Science Textbooks Full of Errors

Study: Is Linda Ronstadt a Silicon Crystal?

The Associated Press

RALEIGH, N.C., Jan. 15 — Twelve of the most popular science textbooks used at middle schools across the nation are riddled with errors, according to a two-year study led by a North Carolina State University researcher.

The errors range from maps depicting the equator passing through the southern United States to a photo of singer Linda Ronstadt labeled as a silicon crystal.

None of the 12 textbooks has an acceptable level of accuracy, according to N.C. State physics professor John Hubisz, the report's author. "These are terrible books, and they're probably a strong component of why we do so poorly in science," on standardized tests, he said. "The books have a very large number of errors, many irrelevant photographs, complicated illustrations, experiments that could not possibly work, and drawings that represented impossible situations."

The study was financed with a $64,000 grant from the Lucille and David Packard Foundation.

Liberty’s Torch in Wrong Hand

Among the books included in the study was a multi-volume Prentice Hall series called "Science," which has been used by several North Carolina school systems.

Errors in some editions of that series, according to Hubisz, include an incorrect depiction of what happens to light when it passes through a prism, a reversed photo of the Statue of Liberty showing the torch in the wrong hand, and the Ronstadt photo.

Prentice Hall acknowledges some errors, partly because states alter standards at the last minute and publishers have to rush to make changes. "We may have to change a photograph because of a new content objection, and the caption isn't changed with the photograph," said Wendy Spiegel, a spokeswoman for Prentice Hall's parent company, Pearson Education. "But we believe we have the best practices to ensure accuracy."

Last year, the company launched a thorough audit of its textbooks for accuracy and posted a Web site with corrections, she said.

Five Hundred Pages of Errors

Hubisz enlisted a team of researchers, ranging from middle school teachers to college professors, to review the 12 books for factual errors. The researchers compiled 500 pages of errors, which were boiled down to a 100-page report.

"These are basic errors," he said. "It's stuff that anyone who had taken a science class would be able to catch."

One textbook even misstates Newton's first law of physics, which has been a staple of physical science for centuries.

Hubisz, who has received requests for copies of his study from as far away as Japan and Scandinavia, called Glencoe/McGraw-Hill books "the best of the worst."

The worst of the worst? "Probably Prentice Hall," he said Sunday.

Teachers Under-Trained, Expert Says

Teachers, administrators, parents and curriculum specialists typically review books before they are used in a classroom. In North Carolina, a state committee approves a list of textbooks for the public schools. Each school system then picks its books from that list.

But Hubisz, president of the American Association of Physics Teachers, said many middle-school science teachers have little physical science training and may not recognize errors.

Also, many states - and local school districts within those states - tend to follow the lead of state officials in Texas, California and Florida, the three biggest textbook purchasers, Hubisz said. "We estimated maybe 85 percent of children in the United States probably use these books," he said.

Who Writes These Books?

The study's reviewers tried to contact the authors with questions, Hubisz said, but in many cases the people listed said they didn't write the book, and some didn't even know their names had been listed. Some of the authors of a physical science book, for example, were biologists.

Hubisz said educators need to pressure publishers to get "real authors" for textbooks. "We're really trying to get the publishers to do something," he said. "They get people to check for political correctness; … they try to get in as much cultural diversity as possible. … They just don't seem to understand what science is about."

Hubisz said the study panel contacted publishers, who for the most part either dismissed the panel's findings or promised corrections in subsequent editions. Reviews of later editions turned up more errors than corrections, the report said.

Copyright 2001 The Associated Press.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 09, 2001

Answers

Lots of junk texts get written "in house" because lots of professionals can't write at the middle school, high school level, and wouldn't do it because of the low pay. At least in college, they can get quarterly royalities. Editors who can edit the science in the MS demand top dollar, so people like P-H hire so called contract editors. Many of these editors don't know a damn thing about the topic and aren't into details either. I know this because I was once asked to edit a high school computer text. Me, with my weak command of written English! I didn't take the job. They got some foreigner to do it.

-- (Weeble@wee.ble), March 09, 2001.

What do you mean by "in house", Weeble?

There must be prodigious amounts of money to be made in this business of writing texts IF your's becomes a bestseller.

I think the above is a travesty and am surprised there's not more comment to this point.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 09, 2001.

"Science Textbooks Full of Errors"

Really. You mean, like when they state that the earth is so many billions of years old....THAT didn't tip you off?

When they pass lie after lie about dinosaurs and evolution....THAT...didn't tip people off?

"science" textbooks all deny the exsistance of God....THAT is there worse error of all. A fatal one at that.

Don't buy it people.

-- (nosuchthing@s.evolution), March 09, 2001.

Rich, "in-house" means by employees it's cheaper that way. Lots of new junior editors get handed middle school text book projects. The division staff puts together the material. Public school text books are not big business for authors, that's a myth. College authors do better. That's why there are new editions put out all the time with only one or two changes, it's a major rip-off. I know it shouldn't be this way and it didn't used to be so bad. My mother was a senior editor in the ed div of a major publisher until 1997. The publisher was just breaking even on middle school books and then eliminated them entirely. Ask KB about when he gets back. He has edited math texts, I don't see him rolling in the money. But he's a tightwad too. Ha!

-- (Weeble@wee.ble), March 09, 2001.

Really. You mean, like when they state that the earth is so many billions of years old....THAT didn't tip you off?

When they pass lie after lie about dinosaurs and evolution....THAT...didn't tip people off?

"science" textbooks all deny the exsistance of God....THAT is there worse error of all. A fatal one at that.

Don't buy it people.

No, more like books that claim that creationism should have equal standing with evolution theory. Evolution is a theory based on sound scientific evidence. The details of evolution have changed and continue to change, whereas creationism isn't even a theory. Creationism is grounded in subjective interpretation of the Bible, which itself is already full of metaphors and generalizations, none of which are based on scientific inquiry.

There is no reason one cannot believe in God and evolution, they are not mutually exclusive. Science seeks answers to the question "How?" Religion seeks answers to the question "Why?" The can coexist.

As for the science textbooks, and I would add many textbooks in other subject as well, there are lots of incompetent folks involved not only in the publishing of these books, but also in the reviewing process at the state level. Just one more symptom of the chronic disregard of the importance of education in the U.S. It boggles my mind because this has been going on ever since the trend of jumping on the latest educational fad started in the 1960s.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 09, 2001.

I just threw away a Biology textbook I have had for 20 years-Not only are there multiple errors, but we are learning so much/so fast that the data that is "correct" at the time of publishing may not be when it goes to print the next time.

So the issue is not just the stupid errors, in my opinion. I think the issue is that scientific data which is still open to revision is presented as FACT-to the point where some of it is called LAWS-and yet these things that were laws, in some cases, have been revised, and absolutes have been find to not be so ABSOLUTE.

Science is Art-a highly evolved form of art, but art nonetheless as it is a representation of what the human mind, the human soul THINKS the physical world is about.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 09, 2001.

Thanks, Weeble. I thought that's what you meant, but frankly I couldn't believe it's true. So much for the politicians who claim education is top priority. I've not heard a peep out them regarding substandard textbooks. Not that I want them sticking their noses into this area.

This tells me most parents don't read the textbooks their kids bring home. Why am I surprised? The onus falls on them.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 09, 2001.

Hey Rich -

I read a 2nd grader's reading book a couple years ago. I believe the overall lesson for the children is that hate is greater than love. Every story insinuated that to some degree. It taught children that it's ok to lie, prejudice is ok, it's ok to con someone into giving you what you want if they are unwilling to freely give it, family is of little value, conformity is best, what you feel is more important than truth, people aren't individuals, life isn't precious,.....

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 09, 2001.

Would you mind telling us the name of that 2nd grade book? I've never seen anything with a theme like those you describe.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 09, 2001.

I had an EE professor who used a new, different, unpublished textbook for the same course each year. He told us up-front that it would have errors. It was our job to find the errors as we used the book. He was getting paid to proofread the book; we were his knowing grunts.

But it was a good way to instruct. It taught us to look carefully at what is published. It taught us that published material is often shot full of error.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 09, 2001.

Rich:

I spent many a night reading the textbooks after the kids were in bed. They're ALL full of errors, but SOME of those errors are intentional. I already mentioned this in another thread, but the educational process has been set up to impart knowledge in little bits and pieces [including downright lies].

As University educated adults, we can laugh at the material presented, but kids don't have the maturity to "handle" SOME facts. Well, at least the folks who write the text-books don't think they do. I've always been quite honest and out-spoken with MY kids and I don't have a killer in the three, but SOME kids need to cling to the childhood fantasies until they're older and more receptive to the truths of life.

Jeez [substituting my normal G with Patricia's J], I've reviewed textbooks from first-grade through high-school. The information imparted doesn't tend to change. It's simply expanded, and [even with the expansion], educators apparently don't feel that students are ready for the awful truth about matters until University.

I purchased other books that were better, [I thought], and we visited the library weekly to expand on themes presented.

What DOES [or even SHOULD] a child know about the revolutionary war? It's far more interesting for a young child to see the revolutionary war from the eyes of a child his age than to hear about it from the eyes of a textbook author who believes that children should be protected from some things and may not even know the history herself.

We can bitch and moan about the innacuracies in textbooks [whether they be from public or private schools], but it won't change the fact that they'll always be there [and sometimes even by design.] If we want our children to know the truth, we need to take the time to educate them outside of the schools.

Just my opinion on this one, as usual.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 10, 2001.

1) Evolution is not a theory. It does not and will neve qualify as a theory. It can never be falsified. It is, and should be classified as, a belief system.

2) If evolution and the bible are compatible, then God is indeed a liar. He said he created everything in six literal 24-hour days....and he did. If evolution is true, God lied about that. yom can mean "age" but never when a number is present...."evening and the morning were the first day(yom)..." then it ALWAYS refers to a literal 24 hr period of time. Even unbelieving Hebrew scholars know that is true.

SO....if God lied about the opening of the book....what else did he lie about? Is Jesus the only way to heaven? Do we really go to hell for sin? hmmmm.... If you don't believe the beginning, why are you bothering with the rest of it? It's all subjective and relative...so....WHO sets the standard?

3) True science always starts in the Bible....Paul knew that the things we see are made of "invisble things"....LONG before the electron microscope. Christians have always been the ones to advance scientific understanding....by following God's word.

4) If God created thru millions of years of evolution....he is a terrible, horrible deity. To allow death and suffering for millions and millions of years....with no hope of redemption....YOUR god sucks if you believe in him (which I doubt)

5) Evolution is based no where near scientific inquiry. Just the opposite infact. Darwin should not have concluded "that river carved out that valley over millions of years"....he should have said "gee...water always seeks its lowest point....it must be running at the bottom of the valley because that is the lowest point" (BTW, meandering rivers can never cut vertically....only horizontally....why is the headwater of the colorado river lower than the rim of the grand canyon? is that sound scientific reasoning....to asume that water flowed uphill to begin carving the canyon?)

Don't fall for this charade.

-- (evolution@ .myth), March 10, 2001.

"evolution@.myth"-

There are so very many fallacies in your "arguments" that it's hard to where to begin, but I'll take a cut at it nonetheless:

1) Evolution can indeed be falsified. It requires three things: mutation, natural selection, and sufficient time. If any of these can be demonstrated to be absent, the theory is falsified. That none of your creationist friends have been able to falsify it is their failure, not evolution's.

2) The veracity of God is not in question, only the veracity of a particular interpretation of Genesis. The vast majority of Christians have no difficulty seeing this. Why are you missing it?

3) Even if Paul is, in fact, referring to atoms (as you seem to suggest that he is), this does not make him a divinely inspired scientist. The Greeks (of which Paul was one) had postulated various "atomic" theories of matter for centuries. I'm afraid your "invisible things" are a pagan invention, not a Biblical one.

4) If you blame God for suffering and death, then He's a horrible deity whether He created us in an instant or not. Again, most Christians have no difficulty coming to grips with the fact that both God and evil exist. What are you missing?

5) It's a tossup as to whether this or 4) is more nonsensical. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that it is unscientific to examine the effects of erosion on terrain features. In other words, the question, "How was that valley formed?" is not a valid question for scientific inquiry. Presumably, that's because the only answer you can conceive of is, "Because God made it just that way and it hasn't changed since." More's the pity for you.

-- Privateer (ironic_detachment@hotmail.com), March 10, 2001.

YOUR god sucks if you believe in him (which I doubt)

My God is the God who tells me not to tell others that their god sucks.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 10, 2001.

(evolution@ .myth),

1) You seem to have confused evolution with creationism with regard to their statuses as theory.

2)

>He said he created everything in six literal 24-hour days....

Will you please quote the original text of that portion of the Bible, not paraphrase some imperfect English translation written by fallible humans?

>SO....if God lied about the opening of the book....what else did he lie about?

If you're going to support your arguments about the beginning of the Bible with English translation paraphrases instead of quoting the real original text language ... then what else do, and will, you get wrong?

3)

>Christians have always been the ones to advance scientific understanding....by following God's word.

So that's why the Roman Catholic Church took a mere 350 years to admit that Galileo was right and to rescind its ban on his book about the heliocentric theory?

5)

>why is the headwater of the colorado river lower than the rim of the grand canyon?

Is it? I've been to both, and the headwater of the Colorado is pretty far up in the mountains.

Anyway, you seem to have overlooked that land can be rising, uplifted by tectonic forces, during the time that a river is cutting a canyon through that land. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison is a more spectacular example.

>is that sound scientific reasoning....to asume that water flowed uphill to begin carving the canyon?)

Why do you apparently assume that the land elevation around the canyon has not risen since the river began carving the canyon?

You _are_ aware than rocks formed from ocean bottom sediments have been found, and can be readily seen, thousands of feet above current sea level, aren't you?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 10, 2001.

To be more accurate, the fact that lifeforms evolve has never been seriously questioned, even by creationists. The successes of the plant and animal breeders cannot be denied. Selective breeding clearly brings out certain target traits, and/or reduces others. Fruit fly breeders have started with the same stock and developed strains so divergent interbreeding is no longer possible. By all accepted definitions, they have bred entirely new species.

So in this sense evolution is not a theory, it is a body of observation and empirical evidence. What is a theory, is the mechanism that nature substitutes for the breeder's art. And over the course of time, various theories as to how this happens have been clearly disproven (see Lamarck), and competing theories are today hotly contested (see the debate between Gould and Dawkins).

Furthermore, ALL of these proposed theories are inherently disproveable, and their proponents have explicitly described what evidence would disprove them and how it should be collected and interpreted. The claim that these theories to explain evolution (NOT theories that evolution exists! Nobody denies gravity exists, yet Einstein's theory replaced Newton's, and even Einstein's conflicts with quantum mechanics, so it is very probably incomplete as well) are themselves definitional or based on faith, is one of those peculiar arguments creationists have come up with to use a smokescreen to "defend" the preposterous.

But arguments with the religion-blinded always ultimately run up against the same mindblock, that "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" Even if the bible doesn't actually say it. After all, the bible says whatever you choose to believe it says. The wonderful thing about beliefs is, because they need no analogue in reality, they can never be subject to doubt. The True Believer may be wrong but never, ever, doubts.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 10, 2001.

Flint, your first paragraph is interesting. Are you saying that selective breeding of dogs illustrates evolution? No, I don't think you are because all breeds of dogs are still dogs; ie, they are the same species.

But fruit flies have been bred to the point where they are different species? How did that happen? Was an nth generation that could still breed with the (n-1) generation and an (n+1) generation that could not breed with the nth generation (ie, a new species)? I did not know that that had actually been observed. Do you have a reference?

I do not disbelieve in evolution but I did not think it had ever been observed. My sense is that evolution is steplike; that species exist unevolved over a period of time and then somehow dicontinuously change state to another species.

Do you think that homo-sapiens are gradually, generation by generation, evolving into a more advanced creature? Is the Gen-X little-toe statistically smaller than the baby-boomer little-toe? Is the baby-boomer little-toe statistically smaller than the WWII small toe, etc? Is true evolution of any species occurring as we speak? Can it be identified?

I am not at all familiar with the Gould/Dawkins debate. Is it easy to summarize?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 11, 2001.

Lars:

I'll answer as best I can

[Are you saying that selective breeding of dogs illustrates evolution? No, I don't think you are because all breeds of dogs are still dogs; ie, they are the same species.]

Yes, I am saying this. I think your definition is too strict in this case. Certainly some dog breeds cannot interbreed by ordinary means, they are too different morphologically. Evolution in this sense is a gradual process. And many creatures formally recognized as distinct species can indeed interbreed under the right circumstances (artifical insemination sometimes) but don't, usually because their ranges do not overlap. Nobody claims that new species erupt overnight, having lost interbreeding capability. Indeed, the "interbreeding test" is relatively recent, and not always useful in developing our taxonomy. Nature tends to be more continuous than our requirement for distinct species "boxes" allows for.

[But fruit flies have been bred to the point where they are different species? How did that happen?]

Different groups have been breeding fruit flies for different characteristics for a long time, because fruit flies are so easy to work with. Some years back, two isolated breeding groups noticed that their fruit flies could no longer interbreed. Exactly when and how this ability was lost, nobody could say. But now we've found that this is fairly common between fruit fly labs.

[Do you have a reference?]

Not offhand. But you might try talk.origins and start exploring. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org

[My sense is that evolution is steplike; that species exist unevolved over a period of time and then somehow dicontinuously change state to another species.]

Interesting field of study, I think. Punctuated equilibrium holds that speciation takes place among isolated small populations living in different environments that reward different characteristics. And that the changes happen relatively fast, in comparison to the probability of fossilization. But fossilization requires such extraordinary circumstances that it's very rare, so "relatively fast" might be tens of thousands of years of isolation.

There is also the "hopeful monster" genetic change, like corn from teosinte. These plants don't bear much physical resemblance to one another physically, but genetically they are identical except for one gene that controls one aspect of development during growth. Change that gene, and the change is discontinuous. But this does not appear to be the normal avenue for change. More on this later.

[Do you think that homo-sapiens are gradually, generation by generation, evolving into a more advanced creature?]

No, because humans are too mobile and interbreed everywhere they go. You need a small population isolated for a relatively long time to get changes. However, if we invent FTL travel and populate different planets, I think we WILL satisfy these conditions, of small isolated populations facing different environments, and evolution will happen rapidly under those conditions.

[Is true evolution of any species occurring as we speak? Can it be identified?]

Yes it is, and we can. Why do you think our antibiotics don't work very well anymore?

[I am not at all familiar with the Gould/Dawkins debate. Is it easy to summarize?]

Dawkins is more of a gradualist. But the debate was more quantitative than qualitative. When Gould's idea of "very quickly" is compared with Dawkins' idea of "gradually", it turns out both are talking about tens of thousands of years to millions of years. This period is "very quick" relative to billions of years or fossilization rates, but "very gradual" in terms of using a human lifespan as a baseline. If your sampling rate is only once per few million years in time and essentially random in distribution, you are NOT going to have fossils that trace an evolutionary change that happened in 10,000 years in one small location. We do have a handful of such records, but the marvel is that we have any at all.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 11, 2001.

Flint, thanks for your answers and for not jumping to the conclusion that I am a closet-creationist trying to trap you. Actually, I look at evolution as part of "creation", not inconsistent with it.

I may not understand your point but I still believe that a dog is a dog is a dog and that different breeds do no a different species make. A Great Dane may not be able (or even want to be able) to mount a Toy Poodle but isn't it possible for them to breed, albeit by artificial insemination?

So mutating bacteria and virii (?) are living examples of evolution? OK, I haven't enough expertise to question this.

As far as I know, there is not an identifiable evolution between any of the various hominids. It looks like Homo sapiens somehow just "appeared"; they do not seem to have evolved in a continuum from homo erectus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Something I have wondered---do you or does anyone else know if a female gorilla has ever been artificially inseminated with human sperm? I have to believe that this has been tried somewhere in the last 60 years (maybe in Nazi Germany or in the USSR). I sure would be curious to know the results. We do know that certain similar species can have infertile hybrid offspring, ie, the horse + the donkey = the mule; the lion + the tiger = the tigron. Perhaps human beings + gorillas = "humanillas"?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 11, 2001.

Lars:

Clearly, various breeds of dogs are very different. I already said that via artificial insemination or crossbreeding, we can (and do) create hybrids with useful properties, some of which can breed true. Once again, our notion of a "species" isn't natural, it's taxonomic, making life easier for those who like neat compartments. If species were as distinct as you seem to imply, then Luther Burbank would have gotten nowhere.

I would say that different breeds of dogs, if found in the wild as we have now bred them, would have certainly been classified as different species. Many other similar creatures work the same way -- when brought together (overlapping ranges), they interbreed. Were they therefore not separate species? The problem lies in the definition, not in the creatures themselves. If we view evolution as a continuous process of cumulative small steps (the breeder's viewpoint), then we are well on the way to creating separate species of dogs. The desire to draw a clear, distinct line and say "AHA! We crossed that line, we have a new species" is a function of humans' desire to compartmentalize. Nature doesn't work that way.

[As far as I know, there is not an identifiable evolution between any of the various hominids. It looks like Homo sapiens somehow just "appeared"; they do not seem to have evolved in a continuum from homo erectus.]

Depends on what you mean by an "identifiable evolution". Fossilization is very rare. Think of trying to make sense of a movie if you about 1% of the frames in that movie, selected at random. You'd be very hard pressed even to describe the story; you certainly wouldn't have a continuum. But this is strictly an artifact of a very very incomplete historical record, and NOT a characteristic of the movie itself. You might better ask, IF rapid evolution happens in small isolated populations, and IF fossils happen very rarely both in time and place, WHAT kind of fossil record of this pattern of evolution would we expect to find? And voila, we'd expect to find exactly what we HAVE found.

You are skating very close to one of the common creationist fallacies here as well. The creationist will examine these few frames of the continuous movie, as we watch fossils of a given lineage diverge from a common ancestor more and more over time. And the creationist compares each frame with the first and says "nope, too close, no evolution there" as the fossils diverge more and more, but not enough so that normal individual variation might explain it. Finally, N fossils down the line, one of them has diverged so far it cannot possibly be an individual variant of the original. And at that point the creationist says "See? This is a new species appearing out of nowhere! Proof of creation!" And if you point out that the variation between this Nth fossil and fossil N-1 (instead of between N and the original) COULD EASILY be individual variation, the creationist ignores you. He has found his "proof" of creation, and is satisfied.

Finally, if anyone has tried to cross breed humans with other primates, I'm not aware of it. Chimpanzees are much closer to humans than are gorillas, according to the gene map. But I've never heard of such an experiment. There are various theories (maybe hypotheses would be more accurate) as to why the primate branch of the evolutionary tree is so barren. I think an ecologist could help you more than I can here.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 11, 2001.

Buddy -

I don't know the name of the book.

Hi Flint -

>>>>>But arguments with the religion-blinded always ultimately run up against the same mindblock, that "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" Even if the bible doesn't actually say it.

The bible may or may not have scientific evidence about evaporation, distillation, rain, currents within the seas, the weight of air, earth suspended in space, earth revolves around the sun, the earth being round. I don't recall such passages, so I can't very well say, "The bible tells me so." If I thought there were a better chance of it being true than false, I'd at least cite where exactly it could be found in the bible.

>>>>>>>> After all, the bible says whatever you choose to believe it says.

You're kidding?

>>>>>>>The wonderful thing about beliefs is, because they need no analogue in reality, they can never be subject to doubt. The True Believer may be wrong but never, ever, doubts.

hahahaha

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 12, 2001.

So, uh, Flint, then you *must* have doubts about the "fact" of evolution...

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 12, 2001.

Flint After all, the bible says whatever you choose to believe it says

You can do better than that Flint.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 13, 2001.

Back to the thread subject. Belief in testbooks for acurary0-LOL. I know better. I had a radical 6th grade teacher (at the time, 1963) who told all of us never to believe textbooks, that most of them were crap and at the time, said "Most of the stuff they write in there (textbooks) is crap-don't believe it" (no lie). For instructions she shared her life experiences with us, almost like what I would imagine is homeschooled now (without the routine parental dogma). Her classroom fostered debate, education thru her life experiences, and the classics in terms of history, literature, and math-not the textbooks. She is one of two of my most memorable human teachers in my lifetime to date. As a child, I was priveleged to expand my views and look at life and education thru her eyes, which were ever open and willing to look at another view. She taught me much, and I think of her fondly even now. She was a gift that she shared with so many children over the years. I hope that each of you have had a special teacher in your lives, and that each of your children are blessed enough, to at least have one teacher who thinks outside the mainstream, so that they know it is okay to believe differently than others, and still live harmoniusly. That teacher was a gift that I carry with me to this day, and still thank her.

-- Aunt Bee (Aunt__Bee@hotmail.com), March 13, 2001.

*SIGH*

"If your living like there is no God....U better be right"

It is sad to see the inroads Lucifer has made into the hearts of mankind....

"The Greeks (of which Paul was one) "

WRONG. Jew. Hebrew among hebrews. nice try tho. shows your ignorance. try again when you actually know what your talking about.

Flint:

-- (thec@m.forter), March 13, 2001.

Elbow:

That does not logically follow. You can't say that if someone doubts anything, they must therefore doubt everything. Don't let your zeal cloud your thinking.

More realistically, we have a heirarchy of doubts. When you have something that is amply supported by all observations, and where apparent contradictions have always resolved themselves in the same direction, your reasonable doubt ought to shrink to nearly zero, unless you have some compelling need to disregard observations.

Evolution is like gravity -- there is no good reason to doubt that either one happens. Exactly HOW either one happens is still open to plenty of investigation. We don't need to doubt evolution or gravity to doubt that Darwin or Einstein found precisely the correct explanation. They probably didn't.

Pibb:

The bible does indeed seem wide open to an amazing range of interpretation. There are literally hundreds of Christian sects, who distinguish their beliefs from one another based on different biblical interpretations. It's been a long-standing aphorism that the devil can quote scripture to his purpose. What do you suppose that aphorism means?

However, once we get away from the more arbitrary and irrational notions people have extracted by mixing the bible with equal doses of profound creativity and a desperate need for certainty, we do find a certain amount of history. Recent archeological proposals have tied our findings to biblical accounts with surprising congruence.

So maybe I should say instead, that the bible says what it says, but *means* whatever you want it to. I'll gladly accept anything the bible says that has sufficient corroborating evidence. And when the evidence flat contradicts anyone's personal biblical interpretation, I'll go with the evidence.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2001.

"So that's why the Roman Catholic Church took a mere 350 years to admit that Galileo was right and to rescind its ban on his book about the heliocentric theory? "

The post says "christians", if you would read more carefully, you might understand the point that was being made. Since when has the Rome church (falsly called) had any claim to christianity?

-- (ignor@nce.abounds), March 13, 2001.

Flint,

>>That does not logically follow. <<

You said: The True Believer may be wrong but never, ever, doubts. To which I responded: ...then you *must* have doubts about the "fact" of evolution...

If you have no doubts, you've categorized yourself as a True Believer. You then confirm that characterization with this hilarious followup statement: Evolution is like gravity. Au contraire, mon ami. Gravity is observable, experimentally repeatable, predictable and can be described mathematically. None of these is true of evolution. The attempt to associate the two illustrates the extent of *your* zeal.

Earlier you said: Think of trying to make sense of a movie if you [take] about 1% of the frames in that movie, selected at random.

This is another illustration of zeal. Let's try to be a little more intellectually honest. Applying this to evolution, 0.01% of the frames from a dozen different movies would be more than generous, and much closer to reality. What kind of coherence can anyone honestly expect from such a dearth of evidence?

And finally, you repeat one of my alltime favorites:

You might better ask, IF rapid evolution happens in small isolated populations, and IF fossils happen very rarely both in time and place, WHAT kind of fossil record of this pattern of evolution would we expect to find? And voila, we'd expect to find exactly what we HAVE found.

Voila indeed! The *lack* of evidence is proof that evolution occurred in such and such a manner! That is an affront to logic itself. Yet you present these fatuous arguments with as much religious fervor as any good evangelist.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 13, 2001.

Elbow:

You have set up the assumption that one either has NO doubts, or one has ALL doubts. You disallow the case where one has SOME doubts. Yet almost everything we know falls somewhere between the extremes of all and nothing. Your insistence that these extremes describe reality, that there's nothing in between, is necessary for you to build your illogical case. You should know the reliability of conclusions based on false premises.

A bit later on, I point out that we try to make our theories match our evidence. To make this case, I point out that IF we have based our theories on the evidence, then if our theories are accurate, we'd expect to find the evidence we based them on! Doh! And somehow, you find religion hidden in the idea of basing theories on evidence.

In any case, instead of violating logic and reciting specious memorized catechisms, you might wish to comment on what we have learned from actual observation. The active debates going on today are exciting. I hope you can get past your brand of sterile and repetitive denial to see what's happening and enjoy it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2001.

Flint,

>>You have set up the assumption that one either has NO doubts, or one has ALL doubts. <<

With this statement you make it clear that you have totally missed or ignored the point. Rather than admit to even the smallest doubt, you have responded like a True Believer. That speaks louder than anything else you've said.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 13, 2001.

Elbow:

[you have responded like a True Believer. That speaks louder than anything else you've said.]

Problem is, you are describing a characterization of your own devising, rather than what I actually said. Go back and read the part about a heirarchy of certainty, based on amount and consistency of evidence.

I carefully spoke about a *degree* of doubt, and of how evolution and gravity are "facts" insofar as they fall waaay near the end of the spectrum represented by complete certainty. Our explanations of these facts fall well away from that end. They have as much certainty as we can currently muster, but we recognize that we can probably do better, and we are also aware that there are contradictions not yet resolved, inherent in our best current explanations.

Now, if you wish to claim that our true degree of certainty is precisely zero with respect to anything not taken as an article of faith, and instead based on human consideration of human observation, this is a sterile position but you can take it if you wish. I'll continue to disagree with this position. I think we have sufficient evidence of human ability to learn to accept that we really do learn. Those of us who wish to, anyway.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2001.

Flint,

These are your words:

"Evolution is like gravity -- there is no good reason to doubt that either one happens."

"We don't need to doubt evolution ..."

It was not necessary for me to devise a thing. A real scientist will approach any position with a healthy dose of skepticism, especially if it is presented as a certainty. You, sir, are no scientist.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 13, 2001.

Elbow:

A real scientist adjusts his skepticism as required by the evidence. Real scientists do not go about rejecting everything as "doubtful" and therefore useless. Your argument collapses of its own inappropriateness.

And you carefully avoided the question I raised as well. Bodies of evidence approach certainty in proportion to their size and consistency. Do you care to address this point, or are you content to attack feeble misrepresentations?

In any case, knock yourself out.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2001.

Wouldn't it be amusing to be there to watch Flint try his bafflegab on God at the final judgement?

I can see Flintboy now, telling God that He really doesn't exist and therefor cannot consign him to hell.

"There is no proof that hell exists. There is no proof that *YOU* exist, God....therefor you have no power over....MMEEEeeeeeeeee...." (fall off into backstroke in the LOF)

-- (notre@lly.funny), March 15, 2001.

Flint -

>>>>I think we have sufficient evidence of human ability to learn to accept that we really do learn.

If what you learn, becomes what you believe (or disbelieve).....would you say that faith (belief) is necessary for learning?

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 15, 2001.

by@grace,

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary points to a difference in the definitions of FAITH & BELIEF with which I agree. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer .

FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof .

My use of the word BELIEF carries with it a definite lack of certitude. My FAITH operates on a spiritual level and applies only to me. Of course, my belief that spirituality is a personal matter creates the inner environment, which translates into action, wherein I do not place my BELIEFS nor FAITH on anyone elses shoulders.

I *believe* Karma/Reincarnation are pretty good concepts and they provide excellent ground rules for living my life. I take BELIEF a step further and convert it to FAITH that this is the way the universe operates. I hold maintain a small place inside where healthy doubt resides. Nonetheless, I live my life accordingly because I have to have ground rules and because my heart and mind concur with this philosophy - having rejected Judaism & Christianity - and react positively when I act within the bounds of it. So I take a BELIEF and imbue it with a heavy dose of certainty. Walla! I have FAITH that Karma/Reincarnation provide the operating rules of my life.

You asked: If what you learn, becomes what you believe (or disbelieve).....would you say that faith (belief) is necessary for learning? My response is, in most situations, which are minor in importance, faith doesn't enter into it. I don't take blind leaps often, nor do I particularly enjoy doing so. I equate FAITH with my own weaknesses and insecurities. Not states of which I am proud. I look to eradicate these states of mind whenever possible. Hence, my spiritual journey, the seeking of proofs, of truths which serve to replace FAITH with certitude born of proofs, not blind leaps. Is this achievable or am I merely a dog chasing his tail? :)

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 15, 2001.

bygrace:

There are two levels to your question. First, does it take faith to believe we are capable of learning? Second, after we learn something, do we accept it as being true on faith?

I'd say no to both levels. We all know many things today that we did not know when we were younger. As a species, we have accomplished a great deal by standing on the shoulders of giants -- those who blazed the trails before us. Learning is cumulative and forever imperfect. A degree of certainty attaches to all we think we know, which is always less than 100% complete certainty (though it can get very close).

So when we've learned something, we still reserve some degree of skepticism about it. Most observable things we change our minds about, we do because we observe under different circumstances. What we knew was often not so much incorrect as incomplete.

In science, fact and theory are essentially inextricable. Without facts, we could not evolve theories. But without theories, we could not understand facts. This is both a weakness and a strength. It's a weakness because we can use theories to "find" only what we're looking for, making theory self-corroborating. But it's a strength because our errors are self-correcting as well, as scientists work in competition as well as cooperation.

What separates theory from faith, ultimately, is that a theory must make predictions, which are inherently capable of falsifying that theory if these predictions fail. So theory is based on observation, and can never be perfect because we cannot observe everything perfectly. Faith is based on definition, and can never be false because definitions are true by definition.

According to my definitions, faith actively prohibits learning. After all, if you already *know* what's true a priori, why go out and investigate? If you find what you already knew, you wasted your time. If you find anything else, you must have done it wrong! If you decide you didn't do it wrong, then your faith must have been incorrect. So why not just drop the faith and rely on the investigation? True you must settle for "our current best guess" rather than absolute truth. But our current best guess is likely to be very accurate, while those who possess the truth are learn-proofed.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 15, 2001.

I know I have no life when I enter into a discussion on Evolution, but I took a class last semester in "Biological Diversity and Ecology", and find the subject just interesting enough to pop in.

Darwinism is by no means the final thought on this subject. As Flint stated, we have the theorists and we have evidence that SOME of what the theorists state is true. Tomorrow will bring new theorists and every year we're alive we'll be offered new evidence to either support or debunk those theories. Darwin's theory has flaws. ANY theory as old as his would have flaws, as science has moved on and explained this and that.

Darwin is associated with evolution because his theories on the subject made more sense than those of his predecessors AND could be proven to be true, while the theories of his predecessors were proven to be false. I think it was Wallace who came up with the same theory a bit before Darwin, but Darwin expanded on the theory and got published [leaving Wallace out of the game.]

How, exactly, do creationists explain the history of continental drift? How, exactly, do you explain Pangaea if the world is as young as you purport?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 15, 2001.

Rich -

>>>>>>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary points to a difference in the definitions of FAITH & BELIEF with which I agree. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer . FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof .

I had even looked them up and couldn't quite grasp the difference. I'll check the synonymns next time. Thanks.

Flint - ok, thanks.

Anita -

>>>>if the world is as young as you purport?

I don't have an opinion on how old the earth is...neither do I see where they get the 6-7000 figure out of scripture.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 16, 2001.

There is no actual "continential drift", at least not according to laser measurements taken from space by NASA. There is a reason that explains this, based in creationism, but no time to go into that right now, however.

The geneologies in Genesis. Add them up. You get about 2000 years from Adam to Abraham, about 2000 years from Abe to Christ, and about 2000 from Christ to now.

www.answersingenesis.org

-- B.i.b.l.e. (Basic intrustions before le@ving.earth), March 16, 2001.

Anita--

There are Creationists and Creationists. One need not take Genesis literally to be a Creationist.

Personally I have no problem in reconciling a 4 billion year old earth, continental drift, and evolution with the notion of a Creator. I see these things as simply a part of an ongoing Creation.

IMO, what separates people of Faith from the Rationalists is that we accept that not everything can be explained. Not now, not ever.

For me, it's been a relief to reach that state. For me, the need to explain everything was unbearable.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 16, 2001.

"How, exactly, do you explain Pangaea if the world is as young as you purport?"

What is pangaea?

(the flood destroyed EVERYTHING worldwide about 4000 years ago....nothing can be verified right now that is older than about 3400-3800 years....)

-- (B.@i.b.l.e), March 17, 2001.