Reference to Creationism “Myth” Creates Textbook Controversy

A new science textbook controversy in the USA; from The Tennessean:

The father of a Knox County public school student wants the school board to get rid of a high school biology textbook that he calls biased against Christians.

…The Knoxville News Sentinel reported [Kurt] Zimmerman wants a change of textbooks because the honors biology course book used at Farragut High School describes creationism as a “biblical myth.” He is asking that what he termed non-biased textbooks be used.

…The newspaper reported Zimmerman’s documentation included a quotation from page 319 on which the authors describe creationism as “the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days.”

Inevitably, Fox News is making a meal of it.

The textbook is entitled Asking about Life, by Allan Tobin and Jennie Dusheck. The above quote from the book is indeed quite misleading: Biblical literalists believe that the universe was created in six days, not seven. But from his complaints form, it seems that the school is still using the 2001 second edition; the 2005 third edition has corrected the point, now on page 299:

…In the 1970s and 1980s, antievolutionists in Arkanas, Tennessee, and Louisiana passed ididentical bills calling for “equal time” for teaching evolution and creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in six days.

The quote forms part of a discussion of the historical controversy over evolution. But of course, six or seven days is not Zimmerman’s complaint; he objects that the book will “mislead, belittle and discourage students in believing in Creationism and pointedly calls the Bible a myth”, and he commends the school authorities to read a review by a certain Charles H Voss – by which he almost certainly means this 21-page document, which includes the following:

…The statement “…and creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days” has not been proven. Such a statement is not science but an opinion of the textbook authors and reveals a decided bias. Such statements do not belong in a science textbook.

…The statement “But creation ‘science’ is not science” is very m isleading in that by context it implies that evolution is science. The truth is that neither the term “evolution” as commonly used or “creation science” is science. Neither can be tested, falsified or repeated because they are concerned about happenings in the past that no one person observed. A special definition of science must be formulated in order to assert that “evolution” is science unless it is broken down into its two parts as discussed in the next chapter and in the section on the next page labeled “What is evolution.” Any definition of science that can label the term “evolution” as commonly used as science will also include creationism a s science.

The author then goes on to expound the usual Creationist fare. Voss is a professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Louisana State University, and he is vice-president of the Origins Resource Association. According to a second report:

Karen Carson, of the West Knox County 5th District, tried to find middle ground with an amendment that would have upheld the school committee’s recommendation but also offered to biology teachers a critical analysis of the textbook submitted by Zimmermann and written by Charles Voss… But Carson’s amendment satisfied no one, especially after she revised it to make it subject to review by school system science staff, and it failed on a 3-6 vote.

(Hat tips: Bulldada Newsblog; Media Matters for America; Little Green Footballs)

8 Responses

  1. […] Creationism and evolutionism are very much hot potatoes in the US right now, as we have also just had a new science textbook controversy: Bartholomew’s Notes – Reference to Creationism “Myth” Creates Textbook Controversy […]

  2. Evolution is the myth, since it ignores the most foundational laws of empirical science, see Miracles of God, Evolution or False Prophets?

    Evolution is not only unscientific, but anti-science. Although many prefer to be PC and find ‘middle ground’, logically there is an intelligent, conscious Creator or there isn’t, and both positions are outside the realm of observational science.

    • RoryR – agreed but we can observe that the DNA of
      say a pig or a cow – about 3 billion base pair code-
      could not possibly redesign itself into the DNA of a whale through random genetic damage . How would
      the cosmic rays or whatever damage cow DNA into
      say a whale sonar over any period of time.
      DNA CODE means darwin’s theory is nonsense although Darwin has more excuse since he did not
      know about the DNA design mechanism.

      All they got when they tried this was flies with deformities eg no wings or one wing – they were still
      damaged flies – loss of DNA information

      To change say cow DNA into a whale’s DNA would need say a billion or so perfect changes – impossible

  3. Amazing.
    I guess then, if evolution is a myth, then so is gravity being caused by warped space. I mean, what kind of space buggers about with our motion? BADLY behaved, in my opinion. Come to think of it, I don’t like those pesky electrons, either. Mischievous little twits, can’t decide which way in an A/C circuit…..Yep, I say, let’s go back to 18th century science when men were men and women were in corsets and didn’t have enough oxygen to think.

    • teapot – amazing how NOTHING exploded and produced all these atoms – have you ever seen nothing
      explode ????
      What about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

  4. “women were in corsets and didn’t have enough oxygen to think.” I suspect there’s a few without corsets who don’t have enough oxygen to think. Whilst we’re at it, surely oxygen itself is a myth too – earth, air, fire, water? Four elements, that’s all we need isn’t it?

  5. Haeckels frauds are still in most textbooks – so is the
    ape Lucy. Made up artists drawings constitute supposed missing links.
    No missing link has been found in any “kinds” – there
    should be thousands of say half pig / whales etc

    Even respectable evolutionary scientists such as Colin Paterson ( British museum) and Stephen Jay Gould say there are no intermediate life forms.

    Yet the textbooks are full of made up ones.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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