Printable View
Apparently the link in the OP no longer works. They might have taken it down considering so many people were laughing at them throughout the internet. You can still read the preview of their space and earth science "text" in my last post.
EDIT:I doubt you'll find an actual textbook on that, considering it would not be able to be used in public schools. There are plenty of websites and regular books devoted to that, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by oddler
It was just ONE day! Damn nation do I have to be lurking on /b/ every day 24/7?
At least I got that jpg of electricity
Well, the 4th grade textbook may be down, but here's a link to all of them. Some of them even have previews!
I've only skimmed through a couple of them so far. The "high school" books seem boring, as it's mostly just dumbed-down science (instead of hilariously wrong). The 5th grade text's preview is just about rocks and also very boring, except for the part on page 9 where it says when you study geology, you're also studying geometry because rocks have, like, different shapes and stuff.
I'll probably go through the rest at some point this weekend, and I'll point out any more gems I find.
At least that statement isn't wrong. It could be worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Can these books be used in public schools? I'm confused!Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Anyway, the bush I was beating around was that it really irks me that people try to teach beliefs by attempting to disprove those of others. I didn't see any science books sardonically telling me that pastors didn't really know how to do their jobs. It's all just so silly!
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by oddler
It is a valid way to teach to disprove wrong ideas. The problem is that creationism they teach is utterly baseless and the really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. science they attempt to disprove is nothing resembling the real thing.Quote:
Anyway, the bush I was beating around was that it really irks me that people try to teach beliefs by attempting to disprove those of others. I didn't see any science books sardonically telling me that pastors didn't really know how to do their jobs. It's all just so silly!
Science books don't criticize creationist nonsense because criticizing religion would also but up against the First Amendment in public schools. But even if not, creationism isn't even worth the space to discredit, just like most scientists won't even bother to debate creationists -- just putting forth the effort of publicly rebutting them is giving them too much credit.
Well, most of the recent texts seem pretty boring. They either gave boring sample chapters or they dialed down the crazy a little bit in the newer editions so they didn’t look quite so stupid. I mean, it’s still very stupid, but it’s less laughably wrong scientific claims and instead very dumbed-down science mixed with the usual religious crap.
So instead, I’ve been looking through the older editions!
In Science 5 2nd, the preview chapter is about fossils. This was very promising until the vast majority of it is godawful boring about the history of fossils and digging them up. The first page of the sample chapter is great, though, where they say that scientific theories are just arbitrary guesses that scientists think up when they’re experimenting. I don’t think their definition of guess even meets the level of hypothesis.
Science 2 2nd is only notable for the hilarious degree of boring the sample chapter is. It’s titled “How Long Do Plants Live?” and it is about plant ages and gardening. The Table of Contents is the best part; the aforementioned plant chapter is the FIRST CHAPTER, immediately preceding “The History of the Earth.” The earth warrants further discussion in chapters 5, 9, and 11, with no rhyme or reason to the organization. I especially like the title of chapter 12: “Where Things Live.”
Oh, and that hilarious Space and Earth Science text I linked to earlier? It’s for 8th graders. xD And it’s the latest edition! Wow.
There doesn’t seem to be any more old editions, so I’ll glance through some of the newer ones. The 9th grade text is notable if only for the book’s implicit criticism of the Catholic Church for condemning Galileo’s ideas. My irony meter exploded. The rest is just boring definitions, so skip it.
It seems like we already found all the really funny ones. :(
Oh, nevermind, I’d only checked out the sample chapters before and ignoring the introductions. The 10th grade biology text’s introduction is more mind-numbing stupidity. They even concede that they put the “Word of God” first and science second. Yeah, we couldn’t tell.
Ok, that’s it for me, at least for now. But you might want to check out the Intros to some of the other books; I’m sure they are entertaining.
Haha, not surprised that page made it on there. It is mind-bogglingly stupid.
Why does she have a gun?
"I don't have to cite everything I claim because people can do their own research!" And to back that up he states... scientists don't bother to cite things in casual conversation with each other because they already agree with the main premises. What the hell that has to do with his claim that he doesn't have to cite evidence for WILD conclusions made to skeptical audiences is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meat Puppet
I would love to see the list of "research" this guy claims to have did.
Ahahaha now he claims that a demand for evidence is the dirty evolutionists sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring the creationist claims for the unfounded reason that they present no evidence. I have learned the error of my ways; next time I'll just accept anything that's told to me.
It seems to be the usual crap of stating time and again how much evidence creationism has and evolution lacks... but never actually getting around to saying what that evidence is, exactly. Typical creationist tactic.
God did it
I believe it
that settles it.
Totally not gonna listen to 10 minutes of a walrus. I must say though, it has wicked glasses (but where are its tusks!? :(). I wasn't aware that I'm using a defense mechanism, though! :bigsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by Meat Puppet
The 4th grade edition is cute:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Science 4 Student Text
Oh man, I didn't even realize the first link now went to the 3rd edition of the 4th grade text. And it's the electricity chapter too! Excellent. Let's take a look at some of these gems.
... I am very disappointed. It's all just more extremely dumbed-down science. I don't remember what typical 4th graders are taught, but shouldn't they be learning about atoms and electrons? The entire chapter can be summed up with "electricity is 'negative charges' that move; they are attracted to 'positive charges' and repel other 'negative charges.'"
Hambone quotes the only good part of the chapter. It is a great quote, though. I love how these creationist nutjobs try to analogize EVERYTHING to justify their beliefs, no matter how hilariously forced the analogy is. I once was watching a Kent Hovind talk on youtube where he was saying that shooting a rubber band demonstrates a need for more reliance on faith than logic. I am not even joking.