UPDATES                                     

Creationism in classroom causes concern

Facebook19Twitter84EmailGoogle+10

CURRICULUM CREATION: Science teacher Anquinette Jones showed this cartoon to her biology classes.

The latest chapter in the debate over how to teach the origins of human life is unfolding closer to home than many in the Grady community would have ever expected.

A PowerPoint shown to a freshman biology class featured a cartoon depicting dueling castles, one labeled “Creation (Christ)” and the other labeled “Evolution (Satan).” Balloons attached to the evolution castle were labeled euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, divorce, racism and abortion.

The PowerPoint was assigned for the students to view on the website Blackboard as a part of Anquinette Jones’ freshman biology class. Jones declined comment, saying that the PowerPoint originated with APS.

The PowerPoint, which has more than 50 slides largely consisting of material about evolution, was downloaded from SharePoint, an APS file-sharing database for teachers. It was uploaded by Mary E. King, a project manager at APS who has also uploaded more than 2,000 other documents. Phone calls and emails to King have not been returned. Tommy Molden, science coordinator for APS, also did not respond to requests for comment.

“Evolution is part of high school biology curriculum,” the PowerPoint reads. “You are entitled to challenge everything and encouraged to believe whatever you would like.”

Several students and parents were offended by the implications of the cartoon, including freshman Seraphina Cooley, who is in Jones’ class.

“[I] have gay parents, and [the cartoon] said that evolution caused homosexuality and it implied that to be negative, so I was pretty offended by it,” Cooley said.

Cooley said that another student emailed the administration complaining about the PowerPoint.

Freshman Griffin Ricker, who is also in Jones’ class, said Jones got angry with the class when she found out students had notified the administration.

“She had a 10-minute rant,” Ricker said. “She yelled and said, ‘This is on the APS website, and it was certified.’”

Freshman Lily Soto, who switched from Jones’ biology class after the first semester, said Jones had refused to teach evolution when the class approached the portion of the cirriculum.

“She always had random comments about [creationism],” Soto said. “If someone would ask if we were going to learn evolution, she was like, ‘No, I don’t teach that.’”

Robin Rosen, parent of a freshman, took her child out of Jones’ class after the first semester. She said she wouldn’t have talked to The Southerner if her child were still in Jones’ class, for fear of retaliation.

“I was offended, but more shocked and disturbed that a teacher in [APS] could get away with putting that in a classroom,” Rosen said. “Offended is probably the wrong word at this point; it is very troubling to me that a teacher who is in a position of influence over children in a public school can put something up [like the cartoon].”

Fellow science teacher Nikolai Curtis said the PowerPoint was, in his opinion, inappropriate to show while teaching evolution.

“[It] dealt specifically with the religious controversy associated with it, and one of the major rules of teaching evolution is that it is science, and it is based in fact, based in evidence,” Curtis said.

Curtis said that the system, however, has not told biology teachers how to deal with the controversy.

“I look at it professionally,” he said. “Science is based in fact; that’s the secret of science.”

Curtis also said that neither creationism nor any form of intelligent design are mentioned in APS standards, an omission he deems appropriate.

“If you start adopting religious doctrine as a form of teaching, you start advocating for a religion,” Curtis said. “There is no national religion. When you teach religion in a public school setting, you are reinforcing a national religion, and that’s not acceptable.”

Sophomore Isabel Olson, who took biology from Jones last year, said that this cartoon was not the first instance of creationism being discussed in class. She said that one time, a classmate asked how cells were created.

“Ms. Jones’ answer was [something like], ‘It’s divine, God created us.’” Olson said.

Olson also said Jones had the students debate creationism versus evolution.

“One day we had to go home and prepare a short debate to do for the next class about creationism versus evolution,” Olson said, “We had to prepare the pros and cons of creationism and evolution and present the ideas.”

Olson said she went to talk to administrators about the religious aspect of Jones’ teaching, but they didn’t take any action.

Georgia Department of Education director of communications Matt Cardoza confirmed that creationism is not included in the state curriculum standards for biology. In fact, he said Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard established that a state cannot require the teaching of creationism.

In the case, the court found that a Louisiana law which required the teaching of creationism was unconstitutional, since the law’s intent was to advance a particular religion. The Court found, however, that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” The majority opinion was based on the “Lemon Test,” named for the 1971 Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman.

The Lemon Test outlines whether an action taken by the government violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, the basis for the separation of church and state.

While it is a well-established fact that it is unlawful to solely teach creationism alone, the constitutionality of creationism being taught alongside evolution is less clear.

Georgia State University professor Eric Segall, who specializes in constitutional law, said that creationism is only permissible if taught in the context of evolution: “[Creationism] has to be taught alongside evolution, and it has to be taught very generally, as an alternative theory of evolution.”

Although there is no clear Supreme Court case banning the teaching of creationism in public schools, a district court case seems to strengthen the argument of proponents of the ban.

In Webster v. New Lenox School District (1999), the court found that a school district was allowed to prohibit teachers from teaching creationism and equated “creation science” to religious advocacy, saying that any form of its teaching was unconstitutional. Upon appeal, the case was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

301 Comments

  1. Randy Malamud says:

    This is outstanding reporting, and it’s really disturbing to hear that creationism is being taught in our classrooms. As a Grady parent, I would very much appreciate a follow-up on how this is being handled now that you have brought it out into the open.

  2. Sabrina says:

    I’m a little worried about the interpretation of professor Segall who said: “[Creationism] has to be taught alongside evolution, and it has to be taught very generally, as an alternative theory of evolution.”

    Is he saying that you could actually teach this made up subject in science class? Maybe we should start teaching our kids that unicorn exist. As long as we teach it alongside evolution we should be ok. :)

    Great reporting!

  3. This is egregious. I cannot believe this person is a science teacher. I have been trying to become a science teacher for 3 years in Georgia and can’t even get an interview by a principal, yet this person is doing this to our children! This is depressing. Thanks for bringing this to light. I’ll draw more attention to this. Wonderfully done. – Fulton County Parent

  4. Excellent reporting! You did an amazing job backing your story with history and research. Was Jones offered a reply on this?

  5. XaurreauX says:

    Atlanta can avoid this problem in the future if they hire grownups to do the teaching. And it might not be a bad idea to put one or two on the school board, as well.

  6. Margaret Ewell says:

    Sadly, this article is another reason to home school. Objective journalism with accurate research IS DEAD. The article is nothing but a bigoted hit piece on Christians. If Weinstein/Kinnane had done their homework, they would know that the article should be about COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. Most home schoolers and many Christians would immediately recognize the cartoon’s source as being lifted from Ken Ham’s best seller, THE LIE: EVOLUTION (p. 92, copyright 1987). Even Bill Nye would recognize it. Ken Ham should sue APS for reproducing it without his permission. Also, because the authors of the article didn’t do their homework, they failed to note that in context, the cartoon is actually chiding Christians for not knowing the most effective way to challenge evolutionary doctrine. Sorry, Jr. Journalists, you missed the boat on EVERY POINT!

    • Rick Martin says:

      I don’t know what article you read but this is excellent reporting. Quit playing the victim and start using the brain evolution gave you.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “start using the brain evolution gave you”

        What a strange phrase. Why do you feel the need to use personification to describe a random event? We are talking about science, right? If your brain is random, and my brain is random, what is there to talk about? What would be our standard for any type of comparison? Everyone is just different. Surviving doesn’t mean “better,” it just means not dead. We are both alive, so I guess my opinion is just different than yours.

        • skinnercitycyclist says:

          OK, how about using some basic reading skills? This not in the slightest a “bigoted hit piece on Christians,” it is a piece on a teacher who does not understand boundaries. Religious indoctrination has no place in public schools, period. This is well-established law, so please grow up, read a book other than the bible once in a while, and read this article more carefully.

        • Crystal says:

          Margaret I think your purposely missing the point by delving into sentence semantics (phrasing).

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            No, I just hold people accountable for what they actually write. If there is a fallacy in their logic, I point it out.

            “Logic!” said the Professor half to himself. “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.”

            ? C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

        • Vince says:

          You, madam, are an idiot.

        • Noah Dillon says:

          There’s nothing in the science of evolution that suggests that your brain or anyone else’s is random or a “random event.” An object can’t be an event, not can a particular and persistent object be randomized. Basic biology shows that for all intents and purposes your brain and mine and most everyone else’s is basically the same. You’d be at an evolutionary disadvantage if every one of your offspring were radically, randomly different.

          This may be part of why you’re so opposed to science as to advocate for homeschooling to avoid it: no one has ever adequately taught you about it. You appear to completely misunderstand evolution’s basic premises and mechanics.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            Well, Noah
            Did you just get off the boat? (Sorry, I couldn’t resist a little Creationist humor!)

            The statement as originally written implied that my brain had “evolved” or was the product of evolution. Darwin’s theory was that RANDOM mutations in cell DNA over a loooooong time could result in MACROEVOLUTION, or continual changes in form and function of a living being such that no fixed “species” exist, but a continuum of changing forms. We currently see a mere snapshot in time of the continuum of life, and it can mistakenly be considered to be “fixed” groups of life forms called species. These seemingly fixed groups appear to reproduce like species, but it is an illusion. Random change is the only Truth. What drives the direction of this continuum are the random mutations (changes) in the DNA, the organism’s building blueprint. Change the blueprint, change the organism’s structure. Change the structure, and sometimes it survives and sometimes it doesn’t. If it is alive long enough to reproduce, the blueprints are passed on and they may randomly mutate again, and the continuum continues. Darwin theorized that all living things we see today are the result of this ongoing process of random change. There are no moral distinctions in this system, as everything is a result of randomness. How can a system such as this produce an “organized” brain? IT CANNOT. That is merely an illusion. We exist because we did not die when our blueprints changed. That is all. Therefore, our thoughts are random. Sometimes they may keep us alive, sometimes not. The randomness just continues without us.

          • Cora Hill says:

            Actually Margaret, Darwin argued that evolution occurred over millions and millions of years due to a process called “natural selection.” This process was said to occur over billions of years, making it so that each species had the traits most suited to the hardships of their environment. Mutations had nothing to do with it. Either Amino acids in polypeptide chains or DNA strands are mutated, or they aren’t. If mutations were the reason for evolution, all the creatures on this earth would have evolved in thousands, maybe even hundreds of years, as opposed to billions. The idea of natural selection can be taken with a grain of ‘Freudian’ salt, with the suggestion that we as human beings are most attracted to traits in sexual partners that we are most consciously lacking in our selves in order to improve our offspring. Taking this idea into account along with shifting environments and you have a recipe for evolution. And thus ALL of the traits separating humans from apes are aquatic traits (Fat for insulation underwater congruent with aquatic mammals, elevated IQs from eating shellfish, slightly webbed fingers in comparison to most primates, upright walking for fishing/wading in water, relative hairlessness; these all imply our ancestors lived close to the sea while ape’s ancestors did not), Dolphins and other sea mammals have pelvises for upright walking as well as finger bones, People of African descent have darker skin to be less susceptible to sun damage, people of asian descent are smaller and generally healthier due to generations of a primarily pescetarian diet, however they generally lack a tolerance for alcohol due to it not being as present in their environment aside from relatively recent years, and every single generation of humans on average have a slightly higher IQ level than the generation above them. This can be seen with the ever-changing “genius level” IQ. Every few years the mark of what is ‘genius’ is increased (I believe it is about at 147 now). an example of this would be to look at ancient iconographic art. If you don’t believe in ancient skeletons and think they were placed here to test your faith, then how do you feel about ancient art? Do you know how children draw people based on their age? Very young children draw stick figures with maybe some hair and eyes and a mouth. They neglect noses, and any sort of figure abnormality or any individualistic traits. This level in their thinking is reflective on how far their brains have developed. It is not their art skills that improve, it is the way in which they perceive the world. This is reflective of ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and even Asian art. The human figure did not become reflective of the true human form until ancient Greece. Another example of this is more close to home. Have your husband and your IQs tested. your children’s IQ’s should be an estimated average, leaning slightly more to the maternal side. However, Factoring in evolution, it is likely that their IQ’s will be slightly higher than that average. Not to mention that humans are constantly growing taller and larger, making a noticeable impact from even just 200 years ago. This increase in height and intelligence is likely due to hundreds of years of relative prosperity in first world countries. I saw how this really came to play when I lived In Thailand and Korea. Generations of malnutrition have made it so that people are shorter in poorer regions, and have a harder time keeping up with education. When going to live in Bangladesh a few years ago as a 16 year old 5’7″ blonde girl, the last thing I was expecting to be a problem was being taller than the majority of the adult men. Yes, Asian descent does come into play, but not to the extent I experienced. Evolution does come into play. The evidence is everywhere.
            By no means am I bashing religion, or even Christianity. I myself am very religious (I am buddhist, but my father is Christian and my mother is Jewish. I believe that religion is one’s own PERSONAL choice, not something to be forced onto others), and I choose to believe that maybe it is not just chance that we evolved this way. The fact that science PROVES that everything living and breathing and thinking on this Earth was once just stardust (law of conservation of matter, nothing is created only changed) is NOTHING short of an ABSOLUTE miracle. I have lived all over the world as a child and seen how different cultures and religions approach the topic of the creation of man. And as a twenty year-old, young adult college student in the state of Georgia, I also understand that there are several super-conservative Christians, who believe in creationism above all else. However, if you wish to advocate your opinion onto the generations of tomorrow, you should really have all the facts and be able to PLACE those facts together. Over a hundred years ago, Darwin speculated about natural selection and evolution, but it is in more RECENT and MODERN times (relevant to today as you have been saying) that we can come up with even more evidence to back up Darwin’s speculations.
            If Christianity is what helps you find inner peace, then I am genuinely happy for you. However it is not your place to press your beliefs upon anyone else. SCIENCE is SCIENCE, and how you choose to take the facts should be your own, PERSONAL journey on the path to inner peace.

        • Andrew says:

          Margaret, evolution isn’t random. Go away, learn what evolution actually is, and then argue about it. What you said is like saying (and is exactly as dumb as): “well if cars run on milk, how come I can’t get milk to burn?” In this case it’s because cars don’t run on milk. Starting your sentence “if” when you have no idea what you’re talking about is a dumb idea. You are a knowledge vaccum.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            “Mutations had nothing to do with it.”
            “evolution isn’t random”

            Andrew and Cora, you are quite mistaken. These are the MAIN TENETS of Darwinian evolution. Creationists reject that these processes could produce the life forms we see today, even over billions of years.

            Here is what your experts say on the topic:

            “In order for a mutation to be subject to natural selection, it must be expressed in the phenotypes of individuals. Selection favors mutations that result in adaptive phenotypes and eliminates nonadaptive ones. Even when mutations produce recessive alleles that are seldom expressed in phenotypes, they become part of a vast reservoir of hidden variability that can show up in future generations. Such potentially harmful recessive alleles add to the genetic load of a population. Even mutations that have a neutral effect can become advantageous or harmful if the environment changes to select for or against them.

            The great diversity of life forms that have been identified in the fossil record is evidence that there has been an accumulation of mutations producing a more or less constant supply of both small and large variations upon which natural selection has operated for billions of years. Mutation has been the essential prerequisite for the evolution of life.”
            http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_3.htm

            “Mutation is simply defined as, “random changes in genetic material”. In molecular biology and genetics, mutations are accidental changes in a genomic sequence of DNA: the DNA sequence of a cell’s genome or the DNA or RNA sequence in some viruses. These random sequences can be defined as sudden and spontaneous changes in the cell. Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation.
            Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent mutations.
            Mutations can involve large sections of DNA becoming duplicated, usually through genetic recombination. These duplications are a major source of raw material for evolving new genes, with tens to hundreds of genes duplicated in animal genomes every million years. Most genes belong to larger families of genes of shared ancestry. Novel genes are produced by several methods, commonly through the duplication and mutation of an ancestral gene, or by recombining parts of different genes to form new combinations with new functions.”
            http://www.darwinwasright.org/mutation.html

    • Guy Chapman says:

      Yes, if the teaching of scientific facts such as evolution offends you, then please do homeschool. Better still, don’t reproduce at all, you’re reducing the average IQ of the planet and trying to wind back progress to the middle ages.

      Every scientist I have known, whether or not they are a religious believer (and several are) accepts evolution as fact. Not because of dogma, but because it is the most complete explanation for the observed facts, and requires the fewest ad hoc hypotheses.

      I’m in the UK. Here, it is forbidden to teach creationism as science or fact. That’s shocking only because it should not be necessary to ban it in the first place: creationism is religion, not science, and certainly not fact.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “scientific facts such as evolution”

        Where is your evidence that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific fact?
        Did you get in your time machine and travel back billions of years and personally observe it happening? All we can directly measure is in the present. Darwinism is a theory of what might have happened in the past. It can never be empirically proven. Neither can Creationism. Both require faith and are religious views. Creationists do claim, unlike Darwinists, to have an eye witness account of the actual Creation, and it is recorded in the book of Genesis. It claims to be revealed truth from the Creator God. This is the standard by which empiricle scientific evidence is interpreted. Darwin, a mere man who lived in the 1800′s, wrote his own books claiming to know what happened in the past. He claimed no eye- witness sources, but only his observations in the present. Both books are biased. Both require faith. Our only proof will be found when each of us is no longer a survivor. I have confidence and contentment with my choice. How about you?

        • Renae Fenwick says:

          Yes, Evolution is a theory, but so is gravity. And you don’t see people floating away just because someone chooses not to believe it.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            Gravity itself is not a theory. It is a directly observed phenomena. HOW it works (a theory of gravity) is what you are referring to.

            Darwinism is a theory of events in the past. It cannot use empirical science to prove or disprove its accuracy. One can only look at events in the present and make logical deductions about the past. This involves making certain assumptions, which may or not be true. Darwinism really isn’t science at all.

          • Brian Jakob says:

            Evolution is not just a theory, it is a directly observed fact. HOW it works is the theory of evolution.

        • Noah Dillon says:

          You misunderstand what a theory is. You’re confusing it with a hypothesis. To say that evolution and germ theory of disease are “just” theories is the equivalent to saying that they’ve “just” been scientifically tested, examined, scrutinized, and analyzed by thousands of scientists in hundreds or thousands of ways and had all that knowledge and data collated to yield some useful consensus explanation of the observable world in a way that allows us to predict the outcome of a given situation. That’s a theory. A hypothesis is something closer to: I have this idea we can test and we’ve got no clue about what the actual outcome will be. Here’s a pretty good definition of a scientific theory: “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.” The term has been abused by creationists, literary critics, and social scientists, which is why you’re probably confused.

          Just for clarification, gravity is a force that follows a law, which is something different. A law is a statement about the causal relationship between things in the world.

          Also, evolution can be disproven and isn’t strictly about the past. Things like bacteria, diseases, and animals continue to evolve. We are probably evolving (it’s hard to say since we can manipulate or overcome most environmental pressures that would force other creatures to adapt or die). The reason evolution is a theory is because we can and have, successfully, used it to make predictions which have been borne out. It’s not a description of the past. It’s the basis of biology, which we use everyday. It’s the reason that drug companies can develop a flu vaccine before flu season, among other benefits.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            “The reason evolution is a theory is because we can and have, successfully, used it to make predictions which have been borne out.”

            Please cite specific examples.
            Please give access to original research and results. Not just someone else’ summary.

    • David H says:

      Re: Ken Ham and copyright
      Are you SURE Ham did not grant permission? Did he tell you?

      http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

      Doctrine of Fair Use.

      Copyright materials may be reproduced w/o permission if it meets certain criteria. Among those generally accepted criteria are:

      “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

      If Ken wants to sue, he is on shakier ground than his book, THE LIE: EVOLUTION

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        According to the Southerner’s report, the cartoon was contained in a series of slides teaching evolution, posted for the student to read:

        “The PowerPoint was assigned for the students to view on the website Blackboard as a part of Anquinette Jones’ freshman biology class. Jones declined comment, saying that the PowerPoint originated with APS.”

        As pictured above, the cartoon has no teacher comment on it. However, there is a reference that seems to imply that there was a statement added to it, not on the original cartoon:

        “Evolution is part of high school biology curriculum,” the PowerPoint reads. “You are entitled to challenge everything and encouraged to believe whatever you would like.”

        If this is true, it is evidence that the power point slide did not constitute “fair use”. The SUBJECT of the slide would then become the added OPINION, not the cartoon itself. It was merely used as a “free” illustration for HER OPINION. The problem is that the cartoon was used out of context and made no sense as an illustration. I have worked as a professional
        artist. I know about “fair use” and art copyright from first hand experience.

        Even if just added in without comment, it was not fair use because the intended use of the cartoon was not made explicit to the student. Obviously, they drew conclusions very different from its intended use by Ken Ham in, THE LIE: EVOLUTION.

        WHY HAS THE SOUTHERNER OR APS NOT CALLED KEN HAM BY NOW TO GET A STATEMENT ON THIS DEBACLE. This would be an obvious move for a reporter. If APS had copyright permission, they would have shown the paperwork when originally queried about it.

    • David Friedman says:

      “A bigoted hit piece on Christians.”? Please, Margaret. The article doesn’t mention the religious preference of Ms. Jones, nor anyone else involved. As for the cartoon, the equation of Humanist with euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, divorce, racism and abortion is as clear and unambiguous a denigration of non-Christians as one is likely to see outside of a home school….but this isn’t a home school. Please take your phony Christian persecution complex elsewhere. The rest of us would like to have an adult discussion.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “As for the cartoon, the equation of Humanist with euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, divorce, racism and abortion is as clear and unambiguous a denigration of non-Christians…’”

        The cartoon has no written interpretation, only a picture with individual words. Without viewing it in the original context, the meaning is ambiguous and subjective. Many people support euthanasia. Many people support and practice homosexuality. Pornography is QUITE popular. Our divorce rate is about 50%, so it too is popular. Racism against whites is considered to be a GOOD thing. Even our popular President thinks abortion is good, even in late term. Many Americans worship an entity known as Satan. The majority on this blog love and defend Evolution. Humanists love to worship themselves! How can you claim the cartoon to be a “clear and unambiguous” denigration of non-Christians? I am stunned! And what about that big cannon blasting away at Christ and Creationism? You have no opinion on that?

        • Renae Fenwick says:

          I would rather live in a world where; people can have healthy sex and love lives with whomever they should choose, where women have the rights to their own bodies, where people have the choice to be with whomever they want, acknowledging that people’s wants and needs change and adapt throughout their lives- than a world which depends on my reliance to a 2000 year old fairytale in which slavery and rape are condoned, a fairytale which says to love everyone equally, except homosexuals, jews, muslims, buddhists, troops from whichever defence force, and people with aids, a fairytale that tells me to not eat shellfish, to not cut my hair, to not eat pork, to not leave my husband if he abuses me, and to not be proud of my achievements.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            “healthy sex”
            How do you define that?

            “with whomever they should choose”
            Are your limits consenting adults?
            A Roman emperor liked horses.
            Some individuals like them dead.
            Do you have limits? If so, what standard are they based upon? What if the object of your desire does not share your standards?

          • Aiken says:

            Margaret is, as most who defend creationism are, obviously not able or willing to refute specific points that are brought up, resorting time and again to straw men and generally ignoring any argument she doesn’t feel she has a pat answer for. You people are wasting your time. She’s not willing to listen to you or anyone else here who is arguing with her.

            I would say that Margaret is only posting in hopes that *other* people who are reading this may not be versed in critical thinking, may not be well informed and inquisitive, and thus may be more susceptible to her logical fallacies (like the straw men she loves). It is those she is trying to preach to, in the guise of rational argument. She’s essentually trying to add a few more soldiers to her side.

            An intelligent, inquisitive person will come to the right conclusions on their own, especially now that we all have the power of the internet to break the stranglehold that religion has had on information and science for centuries. We can learn on our own. We don’t need to be indoctrinated with the capital-T Truth; we can find the real, lowercase-t truth on our own, and the rapidly-growing number of non-theistic people in developed nations is evidence of that.

            Let her rant. No one cares. She doesn’t matter. Just make sure she doesn’t get on the school board, that’s all.

        • David Friedman says:

          “Many people support euthanasia. Many people support and practice homosexuality. Pornography is QUITE popular.” In this country, most of those people would be Christians. What’s your point?
          The prevalence of a thing hardly an indicator of its relevant popularity or its perceived goodness… ask most any divorced person. “Racism against whites is considered to be a good thing.” You not only suffer from a phony Christian persecution complex, but a Caucasian one as well… “Humanists love to worship themselves!” Humanist, n.~ a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. Yep, sounds like self-worship to me. As for the cannon blasting away directly at Christ and creationism, it is simply an expression of the same persecution complex that you pedal about to anyone who will listen.
          You are now 0 for everything, Margaret. Care to try again?

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            You can’t argue both sides. You can’t argue that Christianity with its absolute values is nonsensical, stupid, not worthy of consideration, and at the same time pretend to be offended by its antithesis. Everything I said is true for those who do not believe. You LOVE darkness rather than light.

    • Greg Peterson says:

      This was NOT a hit piece; it was anything but. It was well-sourced, balanced, non-emotional, wide-ranging and comprehensive. Apparently you think fear of facts is a reason to homeschool.

      Josh and Archie–expemplary work, my friends. Keep it up. I have a journalism degree from a Christian college, served as a reporter and magazine editor (and publicist for Billy Graham’s organization in Minneapolis), and I can say from my experience that this represents professional quality investigation and writing.

      Just beware that, as I found out first hand, a love of facts and truth are not very compatabl with the kind of faith Ms. Jones tries to teach. Ms. Ewell is correct in one sense–facts are an enemy of faith.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “This was NOT a hit piece; it was anything but. It was well-sourced, balanced, non-emotional, wide-ranging and comprehensive. Apparently you think fear of facts is a reason to homeschool.”

        It’s all about emphasis and leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions. Out of 50 poorly executed, less than accurate slides explaining evolution, only the one ambiguous and lifted cartoon is featured. On the AJC blog, Maureen Downy made a link to the slides available, which the Southerner should have done. After reading comments on that blog, it became evident that the real story was about a less than stellar slide show on evolution, rather than the one cartoon without a clear explanation as to its meaning. Josh and Archie chose this one slide out of 50, the rest directly supporting the evolution curriculum, to create an unsubstantiated claim that Creationism was being taught in the classroom. Of course this was their headliner. They then quoted cherry picked students with vague unsubstantiated claims about Ms. Jones’ statements in class. From this “evidence”, Josh and Archie make a leap of faith to conclude that this teacher is conducting a full blown course in Creationism, and they have Ken Ham’s lifted cartoon to prove it! Next, the young journalists made themselves to be trial lawyers, and became judge and jury to poor Ms. Jones. Inciting the ignorant masses to call for her job because they implied that she was a Creationist. A Creationist is a Christian by definition.

        Yes, Weinstock/Kinnane did a nice hit piece on Creationists and Christians. I hope Ms. Brown sues for libel.

  7. Margaret Ewell says:

    Isn’t America a “democracy”? (The Constitution only mentions “republic,” but who cares about primary source details)

    If so, Weinstock/Kinnane and APS are on the losing side of public opinion.

    According to the annual Gallup poll, 42% of Americans still believe God created man and woman in their present form and within the last ten thousand years.

    Only 19% polled believe man evolved over millions of years.

    Let’s bring public school science up to the 21st century. After all, Darwin died in 1882.

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2014/06/18/poll-shows-half-of-americans-believe-in-a-creator#.U6L3AvldW50

    • Highlander says:

      So if 42% of the population believed that the earth is flat should that be taught as well. Creationism/ID is not a valid scientific theory. It isn’t falsifiable and it doesn’t explain the data.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        I am sorry everyone missed my humor. A Democracy is the antithesis of a Constitutional Republic, and the Founding Fathers wrote passionately about why the original Constitution established the latter. Because the public schools do not teach this critical distinction and teach that we are governed by a Democracy, I decided to play along. I can see that you did not like the implications. All I had to do was show the majority opinion (which you disagree with) to claim a right to influence in the public schools! Suddenly, you want to claim that we operate as a Republic, where majority rule is tempered and the minority view is given some sway, depending on the inherent wisdom of that view.

        Federalist Papers #10
        James Madison

        “….From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
        A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
        The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
        The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
        In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
        In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
        It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
        The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
        Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,–is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
        The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
        In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.”
        read the entire document at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html

    • skinnercitycyclist says:

      As a high school social studies teacher myself, Margaret, allow me to help you out, as you seem to have missed some days of class. Yes, the United States is both a democracy and a republic. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

      You said “According to the annual Gallup poll, 42% of Americans still believe God created man and woman in their present form and within the last ten thousand years.” Let me cite you another poll, conducted in 2012 and released this year by the National Science Foundation, which reports that 26% (that’s about 1/4, in case you missed pre-algebra, too) of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth.

      All these polls reveal is that we need MORE science education rather than less, as you suggest.

      As for your cute comment: “Let’s bring public school science up to the 21st century. After all, Darwin died in 1882.” I would invite you to peruse some of the thousands of books and articles that have been published since 1859 (publication of “On the Origin of Species) that have done nothing but support and expand on Darwin’s original theory, but all you have are make-believe from Answers in Genesis.

      It is your choice if you wish to remain ignorant, but please do not insist on forcing your brand of ignorance on everyone else.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        My post was meant in jest. Please see the above post for a detailed explanation @July 6, 2014 at 11:33 pm.

        • MMH says:

          So you went on a whole long blathering soap box just so you can jest. How insincere of you…Oh, I am not jesting. I am serious.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            It is called playing the devil’s advocate. A commonly used device to present another side of an argument in an experiential way. This device was used by the Israelite prophet Nathan when he exposed King David’s murder of Bathsheba’s husband in order to obtain her as his wife:

            “2 Samuel 12 King James Version (KJV)

            12 And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

            2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

            3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

            4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

            5 And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:

            6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

            7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.”

            In retrospect, I should not have called it a joke, but merely made my point after readers responded. I would have been more effective. Thanks for pointing that out.

    • Bob of Bowie says:

      Argumentum ad populum.

    • Crystal says:

      Every more and more people are turning away from you backwards religion. Atheism is on the rise. It’s only a matter of time before your kind dies out. And good riddance. Society is thankfully progressing.

    • Crystal says:

      Every year more and more people are turning away from your backwards religion. Atheism is on the rise. It’s only a matter of time before your kind dies out. And good riddance. Society is thankfully progressing.

    • Andrew says:

      “hey class, what’s 2+2? Is it 4 or 5? I know, let’s vote for it. Oh look, the majority voted for it being 5. That settles it then.” That’s a bad way to find facts lol. Also your hilarious take on evolution misses natural selection, DNA, and genes. In your world gene therapy cannot exist, DNA tests are done for fun (and if we go for the whole young earth thing) then nuclear power plants can’t exist (no radioactive decay), earthquakes don’t happen (no tectonic plates) etc. I’m not from the USA, and I can tell you the whole of western Europe is puzzled. no other country with major investment in technology and engineering has this problem. Anti science sentiment is causing the USA to lose its edge.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        @Andrew

        Your American writing style makes me skeptical of your claim to be European, but I digress.

        Are you familiar with the British creation scientist Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith? After he died, my family got to know his widow and adult sons (all 4 of his children are doctors). They invited us to visit them in Switzerland. While there, I became familiar with his many books on Evolution vs. Creation. As a scientist, his credentials are impressive:

        “A..E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford, England. He received his first doctorate in Physical Organic Chemistry at Reading University, England, 1941. During World War II, he joined the Research department of ICI in England. After the war, he became Countess of Lisburne Memorial Fellow at the University of London. Subsequently, Dr. Wilder-Smith was appointed Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. Later he was elected to teach Chemotherapy and Pharmacology at the Medical School of the University of Geneva for which position he received his “habitation” (the senior examination required for professorial appointments to European continental universities). At Geneva, he earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a senior university in Switzerland) in Zurich.
        In 1957-1958 Wilder-Smith was Visiting Assistant Professor at the Medical Centre of the University of Illinois, 1959-1961 Visting Full Professor of Pharmacology of the University of Bergen Medical School in Norway. After a further two years at the University of Geneva, he was appointed Full Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois Medical Centre. Here he received in three succeeding years – three “Golden Apple Awards” for the best course of lectures, together with four senior lecturer awards for the best series of year lectures.

        Dr. Wilder-Smith’s last Golden Apple award was inscribed, “He made us not only better scientists, but also better men.”

        Here are some of his college lecture titles in book form:

        Time & Creation
        Is Biogenesis Scientific?
        Role of Design in Biology
        Cellular Mechanisms & Randomness
        Grand Deficiency of Evolution
        The Great Debate: Evolution or Creation

        Perhaps you can find copies locally or on the internet. His works are brilliant.
        I hope you can read some of them.

    • skinnercitycyclist says:

      What are you trying to imply? Teachers should not have beards? Should not pose for black and white photographs?

    • Aajuluujjusi says:

      Darwin? I’d say yes, because he was a scientist and not a creationist.

    • Guy Chapman says:

      Margaret: No, I would not trust him with the education of my children, because he’s been dead for over 130 years, and talking to the dead is almost as deluded as creationism.

    • Bob says:

      Yes, I’d trust him with my children way before I’d trust theists who want to indoctrinate them. Most of your comments here are pure obfuscation and your comment about objective journalism is absurd. That some people are not young earth creationists to you constitutes an attack. Your religious beliefs, which are laugh the hell out-loud ridiculous, do not give you the right to force your beliefs on other people. I live in a state that has a stand your ground law. I don’t agree with it, but it is, in fact the law in my state. I also live right behind a baptist church that loves to “spread the good word.” If I ever catch anyone proselytizing to my kids, they’re in for a stern talking to. If they try to come onto my property after I’ve warned them to stay away, they’re getting the barrel of a .22 long-rifle in their face. Keep it in your own head and inside your own church.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “If I ever catch anyone proselytizing to my kids, they’re in for a stern talking to. If they try to come onto my property after I’ve warned them to stay away, they’re getting the barrel of a .22 long-rifle in their face.”

        Exactly how many individuals have come on your property to proselytize your kids? You are so afraid of ideas other than your own that you would commit MURDER?

        DARWINISM PROMOTES VIOLENCE!

        • Eshaan Vakil says:

          In the Bible, Jehovah makes the Israelites kill other people and burn down cities simply because they were in their way and were different. Plus, it is written in Deuteronomy that if someone tries to proselytize you, you should kill them. In history, Christians started the Crusades because they couldn’t stand the idea of Jerusalem being ruled by anyone else.

  8. Margaret Ewell says:

    Josh and Archie, consider this:

    “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16 KJV)

    See if the lie can do any of that.

    • Darren Johnson says:

      I suggest that you keep your religion out of the science classroom, the only reason so many actually believe in literal creationism is because of piss-poor education.
      Furthermore, your attempt to support your argument by talking about how many believe in special creation is a fallacious argument: it is irrational because an appeal to popularity does not mean it is right. Remember, at one time a significant part of the population believed slavery was right, and of course they were wrong.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        You are catching on. My post was in jest.
        See the full explanation above @July 6, 2014 at 11:33 pm

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “I suggest that you keep your religion out of the science classroom”

        I home school, as should you and all those that send their children to UNLAWFUL PUBLIC SCHOOL on my dime. All education has a religious bias. You lie when you claim DARWINISM is not a RELIGIOUS world view. According to you, teaching DARWINISM should produce GENIUSES! How is it that you want to depend on lowly stupid CREATIONISTS to pay for your kid’s education? LOL!

    • skinnercitycyclist says:

      Do what? Please be clearer.

  9. Derek says:

    Saw this on a Facebook feed. Excellent reporting! You should be proud!

    DEREK (from Canada)

  10. Frank Rizzo says:

    Good work with this story. I think some important people will be forced to comment after all. Also viral.

  11. Frank Rizzo says:

    I found it SHOCKING!!! that Mary King Project Manager at Atlanta Public Schools is yet another TFA cultist engaged in DEFORMING education (that’s apparently the case if this is the right LinkedIn page- http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mary-king/25/708/9bb )

    Mary King’s Overview

    Current

    Project Manager at Atlanta Public Schools

    Past

    Educator at Fulton County Schools
    Educator at San Antonio ISD
    Graduate Research Assistant at Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin

    Corps Member at Teach for America

    see less
    Education

    The University of Texas at Austin
    Princeton University

    Additional helpful link where the powerpoint presentation in question is critiqued:
    https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/xythoswfs/webui/_xy-e39101117_1-t_BpGCBOI4

  12. John in Seattle says:

    This is one of the most unbiased and well balanced pieces I’ve ever seen on an event like this. I’m genuinely amazed that it was published in a high school newspaper. Assuming the authors are students, you should be very proud of the job you did bringing this matter to light.

    Congratulations. Please keep up the good work. I’ll be watching your careers with great interest.

  13. Bev Kodak says:

    Great reporting, Grady HS. This is hard-hitting journalism. Ignore the trolls and keep on doing what you’re doing. This content was clearly not appropriate for a biology class.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      @Bev
      You’ve really got my curiosity up.
      Why do you consider this article to be great reporting?
      What parts of it are hard-hitting?
      You concluded that “This content was clearly not appropriate for a biology class.”
      Was this opinion based on actually viewing all 50 slides? Was the entire content not appropriate? (a link to view the slides can be found at AJC Get Schooled Blog).
      Have you read Ken Ham’s book, THE LIE: Evolution, to view the illustration in its proper context? If APS used this cartoon in violation of copyright, would that bother you? Do you think the fact that Josh and Archie failed to find the source and copyright owner of the cartoon before writing the article was effective journalism?

      • Darren Johnson says:

        Sadly you are ignorant of “fair use” laws as well as ignorant of the FACT of evolution.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          The way the illustration was stored in a multi-use data base and was allegedly used in the teacher’s class, without acknowledging the owner or getting permission, does not constitute fair use. The teacher, and therefore APS, was using it as an illustration, not as the actual subject being discussed. The cartoon’s use in the Southerner’s story would be fair use because it is evidence of their claims. It is one of the subjects of the news story.

      • Bob of Bowie says:

        No, I haven’t read Ken Ham’s screeds. I outgrew fairy tales 30 years ago.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          Do you consider 164 pages to be a lengthy book? THE LIE is actually a logical analysis of the claims of Darwinism and the book of Genesis.
          Your second statement about fairy tales does not logically follow your first.

          Any comment you may make regarding the intended meaning of the cartoon is irrelevant because you refuse to do your homework.

      • MMH says:

        Did you read the article? It was the cartoon on the one slide that you see above as well as the students testimonies about the teacher refusing to teach evolution and proselytized her religion. That is all the evidence that is needed to determine what this teacher & who put the slide together were in the wrong! Religion has no business in a science class because it is not science. It is also legally well established that religion can not be proselytized by members of the staff. Students are allowed to have there own religious clubs that they initiate on their own,only….

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          All of the quotes are alleged. The students could be lying. If they are so traumatized, let them sue and have their day in court. If there is a chapter or two on evolution in the written curriculum, a teacher is not obligated to cover it in class. It can be given as a homework reading assignment. A teacher never covers everything in the textbook in class. If students pass the EOC test, that is all that matters. In what way did she “proselytized her religion”? If a student asks a religious question of the teacher, she is free to answer it according to her beliefs. The teacher did not initiate the question, therefore, her answer was not proselytizing. Her described use of the cartoon was inept at best, and completely mischaracterized the owner’s original intent. Without seeing it in the proper context of the book it was lifted from, THE LIE: EVOLUTION, the cartoon was not self-explanatory and many inaccurate interpretations could come from it. That said, our founding documents only mention the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not the right to not be offended. You students need to GROW UP.

          This is why I characterized the student article as a biased hit piece on Christians. The article is much ado about nothing. The only noteworthy issue in the article was one that they completely overlooked- possible copyright violation by APS. The practice appeared to be systemic.

          • MMH says:

            It has already been established by the supreme court that creationism is not science. So hence, creationism can not be taught in a science class because it is not science but religious(the belief in a deity/the supernatural). The problem is that the creationist crowd does not know the law and you all keep pushing this agenda as if it is going to make people more moral for which it does not!

            “In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Brennan in 1987, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s “Creationism Act” because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”

            http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/evo/bldec_EdwardsAguillard.htm

            By the way, a theory according to science requires the scientific method The scientific method requires that one can test it. The idea of creationism/intelligent design can not be tested thereby making it not of science but purely conjecture. In order to be considered a theory the scientific method must be able to be applied, thereby, showing proof of the physical evidence. So another words, since creationism/intelligent design can not be tested(scientific method)it can not be considered a scientific theory but only as conjecture and again not a scientific theory….

      • Mr. Boogie says:

        Ken Ham is not an authority on evolutionary science. He is a theologian, who makes up his “facts” to fit is own bizarre faith. Please find another source to support your claims, Margaret.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          “Ken Ham is not an authority on evolutionary science. He is a theologian…”

          Your statement is not accurate. Remember it was the APS’s fault for bringing him into this discussion. Ken Ham didn’t upload his cartoon illustration into their data base, THE PUBLIC SCHOOL DID. I am still waiting for ANYONE’S civil, logical rebuttal to my post.

          Here is his bio.

          “After completing a Bachelor’s degree in Applied Science (Biology) and a Diploma of Education, Ken was a science teacher in Queensland, Australia public high schools before committing himself full-time to the message of Creation and the Gospel. A director and one of the co-founders of Creation Science Foundation of Australia which later became Answers in Genesis. He moved from his senior position with the Institute for Creation Research in California to form Answers in Genesis.”

  14. Margaret Ewell says:

    “[I] have gay parents, and [the cartoon] said that evolution caused homosexuality and it implied that to be negative, so I was pretty offended by it,” Cooley said.”

    The cartoon did not have any sentences written on it. That was her interpretation. One might also guess from the cartoon that Evolutionists want to destroy Christ (Christians) and the Creation. That point seemed to escape the authors. Christian students could also be offended. But who cares. Gee, if APS had followed copyright law, the cartoon would not have been used out of context (or at all) and it would have saved Josh and Archie a lot of time. Christians would not have been offended!

    • MMH says:

      Do you not see the cartoon with the balloons saying homosexual, Euthanasia ect. labeled for the evolution side and satan? While the other side says creation -christ/christianity with that side bombing the evolution side. It is clearly suggesting that christianity is superior to evolution. It does not belong in the science class to begin with. It had nothing to do with the curriculum and it was insulting!With all the testimonies from the students saying the teacher did not teach about evolution and proselytized her religion to them she at the very least should be reprimanded and if she continues she should be fired. The school can be sued for this if they do not correct this problem. It would of course take the parents to initiate such a thing. I suggest they go to an organization called “Freedom From Religion Foundation”and if they are not too tied up with other cases they would be glad to remind them what the law says about this and sue if the school refuses to cooperate by making this teacher to adhere to the proper rules by teaching the subject at hand called evolution.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “Do you not see the cartoon with the balloons saying homosexual, Euthanasia ect. labeled for the evolution side and satan? While the other side says creation -christ/christianity with that side bombing the evolution side. It is clearly suggesting that christianity is superior to evolution.”

        The Bible describes Satan as an angel of light. How is that offensive?
        The Creation side only pops a little unmarked balloon. The Evolution side takes out some major real estate on the Creation island with a BIG cannon.
        Depending on your persuasion, either side could be offended.
        Are the words “homosexual” or “euthanasia” offensive to you? Why?

        Ken Ham’s cartoon has been stolen and mischaracterized by APS. THAT SHOULD BE YOUR CONCERN. Unless you read the book and see it in context, you are absolutely unqualified to comment on its intended meaning. You can offend yourself in all your imaginings if you want. Who cares.

        • MMH says:

          You said.
          “The Bible describes Satan as an angel of light. How is that offensive?”

          Now you can stop lying. You well know or should know that the fact is that people who believe in Satan who are christian understand that Satan is a fallen angel and therefore against the christian god, thereby they believe that people who oppose their god is evil and should be shunned.

          STOP LYING!!!!!

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            You are not a Christian, nor do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Why are you interpreting the cartoon as if the opposite is true? No interpretation was given on the cartoon. Your argument is irrelevant. How can you be threatened by something that is not real? Why do you have so much anger at something that is not real?

            If anyone should be afraid, it’s me. Look at the wrath of the Darwinists hurled at me from every post. My God IS REAL. I will fear no evil.

    • Sam says:

      If you really think this is story should be about copyright law, you’re grasping for anything that might distract from what’s actually being complained about. There’s no cease-and-desist letter from Ken Ham, he likely isn’t losing any income over this, and it was probably used in face-to-face teaching rather than being distributed. These are all considerations that would come up during any case.

      Meanwhile, there are parents and students actually complaining and pulling kids from the class over it. The story is clearly about the controversial slide and it’s content. Not the theoretical copyright suit which is unlikely to happen regardless.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “There’s no cease-and-desist letter from Ken Ham, he likely isn’t losing any income over this, and it was probably used in face-to-face teaching rather than being distributed.”

        According to the article, all 50 slides were made available to the students on the internet. They were to look at them as an independent homework assignment. 49 out of 50 slides were direct teaching of evolution. The cartoon was ambiguous, as it was used out of context. Someone had added to it two statements based on freedom of speech.
        THIS CONSTITUTES TEACHING CREATIONISM AT GRADY?

  15. Margaret Ewell says:

    “one of the major rules of teaching evolution is that it is science, and it is based in fact, based in evidence,” Curtis said.”

    According to the fact of evolution, could Mr. Curtis please explain the biological process by which two same-sex adults can produce an offspring?

    • Darren Johnson says:

      They adopt or get the help of a surrogate mother. Your argument only reveals your religious bias and outstanding ignorance.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        You did not answer my question. You merely inferred that heterosexual pairs can reproduce. I already knew that. How is that religious or biased?

        • Mr. Boogie says:

          He did answer your question. Stop moving the goal posts, Margaret.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            I said PRODUCE offspring, not ACQUIRE offspring.

            The only logical answer to my question is a detailed explanation of the biological process involved, or the conclusion that it is an impossibility. How hard is that? Were you educated in public school?

        • MMH says:

          Margaret, he did answer your question and it was correct!

          You said.
          “please explain the biological process by which two same-sex adults can produce an offspring?”

          Then you said after he gave you the answer the following…

          “You did not answer my question. You merely inferred that heterosexual pairs can reproduce.”

          He was talking about homosexuals(same sex humans and not heterosexuals like you said. You clearly do not know the difference between the two terms or you had a memory lapse.

          He answered it and I quote…

          “They adopt or get the help of a surrogate mother”

          He is correct! However his answer is incomplete by not saying a surrogate father as well but you should have had been able to put 2 & 2 together instead of totally misunderstanding his answer.

          Lady your IQ level is very low…

          • MMH says:

            I will ad to be more precise to your question of how biologically it is possible for people of the same sex to produce offspring. It is as follows…

            If they are two men they can either find a willing of age female participant to be a surrogate because she possesses the egg. The next step would be to implant sperm in order to fertilize the egg so it may produce the offspring. This can be done either by having sex or the implantation done by taking the sperm from the male and manually putting it in the female.

            This process that I just explained is how 2 people of the same sex (homosexuals) can biologically produce offspring for themselves but not of themselves other than the one partner who are a part of the biological components that are used in the process….

            So my question is to you. Why do you care?

    • skinnercitycyclist says:

      He may not have time, but I am off for the summer, so here goes. They could engage a surrogate. They could be wound up tight and be forced by small-minded christbots in their community to play the straight game, marry, have kids, and then discover that they are gay. A lesbian woman could go to a fertility clinic and arrange for sperm form a sperm bank as many straight people do these days. They could go to an adoption agency and apply to adopt one of those kids form the fine straight couples who can’t, for whatever reasons, manage to raise their own kids.

      There you go. And none of it requires immaculate conception, though I bet if I perused your bookshelf I could find a book that would claim that as a legitimate possibility.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        You did not answer the question. You merely inferred that heterosexual adult pairs can reproduce (sperm + egg). What is the biological process for 2 sperm or 2 eggs to reproduce?

        • Mr. Boogie says:

          Yes, he did, Margaret. Stop rephrasing just because he didn’t give you the answer you wanted. Why don’t you tell us about the biological process?

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            I said PRODUCE offspring, not ACQUIRE offspring.

            Wow, I am trying to have a nice SCIENTIFIC, EVOLUTION BASED discussion here and ……crickets?

            This country is in dire straights.

        • Joel says:

          Margaret, are you sure you’re not just trolling this thread? :) Regardless, I’ll still make the effort to reply thoughtfully.

          There are currently more than 20 ways that a couple can produce–not acquire–a biological offspring, regardless of the couples’ respective genders. Details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination

          I’m actually more surprised that you’d stand with the anti-adoption folks, since you seem to equate biological superiority with the ability to get pregnant. Presumably you wouldn’t mention the distinction unless you believed that gay couples fall outside the intelligent design framework for healthy familial reproduction. Alongside straight couples who suffer fertility problems and elderly couples who can no longer achieve pregnancy.

          And are you saying that gay people shouldn’t be offended by that cartoon? Because Satan is a beautiful angel or because the use of the cartoon invokes questions of fair use? (I find the cartoon offensive, but maybe you can talk me down.)

          I did try to answer your specific question about how gay couples could produce offspring, but I confess that I’m unclear about what your larger point(s) regarding gay people are. So if I’ve misunderstood your remarks, do you think it’s because I wasn’t homeschooled?

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            I am amazed that no one can answer my question.
            I’ll make it even easier.

            A disaster has come upon the earth and all technology and all people were wiped out except for 2 same sex adult individuals. Miraculously, they were a gay couple in their 20′s. (relationship wise). There was a safe source of food and water.
            End of story.

          • David Friedman says:

            A disaster has come upon the earth and all technology and all people were wiped out except for 2 same sex adult individuals. Miraculously, they were both heterosexual males(or females) in their 20?s. (relationship wise). There was a safe source of food and water.

            I have thoroughly enjoyed watching you wallow in your own profound ignorance, Margaret. Please continue.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            “since you seem to equate biological superiority with the ability to get pregnant”

            That was your opinion. However, if two individuals cannot reproduce offspring naturally (as conditions would have existed millions of years ago) how can they even exist today? Natural selection would have eliminated them. They cannot form a “natural” family. This is scientific. Why do you blatantly reject it? The only means of survival would have been heterosexual reproduction. According to this, in the past only bisexual and heterosexual couples could have survived, not homosexual. A relationship with the opposite sex is still required. Therefore, a same-sex relationship is a choice.

    • Bobsie says:

      A biological process by which two same sex adults can produce an offspring is irrelevant to the scientific facts of evolution science.

      However, there are many ways for same sex couples to have and raise a family. Though not possible today, science may very well in the future combine DNA from each of a same sex couple and produce a zygote for implantation into a womb.

      There, satisfied?

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        No.

        2 men reproduce WITHOUT AID of a female. Explain process.
        2 women reproduce WITHOUT aid of a male. Explain process.

        • Bobsie says:

          Humans have a diploid zygote. Given the potential for DNA engineering; two male partners have DNA that can result in either a male or female zygote since each male partner has a long and short sex chromosome; two female partners have DNA that can only produce females since their sex chromosomes are both long. There is evidence of this very example with social insects. You could spend some time actually learning some biology and you wouldn’t look so science illiterate.

          • Bobsie says:

            To be just a bit more specific here, each same sex partner instead of a sperm or ovum creates a haploid cell. And instead of a zygote forming from a sperm and ovum fertilization, two haploid cells are engineered to form the zygote.

            This is not farfetched future science. J Craig Venter has the technology today to create and insert an entire DNA genome into a cell. Look him up.

        • Bobsie says:

          Again, this line of conversation is totally irrelevant to the legitimacy and predictive power of evolution science.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            Your arguments are senseless. If my points are wrong, why is it same sex couples must ALWAYS use outside DNA material to obtain a child? Their so-called children can NEVER have the DNA of BOTH parents NATURALLY.
            They must resort to renting a womb or paying a nice person in a white lab coat $30,000 plus to do the job. In biological terms it is a parasitic relationship. They are forever dependent on a host relationship.

    • Ben says:

      Oh, that’s easy enough, Margaret: the process is called parthenogenesis. In fact, there are species which produce entirely by parthenogenesis. The New Mexico Whiptail Lizard, for instance, is a species with no viable male offspring; the females produce fertile offspring entirely without the involvement of a male.

      Other species, including clownfish, are fully capable of changing gender at need. All clownfish start as males; if the female dies, one of the males shifts gender, becoming a female.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        Ben, you are illiterate. I only referred to male and female HUMANS.

        DARWINISTS AVOID BIOLOGICAL TRUTH AT ALL COSTS!

  16. Margaret Ewell says:

    Let’s compare the academic outcomes of home schoolers to public schoolers. According to
    a 2009 study, “(Home school) parents held to a wide variety of religious beliefs, although the majority identified themselves with various denominations of Christianity (82.4% Protestant, 12.4% Roman Catholic, and .2% Eastern Orthodox). Other categories included atheist/agnostic (1.1%), Jewish (.4%), Mormon (.8%), Muslim (.1%), and a variety of others (about 2.5%).”

    82% were Bible believing Protestant Christians, many of whom are Creationists.

    The academic results:
    “The biggest news? Homeschoolers are still achieving well beyond their public school counterparts—no matter what their family background, socioeconomic level, or style of homeschooling.
    In the study, homeschoolers scored 34–39 percentile points higher than the norm on standardized achievement tests. The homeschool national average ranged from the 84th percentile for Language, Math, and Social Studies to the 89th percentile for Reading. (See Figure 1.)
    The study also found that whether or not parents were teacher-
    certified had no impact on these high scores. Critics of home-
    schooling have long insisted that parents who want to teach their
    own children should become certified teachers first. But in this study,
    students received slightly higher scores if neither parent had ever held
    a state-issued teaching certificate than if one or both parents had. (See
    Figure 2.) Critics also insist that the government should regulate homeschooling in order to ensure the quality of education that students receive. However, in this study, the degree to which homeschooling was regulated by state governments had no bearing on student test scores.”

    Using the science of statistical analysis, the FACTS show that religious home schoolers
    outperform public schoolers.

    See the entire report here:
    http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/ray2009/2009_Ray_StudyFINAL.pdf

    • Darren Johnson says:

      And just how well did they do in the sciences?
      If you wish to raise a gaggle of scientifically ignorant children, go right ahead, please do not interfere in the efforts of others to raise intelligent and well educated children that know the value of evidence and facts.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “And just how well did they do in the sciences?”

        Obviously much better than public school children. Kids with 50 percentile ranking don’t go to Georgia Tech. Biology is the only course that requires direct instruction in the Theory of Evolution. Usually it is covered in one or two chapters. Believing it or rejecting it is irrelevant when it comes to mastering the hard sciences such as math, chemistry, physics, or computer science. As far as other topics studied in biology, such as biochemistry, classification, anatomy, environmental science, genetics, microevolution (adaptation), the scientific method, etc., there is no conflict with the beliefs of the Creationist.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          In cased you missed this huge story…..

          “Posted at 05:27 PM ET, 07/07/2011
          Shocking details of Atlanta cheating scandal
          By Valerie Strauss
          It’s one thing to say there was widespread cheating on standardized tests in Atlanta public schools, as the newly released results of a state investigation showed. It’s another thing to actually read the voluminous report. The details are shocking.

          For those who haven’t been paying attention, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) on Tuesday released the results of a 10-month state investigation he had ordered into suspicions of cheating on state standardized Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (or CRCT) in the Atlanta School System.

          The results confirmed the suspicions and then some: The report said that cheating on 2009 standardized tests in Atlanta Public Schools was widespread and didn’t start that year, “significant and clear” warnings were ignored by top administrators, an environment of fear and intimidation ruled the system, and thousands of students were harmed. The cheating resulted primarily from “pressure to meet targets” in the data-driven system, it said.

          The superintendent at the time, Beverly Hall, had been hailed for years for driving up standardized test scores. She just left the post, her reputation shattered. Hall has denied knowing about any cheating despite repeated assertions in the report by investigators that she and other administrators must have known.”
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/shocking-details-of-atlanta-cheating-scandal/2011/07/06/gIQAQPhY2H_blog.html

          This makes even the public school 50 percentile score suspect.

    • skinnercitycyclist says:

      Yes, it is shocking that a group calling itself the National Home Education Research Institute would come out with a study favorable to homeschooling. Sounds legit.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        Well, at least home schoolers don’t have to have a teacher erase and change the answers to get a passing score. We can always trust public school statistics.

        About the researcher that conducted the home school study:

        Brian D. Ray is an internationally known scholar and the president of the nonprofit National Home
        Education Research Institute in Salem, Oregon. He earned his PhD in science education from Oregon
        State University, his MS in zoology from Ohio University, and his BS in biology from the University of
        Puget Sound. He has been a professor of science and education at the undergraduate and graduate levels, has
        been a classroom teacher in both public
        and private schools, and has taught
        homeschool students. Dr. Ray conducts and publishes research and provides expert testimony to legislatures and courts.

        http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/ray2009/2009_Ray_StudyFINAL.pdf
        See the last page

        • Mr. Boogie says:

          University of Puget Sound is also a private college. Not exactly MIT. Try again.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            Why don’t you contact him and challenge him on any area of the statistical analysis that you find to be inaccurate. Report your findings here.

            Just the other day, I called a researcher at U.C. Davis regarding her research project that claimed to indicate that there is a high correlation between a mitochondrial anomaly and autism. It caught my interest because I had read another research paper that demonstrated that the inherited mitochondrial condition PLUS the increased mercury content in vaccines produced in the late 80′s-early 90′s. caused autism. Although the latter research paper indicated that a copy had been sent to U.C. Davis, the other researcher said she was not familiar with it, but would be interested in reading it. I originally called this lady researcher to see if the the autistic and non-autistic children studied had all been vaccinated. She said, yes. I asked her if she planned to do another study which would specifically include children who had autism, but had not been vaccinated. I said that controlling for this difference was crucial to determining if the other researchers findings could be further validated. She said that if she wrote up her funding request in that manner, IT WOULD BE DENIED.
            I encouraged her to contact the other researcher and share their expertise privately. The autism rate for boys is now 1 in 50! We need answers, NOT COVERUP.

            So Mr. Boogie, by all means, check this researcher out. I only know anecdotally from friends and my own children, that the research results appear to be accurate.

          • Mr. Boogie says:

            You are citing research that was proven to be invalid. Anecdotes are not evidence. Try again, Margaret.

          • Renae Fenwick says:

            In 1998 Lancet published a paper by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a dramatic study that found a connection between autism and vaccines. The only issue with it was that this study was not based on statistics, had no control group, it relied on peoples’ memories, and it made vague conclusions that weren’t statistically valid. So in other words it failed in every possible way a piece of research could. No link was found between vaccines and autism so people started investigating his claims. In 1999 a study of 500 children was done, there was no connection found. In 2001 a study of 10,000 children was done. Still no connection between vaccines and autism. In 2002, a study of 537,000 children was done in Denmark, I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this: still no connection. Also in 2002, a study in Finland of 535,000 children, no connection. After all this Lancet came out in 2004 and said: “They had conducted invasive investigations on the children without obtaining necessary ethical clearances… picked and chose data that suited their case; THEY FALSIFIED FACTS”. And because of idiots such as yourself, people still believed that vaccines could cause autism, in 2005 a review of 31 studies covering over 10,000,000 children found no connection. And because of the continued idiocy, in 2012 a review of 27 cohort studies, 17 case control studies, 6 self-controlled case series studies, 5 time series trials, 2 ecological studies, 1 case cross-over trial covering over 14,000,000 children: No link to autism was found in any case, in ALL of the studies.
            To this day, 1 out of 4 U.S parents believe vaccines cause autism in healthy children, despite there being ZERO credible studies linking vaccines to autism.
            Although measles was declared eradicated in 2000, due to parents not vaccinating their children, France reported a massive measles outbreak with nearly 15,000 cases in 2011.
            Before widespread vaccinations of babies 1980 there were 2.6 MILLION deaths from measles, in 2000 with 72% of babies vaccinated there were only 562,400 deaths from measles, and in 2012, 84% of babies vaccinated there were only 122,000 deaths from measles.
            In the US, after widespread vaccinations were introduced, whooping cough reduced from 150,000 cases a year in the 1960s to a tiny 2,900 in the 1980s. In 2012 there were 50,000 reported cases of whooping cough, numbers rising since the publishing of Dr. Wakefield’s paper. In 2012, 20 people died from whopping cough because of the lack of vaccines in society. One study even concluded that vaccine refusals were largely to blame for a 2010 outbreak of whooping cough in California.

            Some common vaccine myths:
            - “Vaccines are ridden with toxic chemicals that can harm children” – Thimersol, the chemical being references, does contain mercury. However, thimersol has been removed from scheduled vaccines and only resides in the seasonal flu vaccine.
            - “Receiving too many vaccines at once can override a baby’s immune system” – Baby’s immue systems are strong enough to defend from the day to day viruses and bacteria which they come in contact; they can also handle the vaccines. Remember, vaccines use deactivated viruses in their ingredients.
            - “Drug companies just do it to make profits” – According to the World Health Organisation estimated 2013 global revenues for all vaccines is around $24 billion which only accounts for approximately 2 – 3% of the total pharmaceuticals market.
            - “The decision not to vaccinate my child only affects my child” I strongly urge you to go onto YouTube and to search “How Herd Immunity Works (and Why Anti-Vaccination is Dangerous)” by Shane Killian, as he explains this much better than I could, and I feel as though this post is long enough.

            In conclusion: Vaccines work. They helped to eradicate smallpox, they save about 8 million lives every year, they significantly reduce disease in the world, and new and under-utilised vaccines could avert nearly 4 million deaths in children under the age of 5 by 2015.

          • skinnercitycyclist says:

            Margaret, did you know that the rate of depression skyrocketed too, once we had an awareness of the malady? Think something analogous might be going on with autism? Afraid I do not believe your stories about contacting researchers.

    • Merv says:

      You might want to check the source of the study, which is not exactly unbiased. It was done by the National Home Education Research Institute, an advocacy group for home schooling.

    • Sam says:

      Uh-huh… that’s study’s worthless. The respondents are the homeschool parents who chose to respond. Of course they’re only going to respond with good scores!

      http://kathrynbrightbill.com/post/56313343522/how-bad-homeschool-research-and-statistics-hurt

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “Uh-huh… that’s (sic) study’s worthless.”

        This is one person’s anecdotal experience and opinion. To get to the truth of the matter, why not contact the researcher who produced the study. Get a copy of the questionnaire. Get documentation of how the survey was conducted. Even if just the raw numbers were considered, the percentages are still quite impressive for even a limited group. Consider this, all home schoolers are self-selected to begin with.

        Many of the perceived flaws that she described could be said for the majority of surveys, especially political ones. APS student test scores are based on PROVEN massive long-term FRAUD. Why are we even having this discussion on accuracy of home school data when THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS COMPLETELY IGNORED? It is the claimed 50 percentile public school achievement that should be questioned FIRST.

        Public schools have PROVEN failure rates. They do not adequately educate ALL children, not even most. Home schooling can never sink below this record. So what is your beef?

        • skinnercitycyclist says:

          MY beef is we are not spending enough money to educate our kids properly. And actually public schools do a much better job than you suggest. We educate kids, we graduate kids. We need more money, and we have asshat administrators getting in the way, but we do a fairly decent job. Playing school at home with amateurs as teachers is not the way to address any of those problems.

  17. Margaret Ewell says:

    Archie and Josh,

    As a followup article, why don’t you interview students who are Creationists and see if they were offended by the 49 slides that were pushing the Theory of Evolution. After all, you want to keep up your reputation for being “unbiased and well balanced.”

    Remember, 42% of Americans still believe God created man and woman in their present form and within the last ten thousand years.

    • Jaqueline Gray says:

      Margaret Ewell you’ve completely missed the point.
      “If you start adopting religious doctrine as a form of teaching, you start advocating for a religion,” Curtis said. “There is no national religion. When you teach religion in a public school setting, you are reinforcing a national religion, and that’s not acceptable.”
      First off in the United States of America the citizens are FREE to believe and worship what they choose. There is no single religion that rules over this country because our Constitution protects the individual rights of their own religious beliefs.
      Second, creationism can not stand up to the scientific method of being a fact.
      And Third- If creationism is going to be taught as curriculum in the public school system then Hinduism, Buddhist, Wiccan, Musslim, Luciferian, Satanism and Cthulhu
      Belief systems have to be taught as well. There’s no favoring on religious belief over the other. It’s called equality. And I refuse to debate with on your beliefs so complain all you want about evolution but until you get yourself a credited education on the subject there is nothing you can say to convince anyone that has an IQ that evolution is unproven.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “Second, creationism can not stand up to the scientific method of being a fact.”

        According to your grammar, “scientific method” = “being a fact”.
        I am sorry, but that statement is nonsensical. Could you please clarify?

    • Merv says:

      The Theory of Evolution is unbiased. It’s based on evidence. Creationism is based on religious dogma, which is pretty much the opposite of unbiased.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “The Theory of Evolution is unbiased’
        Prove your assertion.

        “Creationism is based on religious dogma, which is pretty much the opposite of unbiased.”

        Creationism, as defined by Ken Ham in his book THE LIE, is the belief that the account of the Creation as recorded in the book of Genesis, is accurate. If statements are made as fact, they are interpreted as fact. If writing is symbolic or metaphorical, it is interpreted that way. Grammatical construct and context are used to understand the meaning of the text. Truth comes by revelation. Data gathered through the scientific method is interpreted in light of this revealed Truth. This is indeed a bias.

        Ken Ham has a chart that might make your analysis a little clearer:

        Basis Influence Bias

        ATHEISM NO GOD EXISTS CAN’T CONSIDER CREATION 100%

        AGNOSTIC DON’T CARE MUST EXCLUDE DEFINITE 100%
        DON’T KNOW ROLE OF GOD
        CAN’T KNOW

        THEISM GOD DEDUCED NO ABSOLUTES 100%

        REVEALED GOD REVEALED ABSOLUTE REFERENCE 100%
        TO MAN POINTS

        As you can see, ALL views are biased and religious.
        The question then becomes, which bias is the best bias with which to be biased?

        This whole discussion is covered in detail in Ham’s book, THE LIE, EVOLUTION.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          SORRY, MY NICE LITTLE CHART LACKED PROPER FORMATTING AND GOT GARBLED. READ THE BOOK.
          I will repost later.

        • Greg Cross says:

          Margaret, you’ve just saved me the time of having to form an argument against you. As soon as you cited Mr. Ham’s definition of Creationism as the belief in Creation as told in the book of Genesis in The Bible, you immediately dismissed creationism as something that lawfully can not be taught in a public school setting.

          There are many religions that do not teach the creation story used in the Bible. If public schools were to teach this creation story it would essentially pick Christianity as THE correct religion.

          I have no issue with anyone’s choice of beliefs, but I am completely averse to one day sending my children into a public school to have someone else’s Religious beliefs taught to them, unless it is the context of explaining the basic differences between the major world religions in a World History class.

          1 Timothy 2:11-14 KJV
          11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
          12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
          13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
          14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

          Guess she never should have been in the classroom in the first place. Or do you get to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that were meant literally and figuratively?

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            To better answer your challenges, let me repost the chart I referred to above. This lays out Ham’s premise that there are 4 major belief systems that can be classified as a religion, including atheism, agnosticism, and theism, all three of which, to varying degrees, are implied in the belief system known as Darwinism/evolution. He also concludes that all four religious systems (including “revealed Truth” as implied in Genesis and therefore Creationism) are 100% biased. The following is based on a chart found on p. 11 of THE LIE: EVOLUTION (c.1987)

            The basis of Atheism is that no god exists (materialism) and therefore it cannot consider a creation event (intelligent design). It would be 100% biased.

            The basis of agnosticism is that one cannot know for sure if God exists, cannot know, or it is irrelevant. Therefore, it must exclude a definite role of God. This view is 100% biased.

            Theism deduces that there is a god, but there are no absolutes defining this god. It is also 100% biased.

            Revelation theology posits that Truth is a direct revelation from God to man. Truth has absolute reference points. It is therefore 100% biased.

            The conclusion you have made is that Creationism is religious in nature and biased while Darwinism is not religious in nature and is not biased. However, the logic chart indicates that Darwinism is the logical conclusion of atheism, agnosticism, or Theism. It too is religious in nature and 100% biased.

            We can now conclude that both Darwinism and Creationism stand equally as being both religious and 100% biased. If all U.S. citizens home schooled their children, there would be no controversy. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. The home school can teach whatever religious bias it wants, as ALL EDUCATION HAS AN UNDERLYING RELIGIOUS BIAS.

            The controversy begins with the implementation of taxpayer supported schools (public schools). If such schools are run in keeping with the 1st Amendment, then ALL religious biases must be taught because ALL citizen’s tax dollars are used to finance the schools. However, to make matters more confusing, the Constitution also forbids the Federal government from ESTABLISHING A RELIGION. On what legal basis do we allow Darwinism to be taught, to the exclusion of all other religions? Creationists are being required to finance the Darwinists! HOW CAN THIS BE? I would go further. Logic would dictate that PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! All education has a religious bias. The Constitution forbids the establishment of such.

            In conclusion, Greg, if you have children in public school, you should contact one of the many home school associations to help you set up a lawful home school by September 1. You will be so glad you did, and your family will be blessed! After all, I am sure you want your children to have a LAWFUL education. Now you won’t have to feel guilty from taking money away from your neighbor’s home school, just so your kids can go to an unlawful public school.

          • Tim says:

            Margaret,

            The problem with Mr. Ham’s assertions is that they are inaccurate from the start.

            He asserts that atheists & agnostics begin their scientific analyses with their determination as to whether there is or or is not a god–just like young earth creationists do.

            He is of course mistaken. Proper scientific analysis doesn’t begin with a stated goal of aligning with a particular conclusion. Especially not a religious one. The existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven any more than the existence of the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster, Thor, Odin, Isis or Zeus.

            As such, it isn’t even considered when conducting scientific analyses. This is not the result of any religious commitment, it’s simply not there because it’s not part of the “equation”.

            Actual scientists–biologists, cosmologists, mathematicians, astronomers and so on–only come to conclusions after observing phenomena in nature, researching, experimenting and analyzing the data.

            Creation “scientists”, like Ken Ham are different. They begin with their religious dogma, then observe phenomena and then articulate hypotheses as to how these phenomena conform with their predetermined beliefs. They don’t do experiments or make predictions that can be proven based on their hypotheses. They can’t, because the experiments will prove their hypotheses wrong every time.

            They commonly assert that fossilized dinosaur skeletons are mere thousands of years old for example. This stands in direct conflict with the myriad methods of dating fossilized material. They can of course only assert that the fossils are just thousands of years old because there is no scientific method that would state otherwise.

            Evolution is not a religion, despite the many talking points that say otherwise. It’s a relatively simple scientific concept. It’s been demonstrated, observed and verified hundreds of times over since the advent of Mr. Darwin’s book.

        • Guy Chapman says:

          Margaret, you have come to a battle of wits unarmed. Evolution is an inevitable conclusion form a mountain of facts. Fossil records, genetics, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, all point the same way. Evolution was accepted despite the opposition and reservations of scientists who were almost to a man Christian, not because Darwin said it but because evolution consistently supplies a simpler and more complete explanation for the observed facts than theistic creation does.

          Creationism is a religious belief, evolution is a scientific conclusion from the observed facts. They are not in any way equivalent.

          And the good thing about science is that it goes on being true, for everybody, whatever anybody believes. You may believe God created the universe, or that it was sneezed form the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, the fact remains that the development of life on earth is explained simply and elegantly by evolution, without recourse to hypothetical external agencies that only a minority, and virtually nobody with a working knowledge of the actual science, believes were involved in the process.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            ‘Creationism is a religious belief, evolution is a scientific conclusion from the observed facts.”

            Creationism is the logical conclusion of a religion based on divine revelation of Truth, specifically the book of Genesis found in the Bible. It is the foundation for interpretation of data collected using the scientific method.

            Evolution/Darwinism is the logical conclusion of a religion based on atheism, agnosticism, or theism. It is the foundation for interpretation of data collected using the scientific method.

            For a more detailed analysis of this topic, see the above post @ July 6, 2014 at 8:57 pm

            THANKS!

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            ‘The existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven any more than the existence of the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster, Thor, Odin, Isis or Zeus.”

            That is your religious bias right there. There is no Creator God who has revealed to us the true account of His Creation. Explanation for any of your data CANNOT include this. However it CAN include the religious belief of Darwinism.

            DUH.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            “Actual scientists–biologists, cosmologists, mathematicians, astronomers and so on–only come to CONCLUSIONS after observing phenomena in nature, researching, experimenting and ANALIZING the data.’

            THERE YOU GO. So-called science only produces DATA. Its interpretation is according to the pre-existing bias of the scientist. (there is NO Creator God) Data can logically indicate the possibility of more than one conclusion. All the observations must take place in the present. Claiming absolute evidence about the past, without an eyewitness is impossible. Creationists do claim to have an eye-witness in the past. Darwinists do not. Both require faith.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            ‘evolution consistently supplies a simpler and more complete explanation for the observed facts than theistic creation does.’

            From goo to you by way of the zoo.
            Yep, it doesn’t get more simple than that. Is that why babies’ first sounds are “goo goo”? You know “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” and all that…
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phnth7A4nGY

        • Mr. Boogie says:

          Quote another source, Margaret.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            None of my detractors have quoted even ONE source to buttress their assertions, nor have they used logic to rebut what Mr. Ham has said.

            Creationists 2
            Darwinists 0

          • David Friedman says:

            Margaret, Mr. Ham refuted himself during his “debate” with Bill Nye. When asked what would change his mind about creationism, his response was, “Nothing!”. No amount of evidence could change Ham’s position, nor will he even consider any such evidence. There is no logic to be found in the position he holds.

            Evolution: Game, set,and match.
            Margaret and Ken Ham: Forfeit

        • Mr. Boogie says:

          Using Ken Ham as a source is like consulting Jenny McCarthy on epidemiology.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            Then dazzle us with your logical rebuttal of each of Ham’s points.

            Actions speak louder than words.

            Jenny cured her child of autism.
            She used detoxing techniques to get the mercury out.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            ‘Mr. Ham refuted himself during his “debate” with Bill Nye. When asked what would change his mind about creationism, his response was, “Nothing!”.”

            He has always maintained that Creationism is a religious view that begins with a belief in a Creator God and revealed TRUTH. That is his guiding principle when observing and understanding the world around us.

            Likewise, the Darwinist would never allow that the earth and living creatures were the result of a supernatural intelligence. Any evidence will always be interpreted from a materialistic religious bias. That is why their history is littered with FRAUD. If the evidence isn’t there, JUST MAKE IT UP. If evidence negates your belief, just ignore it or hide it.

            Equal positions, I would say. The Creationists are the honest ones.

        • Bobsie says:

          “The Theory of Evolution is unbiased’
          Prove your assertion.

          Answer: The Theory of Evolution is based on decades of empirical evidence.

          “Creationism is based on religious dogma, which is pretty much the opposite of unbiased.”

          Creationism, as defined by Ken Ham in his book THE LIE, is the belief that the account of the Creation as recorded in the book of Genesis, is accurate.

          Answer: The Bible is not a science book. Ken Ham’s “science” is based exclusively on scripture, his science “education” notwithstanding. If asked, Ham will confirm this fact.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            “Answer: The Theory of Evolution is based on decades of empirical evidence.”

            Another assertion. Is that the best a brilliant Darwinist can do?

        • MMH says:

          Just because Ken Ham says the book of Genesis is a fact does not make it so. It is proven by “HONEST” scholars that the bible is not even 2,000 yrs old & far from it. So how possibly can the person or persons who wrote the bible know when the earth was formed and so forth. They can not! It is pure imagination of made up ideations that came up with the book of Genesis as well as of all the bible.

          There was no jesus, Abraham, Moses ect…. The bible was written during the 16th century taken from miscilaneous Greek & Latin manuscripts . Almost all the Greek writings were written hundreds of years after the advent of the supposed jesus and was translated in to Latin and then back again in to Greek. Most of the writings of the bible do not even match up to the Greek & Latin writings. Another words, much was add lib during the 16th century during the creation of the different bibles being compiled at that time in Europe. They were Europeans that wrote the 1st bible. The very first writings of christianity did not even mention a jesus which are of the Greek text.
          The following is a link to a scholar on the subject. She knows Greek and has studied the text. She is not the only scholar that knows this. Robert Price, a theologian & several other scholars will tell you the jesus character was founded as a compilation from other myths.

          When Were the Gospels Written by DM Murdock AKA Acharya S
          http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel-dates.html

          Pre-Christian gods on crosses, crucified or in cruciform: An ancient mythical motif
          http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3014

          7 secrets of the Bible you may not know
          http://www.examiner.com/list/7-secrets-of-the-bible-you-may-not-know

          Truth be Known http://www.truthbeknown.com/

          “The cult of Sol Invictus, the ‘Invincible Sun,’ became dominant in Rome and in other parts of the empire during the early part of the second century A.D. And evidence abounds that Roman sun cults influenced Christian thought and liturgy.”
          –Christian theologian Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Signs of the Times (6/10)

          “What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!”
          –Pope Leo X
          (As attributed by John Bale, Bishop of Ossory, in The Pageant of Popes, p. 179, 1574)
          Truth Be Known http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            ” So how possibly can the person or persons who wrote the bible know when the earth was formed and so forth.”

            If Genesis is true, God spoke directly to Adam and Eve in the garden. He had a personal relationship with them. He would have told them of the creation events. The account also lists the lineage of Adam and Eve and their life spans. There easily could have been oral and written accounts given to Noah prior to the flood. According to the Bible, Adam lived 930 years and was still alive when Lamech, Noah’s father, was born. While Noah didn’t know Adam, an eye witness to the Garden of Eden events, his father did. Because Noah was preserved through the Flood, this knowledge was also. The ark settled in the mountains of Ararat. His descendants settled in the plain of Shinar, called the fertile crescent, which included the Tigris and Euphrates river delta. This is also the location of the earliest written records. Abraham was from Ur, not far from the ancient city of Babylon. He probably had written or oral history of pre-flood events. Noah died just before Abraham was born. His father Terah, was alive for 130 years before Noah died. According to the Bible, man has never been without the testimony of God.
            You are free to believe what you want, but this is what the Bible testifies.

        • Ben says:

          Margaret, a few corrections to your claims:

          “Creationism, as defined by Ken Ham in his book THE LIE, is the belief that the account of the Creation as recorded in the book of Genesis, is accurate.”

          Correction: Creationism is the belief that the account of the Creation, as interpreted by Biblical inerrantists employing the historical-grammatical heuristic, is accurate.

          “If statements are made as fact, they are interpreted as fact. If writing is symbolic or metaphorical, it is interpreted that way.”

          Correction: if inerrantists interpret statements as fact, they conclude that they are fact. If they interpret statements as symbolism or metaphor, they conclude that they are symbolism or metaphor.

          “Grammatical construct and context are used to understand the meaning of the text.”

          Correction: Grammatical construct and context, as filtered through the inerrantist’s preconception that the Bible is predominantly meant to be read through a modern historical-grammatical epistemology, are used.

          “Truth comes by revelation. Data gathered through the scientific method is interpreted in light of this revealed Truth. This is indeed a bias.”

          Unfortunately, Margaret, the unspoken bias–the one most inerrantists will never confirm–is their faith in the inerrancy of their own epistemology and reasoning.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            It is called faith. That is your view as well. You have faith that data collected in the present and interpreted by Darwinists will always prove evolution – from goo to you by way of the zoo.

            I have a reasonable faith.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            “Correction: Creationism is the belief that the account of the Creation, as interpreted by Biblical inerrantists employing the historical-grammatical heuristic, is accurate.”

            What method is used to interpret THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, published by an Englishman in 1859? What about Darwin inerrantists?

            “Natural selection will modify the structure of the young in relation to the parent, and of the parent in relation to the young.” p135

            How do you interpret that passage?

    • Bobsie says:

      Were they religiously offended or offended by real science. That’s an important distinction your question begs.

  18. Dr. Charlie Underwood says:

    Thank you for the excellent report bring this incident to the international public. Just remember that scientific truths remain so even if people don’t believe in them. This thread appears to be becoming a freeforall for ignorant people claiming that science is false if there enough other ignorant people who say so too.

    If you ever need comments, statements or kelp, let me know.

    Charlie Underwood
    Lecturer in Palaeontology and field Geology
    Birkbeck College
    University of London
    UK

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      Dr. Underwood, please define your terms “scientific truth” and “ignorant people”.
      Thanks!

      • Dr. Charlie Underwood says:

        Scientific truth is best described as a concept for which there are vast amounts of data that all support the same conclusion, with all cross related topics providing date that is either fully supportive or not at all unsupportive. What makes science so fantastic (to me) is its extreme fragility- a hypothesis that appears to have a lot of support can instantly be collapsed by a single piece of very strong data which is to the contrary. Science is also completely predictive; it is possible to take data that you know and predict data you don’t yet have. The predictive power of evolution is pretty much unsurpassed.

        I have no problem with people who are not clever. I do however despise wilful ignorance where someone has the ability to access information but choses not to and instead spouts what is demonstrable untrue.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          “I do however despise wilful ignorance where someone has the ability to access information but choses not to and instead spouts what is demonstrable untrue.”

          Wow! God feels the same way about you:

          “3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”
          2 Peter 3

          But don’t worry about it. It’s just a nice fairy tale.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          Dr. Underwood,

          Why do we find vast deposits of MARINE fossils high up in the Andes?

          • Dr. Charlie Underwood says:

            Actually not many in the Andes, these are largely volcanic. The Rockies, Himalayas, Alps….however are full of marine fossils. Look up “Plate Tectonics”, it is too large and well known a topic to repeat here.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            Dr. Underwood, your answer is insufficient.
            My spouse grew up near the Andes. His posh prep school had yearly trips to visit this site. He had a large personal collection of these fossils.

            The Biblical flood account could easily explain this phenomena.

            Is it not true that over 70% of the earth is covered with sedimentary rock?
            How does evolution explain this?

            Thanks!

          • Dr. Charlie Underwood says:

            Didn’t say there are no fossils in the Andes, there are some great Cretaceous sites in Bolivia for example, only it is not the best example of uplifted sedimentary rocks. I think it is pointless going over things that the likes of William Smith and James Hutton worked out over 200 years ago.
            Just that fossils are not ON the mountains, but are IN them, they are integral parts of the rocks that make up the mountain ranges and thus clearly predated the mountain building. Some of these rates of uplift can be very fast; I have worked in fossil beach deposits only 125k years old that are now 60m above sea level in the same place as a 6k year old marine notch with attached shells is at 3m and a Bronze age beach with pottery is at 1.5m (in an area of large and common earthquakes), so raising (say) Cretaceous rocks to a height of 3000m is not at all dramatic.
            If anything there are nearly as many separate routes of data supporting plate tectonics (and tectonics in general) that evolution. And as the the geological timescale, a visit to pretty much any geological site in the world will show that vast timescales are essential. Also every single example of buried geological resources (coal, gas, oil, gold etc etc) known was only discovered by applying what we know about geological process.
            Charlie

          • Ben says:

            Ms. Ewell, please note that Dr. Underwood’s claims are not based on “fairy tales” or “evolutionist speculation.” Mountains grow; this is both directly observable and directly observed. We can and do measure the growth of mountains on an annual basis. Mount Everest, for instance, grows roughly 0.15 inches per year.

            If this rate of growth is constant, then it adds up–1,250 feet within the last 100,000 years. 12,500 feet within the last 1,000,000 years–and that’s about half of Everest’s entire height.

            Now, certainly, we can’t assume that the rate of growth has been perfectly uniform…but there’s really no difficulty at all in Everest reaching its present height within its estimated 60-million year lifespan.

            As 1 Thessalonians 5:21 urges, Ms. Ewell, “Test everything; hold fast to that which is good.” Most Creationist claims, upon testing, don’t stand up.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            This is a response for below to Dr. Underwood, who by the way, makes his living promoting evolution….

            My spouse collected EXPOSED fossils, high up in the Andes in Colombia. In my copy of ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, Darwin documents seeing MARINE fossils in the Andes at 12,000 feet!

            THIS IS EVIDENCE OF A HUGE CATASTROPHIC EVENT!
            A worldwide flood perhaps? And what about the fact that 80% of the surface is covered with sedimentary rock, LAID DOWN BY WATER? This is the layer that contains fossils. Millions of dead things laid down by water, worldwide = flood.

            British scientist A.E. Wilder-Smith, whose sons are friends of ours, made the most convincing case against the possibility of Darwinian MACROEVOLUTION. Life depends on INFORMATION. The Bible calls it “the Book of Life”. That is exactly what is contained in all DNA. It is a CODE.

            “al;sdkfj asdfjklasdfkhjfl;jsd” Did you understand that? Why not? I am using the same letters as you are reading now. What is the difference?

            Here is how to make a peanut butter sandwich: Get 2 pieces of white bread. Get a jar of peanut butter. Get a knife. Open the jar of peanut butter. Using the knife, spread the peanut butter on one slice of bread. Top with the other. Eat and enjoy!

            Did I just make an actual sandwich? No. Could you read the code, acquire the physical ingredients, and make an actual sandwich? Yes. How did you obtain this knowledge? The code, using PRE-AGREED UPON symbols, placed in a sequence using pre-agreed upon rules. This is what DNA and mRNA do. THE CHEMICALS (letters, words) carry the INFORMATION used to build the organism. INFORMATION RIDES ON THE DNA. It is not the physical chemical structure. Information presumes INTELLIGENCE. Information is not subject to MUTATIONS. It is not physical. Who put the INFORMATION in the DNA?
            Darwin’s theory completely ignores this.
            Belief in an intelligent Creator solves this problem.

            John 3:18-25 KJV

            “18 He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved . 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest , that they are wrought in God.”

            “22And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 23And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 27And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
            Revelation 21: 22-27

          • Ben says:

            Mrs. Ewell, you seem to be attempting to change the subject. The question of whether or not life could have evolved by chance is unrelated to the question of whether or not a global Flood occurred.

            The simple fact of the matter is that conventional geology explains the presence of marine fossils on mountains with no difficulty, using only directly observable and measurable processes.

            “Flood geology,” on the other hand, is powerless to explain the majority of the geologic record–so it simply ignores it.

            Flood geology cannot explain the presence of millions of pollen-clay varve couplets. Now, we observe these to form annually today; that’s direct observation. The pollen layer accumulates during the pollen-producing months; the clay during the non-pollen producing months.

            We reasonably infer that this directly observable mechanism is likely the mechanism which formed all of those millions of layers.

            That, however, is unacceptable to Young Earth Creationists, because it would mean accepting millions of years in which those layers could form.

            Their explanation? “The Flood caused it, somehow. Perhaps it was turbidity.”

            No explanation of how turbidity would alternate layers of pollen and clay; no explanation of how it could possibly have laid down millions of layers. For this to have happened during the Flood would have required the current to violently change direction every three-quarters of a second for the entire duration of the Flood–and yet, somehow, still deposit those very thin layers without any disturbance whatsoever.

            Creationism can’t explain it, so it hand-waves it away with “Unknown conditions during the Flood caused it.”

            Likewise, the matter of radiometric decay. Most ethical Creation scientists acknowledge that a great deal of radiometric decay has taken place; the evidence is simply too obvious to reach any other conclusion. Thus, the Institute for Creation Research commissioned the Radioisotopes and Age of the Earth (RATE) study to attempt to reconcile this decay with a young Earth.

            They encountered a small problem: no matter how they worked the calculations, they couldn’t account for the heat that this decay would produce. Time and time again, their conclusions were the same: rapid decay produces massive amounts of heat, the heat melts the planet’s crust, and everything dies.

            Ultimately, their conclusion was (and I quote):

            “God supernaturally protected Noah and his entourage by rapidly
            removing the large amount of heat that was produced by some
            unknown mechanism.”

            Again, this isn’t an explanation–it’s a hand-wave. It amounts to, “We can’t possibly be wrong; therefore, this happened.”

            Test everything; keep that which is good. Creationist claims fail to stand up to the test, Mrs. Ewell.

  19. JF says:

    Ms. Ewell, take a deep breath and calm down. If creationism is being left out of public school science education, you can rest assured that it’s all part of God’s plan. HE knows best, not you, and that is why HE is in control and makes the plans! Do you not trust HIM? Your job as a faithful servant is to relax and enjoy the life HE has given you and not try to direct everyone else’s.

    Great article, by the way!

    • Mr Barrett says:

      Banter of the highest level *Applause*

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      “Mount Everest, for instance, grows roughly 0.15 inches per year.”
      As measured in the PRESENT. This is no direct evidence for this rate in the past.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “Likewise, the matter of radiometric decay. Most ethical Creation scientists acknowledge that a great deal of radiometric decay has taken place; the evidence is simply too obvious to reach any other conclusion. Thus, the Institute for Creation Research commissioned the Radioisotopes and Age of the Earth (RATE) study to attempt to reconcile this decay with a young Earth.”

        Here are the specifics of the Creationist’s research. Others can read it for themselves.
        http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-breakthroughs

  20. Tony says:

    @Margaret Ewell

    Except Creationism is mostly fables from an old book whereas Evolution is science.

    Evolution is the fact about how lifeforms change over generations over time, based on gathered evidence and observation, of which there’s more and more as time goes by.
    Theory of Evolution is the framework to explain that mechanism, a framework which is constantly being improved on.

    I can’t see any reason why Creationism can’t be taught in schools in certain instances, like in a study on world religions. But it has absolutely no place in a science class, like Biology.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      See my complete response to your arguments and more, above @ July 6, 2014 at 8:57 pm

      Thanks!

      • Joel says:

        Margaret, I missed your comment that explains why the teaching of creationism does or doesn’t belong in some kind of cultural studies or religious history curriculum. Recap if you don’t mind?

        Anyway, since science proponents aren’t passionately arguing to get evolution added to the curricula of cultural studies/religious history classes, I wonder why creationists are fighting so hard to get into science classes?

        Last question: If you don’t believe a religious studies class should include the details of creationism, why is that?

        • MMH says:

          Excellent point!

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          I home school. I don’t have a dog in this fight. We have Constitutionally sanctioned freedom of religion in our school. We don’t have to compartmentalize our studies. The Darwinists’ opinions on this blog are of no affect on our school. We learn to analyze the philosophical underpinnings of both Darwinism and Creationism. We don’t believe something just because we are told to believe it. All of my children have tested well in the sciences. I have a science background in addition to art. We have access to a state of the art science lab.

          I do have money in this fight. Because all education is religious, public schools are unconstitutional. The “news story” and comments on this blog are evidence. You have a religious war on your hands. Darwinism is a religious world view, as is Creationism. The Darwinists lie about this in order to keep a Biblical world view out of the schools. “I’m science, you’re not.” Both belief systems can use the so-called scientific method, yet the data will be interpreted according to the differing religious beliefs. Where money enters the picture is when one religious group wants to force the other to pay for ONLY THEIR RELIGION to be taught. Public schools use the strong arm of the government to accomplish this. Yet none of this is lawful under the Constitution. It is impossible to have a taxpayer supported school that is not religious in nature. This is the source of the controversy at Grady. The only Constitutional solution is for all to home school or set up private schools that are not tax funded. Of course, the majority will not go for this as they have already tasted the free lunch. Instead, they will continue to fight and steal each other’s lunch money and tell lies.

          • Bobsie says:

            This where you are demonstrably wrong. Public education is not religious. You must make it so in order to grind your axe against the accumulated knowledge and facts about our natural world that discredit your theology.

          • Ben says:

            Ms. Ewell, you claim that both evolution and Creationism are religious, and that both evolution and Creationism can employ the scientific method.

            I believe the falsity of this can be established with a single question:

            What specific, testable evidence would convince you that your “theory” is incorrect?

            Now, I can answer that question; there are MANY specific, testable evidences that would convince me that the theory of evolution is incorrect. Show me a rabbit in the Precambrian, and the theory of evolution is badly wrong. Show me an insect-to-mammal transitional form, and the theory of evolution is horrendously wrong.

            Can you think of a specific, testable piece of evidence that would convince you that CREATIONISM is wrong?

            I suspect, if you’re honest with yourself, you cannot. If faith is subject to being abandoned the moment contradictory evidence appears, it’s not particularly strong faith.

            And therein is the dichotomy: for something to be science, it MUST be subject to being modified or discarded if the evidence contradicts it.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      “Except Creationism is mostly fables from an old book whereas Evolution is science.”

      Where did you get the term evolution? It was a belief about the past that existed long before Darwin. Those who believed it knew nothing of DNA code or mutations. Believers included Erasmus Darwin, who influenced his grandson, Charles Darwin. Charles took a 5 year voyage and observed first hand, varieties of animals and their then present environment. He made detailed studies of them and then postulated an explanation based on a pre-existing evolutionary belief system. He understood that his beliefs were in conflict with the majority Biblical view that species were fixed (kinds), although with variations. His claim was that as variations were produced, some survived more abundantly than others (survival of the fittest). These variations weren’t limited by a species boundary. In order to fit with his evolutionist beliefs, he used the earlier geologic uniformitarianism theories of Lyell and James Hutton to bolster his evolution theory, which seemingly needed an old earth age to be plausible.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        “Can you think of a specific, testable piece of evidence that would convince you that Evolution is wrong?

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          “And therein is the dichotomy: for something to be science, it MUST be subject to being modified or discarded if the evidence contradicts it.”

          Darwinists have broken this rule many times in the past using FRAUD. They have created their own evidence or suppressed evidence contrary to their non-creator religious view. This is proof Darwinism is a religion.

          So far, evidence supports Creationism.

  21. Carlos Marquez says:

    It is naive to posit that creationism is another “scientific ” theory to contrast the theory of evolution that is just non-sense. Creationism falls in the rank of Theology not science. Creationism does not follow the scientific method , it follows ” divine revelation” and a literal view of the Bible as its database and conclusion- that is not science- is religion at work. Bible authors were not scientists- they had other goals in mind-.
    Imagine , if Creationism has to be included in the Science curriculum, then let’s teach resurrection, astrology, miracle healing, Tarot, et al. a real slippery slope of rubbish.
    Creationist cannot gather evidence to quantify without invoking the supernatural-that dreaded spot!- to make their claim work and let us not forget special pleading and other myriads of fallacies they fall into. For sure not belonging in a science class.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      See my complete analysis of your claims posted above @ July 6, 2014 at 8:57 pm

      Thanks! I always enjoy a good debate.

      • Mike Harris says:

        Margaret: It’s nice to know you enjoy a good debate.

        Maybe one day you’ll be able to form a coherent logical idea and join one!

        Until then, you keep trying to participate while the grown ups discuss in an adult manner, OK?

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          What have you contributed?

          Can you intelligently articulate your opinion on the matter without resorting to mere assertions and insults?

  22. Martin says:

    I accept that 82% of USA citizens could be Bible believing, Protestant, Christians, many of whom are Creationists but …
    ¡¡¡ 42 %!!! ¡¡¡ Remember, 42% of Americans (Something lost. Citizens from the north of America should be) are so ignorants, fanatics and fundamentalists that still believe God created man and woman in their present form and within the last ten thousand years.!!!
    No. no, I don´t think this about north american people. Most of they could not be so ignorants.
    The worst thing here is that this fanatic and fundamentalist minority is trying to impose their absurd beliefs all around the world using guns and economic extortions. Is very dangerous this kind of terrorism.

  23. Guy Chapman says:

    Creationism is religion, evolution is science. One belongs in religious studies, the other belongs in a science classroom. Any teacher who thinks creation has a legitimate place in the science classroom, is simply not competent to teach science.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      See my complete analysis of your claims posted above @ July 6, 2014 at 8:57 pm

      Thanks! I always enjoy a good debate.

      • A fellow Christian says:

        Margaret, as a fellow christian I too am defensive of my religion.However, I believe that you are being somewhat narrow minded. I believe in God and that He is the person who created life and caused the existence of the world, but science is science, and evolution is factually proven. There is no way of disproving evolution other than, of course, ignorance. Your comments about homeschooling and homosexuals aggravated me so much that I felt I needed to comment. A true Christian has faith in not only God, but also those around them. Homosexuals are fellow human beings, and God loves them just as much as he loves any straight person. The fact that you would say that “science” is against them only because they can not reproduce together is totally absurd. Psychology, another science, proves that homosexuality is a way humans are born, therefore science really says that homosexuals are just as much a natural human as you are. Please, learn to be more accepting. God certainly is.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          “A true Christian has faith in not only God, but also those around them.”

          23Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 24But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. KJV John 2:23-25

          “The fact that you would say that “science” is against them only because they can not reproduce together is totally absurd.”

          I made no such claim. Please post where I said this.

          “Your comments about homeschooling and homosexuals aggravated me so much that I felt I needed to comment.’

          Please post the specific comments you speak of.

          “I believe that you are being somewhat narrow minded.”

          “13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Luke 13:22-30 KJV

          “evolution is factually proven.”
          That’s interesting. Could you please cite the peer reviewed empirical study/studies that you base your assertion on?

          “Psychology, another science, proves that homosexuality is a way humans are born, therefore science really says that homosexuals are just as much a natural human as you are.”

          That’s interesting. Could you please cite the peer reviewed empirical study/studies that you base your assertion on?

          Thanks!

      • Mr. Boogie says:

        Posting the same tired argument, over and over, is not debate, Margaret. Give us more than Mr. Ham’s book to back up your claims.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          Every Darwinist on this board has only made assertions with no logical defense. I have given a logical defense for every point. Until it is rebutted, I rest my case.

          Time for the lazy Darwinists to get to work.

          • Mr. Boogie says:

            You’ve not made any logical assertions at all Margaret. Just restating Ken Ham’s propaganda, over and over. It has been rebutted, but you’ve ignored it You may rest your case-one of a pigeon playing chess.

          • Bobsie says:

            This is not a venue to present the overwhelming evidence that corroborates evolution science. One only needs to review the professional scientific journals that are replete with current research findings all confirming evolution.

            What can you find in the science journals with respect to creationism? If creationism were a legitimate science why is it not a research topic at any research university?

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          Mr. Boogie,

          When reviewing your posts, you have made no scientifically defended comments. You just parrot assertions. Boring.

          I do give you credit for one attempt at this. However, it was made on a wrong assumption, so alas it was useless.

          Regarding my reference to a research paper finding a link between autism, vaccine thimerosal, and genetic mutations (mitochondrial), you were mighty quick to pull out the trusty “Wakefield debunking”. Perhaps you are employed by the CDC or Emory? This topic certainly got your attention. Unfortunately for you, I have an unrelated research paper by an American Ph.D. entitled “Molecular Aspects of Thimerosal-induced Autism”. Catchy title, don’t you think? It certainly fits the description of the condition of a recent vaccine court million dollar winner. Of course, they make sure the records are sealed, so we can’t know for sure. Renae Fenwick seems to be your side-kick. Two against one? I’m flattered. I enjoyed reading about the CDC secret meeting held in Gwinnett county. Too bad it took 10 years and a lawsuit for that to see the light of day. Paid for by the taxpayers, of course. And how about the Iowa State Chinese scientists facing FRAUD charges for faking success ON AN AIDS VACCINE! Adding insult to injury, Han “agreed to be banned from federally financed research for three years”!!!!!!!! This is after receiving $19 MILLION in grants from the National Institutes of Health!
          THERE ARE NO WORDS FOR THIS OUTRAGE!
          THIS IS THE PRODUCT OF BELIEF IN EVOLUTION. No morals. No accountability. Corruption.

  24. NBJar says:

    SharePoint isn’t just “an APS file-sharing database for teachers.” SharePoint is a document management system. Including its name in this article is unnecessary.

  25. Stella DiMar says:

    Anyone else think Ms. Ewell is actually the teacher this article is about using a fake name?

  26. Hieronymous Boulder says:

    If everyone would please take a moment to realize that a professional Troll has invaded this space, and has successfully caught a great deal of fish on her hook, you would also see that she is more than likely a paid poster on the payroll of a religious organization to sew discord, doubt, dissent, and diatribe. Her arguments have nothing to do with the content of the article, but are meant to distract by picking at tiny and obtuse parts of your comments, such as asking you to define what to any normal person are completely normal parts of the English language. She has successfully appeared to be literate in many forms of an educational sphere, by aptly plucking from history’s library quotes from great minds, and inserting them with vague leading insights that end up nowhere. You have all been duped, and you argue with a logicless, reasonless, and ultimately guileless entity that exists for the sole purpose of adding doubt and question in a very fine and excellently written report, but not by addressing anything IN the report. I would, in fact, be very surprised if she wasn’t in the paid service of Ken Ham’s own creationist organization. In the future, please don’t feed the Trolls.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      Mr. Boulder, I am truly flattered by your comments, but I must admit that none of it is true. I post under my real name, and my only crime is that I actually home school some of my children, and I love to debate and read incessantly. I do this on my own dime because it is a personal passion for me. As for Mr. Ham, I have never been on his payroll nor worked for him in any capacity. I have listened to many of his lectures over the years and I have read several of his books, including THE LIE: EVOLUTION. Mr. Ham has obviously studied formal logic and that is part of the power behind his communication skills. He exposes how much of our communication is without thought or skill. Our minds are lazy and we accept ideas at face value without a thorough logical examination. Watching television or playing video games incessantly does not help.

      I have taken the time to defend my opinions in different ways, using quotes, humor, devils advocate, anecdotes, and logic. While you may never agree with me, I hope I have challenged you to see things from a new perspective and are willing to challenge some of your own “fixed belief systems” as Dr. Benjamin Bloom would have said.

      It is a sad commentary Mr. Boulder, that you would choose censorship to deal with a successful communicator with whom you disagree. On the other hand, I invite challenge. Freedom of speech was one of the values the Founding Father’s championed and fought for. In fact, I am a direct descendant of one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He was educated at Cambridge and his father was the president of the first Continental Congress. They were very wealthy and helped to fund the Revolutionary War. Arthur Middleton was captured by the British while defending his state, and was imprisoned for a year in St. Augustine. He survived the war, but succumbed to an early death because of the harsh prison conditions. The family was Christian, specifically, Anglican. To study my family, is to study an unbroken line of American history, beginning in the late 1600′s. I can tell you, we are now in the twilight of our glorious past. Be prepared.

      • Renae Fenwick says:

        Anyone of any faith reading this, I urge you to pray to your Gods for Margaret Ewell’s children in the hope that they manage to avoid her ignorance and that they may come out of childhood unscathed, with an open mind to those around them.

        For the rest of us atheists and agnostics, let’s just hope natural selection gets her and her children who aren’t smart enough to realise how stupid their mother and Ken Ham are.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          Thank you for your prayers. God has already blessed us. One is already a successful businessman and another is getting a full ride to Georgia Tech in the fall. I can’t wait to see His plans for my other children unfold. I have been home schooling for 21 years! That in itself is a miracle.

          • Bobsie says:

            OMG, Ga Tech scientists have compelling evidence that comfirms deep time and common ancestry for all life found on Earth and no evidence for creationism. What will your son do when confronted with these facts?

          • Bobsie says:

            Wouldn’t it be better if you home college schooled your son instead of sending him to Ga Tech?

  27. Matt Shine says:

    Well researched article! This is gaining very wide attention (I’m in Indiana), and rightfully so. I WOULD have liked to have seen a line about attempting to contact the teacher in question for a quote, but given the quote about a 10 minute rant I do not know if it would have been met with a positive response (it also opens the doors to follow-up pieces).

    I won’t get into the evolution/creationism debate, as neither side will convince the other. What I will say, however, is that if there was a massive catastrophe that wiped out all human knowledge and reset the species to where we were 20,000 years ago, I can guarantee you that creationism in it’s current form would not be “re-discovered” simply because it relies on the bible to exist. It cannot be proven and its very theory requires the presence of the bible, so if you take the knowledge of the bible away… it would simply fade away.

    Evolution, however, would come back once people relearned the scientific method. Oxygen molecules, the principals of biology, the elements, the heliocentric concept that nearly saw Galileo put to death… all of it would come back even if with different names. Why? Because it relies on nothing more than what can be observed, both directly and indirectly, in nature.

    To me, THAT is why evolution belongs in a science classroom and creationism belongs in a philosophy or world religion class. Evolution IS a theory, but thus far it is the best one out there.

    Matt

    PS – As for Ken Ham, I cannot take serious anybody who actually believes in the young Earth concept.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      “I won’t get into the evolution/creationism debate, as neither side will convince the other.”

      You just did. LOL!

      “Evolution, however, would come back once people relearned the scientific method.”

      The ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES was published 1859. Are you saying that there have been no scientific discoveries/advancement prior to that time? I believe the Bible was available long before that. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Western civilization was built on its tenets. Just visit Europe. The Greeks, who had access to the first five books of the Bible (Library of Alexandria) but not the Origin of the Species, managed to build a working mechanical computer in the first century B.C.

      “MOST people, on finding a piece of a jigsaw that did not fit, would be cross. Not Michael Wright, though. Until ten years ago, when he retired, Mr Wright was a curator at the Science Museum in London, and he is responsible for reassembling the Antikythera mechanism, a portable, clockwork, hand-cranked computer built in the first century BC that could model the then-known universe, predict eclipses and even remind users of upcoming Olympic games.”
      http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21606256-expedition-will-set-soon-look-second-ancient-greek-computer-mk-ii

      Sadly, the earlier Greeks missed the boat with their heliocentric concept of the solar system. Earlier Church leaders relied on this “settled science” of the Greeks rather than the Bible (which makes no such claims). The persecution of Galileo was not Biblically inspired. The Roman church absorbed many pagan ideas and practices after it was made a state religion under Constantine. The common man’s access to the Scriptures was then limited. What the Bible actually says and what is said about it are often quite different. After Gutenberg’s printing press made the Bible available to the common man, who could now read it for himself, Catholic dogma and practices not found in the Good Book were challenged and ended with the Protestant Reformation.

      “I can guarantee you that creationism in it’s current form would not be “re-discovered” simply because it relies on the Bible to exist.”

      That is quite a statement.

      Thankfully, Christians do not have to worry about your worst case scenario. Jesus himself tells us:

      35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
      Matthew 24:35King James Version (KJV)

      I don’t think Darwin gives us any such guarantee.
      One day we will all know if Jesus’ word is true.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        OOPS!
        Replace “heliocentric” with “earth centric”
        That should make more sense.

      • Matt Shine says:

        What I meant about not getting into the evolution/creationism debate was that I did not want to argue the merits of either as an theory, simply state why evolution merits being part of a science class and creationism does not (in my opinion).

        Most religious belief is an accident of birth, much like skin color, language, etc. Statistically speaking, if you were born in another part of the world, you would believe just as strongly in the religion of that area, be it Islam, Judaism, etc, as most people believe what their parents believed and indoctrinated them with.

        Your God is no more correct, or proven, than the Gods of ancient Egypt, Greece, or Mesopotamia. They are all fairly tales that were put forth to explain a world that the ancients never could understand. They didn’t know why the sun rose and set, so they created forces and legends to try and figure it all out. They didn’t know why they were subject to disease and pestilence, so they created stories about why.

        I understand why people believe, why they have faith. I understood it years ago when I went to church every Sunday, got my confirmation, went to Catholic school, turned first to agnosticism and then, eventually, atheism.

        You believe for the same reason most people do: fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of death, fear that life is truly NOT a test, but an accident of nature and something that was not preordained. You desperately need to believe in a God because if there is no God, why the suffering? Why the pain? Why… life? I GET it, but it’s nonsense. It’s a fairly tale that has outlived its usefulness.

        There is a beautiful world out there, waiting to be explored, and understood and looked at through the fresh eyes of a person who doesn’t ‘need’ there to be a purpose. Clouds look even more fantastic and a rainbow more lovely when you realize that they are not the work of a supernatural force… but nature colluding with nature to give you a display of perceived beauty.

        By subscribing to creationism over evolution, over SCIENCE, you are in effect saying that the centuries of acquired scientific data and exploration is wrong because a few ancient Jews and tribes wrote it down once thousands of years ago. That, to me, is like looking at a massive redwood tree. An ancient looks at the tree and says “this was put here in its current form by a miracle”. I show you seeds and say “these seeds are why that tree is here, as an older tree many years ago dropped cones which released seeds and those seeds pollinated and grew and eventually we had this tree”, but you refuse to believe because somehow that ancient ‘knew’ better. It’s junk, and while that maybe a condescending example, I hope you also see the ridiculousness. Creationism is not any better, or less ridiculous.

        I could understand it if you tried to supplement science with faith, like “I don’t think evolution was an accident, but I think the hand of God was in there and manipulated it so that this end result would come to fruition” (lookup “theistic evolution” for more on that one), or “the big bang MAY have happened, but that is when God commanded ‘let there be light’”. There are ways to reconcile faith with science (which is why your doctor may be good and why some scientists are also believers), but to ignore science when it runs contradictory to faith, as is happening here, is totally different.

        So, Margaret, I get it. You need there to be a reason, a purpose for all of this and because religion is your drug of choice, you force yourself to believe the most neurotic aspects of it that even many Christians don’t truly believe.

        I close with a quote from a Catholic deacon: “No-one “believes in” evolution. You either know something about this well understood natural process, or you are ignorant of it. If the teaching of your church is actually true, it will not conflict with natural truths clearly revealed by science. Truth cannot conflict with truth. Jesus Christ promised the one Church He founded, “The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth”, and “He who hears you hears Me”. Either He lied, or there is a Church that actually teaches the fullness of God’s truth. In which case the teaching of that Church would not conflict with facts revealed by science.”

        Matt

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          “went to Catholic school”

          That’s your problem right there. You are not born again. You are not saved. Read the KJV Bible for yourself.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          “Statistically speaking, if you were born in another part of the world, you would believe just as strongly in the religion of that area”

          What about the wandering Jews, who haven’t lived in their homeland since the time of Christ? Didn’t their ancestors and converts finally return to the homeland after WW2? Didn’t they set up a Jewish state?

  28. R. Lee says:

    To quote NDT, “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” Evolutionary theory underpins modern biology. Science should be taught in science class – it’s really that simple.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      Nice assertions Lee. Let’s see some UNBIASED peer reviewed research to back up those claims. It’s really that simple.

      My medical doctor is a Christian and a Creationist. He just ignores Darwin.
      Our family is all still alive. Isn’t that compelling evidence?

      • Renae Fenwick says:

        In regards to your medical doctor being a christian creationist who ignores Darwin, who managed to keep your family alive : Sometimes accidents happen.

      • R. Lee says:

        2 things: What did I assert that requires peer-reviewed research? And I take it you’re not a diabetic since we use concepts within evolution to understand how to manufacture insulin in bacteria for human use.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          “Juvenile Diabetes and Vaccination:
          New Evidence for a Connection”

          http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Diabetes/juvenilediabetes.aspx

          ‘Recombinant DNA is DNA that has been created artificially. DNA from two or more sources is incorporated into a single recombinant molecule.” This process is used for artificial insulin. It has nothing to do with MACROEVOLUTION (natural). The DNA (information) pre-exists. It is not a NATURAL mutation. IT USES HUMAN INTELLIGENCE TO PRODUCE, not random events. It does not demonstrate a NATURAL process by which SPECIES change to other forms.

          Prove the Theory of Evolution is true. First define evolution.

          • R. Lee says:

            Posting a link to anti-vaxx nut-jobbery further illustrates your inability to think critically.

            Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over generations. You pointing out that manufacturing insulin for treatment of diabetes is a human endeavor, does nothing to distract from the reality of evolution, macro or micro.

            Finally, scientific truths aren’t impenetrable proclamations such as religious truth claims about global floods or talking snakes – that’s precisely how science works. In other words, evolutionary theory, or any scientific theory for that matter, isn’t “proven true” – rather it is bolstered each time it fails to be proven false. There has been no hypothesis in science for over the last century and a half, which has cast doubt on Darwinian evolution. Therefore it has yet to be proven false and with each new fossil, each genetic advance, each new radiometric innovation, evolution becomes ever more certain. Hence why it is taught as real science to intellectually honest people who want to learn how things actually work.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            “You pointing out that manufacturing insulin for treatment of diabetes is a human endeavor, does nothing to distract from the reality of evolution, macro or micro”

            You are wrong. Remember, Darwinism is “goo to you by way of the zoo.” Can goo produce recombinant DNA? Have you calculated the mathematical odds of this? Just when did the goo organize to produce DNA and the accompanying INFORMATION contained in the code in the first place? All Darwinist claims are dependent on this already being present in a cell. Only then can you get the damaged genetic CODE (mutation) to make blueprints for a damaged life form. If it’s a lucky day, the goo-form will stay undead and can produce another damaged life-form. But wait, somewhere down the road, THIS SYSTEM IS SELF-REPAIRING! Too bad for the mutant cell. Also, does Darwinism presume that the surrounding cosmos was the same billions of years ago as it is now? I mean, what are the odds that earth avoided a direct hit from a huge asteroid over that incredibly long period and was not completely wiped out? Did we always have an atmosphere? How can an eye evolve? How could sexual reproduction evolve? How long did it take to go from Adam and Steve to Adam and Eve? Just thinking of all the impossible odds of this hurts my head! These random, unintelligent, statistics defying mutant changes are WAY TOO COMPLICATED! Randomness produces organization and complexity? Really?

            “In the beginning, God…”
            Much better.

          • R. Lee says:

            Your inability to understand how science works is not evidence against evolution.

            In addition, magical explanations for natural phenomena don’t belong in adult conversations and certainly don’t belong in the classroom.

  29. Julie says:

    @ Margaret and everybody else.

    I am a Christian, and I assume Margaret is too! You are making all of us look bad with your one-sided conversation.
    Have you ever considered that evolution IS science, and that those who study it have found proof that it is real? This DOES NOT mean that humans came from monkeys or that things change from being one species or another. It does mean that over time, people and animals and plants change in subtle ways to suit their environment, due to natural selection. These ideas should not threaten a belief in God, they should instead help you to embrace a God who designed everything so perfectly that even through change, his creations can adapt.
    As a teacher, I am appalled at the lack of professionalism shown by this educator. She chose to teach science, and therefore has agreed upon a certain curriculum. If she does not agree with the subject matter, can simply say so, and then teach it anyway. Every student should have the opportunity to learn all theories, and the methods to pass judgement on them as learned individuals.
    Bottom line: this cartoon has no place in the classroom. Regardless of beliefs, school is not the place to push a political, religious, or atheistic dogma.
    As a qualifier, I am not ashamed of my religion. Christ is my beginning, and because of him, I will have no end. However, civility must always accompany a conversion to Christ. Pushing incorrect political cartoons will not help others come unto Him, but rather create enmity and misunderstanding.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      “You are making all of us look bad with your one-sided conversation.”

      Why do you say “us?” I teach my children at home and I enjoy defending my faith, particularly the book of Genesis. What do I have in common with you?

      A one-sided conversation? Really? Is this the MATRIX and all who I am debating and challenging are just computer programs? Including you?

      “Have you ever considered that evolution IS science,”
      Yes, before I was saved, I was deceived by this foolishness. The Bible, the Holy Spirit, and observable evidence testify that it is not true. Charles Darwin was not a believer, but a deceiver.

      “This DOES NOT mean that humans came from monkeys or that things change from being one species or another.”

      Darwin theorizes that humans and apes are from the same root branch, and through the magic of BILLIONS of years and damaging mutations, we go from goo to you by way of the zoo. The idea of species is an illusion. I have fully discussed this in many other posts. Please check them out.

      “It does mean that over time, people and animals and plants change in subtle ways to suit their environment, due to natural selection.”

      Natural selection through genetic variation is an altogether different process. It was recognized before Darwin and has always been accepted by Creationists. It is observable in the present. The peppered moth is a documented example of this process. Again I have thoroughly discussed topic in other posts. Please read them.

      “As a teacher, I am appalled at the lack of professionalism shown by this educator.”

      On what do you base this conclusion? The unsubstantiated comments of students as told to student journalists? The teacher claimed that the slide show was a product of APS. The cartoon, lifted from Ken Ham’s book, THE LIE: EVOLUTION was evidently pre-approved (never confirmed that it was used under “fair use” laws). If these students suffered verifiable harm as the result of an unlawfully used cartoon and poor quality evolution slides, let them sue APS and have their day in court.

      The bottom line is that this is only a controversy because of unlawfully established public schools. I have fully documented this in another post. Please read it.

      “I am not ashamed of my religion”
      What is your religion?

  30. kso says:

    I’ll leave this here as a solid reference for those who think that evolution is just a guess.

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

    This is an interactive site that showcases 6 million years of the specimens of hominids that have been collected and cataloged (and where they were discovered) illustrating the evolution from the earliest hominids to homosapiens. Curated by the Smithsonian and the American Natural History Museum.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      “a solid reference for those who think that evolution is just a guess”

      Think again. I happen to have a background in Medical Illustration (Medical College of Georgia). I am an artist.
      That pretty “family tree” is artwork. I can tell you for a fact that any ancient skulls dug up did not have an accompanying pre-mortem photo. Very few of these so-called missing link skulls are complete. The artist must fill in the missing visual info from HER IMAGINATION. Soft tissue is not preserved. An artist can create a face based on skull proportions, but the end result, whether they favor an ape-like appearance or human appearance IS UP TO THE ARTIST (and those paying her salary).
      THIS IS NOT EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

      Also, the bones are not found with the age date stamped on them. Circular reasoning and and unproven assumptions based on radioactive decay are used as a dating method.

      Here is a more detailed discussion from a website:

      “How Reliable is Radiocarbon Dating for Determining the Age of Ancient Fossils?

      Radiocarbon dating was developed on the basis of two assumptions (not established facts). In the first place, Libby assumed that the carbon 14 content is consistent in the carbon dioxide which is absorbed by the organism while it is living. In the second place, Libby believed that cosmic rays which produce carbon 14 have remained constant in our atmosphere. Dr. David Hurst Thomas of the American Museum of Natural History addressed the problems of these assumptions when he wrote:

      Radiocarbon dating relies on a number of key assumptions, perhaps the most important being that the radiocarbon level — that is, the ratio between carbon 12 and carbon 14 — has remained constant in the earth’s atmosphere. Libby assumed this when developing the method, but we now know that this assumption is not valid. That is, levels of atmospheric carbon 14 have shifted somewhat over the past millennia.17″

      “How Reliable is Potassium-Argon Dating?

      First of all, the rate at which potassium decays in rock samples has never been accurately determined. Another difficulty is that argon is often more unstable than potassium. Geologist G.W. Wetherill admits “the two principal problems have been the uncertainties in the radioactive decay constants of potassium and in the ability of minerals to retain the argon produced by this decay.”23

      On occasion, even the paleoanthropologist has to undermine the accuracy of a potassium-argon dated artifact when the date for that item does not coincide with what he believes to be true about human evolution. For example, paleoanthropologist Alberto Angela, made the following statement when a potassium-argon date for an artifact did not support his previously held notion: “Of course, there may be uncertainties about the dating and interpretation of fossils (and, in fact, there are divergences)”.24 In this statement, Angela has made some incredible and profound admissions. In the first place, he is saying that potassium-argon dating is an unreliable or an “uncertain” dating method. In the second place, in a display of honesty not often found among evolutionists, Angela admits that his, as well as any other paleoanthropologist’s, interpretation of the fossil record can be often uncertain.”

      More at http://www.giftofeternallife.org/books_articles/books/facts_fallicies/03.shtml

      Another problem I have with the “family tree” site is that a large number of photos of the supposed fossil evidence is marked “photo not available.” How convenient.
      Photos of the fossil evidence are the only things that come close to being empirical scientific evidence. Why do they not show photos (or drawings) of the original bones found “in situ” ? There has been a past history of “missing link” hoaxes. This might give more credibility to the website. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html

  31. Herb Hunter says:

    To say: “[Creationism] has to be taught alongside evolution, and it has to be taught very generally, as an alternative theory of evolution,” as does Segall, is to say that geocentrism has to be taught in physics classes alongside the laws of planetary motion as an alternative to the theory that the earth orbits the sun. That the earth orbits the sun and species evolve into other species are both facts; geocentrism and creationism are mythological. Myths and religion have no place in a science class.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      Your premise is based on the belief that public schools are lawful. They are not, as all education has a religious bias, it is never neutral. Observable facts or data can be neutral, but it’s interpretation will always have a religious bias. Therefore, the only Constitutional solution to education are home schools or private schools. Only under those conditions can one educate according to his religious beliefs. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are upheld by the Constitution. NO GOVERNMENT FUNDS ARE INVOLVED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION.

      Comparing the teaching of Creationism to teaching geocentrism is patently false. With modern technology, including space telescopes, one can ascertain IN THE PRESENT, that the earth revolves around the sun.
      Geocentrism, was of course, the “settled science” of the pagan Greeks.

      Creationism is a religious view about the PAST. Therefore, it cannot be proven scientifically. It does claim, however, to have a first hand account of beginning events as witnessed by the Creator God. This was recorded by man (Adam) and passed down through the generations recorded in Genesis. One can learn about the Creator by studying his handiwork (science), just as one can learn about an artist by studying his artwork.

      Darwinism is an anti-Creator religion and purposes to study the present to disprove the existence of said Creator. Evolutionists/Darwinists are documented to have committed fraud in an effort to make so-called evidence support their religious beliefs.

  32. Herb Hunter says:

    Late to the discussion, I just skimmed over Margaret Ewell’s posts and two things are clear. She is not a troll and she certainly doesn’t have a low intelligence quotient level as MMH claimed (it is unfortunate that MMH resorted to arguments against Ewell instead of sticking to rebuttals against her arguments). Nevertheless, she is wrong.

    That species originate through evolution is a fact to the same degree that it is a fact Yersinia pestis is the cause of bubonic and pneumonic plagues. No amount of sophistry or digression changes that.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      “That species originate through evolution is a fact”

      Thanks for your kind words, Herb. However, I just made a post below @ July 7, 2014 at 3:36 pm that would shed more light on a Creationist’s position regarding your assertion. It begins at the end of a scripture reference (intended for the other poster) and also gives a link to a Creationists’s rebuttal to “Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution.”

  33. Margaret Ewell says:

    “Mr. Boogie
    July 7, 2014 at 8:55 am
    You’ve not made any logical assertions at all Margaret. Just restating Ken Ham’s propaganda, over and over. It has been rebutted, but you’ve ignored it You may rest your case-one of a pigeon playing chess.”

    “It has been rebutted’

    I guess I missed that. Please repost below.

  34. Margaret Ewell says:

    “The Big Bang happened at the beginning of time…God’s original miracle. Evolution through natural selection is real”

    1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

    2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

    3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

    4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

    5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

    6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

    7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

    8Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

    9When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

    10And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

    11And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

    12Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

    13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

    14It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

    15And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

    16Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

    17Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

    18Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

    19Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

    20That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

    21Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great? KJV Job 38: 1-21

    “Evolution through natural selection is real. We can watch it happen by observing generations of fruit flies change biologically.”

    You are confusing genetic variation (natural selection) with macroevolution (Darwinism). Creationists do not deny natural selection based on genetic variation. It is observable and the process is based on DNA information ALREADY PRESENT in the organism. Because the environment does change, these pre-existing variations may favor one variation over another, and the winner lives to pass the already existing information (DNA) to a new generation of offspring. The losing variation may become extinct. The so-called “pepper moth” study is another example. The important factor is that these variations exist within a species (kind) which already had the genetic information. NO NEW INFORMATION WAS CREATED. In fact, as organisms become extinct, it is actually lost.

    The following is a more detailed Creationist’s rebuttal to your assertions:

    “Dobzhansky’s Fruit Flies

    Isaak continues: “The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild…” He then directs us to:
    the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky et al. (involving the deliberate, radiation-induced mutation of fruit flies in the laboratory), and
    the “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ in the talk.origins archives.
    As for Dobzhansky’s fruit fly experiments, it should be pointed out that an example of a laboratory-induced physiological change in a specimen—even though it involves genetic change—can hardly be considered proof that NATURAL evolution occurs, since the change did not take place without the deliberate, intelligence-driven activity of man.

    Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution (“micro-evolution”), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organism—an increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).

    In Dobzhansky’s work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings… In the end, however, they were all … fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organism’s offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.”

    Please read the rest of this paper as the author rebuts the “Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution”
    http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

    • Renae Fenwick says:

      Margaret, you cannot participate in a scientific debate and reference the bible. It is a story that has been revised many times, to the point where all around the world there are multiple variations of the bible. Not to mention the bible has absolutely no physical evidence.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        Do you believe this statement to be true?

        “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny”

        • Bobsie says:

          No, that is a largely discredited biological hypothesis. However, the strict nested hierarchy that all life exhibits is evidence of a common ancestry and is the very antithesis of design.

          • Margaret Ewell says:

            It is discredited because it was a FRAUD!

            “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny: Haeckel’s Fraud

            In 1866, guided by the bias of evolution and atheism, German embryologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel, concluded that evolutionary the stages of species from single cells to humans (phylogeny) were repeated in embryological development (ontogeny) of each species. He surmised that, being highest on the evolutionary tree, human embryos should pass through the stages of the lower or more primitive species, namely single cell, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, to human. So convinced that he was right, he self-proclaimed the “Biogenetic Law”: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. However, it was neither a law nor correct. It was fraud.

            Haeckel supplied drawings as evidence of his “scientific law,” which can still be found in textbooks to convince students that evolution is a fact. The truth is, Haeckel’s drawings are wrong. Worse yet, they were intentionally created to mislead viewers to “see” what Haeckel believed to be true.”
            http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

            That GARBAGE (plus pictures) was still in my 1979 college textbook! As well as the fantasy “COMMON PLAN.” LOL!

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        Textus Receptus.
        http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/

        Dead Sea scrolls

        Pentateuch

        Better documented than Greek mythology.

  35. Edin Limani says:

    Completely agree with Mrs Margaret. Thank you for your logical and rationale statements
    Evolution and Darwin are just as out as communism. Darwin brought nothing to humanity except death, murder, racism, fascism and nazism. Evolution lays on absolutely no scientific facts what so ever.
    350 million fossils show us no intermediate forms.
    Darwinian minds and teachings will vanish in history as the biggest hox and shame we as humans have allowed us to believe. It is just ugly and calls for a philosophy of kill or be killed.

    All scientific evidences on the deception of evolution you can find on the above website containing more than 70 websites for all interested.

    • Eshaan Vakil says:

      In the Bible, Jehovah makes the Israelites kill other people and burn down cities simply because they were in their way and were different. Plus, it is written in Deuteronomy that if someone tries to proselytize you, you should kill them. In history, Christians started the Crusades because they couldn’t stand the idea of Jerusalem being ruled by anyone else.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        Not so. God always offers a way of repentance. In Egypt, if the Egyptians had put lamb’s blood on their doorpost, the firstborn would have been spared. Some Egyptians did fear God and joined the Israelites at their exodus. Each of the Israelite battles was different, depending on the response of the people groups living in the path of their march to the Promised Land. Some allowed them to pass peacefully. Some determined to battle them. Some cities were corrupt and their ‘iniquity was full.” God considered their destruction punishment for sin. The Israelites did not choose their battles nor their battle methods. God did. They suffered defeat as they went their own way. God is just. When Israel later turned from God, he threw them out of the land as well. The goal of all the battles was to keep alive the line of Christ. God’s followers now make war on our knees in prayer, trusting Him to bring justice and to win many souls to Christ and eternal life with forgiveness of sins. This is the season of salvation!
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqTLsIyx3I0

  36. Margaret Ewell says:

    In response to @kso
    July 7, 2014 at 12:06 pm
    “a solid reference for those who think that evolution is just a guess”

    Think again. I happen to have a background in Medical Illustration (Medical College of Georgia). I am an artist.
    That pretty “family tree” is artwork. I can tell you for a fact that any ancient skulls dug up did not have an accompanying pre-mortem photo. Very few of these so-called missing link skulls are complete. The artist must fill in the missing visual info from HER IMAGINATION. Soft tissue is not preserved. An artist can create a face based on skull proportions, but the end result, whether they favor an ape-like appearance or human appearance IS UP TO THE ARTIST (and those paying her salary).
    THIS IS NOT EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

    Also, the bones are not found with the age date stamped on them. Circular reasoning and and unproven assumptions based on radioactive decay are used as a dating method.

    Here is a more detailed discussion from a website:

    “How Reliable is Radiocarbon Dating for Determining the Age of Ancient Fossils?

    Radiocarbon dating was developed on the basis of two assumptions (not established facts). In the first place, Libby assumed that the carbon 14 content is consistent in the carbon dioxide which is absorbed by the organism while it is living. In the second place, Libby believed that cosmic rays which produce carbon 14 have remained constant in our atmosphere. Dr. David Hurst Thomas of the American Museum of Natural History addressed the problems of these assumptions when he wrote:

    Radiocarbon dating relies on a number of key assumptions, perhaps the most important being that the radiocarbon level — that is, the ratio between carbon 12 and carbon 14 — has remained constant in the earth’s atmosphere. Libby assumed this when developing the method, but we now know that this assumption is not valid. That is, levels of atmospheric carbon 14 have shifted somewhat over the past millennia.17?

    “How Reliable is Potassium-Argon Dating?

    First of all, the rate at which potassium decays in rock samples has never been accurately determined. Another difficulty is that argon is often more unstable than potassium. Geologist G.W. Wetherill admits “the two principal problems have been the uncertainties in the radioactive decay constants of potassium and in the ability of minerals to retain the argon produced by this decay.”23

    On occasion, even the paleoanthropologist has to undermine the accuracy of a potassium-argon dated artifact when the date for that item does not coincide with what he believes to be true about human evolution. For example, paleoanthropologist Alberto Angela, made the following statement when a potassium-argon date for an artifact did not support his previously held notion: “Of course, there may be uncertainties about the dating and interpretation of fossils (and, in fact, there are divergences)”.24 In this statement, Angela has made some incredible and profound admissions. In the first place, he is saying that potassium-argon dating is an unreliable or an “uncertain” dating method. In the second place, in a display of honesty not often found among evolutionists, Angela admits that his, as well as any other paleoanthropologist’s, interpretation of the fossil record can be often uncertain.”

    More at http://w w w.giftofeternallife. org/books_articles/books/facts_fallicies/03.shtml
    (remove spaces and Google)
    Another problem I have with the “family tree” site is that a large number of photos of the supposed fossil evidence is marked “photo not available.” How convenient.
    Photos of the fossil evidence are the only things that come close to being empirical scientific evidence. Why do they not show photos (or drawings) of the original bones found “in situ” ? There has been a past history of “missing link” hoaxes. This might give more credibility to the website. http://w w w.christiananswers. net/q-eden/edn-c008.html
    (remove spaces and google)

  37. Margaret Ewell says:

    How the scientific method really works….

    “But the problem is that most our advances in superconductivity have been only lucky breaks and surprises. If we had a more accurate model of what’s really going on quantum level, we could actually accelerate our development of new applications as opposed to waiting for chance and perversity to favor us.”
    Blog comment

  38. Dave The Sandman says:

    “If you start adopting religious doctrine as a form of teaching, you start advocating for a religion,” Curtis said. “There is no national religion. When you teach religion in a public school setting, you are reinforcing a national religion, and that’s not acceptable.”

    Allow me to correct that statement, as I come from a country (Britain) with a national religion (nominally at least). Britain has also completely banned the teaching of any form of Creationist nonsense in science classes, and takes action against any teacher or school which break that rule. Creationism can not even be taught in other classes as an equivalent to Evolution – it must be taught, if at all, as a purely religious doctrine with no basis in scientific reality.

    The problem is that your public school systems allow teachers like the one mentioned in this article to get away with stealth Creationism teaching, and to say they wont teach Evolution even when it is a part of the core curriculum.

    British education authorities have an answer to that:
    “Fine. Get another job then, as you are fired.”

    If you dont want to teach science because you prefer preaching religion, get a job in a church where you can preach all you like.

    • Bob says:

      Your post was very informative as I have always wondered how this issue is broached in the UK without benefit of an establishment clause in your constitution and the last few lines of your post are terrific. I agree with your statement that having a (nominal) national religion doesn’t encourage the teaching of creationism. However, within the context of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Curtis’ statement is correct as it represents a clear violation of the establishment clause.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      Britain. Home of the City of London. Red. Shield. The Whale. Now, Michael Bloomberg. Bilking nations out of trillions of IMF SDRs. Spying cameras on every corner. Home of Charles Darwin, whose own father, respectable medical man, wrote to him: “You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat-catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family.” (Forward, THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, p. v. Copyright 1979. Random House.) Poor Darwin! He set off on a five year absence from dear old Dad and hoped instead to impress his evolutionist grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. None of his actual observations discredit the Book of Genesis (his goal). He even describes finding MARINE fossils at 12,000 feet in the Andes! This is personally interesting because my spouse went to a posh prep school in the area, and had a large collection of these very fossils as a teenager. The worldwide catastrophic flood event described in Genesis would explain this oddity.
      This same spouse does not like to linger in your country when doing business in Cambridge. Living like “The Prisoner” is not his cup of tea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2kTg8hx_VY

      • Eshaan Vakil says:

        Albert Einstein couldn’t speak fluently until he was 9 years old. His teachers thought that he was retarded. Does that mean he didn’t accomplish anything.

  39. Bobsie says:

    Margaret has gotten pretty far afield from her original copyright objection, hasn’t she? She should have stuck with it since it’s less flimsy than her science objections.

    Ken Ham has always been accommodating for any anti-science anti-knowledge person to use any of his materials to attack legitimate science. Margaret is working right out of Ham’s pseudoscience playbook.

    OTOH, science facts are much harder to discredit since it requires credible empirical evidence which, if you bother look, will find that creationist have none of.

  40. Dr. Charlie Underwood says:

    Actually, if done skilfully, creation is a good way of demonstrating the scientific method.
    Science starts with a hypothesis; a concept usually with some circumstantial evidence.
    So you could have Hypothesis 1;A. he universe requires special creation/laws/magic/deitie(s) to work versus B. it works totally with natural laws
    If A, There are numerous creation stories including Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Australian Dreamtime, Egyptian, Greco-Roman, any number of American and African and many others currently or previously in use. All of these have written or oral stories so all are equally valid hypotheses for testing.
    You now have to set up a series of tests that will eliminate these, at least as being literal (it will not easily remove allegorical tales as these are not factually testable). You must not use the text/oral hypotheses as evidence as that provides circular arguments so all evidence has to be independent.

    Simple tests would be the shape of the Earth. If this is (close to) spherical, it rules out any flat earth hypotheses and riding on turtles etc. The form of the solar system is also easily proven and would get rid of any geocentric hypotheses. And so on and so on………

    Charlie

  41. Margaret Ewell says:

    Dr. Underwood, is this you?
    http://www.bbk.ac.uk/geology/our-staff/charlie-underwood

    It is obvious that all the folded sedimentary layers are the result of a rapid catastrophic event, such as a worldwide flood. During the flood, water trapped in the earth’s crust was released and there was great upheaval. After the water receded, the sedimentary layer was rapidly deposited and was still somewhat flexible. As the crust beneath pushed up, the sedimentary layer could form smooth unbroken curves, which later hardened. All the life drowned in the flood became encased in this layer and fossilized. This happened rapidly, as we find fossilized fish in the midst of eating another fish!
    http://sixdays.org/fossils-confirm-the-biblical-creation-and-the-genesis-flood

    First hand observation of Mt. St. Helen’s eruption and ensuing geological changes support catastrophism, challenge William Morris Davis:

    “The analysis of the erosion features at Mount St. Helens and elsewhere causes one to ask how erosion progresses on a newly formed landscape. Is erosion accomplished primarily by the cumulative effects of slowly operating agents acting more or less continuously? Or, is erosion accomplished primarily by the singular effects of catastrophic agents acting intermittently? Stated simply, is erosion chiefly a uniformitarian or catastrophic process?
    According to popular geomorphic theory, landforms have evolved by the relentless operation of slow erosion processes. Canyons are believed to have deepened slowly and extended headward imperceptibly becoming the end product of minute changes accumulated over millions of years. William Morris Davis, whose theories have dominated geomorphology, sketched the theory that landscapes evolved slowly through the “cycle of erosion” in stages from “youthful” to “mature” to “old age.” According to Davis (1902), the equilibrium profile of a slope became precisely graded to slow erosive agents more than one million years after the completion of the “youthful” stage.
    The observations at Mount St. Helens and elsewhere, however, show in miniature that adjustments toward the graded equilibrium condition can occur rapidly, especially when a critical energy threshold is exceeded by erosion processes. Even the first four years of erosion at Mount St. Helens was noticeably discontinuous. Mudflow erosion on March 18, 1982, established the dendritic drainage which could be regarded as approaching a “mature” landscape on the North Fork of the Toutle River with canyons over 100 feet deep. Mass wasting has been most significant in headward erosion forming rills and gullies within a period of a few days. What conventional geomorphic theory says takes thousands of years may, instead, be accomplished within a few years. Geomorphologists have learned that the time scale they have been trained to attach to landform development may be misleading.”
    http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04/

    • Dr. Charlie Underwood says:

      “It is obvious that all the folded sedimentary layers are the result of a rapid catastrophic event, such as a worldwide flood. ”

      Er…..no it isn’t, at least not to anyone who has ever seen a folded rock succession with rocks of different rheology and associated metamorphism and microstructures. As this is the most ridiculous comment yet I see not point in saying more other than…
      .
      Go and look at some rocks.

      Charlie

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        See the video below at July 10, 2014 at 5:51 pm.
        It completely undermines your assertions/theory.

        I happened to work for CNN as a scientific illustrator when this event occurred. I watched hours of video coverage of this event as it happened. I saw Dr. Austen’s original video presentation and read his research when first published in the 80′s. It is quite impressive.

  42. Margaret Ewell says:

    MILLIONS OF YEARS SEDIMENT LAYERING DEBUNKED BY AN ACT OF GOD!

    Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 provided a real-time laboratory for observing catastrophism. The results were geological formations and sediment layering laid down in a matter of seconds/minutes, days, weeks, that have the appearance of supposed “millions of years”.

    Evolutionist:
    “Flood geology cannot explain the presence of millions of pollen-clay varve couplets. Now, we observe these to form annually today; that’s direct observation. The pollen layer accumulates during the pollen-producing months; the clay during the non-pollen producing months.

    We reasonably infer that this directly observable mechanism is likely the mechanism which formed all of those millions of layers.”

    Geologist with empirical evidence of catastrophic layering “rapid deposition” disagrees:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsvVMjsnDVU
    http://christianevidences.org/scientific-evidence/geology-flood-evidence/flood-geology-lessons-from-mt-st-helens/

    • Ben says:

      Oh, dear. Margaret, again you resort to stock Creationist claims without responding to the substance of the post.

      The strata laid down by volcanic eruptions are easily identified. Creationist sites try very hard to gloss over this fact, but the truth is that you will not find alternating layers of wet and dry aggregate sandstone in volcanic strata. You won’t find intact animal burrows in those layers. You won’t find most of the things we find in the geologic column, in fact.

      And you WON’T find alternating pollen-clay varve couplets–a fact you ignored completely.

      What’s the Young Earth explanation? There is none–and so, instead, we get obfuscation and changes of subject.

      I don’t expect you to accept that, or indeed, to actually answer my question. You are firmly convinced that you have all the answers worth knowing, and that’s a dangerous mindset. I hope that someday, you can recognize it for what it is, Mrs. Ewell–self idolatry.

      May God bless you.

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        You have been given visual evidence.
        You have produced NONE. Just continued blathering.
        Show us your evidence.

        You have to remember that according to Genesis, civilization existed prior to the flood, as did vegetation. Some of the layers you speak of could have existed PRIOR to the flood, and still exist. The PROOF is that a catastrophic event CAN cause stratification of earth in a very SHORT amount of time. The resulting wet sedimentary layer would be subject to extreme erosion for a period after the flood, as water drained off. Flying over the Grand Canyon, it looks as if this was the very formation process. A large flat plane with severe erosion and water still draining out. The very recent DOCUMENTED results of Mt. St. Helen’s is proof that such formations can happen rapidly.
        A Creationist explanation still holds up.
        You can BELIEVE what you want about the PAST and so can I.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          Ben

          The Haleakala volcano on Maui is dated to be 0.41-0.86 million years old. How do they know this?

  43. Margaret Ewell says:

    ‘Biology, however, isn’t dependent on what engineers think, Mrs. Ewell.”

    Think again. Who writes the code or makes the computer mainframes for all of the statistical modeling biologists are so fond of using?

    Wasn’t that the problem with the University of East Anglia global warming fraud e-mail expose?

    This E.E. DID make a difference…

    ‘A grandfather with a training in electrical engineering dating back more than 40 years emerged from the leaked emails as a leading climate sceptic trying to bring down the scientific establishment on global warming.
    David Holland, who describes himself as a David taking on the Goliath that is the prevailing scientific consensus, is seeking prosecutions against some of Britain’s most eminent academics for allegedly holding back information in breach of disclosure laws.”

    Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

  44. Ben says:

    “You would never allow that your INTERPRETATION of the DATA produced by experiments using the scientific method would include the possibility of a Creator. You are 100% biased. Materialism is a religious view: there is no Creator/God.”

    My goodness. How very arrogant and presumptuous of you, Mrs. Ewell.

    Also completely, utterly wrong. In fact, not only do I allow for the possibility of a God, I firmly believe in God. I confess Christ as my Lord and Savior.

    It’s Creationists and their fallible man-made dogma in whom I have no faith. I see Creationism as a misguided and self-idolatrous doctrine which has replaced faith in God with faith in Creationist apologetics. I believe that it does tremendous harm to Christian faith, and therefore, as a Christian, I feel that it is my duty to oppose it.

    Before you angrily object, I’ll note that you automatically assumed that I was an atheist, simply because I don’t agree with you and with Ken Ham.

    When last I checked, Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” He didn’t say “Mrs. Ewell and Ken Ham are the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” He didn’t say “Young Earth Creationism is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” He didn’t say “Inerrantism is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

    “SCIENCE IS A HUMAN CONSTRUCT.”

    So is the historical-grammatical heuristic which leads you and Ken Ham to so confidently proclaim that your reading of the Bible is the natural, proper, and correct one.

    I hope you’ll forgive me for excising the Answers in Genesis “Operational science/historical science” spiel, Mrs. Ewell; I’ve heard it many, many times before. If you like, we can discuss the flaws; like most of Ham’s talking points, it’s slick, polished, sounds good superficially, and utterly falls apart when examined.

    “Creationists will not exchange the Truth for a lie. Evolutionists will not exchange a lie for the Truth.”

    I notice that you failed to answer my question, Mrs. Ewell. What specific, testable evidence would convince you that you’re wrong? About evolution, or about your reading of the Bible?

    The fact that you didn’t answer the question suggests that you can’t–or, perhaps, that you don’t want to admit that the answer is “Nothing would ever convince me that I’m wrong.”

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      “Also completely, utterly wrong. In fact, not only do I allow for the possibility of a God, I firmly believe in God. I confess Christ as my Lord and Savior.”

      That is not true. You have rejected God’s word. You call Christ a liar:

      Matthew 24:36-44
      “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, read more.and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.”

      Luke 17:26-27
      “And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”

      1 Peter 3:20-21
      “who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”

      2 Peter 3:6-7
      “through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”

      • Ben says:

        “That is not true. You have rejected God’s word. You call Christ a liar:”

        …and here, we see the hubris of the Creationist. Faith in God means nothing; faith in Young Earth Creationism means everything.

        The verses you have cited refer to a flood which I believe took place. I do not believe it was a global Flood; I certainly do not believe it had the remarkable and totally un-Biblical effects ascribed to it by Young Earth Creationists. Having actually studied the Bible, I am aware that the phrase translated as “the whole earth,” “kol eretz,” almost always means a local region. In fact, it could only conceivably mean the entire planet about twenty percent of the time.

        The flood destroyed the whole world that Noah knew; I believe that. I don’t believe it wiped out the entire planet, any more than I believe that, when “the whole world” came to buy grain from Joseph during the famine, that included native Americans who paddled across the Atlantic.

        Context matters, and I’ve spent considerable time studying the context.

        Again, though, Mrs. Ewell, I’m quite sure that this matters to you not at all. I do not agree with you, and in your eyes, that means I’m not a Christian and unworthy of your attention.

        I profess my faith in Christ; you spit upon it. In response, I can but say to you again, “May God bless you” and shake the dust from my feet.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          “…and here, we see the hubris of the Creationist. Faith in God means nothing; faith in Young Earth Creationism means everything.

          The verses you have cited refer to a flood which I believe took place. I do not believe it was a global Flood; ”

          Q: Why did God send a flood?

          Q: How many continents were there before the flood?

  45. Joseph Arechavala says:

    I cannot believe that in the 21st century, science is still being tried like it’s the Middle Ages. Come into the present with the rest of us. I notice that Christians have zero problems with science they LIKE.

    BTW, you don’t get to dictate my beliefs OR indoctrinate my kids into your religion. If Scientologists or Muslims were trying to do this, conservatives would be screeching at the top of their lungs.

    BTW again, evolution does not deny the existence of a Creator. If you read something other than the Bible you might understand that…

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      “I cannot believe that in the 21st century, science is still being tried like it’s the Middle Ages. Come into the present with the rest of us.”

      Claiming your viewpoint is correct because supposedly many others agree with it is called “appeal to the people” fallacy. Irrelevant.

      Actually the Middle Ages were rich in art, architecture, and technological advances:

      “Top 10 Inventions of the Middle Ages
      JAMIE FRATER SEPTEMBER 22, 2007The middle ages (5th – 15th Centuries AD), often termed The Dark Ages, were actually a time of great discovery and invention. The Middle ages also saw major advances in technologies that already existed, and the adoption of many Eastern technologies in the West. This is a list of the ten greatest inventions of the Middle Ages (excluding military inventions).”
      http://listverse.com/2007/09/22/top-10-inventions-of-the-middle-ages/

      Contrary to evolutionist belief, the false earth-centric cosmology was pagan Greek in origin. The Roman Church (not pre-Constantine one) stuck with this “settled science” theory and wanted Galileo shut down. This had nothing to do with Biblical doctrine, but corrupt power. In the same manner, evolutionists want to silence creationists.

      “you don’t get to dictate my beliefs OR indoctrinate my kids into your religion.”

      Just be sure you have the internet locked down and a block to this website. They’ll be safe. You are a grown adult who chooses to read what I write. I most certainly do not dictate to anyone. In case you don’t know, I home school mine. I pay for my kid’s education. If you use a public school, you are using MY money to indoctrinate your children with Darwinism, a religion. HOW IS THAT FAIR TO ME?

      “evolution does not deny the existence of a Creator.”

      The theory is in absolute conflict with the Creator God of the Bible, who claims through revelation, to have created all things in a very specific way and order and this revelation is recorded in the book of Genesis.

      You go practice your religion as you see fit, just not on my dime in an unlawful public school. There will then be NO CONTROVERSY. The study of evolution should be producing GENIUSES! Why are you depending on the lowly, ignorant CREATIONISTS for funding? LOL!

  46. Margaret Ewell says:

    A modern day Proverb:

    “3 For the lips of a harlot are like a honeycomb dropping, and her throat is smoother than oil. 4 But her end is bitter as wormwood, and sharp as a two-edged sword. 5 Her feet go down into death, and her steps go in as far as hell. 6 They walk not by the path of life, her steps are wandering, and unaccountable. 7 Now, therefore, my son, hear me, and depart not from the words of my mouth. 8 Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the doors of her house.”
    Proverbs 5

    ‘Prostitute’ accused of injecting Google executive with lethal dose of heroin
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/10/alleged-prostitute-acccused-injecting-google-lethal-heroin

  47. Margaret Ewell says:

    Another notch down for moral integrity in true empirical scientific research:

    “Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’”

    “Every now and then a scholarly journal retracts an article because of errors or outright fraud. In academic circles, and sometimes beyond, each retraction is a big deal.

    Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.

    The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published.

    You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/

  48. Margaret Ewell says:

    EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION!

    This creature has obviously evolved a brain that surpasses the brain trust of this blog….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsuVLsDyln4

  49. Margaret Ewell says:

    “It has already been established by the supreme court that creationism is not science.”

    The Supreme Court rules according to its opinion of the reading of the Constitution. At one time, because wealthy and powerful slave holders helped to finance the Revolutionary War, as well as the colonies themselves, they were given sway in the writing of the Constitution. For representation purposes, slaves were considered to be a fraction of a person as a compromise. The non-slave colonies didn’t want to count them at all, while the slave holders wanted to count them in their population for purposes of representation.

    Is this still in the Constitution? Why not?
    Even the Constitution is not “settled law”.

    Has the Supreme Court ruled that Darwinism is not a religion?

    Creationists hold that both it and Darwinism are religious views ABOUT THE PAST. Empirical science only observes/measures what is in the PRESENT. Both Creationists and Darwinists observe and agree that genetic variation exists, and some variations of a species my have a higher survival rate under certain conditions than others. No NATURAL changing from one species to another (macroevolution based on genetic MUTATION) has been observed in the present. Darwinism assumes the religious position of MATERIALISM, no intelligent being beyond mankind. Therefore, it CANNOT ACCEPT evidence of this possibility. Likewise, Creationism is based on a religious view, specifically revealed Truth by an intelligent being (God). Unlike Darwinists, Creationists believe that there is an eyewitness to the creation of earth in the past, and that God the Creator has told us what happened in the book of Genesis in the Bible. This God is all-knowing and eternal. Creationists view the empirical study of all that surrounds us (Creation) as a means of better knowing the details of the personality of God. The Bible tells us that this is the purpose of empirical study. Adam and Eve were the first “naturalists.” God commanded them to name the animals. Of course they would have to closely observe them and interact with them in order to name (classify) them. Just as one can learn about the personality of an artist by examining his art, humans can learn more about God the Creator, by examining His creation. It is all about a RELATIONSHIP.

    Personally, I home school my children. This quibbling over 49 poorly produced Power Point evolution education slides and one cartoon lifted from Ken Ham’s book THE LIE:EVOLUTION has no bearing over what is taught in our school. Our home school has CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed freedom of religion and freedom of speech. If all the evolutionists home schooled on their own dime as well, THERE WOULD BE NO CONTROVERSY.

    The real issue is that certain evolutionists want THEIR RELIGION taught to their children ON MY DIME, using the strong arm of the government, called “public” school! Because ALL education has religious bias, and the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and restrains direct government monetary involvement in supporting one, one MUST CONCLUDE that all U.S. public schools are UNLAWFUL.

    All of your faux outrage at the laughable claim that “Creationism is being taught at Grady” because one slide out of 50 had a stolen cartoon, used completely out of context by an inept teacher who added words which had nothing to do with the cartoon, IS BEYOND IGNORANT AND IS EMBARRASSING!
    The real story is the use of 50 APS approved slides promoting the RELIGIOUS view of DARWINISM, in COMPLETE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION!

    I WANT MY TAX DOLLARS BACK.

  50. Margaret Ewell says:

    “This where you are demonstrably wrong. Public education is not religious. You must make it so in order to grind your axe against the accumulated knowledge and facts about our natural world that discredit your theology.”

    This is merely your opinion and further evidence of your religious bias: data collected from empirical scientific experiments CANNOT be interpreted to be evidence of the revealed account of the historical events of the past (creation) by the Creator God.

    Darwinism is your theology. It cannot account for the presence of information in DNA. Creationism can.

  51. Margaret Ewell says:

    “Your inability to understand how science works is not evidence against evolution.”
    @R. Lee

    How does science work?
    First, define science.

  52. Margaret Ewell says:

    “More than 500 giant fossilised oysters were found 3000 metres (about 2 miles) above sea level in Peru in 2001″
    http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/jeck/

    While of course, I disagree with the evolutionary explanation used at the sight, it is fascinating to see the actual Andean fossils, and the admission that marine fossils are found on mountains all over the earth. My spouse’s fossils were found in the Colombian Andes.

    Note that these creatures are still recognizable as OYSTERS. They haven’t evolved to a new species in the millions of years evolutionists claim it took for them to reach such a height. Their original environment somehow supported their growth to such a large size. Perhaps they had a longer life span? Galapagos Islands are home to giant land turtles, which Darwin documents, with a maximum lifespan recorded at 170 years. They can go for over a year without food and water. These creatures, now unique to the Islands, would be extinct if not for modern intervention. If that had happened, 500 years from now, reports of such turtles with such size and and long life span would be called fairy tales or legends, because no such turtle would be observed in the present.

    The writer of the article assumes that the only Biblical explanation for the marine deposit is that during the flood, mountains remained as pre-flood, and shells were merely left on top (caught up in the water turbulence) as the waters receded. This could be true. However, the Genesis account also allows for the evolutionary view of upheavals of sea floor to become mountains. The big difference is that during the flood, this would have happened rapidly, as in the events of Mt. St Helen’s, not gradually over millions of years.

    The following are passages from Genesis which indicate this:

    “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep BROKEN UP, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.”

    “17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed EXCEEDINGLY upon the earth; and all the HIGH HILLS, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the MOUNTAINS WERE COVERED.”

    Water fell from the sky AND water stored in caverns UNDER THE SEABED were released when it was “broken up”.

    This enormous amount of energy being released from the ocean floor could have easily caused sections to be lifted up, sea shells and all. The rapidly laid down sedimentary layers would have covered the creatures and fossilized them. It is true that a very gradual uplifting of the mountains at the continental plate lines (breaking up of the deep) continues to this day. This would also support a young earth theory.

    While in context, this passage is used as a metaphor; I find it interesting that the Bible makes reference to this same geological process:

    “4Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:”
    Isaiah 40:4

    • Eshaan Vakil says:

      Maybe the oysters didn’t evolve after that period. You only evolve if you have to, ergo, they didn’t have to.

    • Dr. Charlie Underwood says:

      Oh dear…..
      I thought I’d look at the picture to see if I could identify the oysters; I am not an expert on them but can probably identify the couple of dozen commonest genera of oyster-like things. But no. These are not even bivalves let alone oysters.
      Of all the hundreds of good records of fossils in high mountains (including a nape of Ordovician limestones with brachiopods on the summit of Everest) that you could have used (if you asked, I have some excellent photos of stacked series of Jurassic coral-algal reefs from high in the Moroccan Atlas) you chose an image with no fossils in it. These are concretions; hardened lumps of sedimentary rock that form below the sediment surface decades (rarely) to millions of years after deposition. By the 17th C. fossil shells were already being recognised. To make this ‘mistake’ today is idiocy, to copy it is beyond my comprehension.
      The irony is that many of the rocks with concretions also contain fossils.

      Charlie

      • Margaret Ewell says:

        Your point is well taken. Evidently, they were overzealous evolutionist paleontologists. Creationists had some doubts about this story as well. They even include pictures of actual fossilized oysters at 600 feet.
        http://creation.com/giant-oysters-on-the-mountain

        The Creationist explanation for high altitude marine fossils still stands.

        • Margaret Ewell says:

          You will notice in the above Creationist article, an addendum was made regarding the giant oysters possibly being a sham. However, the fine British journal it was originally uploaded from makes no such retraction. This was published 10 years ago!
          “Antiquity Vol 78 No 300 June 2004″

          How curious…..

          • Dr. Charlie Underwood says:

            D’oh……

            The article is about how (uneducated) ancients may have seen fossils and incorrectly interpreted them as evidence for a flood….

  53. Margaret Ewell says:

    If we only had a brain…..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs

    The brains are trying to study brains so they can make a fake brain…..
    Hmmm. Things aren’t going as planned. LOL!
    http://neurofuture.eu

    WHAT WOULD DARWIN DO?

  54. Margaret Ewell says:

    Survival of the fittest:

    “South Florida Woman Celebrates 100 Years Of Life”

    “Trust in the Lord and do good,” said Beulah.
    http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/07/11/south-florida-woman-celebrates-100-years-of-life/

  55. Margaret Ewell says:

    WHAT WOUD DARWIN DO?

    “Why spend $150,000 to create a baby who would otherwise never have been born, then mess it up like this? It’s disaster.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10966546/The-US-television-star-a-messy-divorce-and-the-surrogate-child-she-does-not-want.html

    WELL, MAYBE Jim’ll Fix it….

  56. Margaret Ewell says:

    “Q149 Sarah Newton: The reason we started this inquiry is the part we are not really talking about. Any Government are making huge policy decisions based on the assumption of man-made climate change and are deeply committed to reducing our carbon footprint, which is costing every consumer a lot of money. It is very important that we have, first, the evidence and, secondly, the trust of the public that we have the right evidence to be making such huge policy changes. Given all the things that you have said today, all our evidence and the very important moment in September when we get the IPCC report, how should we be advising both Ministers and, critically, the media—it is such a shame that the BBC and others have left and not heard this—to tackle communications in the run-up to that report, and how we can have a proper discussion about the science in the news when the report comes out, rather than a very sterile debate about believers and non-believers? Andrew Montford: You are probably a bit short of time between now and the IPCC report coming out. I do not know what you can do in that space of time. You are right that we need to get away from the whole believer/unbeliever thing. There is a span of opinion: the 97% who recognise that there has been some global warming, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that man can affect the climate. These are all relatively agreed, but people need to understand that there is a range of valid scientific opinion within that 97% between a position that is not alarmist at all, where basically we can pack up and go home, and one that is quite alarmist. Until the possibility that we are spending a lot of money to no useful end is recognised, we will not get anywhere.”

    Even this does not deal with the data dump that included e-mails from climate scientists of famed “hockey stick” graphic” and computer code evidence that the climate modeling software had been rigged. That is all that matters. Everything else is blathering distractions.

    • Margaret Ewell says:

      GLOBAL WARMING HOCKEY STICK GRAPH “BOMBSHELL” (I call it fraud)

      “But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

      But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

      Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

      That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.”

      Please read entire article. They had to admit this because the whistle blower internet data dump of the actual program and e-mails exposed the COOKED data!
      http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

  57. Margaret Ewell says:

    GOD HAS WORKED A MODERN DAY MIRACLE!

    “NewScientist” has been caught reading THE BOOK OF GENESIS!

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723
    ‘Massive ‘ocean’ discovered towards Earth’s core”

    “A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help explain where Earth’s seas came from.

    The water is hidden inside a blue rock called ringwoodite that lies 700 kilometres underground in the mantle, the layer of hot rock between Earth’s surface and its core.

    The huge size of the reservoir throws new light on the origin of Earth’s water. Some geologists think water arrived in comets as they struck the planet, but the new discovery supports an alternative idea that the oceans gradually oozed out of the interior of the early Earth.”

    Of course evolutionists just can’t get rid of the word “gradually”.

    God’s word told us about this FROM THE BEGINNING in the book of Genesis:

    “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP BROKEN UP, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.”

    “17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed EXCEEDINGLY upon the earth; and all the HIGH HILLS, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the MOUNTAINS WERE COVERED.”

    Water fell from the sky AND water stored in caverns UNDER THE SEABED were released when it was “broken up”.

  58. Mr. Boogie says:

    “Scientific truths”= validated proof.

    “ignorant people”= Margaret.

  59. ronnie baker says:

    Who is Margaret Ewell and does she know who she is and where she ‘came from’ ?

  60. Margaret Ewell says:

    LOL!
    You really do have a sense of humor.

  61. Joel says:

    Margaret, you’re definitely taking a lot of heat for your comments, and since I think you’re not trolling, but debating honestly, I respect that (despite finding your methods for debating and applying logic to be juvenile, unconvincing, but plucky).

    So I’m making the effort to reply seriously and with patience. With that in mind, I’d like to ask why you find the notion of our Heavenly Father as Lord God and Creator of our magnificent universe as somehow incompatible with the notion that we have used the intelligence and inspiration He has given to man to reveal the mechanisms that God uses to create and maintain this glorious natural world.

    My Christian family taught me early on that God gave human beings the special gifts of intellect and conscience and that to not use them was tantamount to the sin of laziness and lust. Rather, humans are given the tools by God to understand God’s natural world, including the remarkable phenomena He uses to realize creation.

    The Big Bang happened at the beginning of time…God’s original miracle. Evolution through natural selection is real. We can watch it happen by observing generations of fruit flies change biologically. This is God’s stunning artist’s pallet he has used to paint an unimaginably rich tapestry of terrestrial biology, diverse and fecund. Radio carbon dating is an accurate method to determine the age of the Earth and its ancient clues about our past–a tool devised by the creatures made in God’s image for understanding His miracles. And, Margaret, the Bible is the divine revelation of God’s plan to bring salvation to His rarefied, most astonishing creation, we human beings. But the Bible is NOT completely literal 100% of the time. Along with its literal accounts of actual events, miracles, people, and holy truths, the Bible also contains parables and allegories, dreams and visions, miraculous in the scope of its Truth and sophisticated in its multiple methods of expression. If we deny its allegorical power, we deny the full Truth of the Bible–and most certainly hamper our work to understand God’s creation. Christians shouldn’t constrain our divine responsibility to use the reason and intelligence God gave us by imposing a narrow, literal interpretation of the Bible.

    God created man with glorious purpose and free will. Our salvation lies in choosing God’s love, in repenting our sins, and in trying to live up to the immaculate potential He has given us. Christians shouldn’t oppose science; we should recognize it as man’s righteous mission to honor the miraculous intellect God has granted us. We should weep with joy and gratitude for His uncanny, exquisite universe and we should never stop pursuing His love and grace by seeking to know the mind of God.

  62. Margaret Ewell says:

    OOPS!

    I posted my reply at the wrong place. Please see the above post @ July 7, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    Thanks!

  63. A Fellow Christian says:

    Margaret,

    Your responses to every comment have been passages from genesis. May I just point out that ANYONE can read the bible, however, only the open minded can understand it. One who truly understands the power, grace, and word of The Lord knows that God wants us to be compassionate and understanding to others around us, no matter the color of their skin, sexual orientation, or gender. Love thy neighbor. That’s the number one thing I was taught in CCD… Did yours teach you to be a closed minded prick who picks apart the Bible to make it mean what YOU want it to mean? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s what The Lord intended either. The word of God and science don’t have to be opposing in nature. Learn to understand, appreciate, and even question both. This is how God designed us: questioning, thinking, loving, and learning are all things God intended for us. If you choose not to listen to all who have explained, The Lord certainly will when your time comes.

  64. Margaret Ewell says:

    “Your responses to every comment have been passages from genesis.”

    NONE of the few Bible references I made were from Genesis.
    You might want to work on your critical reading skills.

  65. Bobsie says:

    And all of your objections to evolution science have been long ago discredited pseudoscience.

    Of course you can believe whatever you need to believe but when it comes to science, you have to get your science right or you flunk. Your son at GaTech will quickly find that out.

  66. Margaret Ewell says:

    My child will enter as a sophomore. He will start on his Electrical Engineering/Computer Science double major right away. No Darwinism needed. Darwin was not into the hard sciences. He was a “naturalist”. A Georgia Tech prof who goes to our church is a Creationist. Engineering schools aren’t dependent on what Darwin thinks.

  67. Margaret Ewell says:

    SAT score was 2270. Only missed one question on the math portion.
    His ACT was 35 out of 36. He has been programming since 6th grade. He had a year long internship writing code on the college supercomputer for a college prof. They loved him!
    I’m not too worried. LOL!

  68. Ben says:

    Biology, however, isn’t dependent on what engineers think, Mrs. Ewell.

    I ask you again, Mrs. Ewell: what specific, testable evidence would convince you that you’re wrong? What evidence would convince you that you’re wrong about evolution? What evidence would convince you that your reading of the Bible is in any way other than perfect, inerrant, and precisely as God intended?

    You claim that our positions are equally religious and faith-based, Mrs. Ewell…yet I can answer these questions easily.

    I have yet to meet a Creationist who could offer a valid answer other than “Nothing would ever convince me that I’m wrong.”

  69. Margaret Ewell says:

    “yet I can answer these questions easily.”

    You would never allow that your INTERPRETATION of the DATA produced by experiments using the scientific method would include the possibility of a Creator. You are 100% biased. Materialism is a religious view: there is no Creator/God.

    SCIENCE IS A HUMAN CONSTRUCT. It is a means of making observations based on our senses (sight, touch, sound, taste) and applying logic to attempt to gain new insight from the information. Quite often, available data isn’t enough to guarantee only one logical interpretation from the data set. For events in the past, where one had no direct observation, it cannot ever be 100% concluded. However, Creationists claim to have a written account of the words of One who WAS there, who is eternal, and who created all things. We begin with the Creator’s testimony AS FACT. Science, for us, gives us a chance to study the DETAILS of the Creation, and learn even more about the Creator. It is based on a relationship with God. Adam and Eve were the first naturalists. They were commanded to name the other creatures. To do that, they would have had to study them. This is good science. It begins with a relationship. A materialist world view must have endless hypotheses with no ultimate Truth by which to judge them. The Bible likens this as ships without an anchor. Creationists will not exchange the Truth for a lie. Evolutionists will not exchange a lie for the Truth.

    “19 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

    2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

    3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.”
    and

    “7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

    8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.

    9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

    10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.”
    Psalm 19 KJV

  70. Margaret Ewell says:

    ‘Biology, however, isn’t dependent on what engineers think, Mrs. Ewell.”

    Think again. Who writes the code or makes the computer mainframes for all of the statistical modeling biologists are so fond of using?

    Wasn’t that the problem with the University of East Anglia global warming fraud e-mail expose?

    This E.E. DID make a difference…

    ‘A grandfather with a training in electrical engineering dating back more than 40 years emerged from the leaked emails as a leading climate sceptic trying to bring down the scientific establishment on global warming.
    David Holland, who describes himself as a David taking on the Goliath that is the prevailing scientific consensus, is seeking prosecutions against some of Britain’s most eminent academics for allegedly holding back information in breach of disclosure laws.”

    Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

  71. Dr. Charlie Underwood says:

    Aaah
    This would be the same Daily Telegraph that was severely reprimanded by a cross party select committee in April for knowingly lying about climate science wouldn’t it?

  72. Ali says:

    Religion is a human construct too. Get a clue, lady.

  73. Margaret Ewell says:

    Please post this “reprimand.”

    Your point is irrelevant. I read the actual e-mails released to the internet by the East Anglia whistleblower. Made paper copies of them. It is OBVIOUS they cooked the data.

  74. Margaret Ewell says:

    My response posted above at:
    July 18, 2014 at 8:31 pm

  75. Margaret Ewell says:

    God the Creator created us. We did not create Him.
    If I am wrong about this, it will be of no consequence after I am gone. However, if you are wrong…….
    One day you will know if you were correct or not.

Leave a Comment