Now you, too, can teach your children the truth about dinosaurs!
The truth shall set you free
I am almost at a loss for what to type in this post as I am truly in amazement at what I just read.
I know I should not be surprised, yet I am.
According to this blog post, a new children’s book has hit the market entitled “Dinosaurs: Stars of the Show”. It is written by Amie Zordel, a homeschooling mom who is apparently an AiG sympathizer (no, that’s not the AIG of the recent bailout…it’s Answers in Genesis). The publisher is New Leaf Publishing Group.
It is apparent from reading the interview at the blog that Zordel has a problem teaching her children anything other than the strictest creationist interpretation of the bible, the age of the earth, and the origin of species.
As we [Zordel and her daughter] watched the show and went over each false teaching, it occurred to me that we didn’t have a book that we could grab and read together that focused on these particular issues. And then, the idea was born.
Cha-ching! Cha-ching!
The book is meant to help adults teach their children the errors of evolution versus creation science. Zordel states that there were three main points she wanted to combat in the book:
First, dinosaurs are millions of years old. Second, they evolved from noting; and lastly, that dinosaurs did not roam the earth with man. I used three Scripture references to refute each of these main points. Genesis 1:1 states “God created.” Job 40:15 says behemoth was made with man. And finally, Luke 3 gives a list of geneologies that adds up to several thousand years, not millions. These truths from Scripture are simple enough for kids, but are solid enough for adults to learn from, as well.
First of all, who teaches that dinosaurs evolved from “nothing”? No one I know says this. Secondly, yes, dinosaur fossils ARE millions of years old, according to many different lines of testing. Furthermore, according to such dating methods and other lines of evidence, dinosaurs could not (and did not) roam earth alongside man. Unfortunately for Zordel, her scripture references really do not help her make her points. Saying “God created” does not say anything about how or when God created. The behemoth is not necessarily a reference to dinosaurs–in fact, most bible commentaries I’ve read do not describe it as such. The genealogies in Luke, like other genealogies in the bible, are disputable for several reasons, but even if we take the genealogies in Luke in the most straightforward way possible, it only goes back to Adam. The passage in Luke says nothing about what may or may not have happened before Adam or how long such a time period lasted.
Zordel contends that:
Knowing the truth about creation helps to build a strong foundation for the faith our children have in God. If they can’t trust what the Bible says in Genesis, they may more easily reject the rest of God’s Word.
What IS dangerous to faith is teaching your children that it is incompatible with evolution. It seems to me that Ms. Zordel could learn a thing or two from another homeschooling mom, Rebecca Trotter.
Blog of the Airtightnoodle 
November 19, 2008 at 2:06 am
Ugh! 😦
November 21, 2008 at 3:22 am
That is just frightening. Great post though!
November 21, 2008 at 6:33 am
I do hope that you and the lamentable Mrs. Trotter realize that it is statistically demonstrable that your strategy of erroneously teaching kids evolution as scientific fact results in a high rate of wholesale rejection of religious truth! Look at the liberal and mainline churches who have already compromised on thnis issue. Judge this tree by its fruit. Look how you have saddled a horse with an impossible load, yet now you blame the horse instead of the impossible load you tried to saddle it with! Biblical creationism isn’t the problem. The strange fire of evolutionary compromise ‘creationism’ is the problem; you tell kids that untestable evo is science and that science is fact, facts that can be tested; you tell kids that religious truth is fact, except when science contradicts it – only science also takes exception to ANY miracle, including Creation and [gasp!] the Resurrection! And you wonder why the kids in mainline liberal churches that embrace evo have all jumped ship and abandoned the faith? They’ve only followed the implications of your underlying assumptions about the relationship of science and the Bible to its logical conclusion. You may be be comfortable in the inconsistency of your scientific-religious truth dichotomy, but those of us who are intellectually honest confirm the rational law of noncontradiction.
evo would have failed as a theory long ago if they would have let it, but alas! the only thing that truly evolves is evo. Now we have neo-evo and next year we will have post-evo. It must constantly be revised becuz science fails to validate its claims.
But teach these modern Fairy Tales to your children as truth and teach the truth of the Bible as Fairy Tales and see how your children fare.
–Sirius Knott
November 22, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Sirius–
The bulk of your post is simply not worth my time to respond to right now, as many of these issues have been addressed already, both at my blog, your blog, and all over the internet (that theories can and do change as this is the nature of science, evolution is testable, etc).
I only have one request of you. Please show us your statistics that demonstrate that teaching evolution leads to rejecting religious truth. However, in order to do that, keep in mind that you will also need to demonstrate what “religious truth” is.
November 30, 2008 at 4:13 am
[…] Read the post here. […]
December 3, 2008 at 5:40 am
It seems Sirius has not learned yet. Time to have some fun.
I do hope that you and the lamentable Mrs. Trotter realize that it is statistically demonstrable
Then do so.
that your strategy of erroneously teaching kids evolution as scientific fact results in a high rate of wholesale rejection of religious truth!
A statement which, of course, assumes that your particular chosen religious viewpoint has ‘the truth’ as opposed to the ‘truth’ of not only every other religion throughout human history (of which there has been thousands) but also all the actual evidence available.
(Snip some incoherent rambling)
you tell kids that untestable evo
How is Evolution untestable? The Theory of Evolution makes a lot of predictions which are all testable to one degree or another; and pretty much all of them have either been shown to be correct (such as the fusion of chromosomes in humans, transitional fossils, etc) or are looking really rather promising.
is science and that science is fact
Science is not fact. Science does not deal with facts. Your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution seems only eclipsed by your ignorance of science, the Scientific Method and so on.
Science deals with evidence and draws conclusions FROM the evidence, as opposed to fields such as creationism and intelligent design which form conclusions and look for evidence to support it (a logically absurd approach, obviously).
,only science also takes exception to ANY miracle, including Creation and [gasp!] the Resurrection!
No evidence to support either. If this was a television gameshow the low toned horn of failure would be blaring as the contestant walks slowly and sadly off the set.
but those of us who are intellectually honest
Sirius, you may be many things … but intellectually honest does not appear to be one of them.
evo would have failed as a theory long ago if they would have let it
Which could actually be said for just about anything. Hardly a statement of substance.
but alas! the only thing that truly evolves is evo.
Again you display your ignorance. All scientific theories change (or evolve, if you like) as new evidence comes along. String theory, Quantum mechanics, Nuclear physics, Gravity, Relativity … all have changed as time has gone on.
Which is actually a tremendous strength of science, it’s never dogmatic about conclusions and is always prepared to update and change as circumstances demand.
(snip ignorant ranting which is borderline incoherent, certainly based in ignorance)
But teach these modern Fairy Tales to your children as truth and teach the truth of the Bible as Fairy Tales and see how your children fare.
Judging by the rise of secularism (and science, for that matter) and the benefits it has brought mankind time and again… it’s going pretty damn well, I have to say.
December 4, 2008 at 3:14 am
Matt,
[snip incoherent mutterings inspired by whatever’s under your drink umbrella. uh oh. there doesn’t appear to be much of anything left! oh well…]
Keep the faith, darbot. hearing only whatcha wanna hear and knowing only what you’ve heard, as the saying goes.
I will deign to comment upon one singular sentence of hubris: “String theory, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, gravity, relativity… all have changed as time has gone on.” Ignoring the fact that the theory of gravity hasn’t really changed much to the consternation of scientists who would dearly love to fold it into a theory of everything, the remainder of your examples of things that have “all changed as time has gone on” are all relatively NEW theories! They’ve not changed; they’re still developing!
As always, Matt, thanx for the laughs.
Airtight,
Are you saying that even if I provided you with statistical proof that you would simply claim the definitions were invalid? Put a different way, since I do not like to tilt at windmills, I simply must ask: is there any evidence which would convince you to teach your children the plain meaning of Genesis [YEC] as fact? Or have you made up your mind? [I’m not trying to provoke you. Studies also show that folks tend to be very critical when they are first examining an issue but tend not to seriously bother with evidence for the other side of the argument once they’ve made up their minds. You may simply be a victim of this academic tendency.]
btw, when you or anyone else says that the bulk of whatever I’ve said isn’t worth argument, I generally take that as an indication that you are in fact tired of or frustrated with the subject at hand. Or with me! So be it. I empathize completely. However, I hesitantly refer you to the old truism about rocks & glass houses; as you pointed out, you have brought this up over at my blog and others. I don’t think either Eric or I have found your answers all that decisive and, frankly, we’ve found your allies [many of them antagonistic to Christendom] a bit concerning. Are you quite sure you’re on the right side?
–Sirius Knott
December 7, 2008 at 4:51 pm
“Are you saying that even if I provided you with statistical proof that you would simply claim the definitions were invalid? ”
No. I’ve asked a question. Answer it. It’s as simple as that. Instead of answering it (which Matt asked of you as well), you rebutt with questions and insults (such as calling Matt a “darbot”–really, couldn’t you come up with something better?).
“I simply must ask: is there any evidence which would convince you to teach your children the plain meaning of Genesis [YEC] as fact?”
You assume that the YEC interpretation of Genesis is the “plain” meaning. I would disagree with that. However, if I felt the text of Genesis actually supported such an interpretation and science supported this age of the earth, which it clearly does not, then I would have no problem teaching this to my children. I plan on teaching it to my children regardless since I feel they need to be educated on the different viewpoints of this topic; however, I certainly won’t teach it to them as “fact” at this point in time.
“[I’m not trying to provoke you. Studies also show that folks tend to be very critical when they are first examining an issue but tend not to seriously bother with evidence for the other side of the argument once they’ve made up their minds. You may simply be a victim of this academic tendency.]”
Yet again, you seem to believe you are the only one immune to this “disease”.
“btw, when you or anyone else says that the bulk of whatever I’ve said isn’t worth argument, I generally take that as an indication that you are in fact tired of or frustrated with the subject at hand. Or with me!”
I’m pregnant. Of course I’m tired! 🙂
“Are you quite sure you’re on the right side?”
I don’t really consider myself to be on any “side”. I know what I believe. A lot of my beliefs don’t fit me in very neatly to any particular group–that goes for religion, politics, science, etc.
December 7, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Sirius,
I raised several points and asked questions which refuted your earlier statements, all of which you were either unable or unwilling to answer. That means that you are either intellectual dishonest, ignorant of what you speak of or both.
Matt,
Keep the faith, darbot. hearing only whatcha wanna hear and knowing only what you’ve heard, as the saying goes.
Ah, uncalled for insults without making even the slightest effort at all to actually contribute to a discussion/debate. I see you have not changed much.
From the way you have been unwilling/unable to respond in any sort of coherent manner, I (and probably a lot of readers) have to assume that you can’t effectively respond and therefore don’t know what you’re talking about.
…are all relatively NEW theories! They’ve not changed; they’re still developing!
It seems that my call that you are ignorant of the scientific method is spot on. Every theory in science can and has changed since it’s inception across every field of science from the way that cells react to stimulus, the cause of mental illness, the formation of stars, gravity and so on. The Theory of Evolution is no different.
It’s a wonderful way how science works in that regard; new evidence comes in and is incorporated into the theory or the theory is changed to take it into account.
Next time you try to reply to one of my comments; don’t portray yourself as ignorant and/or lazy. Make the effort and make decent refutations or just don’t try at all. You’ll only be doing yourself a favour.