http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/)

A few samples that I thought were noteworthy...

This textbook suggests that the earthis spherical. The shape of the earth isa controversial topic, and not all
people accept the theory. This
material should be approached with
an open mind, studied carefully, and
critically considered.

This book was anonymously donated
to your school library to discreetly
promote religious alternatives to the
theory of evolution. When you are
finished with it, please refile the book
in the fiction section.

And last but not least,


This book discusses evolution.
President George W. Bush said, "On
the issue of evolution, the verdict is
still out on how God created the
Earth." Therefore, until 2008 this
material shood be aproched with an
open mind, studeed carefuly, and
critcly consid'rd.

:rofl:

If you read the little article below the stickers, aparently the stickers are real and will be used in the Cobb County School District.

Edit- Evidently, it's just the first sticker(the most sane one) which is put into textbooks. Still hilarious, though. :p

Bloody fanatic nuts... The last four spoof stickers are my personal favourites. And no. 10.

That just doesnt encourage me to have faith in the world....

why are people so stupid?

InsaneSith: For discussion on that topic, please see this thread. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=140644)

:D Tee hee!

Anyway, I think it's something in the water.

I guess if they mean Earth isn't a perfect sphere (it's slightly "fatter" around the middle, basically) on that first count then they're sort of correct. Otherwise, well, uh.

They don't mean that.

It's especially apparent in their word choice. Spherical, meaning in the general shape of a sphere. Which it is. Basically they're saying that some people think the earth is flat :indif:

We should round up(hehe, round) those people and set the building they're being housed in on fire...but not until we bar the exits, of course.

"This textbook contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a force that cannot be directly seen. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

:roleyess:

Originally posted by TK-8252
"This textbook contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a force that cannot be directly seen. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
gravity isn't real. Jesus is holding you down on earth, duh.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
gravity isn't real. Jesus is holding you down on earth, duh.

That's totally dissing a main figure in Catholocism (sp?) Which is my religion, but I don't care.

It made me laugh so hard!

I can't believe people actually believed all that. :p

Well, okay, the first one is real. But all the others, no.

But, IMHO any sane religious person should be able to discern that if evolution didn't give rise to life according to their belief system, then they don't have to believe it. Doesn't mean evolutionary theory isn't real, or that evolution doesn't take place. Anyone who's taken a biology class (or zoology in my case) should be able to understand that.

The fact is, most Christians have been brainwashed into thinking that Evolution is defined as The belief that God did not create the world. That's when you get things like this.

I've heard evolution "explained" away with religion before, but what do they have against gravity?

Originally posted by Redwing

The fact is, most Christians have been brainwashed into thinking that Evolution is defined as The belief that God did not create the world. That's when you get things like this.

It does destroy the Christian belief system however, as for evolution to work it requires millions if not billions of years. Christianity, on the other hand, states that the world was here for only 3000-5000 years. Both are mutually exclusive, then.

Christianity, on the other hand, states that the world was here for only 3000-5000 years. Both are mutually exclusive, then.Actually I'm not entirely sure that the bible does give a concrete time span... I may be wrong, but I think that it's just a few wierd christians who have pulled that 3000-5000 year figure out of their hat-o'-piety(tm).

Originally posted by Spider AL
Actually I'm not entirely sure that the bible does give a concrete time span... I may be wrong, but I think that it's just a few wierd christians who have pulled that 3000-5000 year figure out of their hat-o'-piety(tm).

no i think the Bible does set out some sort of time span in its first book (Genesis) it lists the various generations of people it claims existed and how old they lived to be (800 aparently was not an uncommon age back in times that it conveniently cant be proved)

That's the BASIS for the "calculations" of these bible-bashers, but I don't think it qualifies as a concrete figure, unless you accept their cogitations as valid.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
gravity isn't real. Jesus is holding you down on earth, duh.

Dast, so I should probably get rid of my shirt (http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/obey-gravity.jpg) then.

Indeed.

Also one must consider though, when they say 800 years, they most likely weren't using the same standard measure of times as we do today. ;)

Originally posted by Spider AL
That's the BASIS for the "calculations" of these bible-bashers, but I don't think it qualifies as a concrete figure, unless you accept their cogitations as valid.

no like the rest of the bible i believe it to be utter drivel...

Ah, so love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek and let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

All drivel eh?

only the first one makes any sense.

First what?

Originally posted by Spider AL
..
love thy neighbor
..

So you don't understand the rationale behind "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" eh? It's saying that hypocrisy is unacceptable. Surely you agree with that.

And the second, turn the other cheek, is a pacifist ideal. Whether you agree with it in practical terms or not, you must accept that it is a moral ideal.

The majority of Christians basically accept evolutionary theory and modern science (as far as they understand it). 1

Belief in "intelligent design" or "theistic evolution" are attempts to reconcile certain types of belief with modern science. Of course the religious side is based on faith, not scientific proof, so a scientists need not accept a certain belief system, etc.


That polls taken in America show that 150% of Americans believe that the earth is 6,000 years old or some other such rubbish doesn't matter.

1. The Catholic Church teaches that evolution is "more than a theory" and that the big bang probably happened. And since Catholics are the largest Christian church in the world, that's a lot of Christians siding with the "evolutionists" unless they're going against what the Pope says of course.

I can't speak for ALL other churches, but when you get down to it, the loud minority churches that denounce certain things and are politically active don't represent the views of all Christians. Yet anti-religious pundits love to jump on this and use it as a bludgeon against all religion. The so-called "mainline" churches, conservative as they might be on certain issues, are pretty open on the non-literal interpretation of Genesis. I could go on and on about Genesis, in fact, it seems that the original interpretations by the Church back in the early centuries WERE non-literal. So these "back to basics" YEC types I think are just plain misguided.

Originally posted by Leper Messiah
no i think the Bible does set out some sort of time span in its first book (Genesis) it lists the various generations of people it claims existed and how old they lived to be (800 aparently was not an uncommon age back in times that it conveniently cant be proved)

Now, wikipedia isn't a flawless source, but it gives a nice background on where Young Earth Creationism gets it's info. It's based on the interpretations of an Irish protestant Archbishop in the 17th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Ussher)


Personally I think the whole Young Earth Creationist thing comes directly from this guy's teachings. And his understand could have been launched by a mis-interpretation and heavy extrapolation from St. Augustine's writing in the 4th century (he wrote several interpretations of Genesis, ONE of which was called the "literal" interpretation of Genesis; note that it was just one of several possible interpretations, yet somebody obviously seized on this new idea and decided that it was the ONLY one).

I'm reading Augustine now so I'll let you know if I find anything interesting, but it might be awhile (he wrote a lot!). Suffice to say I think that YEC is bunk, and I see no reason to accept it as a religious person. For now I'm more of the mind of theistic evolution. However I don't accept evolution as a religious belief, but as a scientific theory. I allow room for advances in our understanding, so even if it was somehow proven false (unlikely as that might be), it wouldn't destroy my faith. The faith part, for me, is that God was ultimately responsible for the universe, that is, it wasn't just a random meaningless accident. And this still allows for humans to have a "personal relationship" with said deity through prayer, virtuous living, building a peaceful and just society and private & communal mystical experience.

Edit: It appears from the link above that the Venerable Bede (8th cent) and Scaliger (17th cent) also postulated similar "chronologies" but I haven't read their works to say for a fact how similar they are. I just know that Ussher is widely quoted as being the one with the dates.

The kicker seems to be that if this guy was correct, the world should have ended by now! Anyways...

So yes, teaching YEC in schools is a mistake. If you're going to do that, then you should also teach Intelligent Design, the creation myths of various other cultures, etc, in a RELATED section to show the cultural responses to Science, not as the science itself. It's okay for people to learn about these things, but it's not okay to eliminate the scientific facts as the majority of experts know them to be today in favor of one small set (or subset) of religion's teachings.