Louisiana schools: Loch Ness Monster proves creationism is real

[Joe Republic]

School children in the southern state of Louisiana are to receive vouchers, provided by the government, enabling them to attend private schools which teach the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum (ACE).

One ACE textbook asks: "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."

Another claim includes a Japanese whaling boat catching a dinosaur, according to Herald Scotland.

Jonny Scaramanga, a 27-year-old musician who was educated via the ACE programme, told the Scottish paper said it is common for creationists to believe in sea monsters.

"They're saying if Noah's flood only happened 4000 years ago, which they believe literally happened, then possibly a sea monster survived. If it was millions of years ago then that would be ridiculous. That's their logic."

Though in fairness, there's probably more evidence of Nessie's existence than there is of God's. 

[Vasall des Midas]

The existence of alcohol and other recreative drugs is positive proof of God's existence and general benevolence, Joe.

[HockeyDude]

School children in the southern state of Louisiana are to receive vouchers, provided by the government, enabling them to attend private schools which teach the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum (ACE).

One ACE textbook asks: "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."

Another claim includes a Japanese whaling boat catching a dinosaur, according to Herald Scotland.

Jonny Scaramanga, a 27-year-old musician who was educated via the ACE programme, told the Scottish paper said it is common for creationists to believe in sea monsters.

"They're saying if Noah's flood only happened 4000 years ago, which they believe literally happened, then possibly a sea monster survived. If it was millions of years ago then that would be ridiculous. That's their logic."

Though in fairness, there's probably more evidence of Nessie's existence than there is of God's. 

It's easy to see this as funny... but in reality this kind of crap perpetuated by the religious right is awful.  What is moral and just in their eyes about using the education system in this country to fill children's head with garbage?  I'm sure references to the Loch Ness monster aren't the only ridiculous thing in these textbooks.  If you want your kid to have religious instruction, fine... but what the hell does Nessie have to do with it?  I understand it's a private school, but can we have SOME oversight into what they are being taught?

[shua]

School children in the southern state of Louisiana are to receive vouchers, provided by the government, enabling them to attend private schools which teach the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum (ACE).

One ACE textbook asks: "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."

Another claim includes a Japanese whaling boat catching a dinosaur, according to Herald Scotland.

Jonny Scaramanga, a 27-year-old musician who was educated via the ACE programme, told the Scottish paper said it is common for creationists to believe in sea monsters.

"They're saying if Noah's flood only happened 4000 years ago, which they believe literally happened, then possibly a sea monster survived. If it was millions of years ago then that would be ridiculous. That's their logic."

Though in fairness, there's probably more evidence of Nessie's existence than there is of God's. 

It's easy to see this as funny... but in reality this kind of crap perpetuated by the religious right is awful.  What is moral and just in their eyes about using the education system in this country to fill children's head with garbage?  I'm sure references to the Loch Ness monster aren't the only ridiculous thing in these textbooks.  If you want your kid to have religious instruction, fine... but what the hell does Nessie have to do with it?  I understand it's a private school, but can we have SOME oversight into what they are being taught?

"What is moral and just in their eyes about this?"  It's the idea that if God created the world not too long ago, then there is a moral purpose to it, and it gives rhyme and reason to the suffering of the world if you can say it's because of human sin rather than antecedent to it. Promoting a particular moral view of the universe is what all this is about.  It makes sense to disagree, but why do you find it so threatening?

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

"What is moral and just in their eyes about this?"  It's the idea that if God created the world not too long ago, then there is a moral purpose to it, and it gives rhyme and reason to the suffering of the world if you can say it's because of human sin rather than antecedent to it. Promoting a particular moral view of the universe is what all this is about.  It makes sense to disagree, but why do you find it so threatening?

The view that the world is a mere 6000 to 10000 years old is contradicted by mountains of scientific evidence while being supported by none. Teaching this notion to kids as fact is damaging in light of that. They have to be taught that science is wrong, and this gives them a distrust of science and pushes them away from pursuing a future career in science. Considering that we as both a nation and a species as a whole need people in science to advance further, so this is not a good thing at all.

[shua]

"What is moral and just in their eyes about this?"  It's the idea that if God created the world not too long ago, then there is a moral purpose to it, and it gives rhyme and reason to the suffering of the world if you can say it's because of human sin rather than antecedent to it. Promoting a particular moral view of the universe is what all this is about.  It makes sense to disagree, but why do you find it so threatening?

The view that the world is a mere 6000 to 10000 years old is contradicted by mountains of scientific evidence while being supported by none. Teaching this notion to kids as fact is damaging in light of that. They have to be taught that science is wrong, and this gives them a distrust of science and pushes them away from pursuing a future career in science. Considering that we as both a nation and a species as a whole need people in science to advance further, so this is not a good thing at all.

What do you base this on?  The Creation Science people are trying to say that their understanding of science is correct, while the evolutionists are wrong because they are ignoring the evidence that supports creation. That's very different from being opposed to science in the abstract.

[TJ in Wisco]

The main problem with Creation Science is that it isn't science. The idea that God created the world isn't falsifiable; it's a matter of faith.

But hey, it's a private school so they can teach whatever they want.

[Insula Dei]

The main problem with Creation Science is that it isn't science. The idea that God created the world isn't falsifiable; it's a matter of faith.

But hey, it's a private school so they can teach whatever they want.

An even bigger problem with creation science is that it isn't faith, either. It's based completely on a misunderstanding of how one can be religious in a meaningful way and on a misunderstanding of what 'science' entails.

[BritishDixie]

Aw come on it could happen!

[patrick1]

The main problem with Creation Science is that it isn't science. The idea that God created the world isn't falsifiable; it's a matter of faith.

But hey, it's a private school so they can teach whatever they want.

Not if they want any type of accreditation.  If you want to teach this stuff in theology class, then that is fine, however, this has no place in a science classroom.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

"What is moral and just in their eyes about this?"  It's the idea that if God created the world not too long ago, then there is a moral purpose to it, and it gives rhyme and reason to the suffering of the world if you can say it's because of human sin rather than antecedent to it. Promoting a particular moral view of the universe is what all this is about.  It makes sense to disagree, but why do you find it so threatening?

The view that the world is a mere 6000 to 10000 years old is contradicted by mountains of scientific evidence while being supported by none. Teaching this notion to kids as fact is damaging in light of that. They have to be taught that science is wrong, and this gives them a distrust of science and pushes them away from pursuing a future career in science. Considering that we as both a nation and a species as a whole need people in science to advance further, so this is not a good thing at all.

What do you base this on?  The Creation Science people are trying to say that their understanding of science is correct, while the evolutionists are wrong because they are ignoring the evidence that supports creation. That's very different from being opposed to science in the abstract.

Creation "Science" is nothing of the sort. Instead of looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion, they look at the Bible and either twist the evidence to meet what it says or reject that evidence outright. It's an absolute standard that they can't allow to be contradicted. But that's not how science works - if new evidence comes along that contradicts the current scientific understanding and said evidence survives the rigors of peer review, the scientific understanding is adjusted. But the creationists just can't do that, which is why they reject evolution, the fossil record, geology, radiometric dating, comparative anatomy, astrophysics, etc.

Essentially their entire deal is to reject real science and make a bunch of stuff up.

Excellent example in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xUiuZvUuw

[Harry]

The main problem with Creation Science is that it isn't science. The idea that God created the world isn't falsifiable; it's a matter of faith.

But hey, it's a private school so they can teach whatever they want.

Creation science isn't the idea that God created the world, it's the idea that said creation happened ~6000 years ago exactly as written in the Bible (usually KJV).  There's a pretty huge difference you're glossing over there.

[MilesC56]

Ughh....my state always gets such wonderful headlines....

[shua]

"What is moral and just in their eyes about this?"  It's the idea that if God created the world not too long ago, then there is a moral purpose to it, and it gives rhyme and reason to the suffering of the world if you can say it's because of human sin rather than antecedent to it. Promoting a particular moral view of the universe is what all this is about.  It makes sense to disagree, but why do you find it so threatening?

The view that the world is a mere 6000 to 10000 years old is contradicted by mountains of scientific evidence while being supported by none. Teaching this notion to kids as fact is damaging in light of that. They have to be taught that science is wrong, and this gives them a distrust of science and pushes them away from pursuing a future career in science. Considering that we as both a nation and a species as a whole need people in science to advance further, so this is not a good thing at all.

What do you base this on?  The Creation Science people are trying to say that their understanding of science is correct, while the evolutionists are wrong because they are ignoring the evidence that supports creation. That's very different from being opposed to science in the abstract.

Creation "Science" is nothing of the sort. Instead of looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion, they look at the Bible and either twist the evidence to meet what it says or reject that evidence outright. It's an absolute standard that they can't allow to be contradicted. But that's not how science works - if new evidence comes along that contradicts the current scientific understanding and said evidence survives the rigors of peer review, the scientific understanding is adjusted. But the creationists just can't do that, which is why they reject evolution, the fossil record, geology, radiometric dating, comparative anatomy, astrophysics, etc.

Essentially their entire deal is to reject real science and make a bunch of stuff up.

Excellent example in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xUiuZvUuw

All that stuff about them not being willing to change their views according to contradictory evidence - they say the same thing about evolutionists.
Sure it's bad science, but it's not as though it tries to stop interest in science. Quite the opposite - it's interested in questioning the scientific establishment, and to do that you really need to do your homework.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

All that stuff about them not being willing to change their views according to contradictory evidence - they say the same thing about evolutionists.

Flat-earthers also say the same thing about people who practice modern geography, but I don't see you defending their camp. Just because two groups disagree with one another doesn't mean the ideas of both groups should be treated equally.

Sure it's bad science, but it's not as though it tries to stop interest in science. Quite the opposite - it's interested in questioning the scientific establishment, and to do that you really need to do your homework.

Except they don't do their homework, or when they do they reject the findings. They do not follow the scientific process. They reject it because it gives results that contradict their faith. The entirety of their methodology is anti-science.

[Harry]

Ughh....my state always gets such wonderful headlines....

I feel your pain

[HockeyDude]

School children in the southern state of Louisiana are to receive vouchers, provided by the government, enabling them to attend private schools which teach the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum (ACE).

One ACE textbook asks: "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."

Another claim includes a Japanese whaling boat catching a dinosaur, according to Herald Scotland.

Jonny Scaramanga, a 27-year-old musician who was educated via the ACE programme, told the Scottish paper said it is common for creationists to believe in sea monsters.

"They're saying if Noah's flood only happened 4000 years ago, which they believe literally happened, then possibly a sea monster survived. If it was millions of years ago then that would be ridiculous. That's their logic."

Though in fairness, there's probably more evidence of Nessie's existence than there is of God's. 

It's easy to see this as funny... but in reality this kind of crap perpetuated by the religious right is awful.  What is moral and just in their eyes about using the education system in this country to fill children's head with garbage?  I'm sure references to the Loch Ness monster aren't the only ridiculous thing in these textbooks.  If you want your kid to have religious instruction, fine... but what the hell does Nessie have to do with it?  I understand it's a private school, but can we have SOME oversight into what they are being taught?

"What is moral and just in their eyes about this?"  It's the idea that if God created the world not too long ago, then there is a moral purpose to it, and it gives rhyme and reason to the suffering of the world if you can say it's because of human sin rather than antecedent to it. Promoting a particular moral view of the universe is what all this is about.  It makes sense to disagree, but why do you find it so threatening?

The textbook says "Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur".  A science textbook references the Loch Ness monster... why do I have to elaborate why this is bad?

I find it threatening because it's nonsense, and where does the nonsense end?  Obviously it's at the point where rather than just strictly adhering to a fundamentalist view of the Bible, which is bad enough as it is IMO, they are actually injecting ridiculous things that have nothing to do with Christianity into textbooks.  The younger generation is ignorant enough as it is.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     Creationism is no more or less valid than alchemy. Might as well teach that to kids too.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Creationism is no more or less valid than alchemy. Might as well teach that to kids too.

You know, those homeopaths argue with people who insist upon using evidence to determine whether a kind of medicine is effective or not, so we should teach that in med school. We'll end up like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

[shua]

All that stuff about them not being willing to change their views according to contradictory evidence - they say the same thing about evolutionists.

Flat-earthers also say the same thing about people who practice modern geography, but I don't see you defending their camp. Just because two groups disagree with one another doesn't mean the ideas of both groups should be treated equally.

Sure it's bad science, but it's not as though it tries to stop interest in science. Quite the opposite - it's interested in questioning the scientific establishment, and to do that you really need to do your homework.

Except they don't do their homework, or when they do they reject the findings. They do not follow the scientific process. They reject it because it gives results that contradict their faith. The entirety of their methodology is anti-science.

which scientific process?  A purely Baconian approach doesn't allow for Darwin either, but maybe you have something else in mind.
Anyway, you don't seem to be interested in an emic perspective, which is unfortunate given what you are trying to claim.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

which scientific process?  A purely Baconian approach doesn't allow for Darwin either, but maybe you have something else in mind.

They don't follow any kind scientific process. They have a conclusion before doing any kind of science at all and reject or twist anything and everything that doesn't fit that conclusion. That is not science in any sense of the word.

Anyway, you don't seem to be interested in an emic perspective, which is unfortunate given what you are trying to claim.

No, I'm interested in facts and whether the methods that are used to attain them are reliable. But if you really think that the creationists have a legitimate scientific case then feel free to enlighten us on the scientific methodologies of those people who apparently think the Loch Ness Monster is evidence for dinosaurs living together with humans.

[realisticidealist]

Has anyone ever met a young-Earth creationist? I don't believe they really exist, but then again, I don't believe the South really exists either.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Has anyone ever met a young-Earth creationist? I don't believe they really exist, but then again, I don't believe the South really exists either.

I have - a rather ballsy one too. He actually came to an atheist meetup by himself. He was pretty nice actually, which probably had to do with him coming to expose himself to people other than his church group rather than to proselytize.

[Yelnoc]

Has anyone ever met a young-Earth creationist? I don't believe they really exist, but then again, I don't believe the South really exists either.

I live in the south and have never met a professed YECist, though you never know down here.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

When it comes down to it, I don't believe we can truly know anything.

Also, people are using the original textbook excerpt to claim that these schools are teaching creationism as fact. Well... maybe the teachers are, but that entire quote was filled with "coulds" and "maybes" and "claims." It sounded a lot more like they were saying: "Don't blindly believe everything you read."

Which is kind of ironic, considering the source. Regardless, I think that principle applies to "science" and "religion" and is generally a good thing to teach kids.