Christian fourth grade textbook, tries to explain electricity but just gives up

[Agloco]

Another christian charter school miracle..



Those of us with a less IQ than Random Guy will probably enjoy the history of the moon according to christian theology...

Link

Can you say, coming to a charter school near you?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...hlight=physics

[Vici]

LMAO so this is why so many Americans don't know how to think logically.

[Blake]

Just did some preliminary checking. That has not been in print since 1990. They found problems with it and altered what they said to kids.

Good catch, WC.

[101A]

That's an awesome counter argument!

Statement != Argument

[Hooks]

I need Mouse's input on this.

[ALVAREZ6]

Where does wind come from????????

[ALVAREZ6]

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Statement != Argument

So you're not denying the fact that atheists are right

[Blake]

That's OK - I don't like self-righteous, condescending atheists.

That's ok as long as religion stays out of public school science books.

[boutons_deux]

"I don't like self-righteous, condescending atheists."

but you love self-righteous, smarmy, smug, doubt-less, self-congratulating "Christians" ?

[101A]

"I don't like self-righteous, condescending atheists."

but you love self-righteous, smarmy, smug, doubt-less, self-congratulating "Christians" ?

Don't like them either. Probably less.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

But you like their textbooks

[Drachen]

But you like their textbooks

I missed where he said he supported their textbooks, where was that again?

[DarkReign]

LOL "Cant explain the tides"

o Physical Science 101.

[Nbadan]

Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

So why have evangelicals been so ready to reject the generally accepted conclusions of the scientific community on global warming?

I want to suggest that the reason has nothing to do with climate science per se, but derives from the generally dim view that many evangelicals have of science and scientists -- views that make it hard to distinguish credible science from fake challengers.

One of the strategies employed most effectively by evangelicals in their crusade against evolution, which does pose real, although soluble, biblical and theological problems, has been to undermine the entire scientific enterprise. If science is a deeply flawed, ideologically driven, philosophically suspect enterprise, then why should anyone care if almost every scientist supports the theory of evolution? If the scientific community is just a bunch of self-serving ideologues with Ivy League appointments, then we can ignore anything it says that we don't like.

This widespread anti-science at ude was on display in all its glory in a recent polemic from the Discovery Ins ute, the Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design. In a piece led "Peer Review and the Corruption of Science" the author reports on a column in the Guardian by a respected British scientist led "Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science." The Guardian piece makes the legitimate point that too much weight is placed on the number of publications produced by research scientists rather than their quality. This legitimate concern should generate some thoughtful discussion in the scientific community.

But why would the Discovery Ins ute feel the need to bring this in-house discussion of the publishing culture of the scientific community to the attention of their largely evangelical readership, a readership that, for the most part, probably couldn't even give the name of a peer-reviewed journal? The goal, clearly, is to take the luster off the phrase "peer-reviewed" -- to undermine claims like "There are no articles in peer-reviewed journals suggesting that Intelligent Design is a viable alternative to evolution."

...

The relentless assaults on the integrity of science by groups like the Discovery Ins ute have made it impossible for many people to understand the significance of a "scientific consensus." If the members of the National Academy of Sciences are just another political group with their own agenda -- left-wing Tea Partiers with Ph.Ds -- we are under no obligation to take them seriously. We can even compare ourselves to Galileo for opposing them, as Rick Perry did in explaining why he rejected the scientific consensus on climate change.

Karl Giberson