Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Dear Kayla, It's Not Real Science.

Despite the fact that we now put our two oldest in a private school, my wife is still on many of the homeschool email networks. Yesterday, the ChristianHome.net sent out the latest flyer from Jonathan Park, advertising his new series The Journey Never Taken. The flyer had this endorsement:
“Before I started listening to Jonathan Park I did not like science at all. I thought science was boring and useless. But now I love science! I can now stand up for the Faith.”
—Kayla, a Jonathan Park fan
I hate to break the news to you, Kayla, but you aren't getting real science. You are getting a flat-earth education concocted by people who haven't got a clue what evolution actually is or what the evidence for it is. You would be much better off going here. Jonathan Park, bravely taking our children into the nineteenth century!

Now playing: Yes - Walls
via FoxyTunes


  1. Anonymous11:07 PM

    As a 10 year old who loves science and loves the Jonathan Park Adventure Series, I was wondering if evolution is real then why don't we see a chimpanzee or a fish in the process of forming into a human right now? Also, if evolution is real why aren't humans evolving into a higher state of being, higher than humans, like gods? As a homeschooler who also loves literature I'd like to point out your typo in your title. Thanks for anwering my questions.

    Amy Jens, 10 years old, Southern California

  2. Dear Amy,
    Well, its like this. Evolution doesn't proceed in leaps like that. It proceeds in small changes in genes that, over time, lead to changes in the way animals look and behave. And the part about us changing into gods: Amy, you've been watching too much Stargate. Only Daniel Jackson can ascend. What typo? If it is possessive, like "it's ankle," it gets an apostrophe. If it is a contraction, like "its not," it doesn't.

  3. Anonymous11:53 AM

    The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view. More at questforright.com

  4. This assumes that there is a false dichotomy between "physical science" and evolution and is, what Barbara Forrest calls a "contrived dualism" where none exists. There is not even a close second to the theory of evolution in explaining biological diversity and the fossil record. Despite ID's antagonism to evolution, Stephen Meyer admits that Intelligent Design has no theoretical base from which to work and cannot explain how biodiversity came about. Creationism (to which Quest for Right subscribes) cannot explain it because it is scientifically bankrupt. There is as much evidence that the earth is flat as there is that the earth was created between six and ten thousand years ago.

  5. Anonymous5:52 PM


    Amy can indeed learn a thing or two from you about science, but she's got you nailed on spelling! Possessive gets no apostrophe (unlike other possessives, oddly enough), while the contraction does get an apostrophe.

    I enjoy your blog very much and agree with it, by the way, so thanks!

  6. Anonymous5:57 PM

    Looks like some interesting pseudoscience there at Questforright.com. I'll have to read more of it sometime.


  7. Jim, hang in there. Undoing the damage from around-the-clock creationist dishonesty is an endless task. In the meantime, your homeschooled friend is right about one thing: "it's" is a contraction for "it is", and "its" is the possessive. You got it backwards, and your title does indeed contain a typo. But you win for getting evolution right, and for showing a lot of patience.

  8. Okay, okay. I got it wrong. Sheesh. I thought I knew that rule. I will fix the title. Thanks for the words of encouragement.

  9. The plug for the Quest for Right has been made before, and I published and then posted about it before, so I almost didn't this time. It is prone to the same sorts of problems that plague almost all creationist writing: absolutely no knowledge of that about which they write. Fish? Barrel? Why don't the people that write these books pick up a real textbook once in awhile?

  10. Just so's you know, I rejected a comment here by "anonymous," otherwise known as C. David Parsons because he was still spouting the same stuff he always spouts on posts like this. Furthermore, it is as if he hasn't heard a word anybody has said on the subject because he continues, like most YEC people, to say that there are no transitional fossil forms when they actually abound. Nope, I've had it. Time to pull your head out of the sand, C. David Parsons.