Scotties Toy Box

September 4, 2018

Hundreds of Voucher Schools Teach Creationism in Science Classes | Blog | Independent Lens | PBS

Filed under: News — Scottie @ 14:06

This is what happens when you have a a bunch of  christian republican ideologues making public policy based on religion.   Thanks Miles for pointing this out to me.  Hugs

Public money is being spent for education in private schools that teach creationism. Zack Kopplin and MSNBC take a look at some of these schools and what they’re teaching.

Source: Hundreds of Voucher Schools Teach Creationism in Science Classes | Blog | Independent Lens | PBS


  1. In science classes students are tought blunt lies of creationism. They are taught the principles hate. racism and even murder. And what about them teachers who are teaching them this stupid bullshit? They must by very intellectually limited persons themselves. Was former president Bush a visitor of one of these schools? – cause he knew so much about torture during the Irak-War based on lies?
    America, it is a shame, that you tolerate such a nonsense and bullshit being taught in several of your schools.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by miles — September 4, 2018 @ 16:17

    • The teachers are as religiously motivated as the ones who passed the laws allowing this. These people are out to turn America in to a theocracy. They are winning. It is crazy and sad but true. They have a single minded push for over 40 years to do so. Hugs


      Comment by Scottie — September 4, 2018 @ 16:22

  2. I read the book by Richard Dawkins ‘ The Blind Watchmaker ‘ it’s a brilliant book but the title holds a secret that creation ( maybe a loaded word) is like a fine watch beautifully constructed. Dawkins point is that blindmen can’t assemble watches and natural selection is a blind force of nature. Schools would do well to take their students through this book. As sensitive animals we humans feel a sense of creation in the natural world in fact Carl Satan was constantly referring to the wonders of the cosmos.
    The later book by Richard Dawkins ‘ The Selfish Gene ‘ is a mind- boggler and I’m not too sure about it , his incredible conclusion is that we are survival machines designed by genes to give them immortality.


    Comment by kersten — September 5, 2018 @ 04:51

    • Kersten, nature is indeed wonderful, but it is not supernatural. I do think you missed the point. Weather you call it the blind watchmaker, or a bomb in a junkyard, or a tornado at an airport, it is the same debunked argument made by creationist that nature couldn’t create a complex item. That is wrong, nature can and has. At no time should tax payer money be used in a school that teaches creationism. it simply is a fairy tale and is a religious myth. The point people need to under stand is evolution is as proven as any thing can be. The entire theory is complete, we have all the parts, it fits all the needs, the projections made have been shown true, it is a fact. There is no missing link, there is no gaps or mistakes. It is one of the most complete well fleshed out understood science. Other fields of discovery prove it true, such as the gnome projects. To even argue there is something wrong with the theory means the person does not understand it.

      Have a good morning. Hugs


      Comment by Scottie — September 5, 2018 @ 07:10

    • The whole point of The Blind Watchmaker is that while the complexity of life appears to require a designer, in fact natural selection is fully sufficient to explain that complexity, without any intervention by a conscious entity. The “blind watchmaker” is a metaphor for how the unconscious and therefore “blind” (yet non-random) phenomenon of natural selection creates things so intricate that they seem to need a designer, but in fact do not.

      The Selfish Gene doesn’t really deliver a new conclusion about evolution — it’s more like a new perspective on the process, regarding genes rather than organisms as the entities which persist and evolve.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Infidel753 — September 5, 2018 @ 21:55

      • Very true and once natural selection is underway all is fine and dandy , although Mr Dawkins does make a real effort in the book to explain just how the first replicators came to be. I must admit that was a difficult part of the book for me not being very mathematical, and chance is not an easy topic.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by kersten — September 6, 2018 @ 10:01

        • Mr Dawkins does make a real effort in the book to explain just how the first replicators came to be

          One interesting aspect of this is that it potentially resolves another scientific mystery — the Fermi paradox (the mystery of why, if intelligent life ought to be common in the universe, we see no evidence of it). As creationists like to point out, a self-replicating molecule spontaneously just happening to come together out of the primordial soup (there was no evolution yet, so such an event would have been pretty much a random occurrence) is staggeringly unlikely. Perhaps it’s so unlikely that even in a universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of planets, and with billions of years available, it would happen only once.

          I think this is the most likely scenario. The reason we’ve seen no evidence of life elsewhere in the universe is that there isn’t any — Earth is a freak case. It explains the Fermi paradox, and also (to me at least) suggests the weight of the responsibility we bear, as the custodians of what may very well be the only life-bearing planet in the universe.


          Comment by Infidel753 — September 6, 2018 @ 20:14

          • Professor Brian Cox came to the conclusion there was no intelligent life in our own galaxy and suggested that other galaxies are just too far away for possible contact. It does seem a bit strange to me since we know that chemicals combine and break up according to certain rules and even complicated carbon compounds have been found in our solar system. We don’t have to make hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water they seem to want to get together. So could it be that duplicator molecules will want to form in the the universe as we have discovered it to be ? Another thing it seems to me that the sharp dividing line we seem to make between the living and the dead cannot be real , after all viruses are a debatable case .

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by kersten — September 7, 2018 @ 04:16

  3. Of course evolution is proven , to you , to me , and many others including many Christians , the latter simply reply it was guided by God to which there is no real answer. From what I understand the Pope believes in the big bang along with all the rest of Catholic doctrine.
    .The importance and brilliance of Dawkins title lies in the recognition of order , as you know science relies on consistent order and Darwin was the first to suggest how this could happen in biology.
    I have no great ability so I accept the consensus of the experts and it is those expert beliefs that should be taught in our schools. Many fundamentalist religious believers are in great fear that they are losing a grip on the way the world is run , ironically they are the first to make full use of progress. The same thing is slowly happening in the Islamic world , women are claiming a voice Sharia is being questioned. Progress can be stifled for awhile but it will always win through.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by kersten — September 5, 2018 @ 07:31

    • Good morning again Kersten. I hope your morning went well. I finally got my coffee. It seemed everything was conspiring against me even have the first cup. Oh well.
      You speak of the big bang / inflation. That is a subject that really interests me. What was before the background radiation of the first inflation? One preacher I know has argued that god is the first mover and a couple really smart people with knowledge have shown how the universe needed no first cause, it was already in a state to be what it is. So I look forward to more scientific discovery on the subject.
      I agree with you. I don’t know about you, but I get tired of the fundamentalist using lies and distortions to try to mock what they don’t understand. I don’t see why they are so afraid if they admit to what is clearly shown to be true or know because they fear it will make their god go away. As you say some people use the science discovery to boost their god, not tear it down. Speaking of Sharia law, I am very much worried about Christian Sharia laws that the fundamentalists are trying to implement here in the USA.
      Have a good day. Hugs


      Comment by Scottie — September 5, 2018 @ 07:48

      • I just thought you might find the site Primates Progress interesting , sometimes it’s a bit difficult to follow being very scientific but it is defending evolution. I also use the site Bible Odyssey for expert advice about the Bible.
        The cause / event link is a tough nut but in layman’s terms I’m always hearing ‘ There must be a reason’ and this seems to be true .

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by kersten — September 5, 2018 @ 13:14

        • Do you have a like Kersten? I might like the sites but when I did a search I got a few different ones. I do find a lot of science stuff gets over my head, but as you say some sites make it understandable. I welcome stuff if I can understand it. IF it is too technical then I can’t follow it. Hugs


          Comment by Scottie — September 5, 2018 @ 13:26

          • Yes even the best brains are very limited . In his book How the Mind Works Steven Pinker dares to suggest that natural selection designed the human mind to survive not to unravel the intricacies of the cosmos. To be fair we haven’t done to badly but when you think about it it does mostly seem to be for our benefit .

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by kersten — September 6, 2018 @ 11:57

            • Sorry I just realized I made a typo. Meant link, not like. I was interested in the sites you mentioned. And I agree with you, I think we are doing rather well also at figuring things out. Hugs


              Comment by Scottie — September 6, 2018 @ 13:25

      • I am no expert on cosmology, but one interpretation I’ve seen is that time itself began with the Big Bang, so it makes no sense to speak of anything “before” the Big Bang, just as one cannot speak of a point further south than the South Pole.

        Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss are my go-to authors on these matters. The origin of the universe is basically understood now by physicists, but unfortunately it’s not as easy for the average person to grasp as evolution is.

        Needless to say, I don’t expect anyone who believes in a talking snake or a man being formed from dust to have any worthwhile insights on such matters.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Infidel753 — September 5, 2018 @ 22:10

        • Yes I have heard Krauss talk a few times and have been able to follow some of what he said. I like when he says there was never nothing. Hugs


          Comment by Scottie — September 6, 2018 @ 06:19

        • There are those who believe in a multiverse hypothesis which does away with any beginning.
          Regarding genesis we must remember it was written about six thousand years ago when science did not exist. From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil we can see that those early thinkers were concerned about the origin of morality which is still in debate to this day.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by kersten — September 6, 2018 @ 09:54

      • I am very much worried about Christian Sharia laws that the fundamentalists are trying to implement here in the USA

        Even Iran teaches evolution in its schools. Those fundamentalists aren’t just trying to make our country fall behind Europe and Japan intellectually (already largely accomplished) — they want to make us more backward, at least in that one area, than Iran. Think about that.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Infidel753 — September 5, 2018 @ 22:13

        • That is bad, and they do it with pride of serving a mythical deity. Hugs


          Comment by Scottie — September 6, 2018 @ 06:20

    • the latter simply reply it was guided by God to which there is no real answer

      The answer is that there is no evidence supporting the claim that evolution was guided by a god. Natural selection can fully explain the development of life as we know it. There are no observed phenomena in the biological world that suggest supernatural intervention.

      The Catholic Church accepts evolution, but not because they don’t realize it makes a hash of their theology (evolution means there was never a population bottleneck as small as just two people, so there was no Adam and Eve, therefore inherited original sin cannot exist (it’s an absurd concept anyway), therefore the Biblical reason for the sacrifice of Jesus is invalid). As is so often the case in religion, the real reason is more political. When Galileo announced his evidence that the Sun and not the Earth was the center of the solar system (affirming the hypothesis of Aristarchus of Samos in Hellenistic times), the Church threatened him with torture unless he recanted, and even after he did, they put him under house arrest to stop him from spreading dangerous ideas. This episode has rightfully become an embarrassment the Catholic Church will never live down. So when Darwin promulgated evolution, the basic Catholic response was “nope, we’re not touching this one — we got burned once and that was enough — let the Protestants be the ones to make idiots of themselves trying to fight this” — which they have.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Infidel753 — September 5, 2018 @ 22:04

      • There is a scientific Adam that lived about 150,000 years ago this is quite a recent discovery as there was a time when homo sapiens was a very small tribe. Before this time there were a number of hominid species that interbred , we have found traces of their DNA; its all on Wiki .
        Some believe all things are guided by God , it is not necessary , but that does not matter it is very similar to a belief in luck which has no scientific basis.
        You are right many churches these days keep an eye on numbers as attendance and belief is dwindling .

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by kersten — September 6, 2018 @ 09:46

        • I think I read on Arks blog that the genetic female and the genetic male in our DNA did not live at the same time. That makes the Adam and Eve story null and void. Hugs


          Comment by Scottie — September 6, 2018 @ 09:48

        • The “Adam” and “Eve” scientists sometimes refer to are the most recent individuals from which we can be sure all modern humans are descended — the most recent common ancestors of each gender. Those individuals had tens of thousands of contemporaries, most of whom have numerous modern descendants as well (for example, the “Adam’s” sons and daughters must have mated with someone — they mated with the daughters and sons of “Adam’s” contemporaries).

          I think the smallest population bottleneck our ancestors ever passed through is estimated at 70,000 — a very far cry from a single couple alone in the world.


          Comment by Infidel753 — September 6, 2018 @ 20:09

          • Yes they are just using Biblical analogy which is built into western civilisation. There is a interesting phrase I hear occasionally ‘ I did not know him from Adam ‘ .

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by kersten — September 7, 2018 @ 04:00

  4. What an unconstitutional abomination this all is. Might as well teach from a Stephen King or Danielle Steel novel! Thanks for the enlightenment, Scottie! Hugs!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by jilldennison — September 6, 2018 @ 19:08

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: