocrisy is stunning.

    As to the oft-repeated notion of “falling behind in science” that is more of a cultural phenomenon of the sciences being less valued in my opinion. Children are stereotyped as “nerds” if they enjoy educational pursuits rather than sports, etc. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ones views on origins, as evidenced by the many PhD scientists on Answers in Genesis’ staff who went through secular universities. Observational science, seen in things like gravity which we can experimentally test, are generally agreed upon by both sides. You are all assuming they don’t engage in operational science just because they watched a video and took a test on it which is absurd.

    • onamission5

      Doing “operational science” chemistry labs but not teaching the facts about biology and calling that a full scientific education is like teaching kids addition and division and calling that good enough to pass math.

      • ReformedBaptist

        It depends on what “facts” you’re referring to, there is much that both sides agree on in operational science with regard to biology. What we dispute are the “facts” pertaining to evolution, though I would certainly suggest children should be taught about the evolutionist position correctly. The point is that people of both persuasions can do operational science, a fact that is consistently ignored in all this fear-mongering that we’re going to “fall behind in science” if anyone dares to question evolution. If anything, questioning a prevailing paradigm would seem to be the kind of “critical thinking” that is allegedly lacking in creationist circles.

        • Balzaque

          you can question evolution, that is how science work, please if you really can prove it to be wrong or to disprove a part of it go for it. maybe you can even get a nobel prize if you succeed.

          the thing is, evolution is a really well and solid theory, even if there is parts of it that can be potentially wrong it would still fit with most of what it is known today. it is not like there is enough room to disprove it all together with this many evidence and with how much work and time ppl have being studying it.

          the same way applies to gravity, there can be part of its theory that can be slightly wrong but it is not like you can just say you can prove it wrong and then puff, we are all floating around.

          it is different when you have evidence to back up your clains instead of saying, hey my book says so so it must be truth and it has as much credibility as all your hard work evidence and hard work model that withstood years and years of critiscism and corrections after corrections based on new found evidences to make the model even more solid by removing the parts that were wrong and adapting it to be even more accurate.

          • ReformedBaptist

            The thing is, what would constitute proof to you? Evolution is a paradigm for interpreting evidence as is creation. To say it fits most of what is known today is questionable. Creationists have long been pointing out problems on a scientific level with what we can observe – such as the fact there is no known mechanism to create the vast increases in genetic information evolution requires to happen. Mutations don’t get you there because they only act on existing genetic information, are generally harmful, and in the few cases they are beneficial it is only in limited circumstances.

            The comparison to gravity is invalid because we can experimentally observe that in the present. We can jump up and down and see that we’re pulled back down to Earth. We can drop things and measure the velocity and acceleration with which they fall. That fits the scientific method.

            The argument about “how much time people have spent studying it” is also not consistent. Part of the reason there is the appearance of such solidarity is due to the extreme pressures to conform in academia. The documentary “Expelled” showed that even merely questioning evolution results in problems for professors at the college level, despite the alleged “freedom of academic inquiry” that should exist. There is a commitment to naturalistic thought that mandates belief in evolution.

            • Balzaque




              evolution is as much as a fact as gravity is, we know it happens and we know it looking through a vast amount of evidences, im not a scientist and i probably dont have enough knowledge about this to explain to you every bit of detail on every evidence found so far.

              my comparison with gravity is exactly because what is still left as a mistery and what still hold grounds to be wrong and need adjusting is the specifics on how it works. there is still a lot of ground to be paved for a full understanding on how evolution works and it is probably in that area or close to it where you will find gaps and things to be fixed and proved wrong.

              the same goes with gravity, no one contests if it exists or not or if it is truth or not, but a complete understanding on how it works is still not possible. there is a lot of things around it that can be potentially wrong and need adjusting as much as things that are still not enough understood. heres an example of what im saying:

              the same way as gravity, evolution is known to be truth, it is not a matter to prove it right or not but to actually understand how it actually happens and to look for the details to understand it better then what we do now.

    • Michael W Busch

      “in public schools even merely criticizing evolution is met with suppression just as much”

      That’s because there is no reasonable grounds for “criticizing evolution”. Evolution happens, and keeps on happening. We should not have to keep explaining why creationism is wrong after it’s already been refuted a thousand times.

      • ReformedBaptist

        That depends on what you mean by “evolution”. Organisms change to some degree, yes, creationists don’t deny that. What we deny is the extent of that change, that one “kind” could change into another “kind”. Mutations, as I described in my other comment, act only on existing genetic information. They are generally harmful and in the limited cases where they can be beneficial are only circumstantial. See here for more information:

        The point about suppression is that it’s often alleged that creationists are ignorant of evolution, and yet often evolutionists are ignorant of the creationist position. Not to mention that you’re criticizing a Christian school for having the freedom to teach what Christians believe about science and history. That would be like me saying “Hey, go ahead and teach atheism as long as you still teach that God created and has an active role in history, but other than that believe what you want!”.

        • Anna

          This is not “what Christians believe.” It is what conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists believe. Millions of Christians accept evolution, and plenty of Christian schools teach accurate science.

        • Michael W Busch

          You do not understand evolution. Both your words and that you are citing as anything other than complete nonsense illustrate that.

          Mutations are changes the nucleotide sequence of a genome. They don’t “act only on existing genetic information” – to take a simple example, someone with Down’s syndrome has more genetic information that I do, because they have three copies of one chromosome when I only have two. And a SNP mutation swaps one nucleic acid base pair for another. The amount of genetic information present is the same, but the content is different.

          Also, almost all mutations have neutral value. For example, every human has a couple of hundred random new mutations as compared to their parents. Most of those will not be strongly selected for or selected against, although some will spread through later generations by random genetic drift (assuming the human concerned has children).

          If populations are reproductively isolated long enough, accumulated random mutations and the small fraction of mutations that are selected for will result in the two populations no longer being able to interbreed. That happened to us and the chimps 5 million years ago, and to our common ancestors with the chimps and the gorillas 8 million years ago, and to the common ancestors of us and the orangutangs 14 million years ago.

          ” What we deny is the extent of that change, that one “kind” could change into another “kind”.”

          You are wrong. There is an idea that biologists call a “clade” – an original population and all organisms descended from it. Birds descended from some of the dinosaurs, humans and chimps and gorillas and orangs descended from a population called hominidae that lived 14 million years ago. Since you don’t understand what you’re talking about, please go and actually learn the basics of evolutionary biology. You can start here:

          “Not to mention that you’re criticizing a Christian school for having the freedom to teach what Christians believe about science and history.”

          No. We are calling out a school for teaching lies as facts in a science class. Not the same thing. If they want to teach creationism in a religion class, they can do that, but not at the expense of teaching actual science nor in a way that confuses religion for science.

  • Theo Ffensivatheist

    There’s NOTHING accurate (or even approaching it) in this “Test”. I could weep for those children.

  • SeekerLancer

    Some of us were assuming it was fake. Surely, we thought, no school could be that stupid, right? There has to be some kind of oversight for things like this in education, right? Well damn.

    Thanks Ken, thanks for stepping in and lowering my view of the human race.

  • Des Akkari

    American Taliban in the madrasas. But I am cool with it. Please make your children as stupid as possible…it will make my future much easier when I one of the few intelligent people in the south!!!

  • rupi capra

    “Were you there?”. I can’t help thinking of that old Christian hymn, “Were You There When They Crucified Our Lord?”. Well…nope.

  • jj

    My child attends a Christian School and has since K5. He is required to take the same standardize testing as public schools and has always been in the 96th percentile of all other schools meaning he has done better than 96 percent of most students taking these test both public and private. He will be going into the 7th grade next year and his reading and math levels are already at 10th and 11th grade level. So say what you want the education level is much better than the majority of public schools and they have virtually no discipline issues.

    Oh by the way these kids do get into universities with this particular school having several students go to Ivy league schools including Yale and Havard!
    So I suggest you check your facts. By the way there were no Atheists on 911! How soon we forget that we ask God for help!

    • Antinomian

      @jj- “By the way there were no Atheists on 911! ”

      How right you are! They were Doing “God’s Work” as fervent believers in their Abrahamic religion when they hijacked those planes..

      • jj

        Islam has nothing to do with Christian faith, in fact the followers of Islam on that day will gladly kill a Christian and you as well.

        I would agree with you on one thing that religion is man made. What I mean by that is Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic are all man made terms. Jesus never used or spoke of this. Christians are the children of God and as one I walk by faith and that is all he asks, no works or deeds because Jesus paid the price for our sins. I am not perfect and no different than you other than I trust that Jesus is the son of God created in flesh so he could experience or world and our challenges so he could die for us and intervene on our behalf.

        You are free to believe what you wish but remember this Jesus said that Christians would be persecuted in his name and today more than ever.

        I also ask you to look around at the things around you and marvel at it’s glory. It is ludicrous to believe this just happen on this particular place. That so much diversity of animals, plants, people, etc. just appeared. You call it what you wish intelligent design or whatever, that intelligence came from somewhere, I choose to believe and have faith it came from my maker God and I know he has prepared a place for me when my time in this world is over. Do you really want to hear those 7 words from Jesus “Depart from me I never knew you”. I ask you to think about those 7 words and all the glorious things around you and ask yourself a question Is there possibly something greater than myself.

        God loves us all even the atheists.

        • Barry Evans

          “In fact the followers of Islam on that day will gladly kill a Christian and you as well.” Every single one of them, huh? Known plenty of them, none of tried to kill me or any Christians. Just the same way that even though many of the more Conservative/Fundamentalist Christians are intolerant, misogynistic, homophobic and generally abusive and nasty, not all people of the faith are.

          ” Jesus said that Christians would be persecuted in his name and today more than ever.”

          Is that a joke? You think you Christians have never been persecuted more than you are today? Go and pick up and read a history book on occasion, you’ll be astonished to find persecution was a lot worse at various points in the past. Last I checked, none of you are being executed for your beliefs. To the best of my knowledge people no longer gather in stadiums to watch Christians get fed to Lions, or killed in blood-sports.

          ” That so much diversity of animals, plants, people, etc. just appeared.”

          ‘Just appeared’ ? Sorry, but, that’s your simple minded interpretation of what you have read about Evolution, Cosmology, Natural History and Archaeology etc. No scientist or atheist has ever claimed such a thing.

          • jj


            I did not say all followers of Islam I was referring to the ones that flew those planes and the the ones who helped them. I have Muslim friends as well and we have conversations about God as well. They do believe that Jesus was one of God’s prophets but not the son of God. That is where we disagree but we do it in a respectful way. Also when I mentioned persecution I said nothing about execution however from your tone I would assume you would like to see it happen and if you live long enough you will see that, just read Revelations. The sad thing is you have nothing to believe in but yourself. You talk about being simple minded but you can’t even imagine you could be wrong. Most individuals like yourself just can’t accept anything that may cramp your lifestyle or make you feel guilt. That’s a shame.

            However you know I might be wrong, the outcome will be I am just dead, if you are wrong your outcome will be much worse and I am sorry for that. I hope that light of hope and faith will turn on for you before it is too late.

            God Bless

            • Barry Evans

              ” The sad thing is you have nothing to believe in but yourself.” You are wrong on this one. I believe, like humanity, compassion, love,morality (real morality not the messed up biblical kind) beauty, science, culture and more. Just because I don’t believe in invisible men in the sky or an eternal afterlife, does not mean I only believe in myself.

              “Also when I mentioned persecution I said nothing about execution”

              I know you didn’t, that was my point in actual fact. You said Christians are persecuted more now than they used to be. I merely demonstrated that Christians being executed for their beliefs is one of many examples of how persecution has been worse in the past.

              “however from your tone I would assume you would like to see it happen ”

              NO, I WOULD NOT. I don’t agree with what you believe, I have immense disdain for those wanting to take away or deny the rights of others in the name of Christianity. but would never I repeat NEVER want to see you or any other Christian executed for it. I’m not some Barbarian.

              “However you know I might be wrong, the outcome will be I am just dead, if you are wrong your outcome will be much worse”

              That’s called Pascal’s Wager, it’s a weak argument that can easily be debunked. As it has been here:

              and also here:

            • allein

              “However you know I might be wrong, the outcome will be I am just dead, if you are wrong your outcome will be much worse and I am sorry for that.”

              You do realize there are more than two possibilities, don’t you? There are any number of gods that have been worshiped in the past, and any number more that have yet to be imagined…what if the real god is one of those? But we’re the ones who can’t imagine we might be wrong, huh? Most of us simply see no evidence for the existence of any gods, and live our lives accordingly.

              Also, the point about execution is that Christians in the past have been executed for being the wrong kind of Christian, or the wrong religion altogether (and in some parts of the world they still run that risk). You are not being persecuted “now more than ever” for your faith and none of us want to see anyone executed.

            • Balzaque

              well at least i can live ok with myself believing in what can be explained without the need to invoke the super natural or basing my actions on mithology.

              you have the chance to be as right as any religion, but considering what we know so far and how insignificant our existence is even for our own world and how our own world is completely insignificant to the rest of the universe i would say that even if there is a god and even if that would make a difference at all he would probably care about us as much as he cares about a sand grain or about our sun.

              and really, even if you are right, my chances of going to your heaven seems to be as high as yours considering we probably live our lives in a really similar way and probably prefer to be kind to others than to harm others so why would fate even matter in the end? or your god is so selfish and evil that it doesnt even matter how good or bad a person is if he does not believe in him he should burn and suffer for ever and ever?

    • onamission5

      Um, I was an atheist when 9/11 happened. Did not pray to your invisible friend that day. I’d been an atheist on every similar date prior for decades and I am still one every year, same day, same as the rest of the year, regardless of what happens. I think you will find that most people who were atheists on 9/10 were still atheists on 9/11. Hurting, angry, and yes, some even dead in the tragedy, but still atheists nonetheless.

      But hey, way to invoke the Faux News clause. Don’t have a valid point? Just yell 9/11 and jesus, that’ll show ‘em. Treat yourself to a cookie.

    • Barry Evans

      You’ve personally checked out of the several thousand killed on 9/11 that not one was an Atheist, have you? Been round to each of their families and interviewed them in depth to come to that conclusion? And if your imaginary friend actually existed, then why didn’t he come to save the day for his fanclub? You yourself are the one that has claimed people ask God for help So, **WHY DIDN’T HE?** Was he incapable? Did he just not give a dam? Was he too busy finding parking spaces for people at Walmarts on the West-coast to help all those poor people in New York that day? I challenge you to defend your god’s actions, or lack thereof, that day in a way that he stills sounds benevolent and omnipotent. It’s pretty obvious from the fact that day was so devastating that HE DID *NOTHING*.. Why not?

  • Clayton

    i honestly thought there was a set curriculum for all schools religious / public / private. It doesn’t make any sense to have such a personal opinion interfering with our childrens understanding of the world and knowledge to survive in it. I can see kids now in 100 situations, a flood, getting mugged, working, living and loving. Whats going to happen if they sit back and don’t know how to deal with things cause god doesn’t save us all.

  • brandi still

    i am not an atheist. i believe in and worship god daily. maybe not exactly the same as you do exactly…. according to your views expressed through this article and that abomination you call a test paper. that is just insane. with all the geological evidence against your theories….. and besides, the bible itself supports evolution. the sons of adam were sent to marry unto the daughters of man…. man….. not their sisters…… so your view is not only against the bible…. it’s highly incestuous in it’s belief system.

    • brandi still

      oooops… wrote exactly twice….. ignore that please….

      • Bubba Tarandfeathered

        It’s ok brandi none of us believe in nor worship any gods here. But you do point out one of the most controversial issues Atheists have with the bible, “the bible itself supports evolution. the sons of adam were sent to marry the daughters of man.” this quote defines a discriminatory separation between “Created beings” and all others. In a nutshell it says, “Christians are special and all of those people are not.” Damn arrogant IMHO.

  • 0113gotigers

    FYI: I am a nurse–I have inserted IV’s and carefully tended wounds after surgery, and I am a christian. Being a Christian does not make you a brain-washed idiot. Rather, you respect the intricacy with which we were made. Learning the foundations of biblical truth does not set you up for failure-it prepares for a lifetime of learning. I would never ridicule a member of the Jewish faith for reciting something from the Torah–and I think it’s bizarre that this school is being slammed for teaching children what parents enrolled their children to learn. If you don’t want your kids to learn what the Bible says, enroll them in a secular school–but please do not generalize an entire religious sect to be idiotic simply because it differs from your beliefs and preferences.

    • Anna

      If you find it bizarre that the school is being slammed, then you are obviously part of a very insular subculture. People were shocked and outraged because this type of thing is appalling to anyone raised in mainstream society. Many Americans do not realize that such things are still being taught in schools in the 21st century.

    • Feminerd

      See, you can be both religious and learn science. People do it all the time. To teach creationism as science is wrong. It’s a lie. It’s factually incorrect. I don’t know how many ways to say the same thing in different words.

      Teach creationism in theology class, where it belongs. Teach science in science class. There’s nothing wrong with Christians teaching their kids Christianity as religion; there’s everything wrong with parents or teachers or anyone teaching Christianity as science. It’s not.

  • Christian

    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

    John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

    John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    John 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    John 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

    • Bubba Tarandfeathered

      Bla Bla Bla More automatic scripted rhetoric. Can’t think for your self?

      • Christian

        Actually, my response was not automatic. My response came after reflecting on the discussion about what happened at the Blue Ridge Christian Academy. They have every right to do what they are doing and teaching what they teach.

        I grew up thinking for myself. I had a lot of exposure to the teachings of evolution as well as the teachings of the Bible. A world view from a Biblical perspective makes a whole lot more sense to me.

        • Bubba Tarandfeathered

          Nice reply, no name calling, no condescension, short and to the point, absolutely nothing I can troll you over.

        • Anna

          If you grew up thinking for yourself, then that’s wonderful. But these children are being denied that opportunity. They’re being taught that creationism is true and that evolution is a lie.

          No one’s disputing the fact that the school has a legal right to teach this sort of curriculum, but people are rightfully shocked and appalled.

  • greg hilliard

    Check out That site is giving this school five stars. Yoi! It’s OK to go through life religious, but why go through it stupid?

  • Roger Peritone

    A reply on Ham’s facebook page about that school is here.

  • Truth

    Wow, lots of hatred being thrown around on this website (doesn’t seem very “friendly” to me). But, unfortunately, not much in the way real arguments are being presented. I get the fact that you hate Christians. Your hatred drips from every word you write. But why then does that mean they aren’t allowed to teach their children the truth as they understand it? You and most of the bloggers here believe that the State should have full control over what the children are taught. But what makes the state infallible? How do we know IT is teaching truth?

    Everyone here is ridiculing the Bible. They say “The Bible says so” is an insufficient epistemological basis for an argument. But what is YOUR foundation? Empiricism (i.e., the senses)? But how do you know you can trust your senses? Can you “sense” the proposition “All truth is based on the senses?” If not, then something else must be the foundation for your thought. Do you put “reason” as the basis of knowledge? If so, once again, how do you know you can trust your own reasoning? If your answer is based on reason, then don’t you have a problem?

    You all want to cling to blind faith in empiricism or rationalism, but at the end of the day, you can’t prove anything at all on your empty atheist worldview. Quit suppressing the truth and repent before your Creator.

    • oogie

      “the truth as they understand it”.

      Lol. So, if they understand 2+2 to equal 5, that’s all good? If they understand proper punishment is a good stoning, is that cool too?

      • Truth

        But atheism, materialism, and neo-Darwinian evolution are as false as 2 + 2 = 5, but I think you should be allowed to teach your own children that “truth as (you) understand it.”

        Nonetheless, just because you (claim to) not believe in God, what gives you the right to force your views on other people’s children?

        Again, you are full of vitriol and ridicule, but short of actual arguments.

        • Stella Wang

          You are so hypocritical I’m just wondering if this is just a troll. Coming from a highschool teenager, you should feel ashamed that I’m more aware of the world around me than you.

          • Truth


            Try to calm down and form a coherent argument. What exactly is hypocritical? Why are you so angry? Do you have anything substantive to say?

    • Terry Watts

      An attack on Science isn’t a defense of Faith. Demonstrate that there is a God, and you’ll have a defense. Showing that Atheists don’t believe, or that they are hateful, or that all knowledge is based on false assumptions does absolutely NOTHING to prove that there is a God.

      All of the same arguments you present against “Empiricism” can equally be applied to “Faith”. At least with “empiricism”, I can actually physically determine that the earth is round…

      • Truth


        I am not attacking science. Unlike you, I do not believe that Darwinism = science.

        You have a tremendous amount of faith. You just aren’t epistemologically self-conscious enough to know it. You mistake being UNAWARE of assumptions with not HAVING assumptions. You have a great deal of faith in empiricism, even though your worldview undercuts that faith.

        How does your empiricism prove that the world is round? How do you know that you can trust your senses? Your brain is merely a collocation of atoms that came together via random natural processes. How can you trust what it tells you about the outside world? Does one rock know anything about another rock? But qualitatively, your own brain is no different than a rock, according to your materialistic evolutionary worldview. Your brain is simply differently arranged stardust. So how can you trust it?

        In short, Darwinism, and specifically materialism, undercut science. If your worldview were true, science would be impossible.

  • Jonathan

    While I certainly do not agree with the curriculum that this school presents to its students, this is just one of the downsides of freedom of religion. Yes, wacko’s can teach their kids ridiculous stuff, and every religion does it. But I sure as hell would rather allow this kind of stuff than have the government create standardized curriculum because it allows ME to teach MY kids what I want. The only people dumber than religious nuts is the government.

  • Mallory Cole

    I was brought up in a school that taught the same principles. One of my best friends works at that very school! They were having financial problems, and I was giving there. But I want to thank you for enlightening the world to what this school teaches! I am looking forward to the blessings they will receive from people who read your comments! I fully support this school and its teachers! Gos bless you for promoting the teachings of Christian schools!

  • Mallory Cole

    I grew up in a school just like this one; in fact, one of my best friends is a teacher at this very school. I want to thank you for enlightening the world of what is being taught in Christian schools! This school has been going through some financial problems, but praise God for the publicity! I pray blessings on you for promoting this school, and for helping many more blessings to come to the school! Thank you! I fully support Blue Ridge Christian Academy and its teachers!

  • BensMom

    The best part is, it isn’t just athiests who think that is crap – most Christians also reject creation science as ridiculous and absurd.

  • Joe l 567

    I have to admit I don’t know very much about the education system in America, but surely there must be some sort of standardised test, which would be difficult to pass had you not been taught actual facts?

  • Graham Hall

    If the devout religious are correct about humans and dinosaurs living together, then dinosaurs must have been delicious.

    • Stella Wang


  • Panda

    now its kinda funny how they are getting all preachy about how awful the atheists have been towards them… im pretty sure its other people than just atheists crawling down their throats about this… im a pagan and am downright appalled at this…. i know it really has nothing to do with the actual subject, but it was something that i found bothering about what these admins of the school said

    i honestly pity these poor children being taught this shit in school… this is setting them up to be a lifelong laughingstock if they ever dare to leave their social circle their parents have built for them and venture off into the real world

  • Mowimbi

    That’s a nice grade on the quiz!
    So, if the answer to “The next time someone says the earth is billions (or millions) of years old, what can you say?” is “were you there?”, this graciously gives permission to non-believers to use the same logic. Now I know how to de-rail the conversation when someone tells me that Jesus was crucified on the cross to atone for Mankind’s sins, and I must accept him as my lord and savior under the threat of eternal torment in hell. It’s just that easy!!

  • mugasofer

    This is little worse than what most schools are teaching. I live (and have attended school) in Ireland, and my American friends say it’s even worse than it is here.

    • Anna

      But Ireland doesn’t teach creationism, surely?

      • mugasofer

        “Creationism” is a word. We teach stupid nonsense, of which creationism is a subset. Mostly due to vagueness in the National Curriculum compounded by ignorant/mistaken teachers filling in the gaps with misinformation.

        WRT creationism, evolution simply isn’t mentioned up to the elective Leaving Cert Biology class (about two years before college, for those not familiar with our school system) and it may or may not be mentioned in that, I’m not familiar with the LC Biology syllabus.

        • Anna

          I have to admit, that surprises me. Ireland is heavily Catholic, and the Catholic church doesn’t support creationism. I’d be horrified to learn that Irish schools are teaching children that the Earth is 6000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

      • mugasofer

        Equally stupid things.

        I was once present for a substitute teacher taking a high-school History class. She confidently informed the students that the Roman Empire came after the Middle Ages. The textbook hadn’t mentioned how any period follow another, so she had to make do with her (sadly lacking) general knowledge skills.

        I corrected her (she argued), but I was quite annoyed that the school had chosen someone who manifestly knew nothing about history besides what she read off the page to substitute for the History teacher.

        I later learned that she was selected because she was, in fact, teaching her own history class with a different time slot.

        That’s a dramatic example, but the principle is the same; textbook leaves it open, teacher doesn’t know the answer or misremembers.

        Considering I know for a fact that evolution isn’t mentioned at least until the elective Leaving Certificate Biology, and possibly not even then, (that’s two years before college, for those unfamiliar with our school system), I wouldn’t be at all surprised is some students got taught creationism – although it isn’t as popular here, so maybe not. At the very least, some are getting equally nonsensical explanations if they get any explanation at all beyond “that’s not on the exam”.

  • Redeemed

    Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray! Science and the bible are seen in a united light and it’s only the beginning. It’s foolish to deny that there are dinosaurs but not as foolish as it is to deny that God Is – For a fool has said in his heart that there is no God.

  • BlessedinSC

    I am with you all the way BRCA for teaching the truth of God’s Word! Thank you! As a student of public schools and public colleges, I wish I had not been taught the untrue, unfounded, unproved so called “science” that government schools push on kids.

  • Scott

    Silly libs. Shake your fist at the sky all you want. It won’t change where you came from or how the world began. You just have a dysfunctional relationship with your Father, that’s all. You have “Daddy issues.” It’s sad. The GOOD NEWS is that all of your hate speech toward this Christian school in SC has resulted in donations pouring in from all over the country!

  • Amy80

    It’s a bit of a mystery to me why atheists care so much what goes on in Christian schools. If they don’t agree with what goes on there, then they shouldn’t send their kids there. Afterall, that’s what Christian families do. . . we don’t agree with the brainwashing that goes on in public school related to evolution and secular humanism, preached as though it were gospel truth and proveable via operational sciences (which it isn’t), and therefore, we purposefully send our kids to private schools or homeschool. Is this so very threatening? You teach origins science according to your worldview and we’ll teach origin sciences according to our worldview. . . if you find a fossil in transition, create life from ooze in a lab, find some actual concrete, reproducible evidence of evolution, or derive some actual numbers of “universe age” based on proof instead of presuppostion colored by “godless” worlview, let me know about it.

    • Feminerd

      For the science, I present to you:

      1) a citation for transition fossils that pulls together evidence in a very understandable way:
      a) If you’re only interested in humans, look here:

      2) a few of our recent (and not so recent) experiments with inducing self-reproducing RNA strands in ooze in a lab. There are many more:
      a) is a good place to start for an overview. Of course, life could have begun in deep sea vents or in other places than a primordial ooze, so I suggest you read the whole abiogenesis article and not just the “primordial soup” part.
      b) An experiment in 2009 showed how RNA could have developed under conditions that could have been extant on an early Earth
      c) The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under conditions likely to be extant on an early Earth, over 20 different amino acids could develop.

      3) evolution is clearly seen
      a) in the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria
      b) in peppered moths in England- originally white to blend in with white-barked trees, when soot covered the trees, the the white moths all got eaten and the black ones survived to reproduce. When the air got cleaned up and the trees became white again, the process reversed itself.
      c) in humans.
      c1) Sickle cell anemia is the result of a mutation that, in low strength, gives some protection against malaria, but in high strength can kill.
      c2) Human ability to digest bovine milk is also new and not universal- two different mutations give those of European or African ancestry a far higher chance of being able to tolerate lactose, while most Asians are unlikely to have any genes for this. The reason? Europeans and Africans herded cattle for millenia (literally thousands of years) and those humans who could drink milk got more calories, thus survived more often to adulthood and were able to reproduce more successfully, leaving behind offspring who could also drink cow’s milk. Oriental peoples, who did not have this herding culture and did not have access to cow’s milk, did not develop genes to digest it because there was no need. (abstract only)

      4) the observations + math behind the age of the universe.

      As for why we care:
      Because some day, that child will enter the workforce devoid of knowledge. That’s a problem.
      Because some day, that child will vote. And they’ll vote based on their ignorance for other ignorant people who promote harmful policies that affect everyone. That’s a problem.
      Because some day, that child will likely have children, and they’ll disseminate this misinformation to them, in an ugly spiral of ignorance. That’s a problem.
      Because every day, every child has a right to an education. A real education, full of facts and knowledge, not religious propaganda.

      I leave it to others to explain what a scientific theory is and the difference between teaching and preaching.

      EDIT: Edited for clarity, and to move things around to present a more cohesive argument.

  • olympe

    I can so see the next test coming.

    Question: How do babies get made?
    A) When married adults do something gross.
    B) The stork brings them after God has made them in heaven. (That’s why they’re so innocent.)

    Correct answer would be B, of course.
    Next Question: How do we know this (see above)?
    Answer: Because we know that we’re all God’s creations. Praise the Lord…

    But you know what I find the saddest part? It’s the last question from this questionable test – and the “perfect” answer to it. I mean, it’s not only that this school teaches its poor youngsters lies about science, they even teach them the “correct” rethorics to defend this madness.