<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><div><img src="cid:94220F06-51F9-45B4-90A2-146A16707A78" alt="image.jpeg" id="94220F06-51F9-45B4-90A2-146A16707A78" width="423" height="300"></div><img src="cid:C3BA9579-FF6D-4309-9D6C-2F6B54D4E188" alt="image.jpeg" id="C3BA9579-FF6D-4309-9D6C-2F6B54D4E188" width="600" height="402" apple-original-width="600" apple-original-height="402"><div> <br><br><div>Seeya round town, Moscow.</div><div><br></div><div>Tom Hansen</div><div>Moscow, Idaho</div><div><br></div><div>"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."</div><div><br></div><div>- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)</div><div> </div></div><div><br>On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Sue Hovey <<a href="mailto:suehovey@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:suehovey@moscow.com">suehovey@moscow.com</a></a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>Fascinating. I'm thinking they refer to the "Civil War" because they want a broader market than schools in the South. <br><br>Wonder how many public schools use this book? I imagine there might be a few even though its use would violate curricular standards in every state. </div><div><br></div><div>Sue h<br>Sent from my iPad Sue Hovey</div><div><br>On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Art Deco <<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com"><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a></a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><a href="http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Eye-Opening_Highlights_From_a_Creationist_Science_Textbook" class="headline">11 Eye-Opening Highlights From a Creationist Science Textbook</a><br>
<span class="fineprint">Published Monday, January 9, 2012 at 11:00:00 AM<br></span><br><span class="entry">A
few months ago, I was reading about homeschooling, because I do things
like randomly reading about homeschooling. I read an article that
mentioned a family using science textbooks produced by Bob Jones
University. (If you're not familiar, that's a large, for-profit,
evangelical Christian university in South Carolina.) I had to see what
one of those textbooks was like. I bought one for a few bucks on Amazon
and a few slow shipping weeks later, I had my answer.
<br><br>
I purchased a copy of <i>Science 4 for Christian Schools</i>, an
evangelical-written and -approved science textbook published in 1990.
According to the stamp on the inside cover, my copy was previously owned
by The Country Church & Country Christian School in Molella,
Oregon. So, thanks guys!<br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/science4cover.jpg"><br></div>
<br>
I read through the entire thing (it's quite short) and picked out these
11 pages and excerpts to share. Let's call this an adventure in
anthropology. Here are 11 highlights from an evangelical-written science
textbook, written and approved by the Bob Jones University young-Earth
creationism team.
<ol><li><b>Science vs. faith</b><br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/sciencefaith.jpg"><br></div><br>
This is the first paragraph of the book and while, on the surface, it's
about the Moon, it's actually setting up the thesis statement -- and
perpetual paradox -- of the entire textbook. This is a science textbook
struggling at all times to find the balance between science and faith.
And here, they establish their default position on that issue, which is
actually deviously clever: Forget popular opinion, science and faith are
not mutually exclusive. In fact, <span class="exagger">because none of us was there to witness the origin of things, science IS faith</span>. And we operate under that paradigm for the rest of the book.
<br><br>
Now, sure, to make that work, it takes a fast-and-loose (and
condescending) definition of science and the outright dismissal or
ignoring of generations of facts, data and evidence. But still, damn
clever. We'll get a lot more into my feelings on that cleverness in the
11th point.<br><br></li><li><b>How old is the Moon?</b><br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/ageofthemoon.jpg"><br></div><br>
I want to pick this apart, I really do -- but <span class="exagger">all I could think of when I saw this one was the famous <i>Who Wants to be a Millionaire?</i> screenshot</span>...
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/elephantsmoon.jpg"><br></div>
<br></li><li><b>All theories are guesses, but not all guesses are theories.</b><br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/theories.jpg"><br></div><br>
There's semantic work at play here. In the subhead, they refer to
"theories" of the Moon's origin. In the copy, the word "theory" has
vanished, and has been replaced by "guess." And, obviously, those words
have very different connotations. <span class="exagger">"Theory" comes
off like it's based off research and study and might be true; "guess"
just rolls pejoratively and dismissively off the tongue.</span> And I'm theorizing that didn't happen by accident.<br><br></li><li><b>No guesswork required.</b><br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/threeguesses.jpg"><br></div><br>
It sure <span class="exagger">must be easy to take a test when "God did it" is the right answer to every question</span>.<br><br></li><li><b>Periscopes: Yankee war tools</b><br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/periscopes.jpg"><br></div><br>
I appreciated that the book, written in South Carolina, <span class="exagger">went with "Civil War" and not "War of Northern Aggression" or "War Between the States."</span>
When I was in the South a few years ago, I heard both of those latter
two -- a lot. And I didn't even make it over to South Carolina, where
I'm lead to believe every home has an "In case the North starts shit
again, break glass" musket in a case.<br><br></li><li><b>End of days?</b><br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/moonwarning.jpg"><br></div><br>
This stuck me as the strangest page in the textbook. <span class="exagger">This one REALLY strays away from the science thing and goes straight fire-and-brimstone.</span> And like two pages later we start the chapter on plants.
<br><br>
Also, if it seems like there's a LOT of material on the Moon, there is.
The first chapter of the book is all about the Moon. Seemed like a
strange opening chapter to me, until I read it and figured out why it
got that spot. The Moon appears to be a really strong way to make
pro-creationism arguments in a way that eight-year-olds can understand.
The entire chapter feels someone tacked on too; especially since, later
in the book, there's another entire chapter on the Moon that never
mentions God or creationism. <br><br></li><li><b>Grand Canyon: Proof of a young Earth or not?</b><br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/grandcanyon.jpg"><br></div><br>
<span class="exagger">The syllogistic logic here for why the Grand Canyon is evidence of a young Earth is dizzying.</span>
I also like the subtle implication that non-Creationists dismiss the
beauty of the Grand Canyon because they just think it's old. Although,
in the authors' defense, when I went to the Grand Canyon, I was in a
really bad mood and didn't find it as breathtaking as you're supposed
to. So maybe they're on to something.<br><br></li><li><b>Glaciers and their water</b><br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/glaciers.jpg"><br></div><br>
This textbook was published in 1990. <span class="exagger">This glacier paragraph really makes you wonder how this would be updated today to address global warming.</span>
What are the odds that the sentence, "If the globe is getting warm, why
is it so cold in the winter?" makes the cut? Better or worse than the
odds of an <i>Arrested Development</i> movie coming out?<br><br></li><li><b>I asked a friend from Maine, and apparently they really do eat fiddleheads.</b><br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/ferns.jpg"><br></div><br>
I pulled this off page 63 of the book because it was emblematic of a
pattern. After the first chapter on the Moon... which went hardcore
creationism... the book actually settled down and became a regular
science textbook. It almost seems like they had to throw in an innocuous
mention of God or a Biblical quote here or there just to remind
everyone that this isn't your average pagan science textbook.
<br><br>
This one was a great example. <span class="exagger">Totally gratuitous mention of God creating different ferns.</span>
Really, God can be inserted into any sentence in the book -- this one
just got the call. But you can put it anywhere. "God created a group of
tubed plants that do not produce seeds, the ferns." "Most ferns were
created by God with large, split leaves called fronds." I guess that
kind of makes God the Poochie of this textbook.
<br><br></li><li><b>Magnets -- how do they work?</b><br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/electricity.jpg"><br></div><br>
I saved this page for the penultimate point because it's my favorite in
the book. Let's ignore the weird, weird photo of the girl for a second
and focus on the text. "Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever
observed it or heard it or felt it ... We cannot even say where
electricity comes from."
<br><br>
The reason<span class="exagger"> this page bugged me is because it
doesn't come back to "God created it." I would actually accept that.
This one is just misinformation for misinformation's sake.</span>
<br><br>
We know exactly where electricity come from. Scientists don't disagree.
And no one's saying electricity comes from the planet/universe being
millions of years old or from dinosaurs or from the spirit generated by
the Earth's religious diversity. This page is just the evangelical
textbook equivalent of trolling.
<br><br>
Although, in their defense, perhaps if they make our heads explode <i>that</i> will generate electricity.
<br><br></li><li><b>The disclaimer, and what it ultimately means.</b><br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.11points.com/images/bobjonesscience/disclaimer.jpg"><br></div><br>
I saved this for last. I noticed this one sentence that brings everything into perspective.
<blockquote>
<i>"Any references and ancillary materials are listed as an aid to the student or the teacher and <b>in an attempt to maintain the accepted academic standards of the publishing industry</b>."</i>
</blockquote>
What that means: We jammed our science textbook full of science because
we had to in order to publish this. If it were up to us, "God did it"
actually <i>would</i> have been at the end of every sentence.
<br><br>
And I really wish they had just done that.
<br><br>
I've taken a snark-ish position toward this textbook, which you
expected, even if you've never seen this website before. Anyone who runs
a comedy website would look at this textbook as comedy. And the "har
har look at these religious yahoos" is the official credo of the
blogging world.
<br><br>
But now, the twist: I don't have a problem with hardcore religious
faith... and I don't even have a problem with creationism or teaching
creationism to children. Just because I don't believe that "God did it"
is the answer doesn't mean I'm anti-faith or anti-belief. It's like I
said when I was reviewing Bill Maher's <a href="http://www.11points.com/Movies/11_Points_Review_of_Religulous"><i>Religulous</i></a>
-- if you're completely dismissive of religion, that doesn't make you
opposed to zealotry, it just makes you a different kind of zealot.
<br><br>
This is Bob Jones University's book and it's completely within their
right to put whatever the hell they want in it. The unsettled feeling I
got from certain parts of it is a result of them <i>not</i> going all
the way. By having some of the book be heavy-handed religious theory and
some of it be traditional by-the-numbers science, it sends an ardently
blurred message.
<br><br>
And I have a theory (or is it a guess?) of why the book was done that
way. By going strong on God early, sprinkling in a few Bible quotes
throughout, and occasionally dropping in a completely ridiculous page
like the one on electricity, the book comes off more like a propaganda
tool than an educational one. All that science in the middle is
presented on equal footing with all the young-Earth creation theory in
the first chapter -- and with the pages on electricity and the Moon's
role in the Rapture. It sets everything up to be an all-or-nothing
truth. "Well, all this matter-of-fact science I'm reading seems very
thorough and researched, so the stuff I read earlier about the Moon and
Biblical theory must be right too, by association."
<br><br>
It's like me saying, "I don't believe in creationism, intelligent design
or talking dogs." By putting the last one in, I'm suggesting all three
are equal. I'm suggesting creationism is as outlandish as a talking dog.
And to an eight-year-old reading that, that subtext can sneak right on
in.
<br><br>
And that's why this book made me angry. This isn't a real textbook.
It's, at best, a flawed book that confuses the issue of science and
faith and, at worst, a deliberate effort to insidiously brainwash
children with inaccurate information to discredit anything except one
belief system.
<br><br>
If you believe that the word of the Bible is, indeed, the word of God
and the absolute truth, I have no problem at all with that. If you want
to teach your children that everything was created by God, I also have
no problem with that at all either. <span class="exagger">But I find it unacceptable, irresponsible and actually sick to trick your children into your beliefs.</span>
It's not only disrespectful to them, it's disrespectful to your
beliefs. It's a tacit concession that you don't think your beliefs can
hold up in the face of a counter-argument... or that you don't think you
can properly impart your beliefs to your children in an above-board
way. When I read this non-textbook textbook, I see classic,
not-so-thinly-veiled propaganda tricks. And that just spreads
miseducation, confusion and, ultimately, acceptable ignorance. Which
doesn't benefit anyone -- including your children, you or what you
believe in.
<br><br>
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get down, and put all the soap BACK in the box. That was exhausting.
</li></ol></span><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com"><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a></a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>=======================================================</span><br><span> List services made available by First Step Internet,</span><br><span> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a></span><br><span> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a></span><br><span>=======================================================</span></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>=======================================================</span><br><span> List services made available by First Step Internet,</span><br><span> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a></span><br><span> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a></span><br><span>=======================================================</span></div></blockquote></div></body></html>