Nov 25 2007
Prev/Next Posts: « Mars and the Moon Monday night || I see you, Pamela »
Texas textbooks technically taxed
Reviewers looking over math textbooks to be used in Texas found a few errors in them… like, 109,263.
You didn’t not read that incorrectly. They found over one hundred thousand mistakes.
Turns out that there is a fine per mistake, to the tune of $5k. So technically the textbook publisher (Houghton Mifflin) owes $500 million in fines… unless you go by the math in their books, which would give that figure as $430 million.
HAHAHAHAHA! I laugh at Houghton Mifflin’s expense, yes. Still, good thing the books won’t get sent out to students just yet. HM still has time to find and correct the mistakes; they only pay for the ones that are left when classes begin. So Texas isn’t doomed just yet.
Anyway, since Texas has a creationist governor and a creationist as the head of their State Board of Education, I would assume math mistakes wouldn’t concern them any more than science mistakes do. They want to teach mistakes, and that’s a mistake in itself. I wonder if anyone would fine those guys for each error they make…?
Tip o’ the propeller beanie to Greg Laden.
They blamed the errors on a faulty Spanish to English translation? let’s see… in English, it’s “7 + 4 = 11″ and in Spanish it’s “7 + 4 = 11″. Yeah, I can see where the translator could get tripped up.
Though, to be fair, they counted having answers to quizzes available in the student version as ‘errors’, but I have several textbooks where the answers are intentionally available, so that huge number of ‘errors’ may be a bit inflated.
[…] found 109,263 errors when reviewing Houghton Mifflin’s math textbooks that were submitted to the state of […]
They didn’t make a mistake. 7 + 4 = 10 in base 11. Oh, but then there’s three errors for not putting on the subscript “11″ for each number. And the fact that teaching base 11 would make absolutely no sense.
Base 11, very cute. I wouldn’t have thought of that.
Was that 109,263 in total or per book?
I believe the number was in total (since a typical paperback novel only contains about 100,000 words!). But I’m sure that the vast majority of the errors are spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, mistranslations of the text (i.e. not the numbers), and other typical copy editing stuff.
Remember if you’re fined $5k per mistake, you have a massive incentive to fix all the errors, down to the smallest spelling mistake. Sounds to me like the system is working in this case.
The trickier aspects of creating a text book, even a math book, is to ensure that there is nothing that can cause a political kerfuffle, things like any photos or pictures of people or kids have all races represented and that stereotypes considered harmful in some way (even very mildly) are avoided. It’s a real minefield for the writers and editors.
And that’s the non-controversial stuff in Texas. Once you get to science, then anything that implies an ancient Earth is in danger of getting watered down, partly by the editors who want to avoid a fight, but mostly by the politicians in charge of reviewing the text. Here in Texas even mentioning that dinosaurs lived 90 million years ago came under scrutiny. But then the people in charge, paid up members of the Republican Party of Texas make the Republicans in Washington appear to science’s biggest fans.
More interesting question is why the bleeding hell does one want 164 different
school math textbooks in the first place, especially if it’s 164 never-used-before ones (and, of course, if some of those had been used before, there’s a problem with having that, er, quality product already inflicted on kids).
P.S. How many mistakes were there in your latest draft of your upcoming book, Phil
Factual errors aren’t the only problem in textbooks. This has been brought up on this blog before, but it may be worth reading Nobel laureate Richard Feynman’s experience in textbook selection.
Hey hey now, let’s not get ridiculous here. I mean, there are other theories for the addition of seven and eleven, and we need to remember that number theory is just a theory, it is not fact. There are other competing theories which posit that numbers are simply too complex to simply be added together, there has to be a designer. We need to teach alternate theories of numbers and simply let the children decide.
Drat, my crafty little sarcasm tag didn’t show up. Oh well, turn on your sarcasm switch before you read that last post, then switch it off when you’re done.
$546,315,000 in fines?
I do believe we’ve found a way to supplement education costs at the state level.
First, stop helping the publishers find the errors. Still look mind you, but just don’t tell the publishers. Caveat Emptor and all that…
Second, on the first day of school send out an errata email and have the students fix the errors. Slave laborers!!
Finally, watch the cash roll in.
Probably only get a couple years of funding help like this…
I recently learned from my daughter’s 4th grade science textbook that when air cools the pressure goes up. It goes on to explain that this is because the molecules are packed closer together. I guess that ideal gas equation nonsense I learned was just wrong.
You didn’t not read that incorrectly.
I’m assuming you wrote that monstrosity on purpose, but it’s still wrong. “You didn’t read that incorrectly” or “You didn’t not read that correctly” would work; what you have translates to “You didn’t read that correctly.”
Don’t worry, you can fix this one for free!
Michael,
I suspect the “answers as errors” count includes only places where the answers are NOT supposed to be there (e.g., poor conversion from the instructor’s edition to the student’s edition). Actually, I don’t recall any textbooks at the grade school level which have answers - I suspect that is usually a university-level thing, but it has been quite a while since grade school, so who knows?
I do agree that 164 different books seems rather a lot, even accounting for Spanish and English editions for every grade level and different education levels within grades.
Your font is so small I can’t read anything without eyestrain, so I won’t be back. Forget this blog altogether.
“I recently learned from my daughter’s 4th grade science textbook that when air cools the pressure goes up. It goes on to explain that this is because the molecules are packed closer together. I guess that ideal gas equation nonsense I learned was just wrong.”
I think it depends on the context. In the open atmosphere air pressure usually does increase as temperature increases, for exactly the reason stated. That’s why cold air masses usually have higher air pressure than warm air masses. However in a confined gas, which is what the ideal gas equation usually refers to in Physics or Chemistry texts, the pressure would drop as temperature decreased.
So check the subject your daughter was studying. The book might be right if they were studying the weather.
ACK!
The second sentence in my reply should read “In the open atmosphere air pressure usually does increase as temperature decreases, for exactly the reason stated.”
Sorry about my poor proofreading.
I usually follow you, Phil, but…
…the math errors are not due to a religious agenda as the science errors are, so it’s seems you’re stretching that point a bit thin…
From the article, “The math books are expected to be error-free by the time classes begin.”
Meh. Nothing to see here, move along.
You’re surprised that a draft translated from a different language would have mistakes in them? As far as 4 + 7 = 11 goes, it’s obviously a typo the same way typing “form” instead of “from” is a typo.
“The last time we had any errors that were identified after they hit the classrooms was in 2005. We found one,” said Anita Givens, senior director of educational technology at the Texas Education Agency.
Looks like they have a pretty good proofreading and editing process to me. You really cannot fault them for what is not the final copies of these textbooks.
tacitus:
> The trickier aspects of creating a text book, even a math book,
> is to ensure that there is nothing that can cause a political kerfuffle,
> things like any photos or pictures of people or kids have all races
> represented and that stereotypes considered harmful in some way
> (even very mildly) are avoided. It’s a real minefield for the writers
> and editors.
Yes, I have noticed this in my kids’ homework assignments. There’s always an assortment of “ethnic” names (Tyrone, Jose, Susan [can’t forget the girls], etc.) in the questions, and they’re always doing mundane things (holding apples, reading pages in a book) to avoid any “stereotypes”. (Can you imagine Tyrone eating a watermelon, or Susan buying shoes?)
Linkage:
> Looks like they have a pretty good proofreading and editing
> process to me. You really cannot fault them for what is not the
> final copies of these textbooks.
True, but I would have to assume that the publisher would do a first pass in the proofing before sending them on the the state for review. The WTF here is that over a hundred thousand mistakes made it through that process. How many mistakes were in the pre-proofing copies? (Or did they simply do the “it passes MS-Word’s spell check — let’s ship it” thing?)
Do you seriously think those people don’t care about math mistakes just because they are creationists? As RAF pointed out, there’s no controversy (however real or imagined) about MATH, so I think “stretching the point a bit thin” is a generous assessment.
Most of the time, you are at least fair, even when you’re being harsh or trying to make a point. In this case, I would say you’ve crossed the line with your “assumption” that they want to teach ALL mistakes just because they are mistaken in other areas. If you really believe that, then you’ve become warped by your own hatred of them. If you DON’T believe it, well then that is called “lying”.
Before my Bro became a rocket scientist with Rockwell, his profession was Tech Writer. We had several discussions of the inadequacy of most tech writing. It’s usually not spelling errors that ruin a technical text but the lack of comprehension of the subject material by the writer. Many so-called tech writers are as baffled by the original text as the people for whom they’re trying to interpret. A classic case of the blind leading the blind. Which is why good science writing is nearly as rare as hens teeth,,,
Having said that, I have to wonder Phil, where did YOU find those hens teeth???
Keep on writing,,,
Gary 7
This might explain the problems with my internet connection here in Lubbock, Xanadoo Wireless “Broadband” (wireless it is, broadband it is not). I thought the folks who run the local branch were just scammers and crooks but perhaps I was being too harsh. It is possible they received their math education from some of these defective textbooks and actually believe that 1.5Mb (for which I am paying) is roughly equal to 14.4K (which is about what I am getting).
A replacement service is being installed as we speak.
RAF…
Perhaps you’re wrong. Turns out this averages to about 666 mistakes per publication. So obviously it’s the work of Satan. Or perhaps that’s what they want you to believe…
>”You didn’t not read that incorrectly. ”
I’m sorry, what?
The whole thing sounds like typos in proof copies. I would have expected someone with a published book to understand such things. I agree with some other posters. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Sure seems like a kid’s dream…how many times when kids are young and they get a math problem wrong have they screamed “the book was wrong!” Certainly 109,263 times, if I were to hazard a wild guess.
Now it would seem that the kids have a leg to stand on when they make that bold claim!
An average of 666 errors per textbook (plus online material) before serious proof reading is peraps a bit sloppy, but not excessive.
Look at that, only one sentence and already a typo: “peraps” should be “perhaps” (I am not a cockney). I guess this proves my point.
It looks like the easiest way for Houghton Mifflin to avoid such fines in the future is to stop printing Spanish-language textbooks.
It’s been a while but I don’t remember my math books having the answers in them. If they had I could have cheated more. Kids have it so easy these days.
For those of you wondering about why I would mention math mistakes and creationists, you are missing the most obvious example: they think 6000 = 4.55 billion. What’s a factor of 768,000 between
friendsnemeses?>”they think 6000 = 4.55 billion. What’s a factor of 768,000 between friends nemeses?”
Well, no, they think 6000 is 6000 and that the Earth is 6000 years old. Still a reach, Phil, sorry.
Maybe it’s the Monday effect.
Doctor, a better argument for you:
Christian Fundamentalists think the value of pi == 3 (remember, inerrancy!).
“they think 6000 = 4.55 billion”
It’s starting to sound like the punchline to the “Why are women bad at measuring?” joke.
Or here’s another one, given the volume of the Ark (Noah’s, not Of The Covenant)… how’d it all fit? Was the Ark a TARDIS? Does that make Noah a Time Lord? Is Gallifrey Eden?
Or the sun stopping in the sky. That’s a good one. Conservation of angular momentum? Never heard of it! Well, back then, they hadn’t. We are talking a pre-Aristotlean understanding of physical sciences and all…
Still, the Babylonians and the Egyptians could get decent approximations for pi going, but the best the Hebrews could do was three? They must have just not trusted that false-god magic. False gods…
…great, now I’m thinking of Ba’al from SG-1.
Todd said, “It looks like the easiest way for Houghton Mifflin to avoid such fines in the future is to stop printing Spanish-language textbooks.”
I couldn’t agree more. Are we actually spending tax dollars to publish school books in multiple languages? What a waste of money.
I probably wouldn’t make a good school teacher. Math textbooks should be mostly number problems until a certain grade level, at which time the students should be able to READ ENGLISH, or not move to the next grade level.
I probably wouldn’t make a good politician either. Since English is the actual language of commerce and science (even if it isn’t officially the National Language of the United States), it is a disservice to children NOT to teach them English.
And I don’t care what the reason - sample copies is not an excuse. What do the editors think? “Well, we know we’re going to put some math here… it doesn’t have to be correct, it just has to take up the white space on the pages.” Guess I’d make a bad publisher too.
How can you expect the kids to understand the importance of correct math if we can’t even get the textbooks correct?
Wayne: “As RAF pointed out, there’s no controversy (however real or imagined) about MATH, so I think “stretching the point a bit thin†is a generous assessment.”
Actually, Wayne, there is in fact an imagined controversy about math. Richard Wolford imagined it, a few posts above yours. Now I’m imagining it too. Voila! Teach the controversy!
As we all know, even simple elements of this so-called “mathematics” such as addition have never been tested for all possible number combinations. Furthermore, it’s never been proved that it’s an accurate model for potential real-world events such as adding 7 billion plums to 4 billion plums - though it does work for smaller numbers of plums, certainly. The math establishment denies that there’s an issue here, but this is just their means of suppressing dissent. The assumption that it holds true for all numbers, and for all discrete items, is controversial if you ask the right person. There are those who make good money by being “is not!” contrarians, though it’s more fashionable in evolution than math at the moment. Surely textbooks shouldn’t just teach the fashionable controversies?
Free mathematics!
Blue plus kumquat equals piranhafish! Egg yolk minus Lou Dobbs equals justice (small J) plus Honor (capital H). David Weber multiplied by graphing calculator equals bad science fiction!
Actually, there may be some value to this New New Math…
This isn’t even marginally funny. As many people reading this very likely know, Texas approves and buys school textbooks at the state level, rather than permitting individual school boards to do it as is the general practice in the rest of the nation. Accordingly, the State of Texas is the biggest customer of textbook publishers, and the rest of us have to pretty much accept what’s acceptable to Texas. Since Texas is traditionally about 49th among the 50 states in all indices of intellectual attainment (thank God for Mississippi, as Molly Ivins would say), this really sucks for everyone else.
I’m glad the mistakes were caught, but leaving Texans to catch math errors is really a bad idea.
Gary,
All sarcasm aside, let’s be clear that I’m NOT defending creationism or whichever nut-job-of-the-week thinks math is controversial. BA’s comment was clearly directed specifically at Rick Perry and Don McLeroy, and thus my comment chastising him for it is specifically because I don’t believe that is an accurate statement about those two men.
I’ve never spoken to Governor Perry, but I believe he’s a reasonably intelligent person in most respects who is blinded by a misguided faith on certain matters. I HAVE spoken to Dr. McLeroy by telephone, following the BA’s original “Texas:DOOMED” post, which I suspect is more than most of the people who post here have done. We “debated” evolution etc. for at least half an hour, and while he was characteristically impervious to all counter arguments to creationism (even from a fellow Christian), otherwise I found him to be very articulate and reasonable.
Once we start saying, “This person believes ridiculous thing A, so therefore he must believe ridiculous thing B”, then we’ve made him the straw-man for whatever we want to ridicule and we have become no better than those we hope to enlighten.
I understand and even share Dr. Plait’s frustration, but it should never be at the expense of the TRUTH about an individual.
Veritas Vincit!
Well, I was being flippant, and you had to turn around and be reasonable.
It’s very generous of you to assume that a person who is deaf to rational argument in one sphere is reasonable in this other sphere - but then, you have experience of this person’s general reasonableness. However, I’d suggest that there are (some, but) very few lunatics that are universally unreasonable in all matters. (By this I am NOT saying this person’s a lunatic, of course.) I’d also suggest that Dr. McLeroy’s blindness isn’t just in one small area. His positions on global warming (no need for any radical changes) and abstinence education (the only safe & realistic goal) appear similarly grounded in a “decide first, then look for evidence” philosophy. Yes, we all know how well the evidence supports abstinence education, for instance. But Dr. McLeroy’s beliefs, conveniently, are independent of evidence. Shouldn’t we be wondering, then, in what other areas he’s putting belief first?
I have no trouble declaring that those whose willful blindness impinges their professional and public-service capacity have earned some broad swipes such as Dr. Plait’s. I’m fairly certain that our BA was exaggerating for comedic effect, and that neither he nor most of his readers believe these Two Texans think math mistakes don’t matter. If you can show that either of the Two Texans are just pretending to be creationists for a laugh, then I’ll agree that the BA has “become no better than those we hope to enlighten.” I take that back… for all I know he is no better than Dr. McLeroy. He’s just better at science, and his tendancy to slightly mean-spirited jokes doesn’t change that.
I do find Dr. McLeroy’s writing very articulate. I also approve of much of his educational philosophy. He’s probably nice to children and animals too.
Hello,
In this case I must take up for my state government. This is a case where things worked the way they are supposed to. A series of errors made by the PUBLISHER was caught by the government body before the textbook was adopted and put into the hands of children. I see no reason to label this as anything other than a success for the Texas educational system.
What I do see is an overzealous internet blogger looking for any attempt to criticize an institution…even when it does something right. I’m all for letting the people in charge have it when they do something stupid, I just don’t see it in this case.
If the head of some creationist organization or intelligent design group were to save a car full of accident victims by performing CPR I have a feeling Phil would take it upon himself to find fault with the life-saver for his beliefs and tear him down.
Well .. actually math is PROVED, i.e. not subject to an atheist or christian interpretation, and evolution is THEORY er hypothesis.. and is “believed” by those who don’t “believe” in a creator.
So unless they’re teaching THEORETICAL mathematics your point makes no sense.
Since evolution is a guess at how things happened based upon subjective evidence, and since creationism is basically the same thing… how is it again you think math mistakes that can be verified and proved have anything to do with “origins theory”?
Oh yeah, i see the connection, you don’t like creationism as a theory.. texas has a governor that believes in a theory other than the “orthodox” atheist science belief … therefore bad math is equal to creationism?!
wtf Phil.. your logic is vaccuous at best on this one.. methinks your bias is showing again.
RealityChecker said, “I see no reason to label this as anything other than a success for the Texas educational system.”
Is this the same educational system that didn’t have new textbooks available before school started this year? The same system that didn’t pay for all of the textbooks last year? The same system that has an admitted creationist trying to remove evolution from the science books as the Head of the Board of Education? Just checking!
Your argument goes from errors in a math book to performing CPR on accident victims, and yet you call yourself RealityChecker?
BA said: For those of you wondering about why I would mention math mistakes and creationists, you are missing the most obvious example: they think 6000 = 4.55 billion. What’s a factor of 768,000 between friends nemeses?
————————–
Nice one phil, not only do you fail to see your error in lumping apples and oranges…
You then take a cheap shot and misrepresent the creationist views..
We don’t believe 6,000 is equal to 4.55 billion.. we don’t “believe” in your so-called 4.55 billion..
I would guess that YOU don’t “believe” the 4.55 billion either.. since in the past 59 years that 4.55 billion was originally about 280 million, then 1.5 billion, then 2.something then 3.something … now 4.55 billion.
I’m sure that number will go up again and again to “fit” further incompatible facts that pop up.
So how can you diss on a 6,000 year belief, when you yourself don’t even know WHAT you believe… er, you believe whatever number is spit out by your contemporaries? How is that scientific or worthy of credit… and how is that any better than creationists views?
After all, you don’t REALLY have any clue when or where origins happened, all you have are your fellow contemporaries guesses based upon NOTHING they have observed in nature or in the lab. Noone has caused, seen, or tested planetary accretion, big bang, DNA, RNA, Amino acid chains etc.. Yeah you have your guesses but those arent exactly facts now are they?
You speak with such authority, and with such conviction a sheepish reader / neophyte reader might think you actually are claiming that YOU , PHIL PLAIT, have figured out the origins problem, and are proclaiming to all the world that you are 100% sure there is no outside force beyond our universe. You of course have scientific proof there is no creator which you are going to publish in a respected journal.
You, Phil Plait, are going to prove to all the dumb, ignorant, non-science minded, non-math computing creationists that they’re all wrong, and the non-goddists will lead us to the “truth”… nevermind creationists GAVE you the number system… lol, nevermind that creationists like Kepler, Galileo, Pythagoros, Archemedies, Einstein, Oppenheimer or Bose all pioneered different fields in Physics, Mathematics, Geometry etc.. nevermind that evolution still fails to explain how something came out of nothing at the beginning of space-time..
Sure you might cite some sting THEORY, but all in all you don’t have proof, therefore your BELIEF is just as flawed/unproved as the creationists’ is.
Once you realize this basic fact, that evolution is a belief, you might begin to see that evolution and creation should be taught in a philosophy class, not a science class.
I say, don’t put creationism into the science class, take evolution out since it’s just a guess at how things happened, and the “proof” is very subjective.
# tacituson 26 Nov 2007 at 12:39 am
P.S. How many mistakes were there in your latest draft of your upcoming book, Phil
———————————————–
ROTFLMAO! :^)
Willing to bet we’ll never find out!
Here are a few evolutionist errors for fun fact time:
Texas (Holy biology 2002) “the Cambrian Explosion took “160 million years.”
Later revised in 2004 to “30 to 160 million years.”
lol that’s a pretty wide range of time to choose from.. not very scienentific, sounds like a belief or something
Here’s good one from CNN.com:
(CNN) — Science and precision should be inseparable. But physics professor John Hubisz and others reviewing many U.S. textbooks say that’s hardly the case.
The information in the books is often unfocused, fragmented, and sometimes downright wrong.
With a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Hubisz examined dozens of physical science texts for middle schools, and found scores of errors.
Among them:
•A map showing the equator running through Texas and Florida, when it’s actually about 1,500 miles south.
•A discussion of sound that says humans cannot hear below 400 hertz. But 47 notes on a piano are below 400 hertz.
•Details of the Statue of Liberty, explaining her “bronze outer structure.” The statue is copper.
•A picture of the Statue of Liberty with the torch in her left hand. It’s in her right hand.
•Pictures of prisms bending light the wrong way.
•Periodic tables not updated years after new elements have been added.
•A compass with East and West reversed.
@mike j: How many times to people have to scream this before you will hear it: EVOLUTION IS NOT A BELIEF!
Try reading this before you put your foot in your mouth:
http://www.notjustatheory.com/not even close to the same thing. Anyone who says otherwise has a religious agenda to suppress science.
What does this have to do with math? Oh yea, math is a science, and the same yay-hoos who want to suppress science in Texas are also in charge of the math books. Examples
and here.
If they want to change scientific fact in biology textbooks, why would we trust them to error check the math books?
So, mike j, its actually your logic that is in error.
(Links didn’t work in my previous post, and kinda messed things up)
It meant to say:
Evolution and Creationism are not even close to the same thing. Anyone who says otherwise has a religious agenda to suppress science.
What does this have to do with math? Oh yea, math is a science, and the same yay-hoos who want to suppress science in Texas are also in charge of the math books. Examples here
and here.
Skepterist said, “Is this the same educational system that didn’t have new textbooks available before school started this year? The same system that didn’t pay for all of the textbooks last year? The same system that has an admitted creationist trying to remove evolution from the science books as the Head of the Board of Education? Just checking!
Your argument goes from errors in a math book to performing CPR on accident victims, and yet you call yourself RealityChecker?”
And yours goes from my original points about the errors in the math books into all of that.
My statement was, “I see no reason to label THIS as anything other than a success for the Texas educational system,” and I stand by it.
This one particular incident is a success for the Texas system. The errors in the textbooks were caught before they were issued to the students. Regardless of any of the other crazy stuff that my state’s educational system has done, this was a good thing.
Oh, Mike J, I swear if you didn’t exist we’d need to invent you, just to idle away the time.
Your comments are so full of fallacies it’s difficult to know where to start. I guess I’ll begin with this one: I was making a joke about creationists and math. That last paragraph wasn’t meant to be taken too seriously.
But still… I don’t misrepresent creationist views. There’s no need to. The comment I made about 6000=4.55 billion was a joke too. You see, creationists mistakenly believe the Earth is 6000 years old, when it’s really 4.55 billion. See? It’s funny.
As far as the estimates of the age of the Earth changing with time, you might want to look up how science works. It does the best it can with the knowledge, methods, and technology of the time. So as we learn more our estimates get better. 280 million years is still a whole lot closer than 6000, and for a much better reason: it’s based on reason, not faith.
Two hundred years ago medical science didn’t even have germ theory. Have you had a vaccine lately, Mike? A flu shot? Taken antibiotics? Washed your hands after blowing your nose? Or do you have more “faith” in medical science than you do other brands of science?
But then to completely show your ignorance of science, you said “After all, you don’t REALLY have any clue when or where origins happened, all you have are your fellow contemporaries guesses based upon NOTHING they have observed in nature or in the lab.”
This is so wrong it’s hard to overestimate it’s wrongnitude. We have observed stars forming, planets forming, systems at various stages of development. We see how our own system has changed with time based on hundreds of years of observations. There are countless papers published building up an incredibly robust theory of planetary formation that accurately predicts observations being made.
Creationists have none of that. None. They base all their work on one section of the Bible, and not even really that: it’s the work of Ussher who counted up “begats”.
Feh. I invite others to continue showing Mike where he’s wrong (hint: everywhere). I’ve barely scratched the surface.
skepterist:
“Anyone who says otherwise has a religious agenda to suppress science”
wtf are you talking about?!
Who brought religion into this.. i’m not telling you to follow any certain belief system..
But i find it ironic that you deny your beliefs.. you BELIEVE that the universe came to be out of nothing somehow naturally, but have never seen, tested, or mathematically proved it…. you call it the big bang
You BELIEVE that rocks rained down over millions of years and formed a “hot lava earth”.. which you BELIEVE then cooled down and gained water… you then BELIEVE that this formed into a “soup” of amino acids which was electrified or heated and formed into the first RNA and DNA..
NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN OBSERVED.. therefore you BELIEVE it!!
So its a new religion, i understand your frustration since you’re trying to escape religion and all… but face it.. you believe them because they fit your worldview, which is why you refuse to hear the OTHER theories.
If you really cared about free debate and sharing of information, you wouldn’t advocate the banning or suppressing of other viewpoints different from your own.
I mean really, in your comment you dont’ even want to admit it’s a belief!!
hahalol !
You’ve elevated it from a theory to a FACT.. that is SOOO funny, but getting quite boring when it comes to intellectual arguements with the “other side”.
For a while there your side didn’t want to even acknowledge there was “another side”.. but now that your constantly talking about us, I’d say we’ve won that battle.
Now its just a matter of raising awareness that the house of cards (called evolution) only need to have one or two cards removed to make it fall…. only a few people need to look into the big bang theory to see that for evolution to be “true” the evolutionist must explain the natural causes that made the universe come into existence out of nothing… lol..
Good luck with that one guys! And while you’re all busy putting out fires here and there, all the while the general public absorbs in , despite all the pro-evolution programming, that there is “another side” .. and this “other side” is getting under the skin of the evolutionists to the point that they are taking a LOT of their time debating via Blogs, print, T.V etc / trying to refute this claim and that claim.
All the while they don’t realize that because their out there screaming down their opponents, bad mouthing creationists beliefs specifically, it makes them look bad, and quite desperate actually.
;^)
My high school math books were abysmal, can’t say I’m surprised, and this was a lot more complex than 7 + 4.
[…] check the full story here […]
@ Mike J,
Your “us versus them” mentality is counterproductive. You seem to think that the ONLY reason people would resort to evolution as a theory is to support and atheist agenda and “belief system”. Well, you’re wrong. It’s true that evolution etc. is used by atheists to support their non-belief in God, but that is only a byproduct of the fact that it is a scientific (ie, naturalistic) theory supported by only the non-supernatural. Science MUST ALWAYS be this way, that’s how it works. You can’t prove God in a scientific sense, and you shouldn’t want to. Proof denies faith.
I’m a Christian, as I state often, but when trying to understand the natural world I base my understanding on EVIDENCE. The evidence that the Universe (and the Earth) are billions of years old is overwhelming, I absolutely cannot understand how a scientifically literate person as you appear to be can deny evidence such as the isotope ratios of minerals (natures “elapsed time since reset” clock) and the distances that starlight must travel and the time that it takes to get here. Nature makes NO SENSE without billions of years, I can’t even imagine how I would attempt to do astronomy without this critical assumption.
I’m not a fluke either. Most of my family and friends are Christians, and most of them believe as I do that we NEED NOT FEAR the truth of nature, that we are free to make up our own minds based on the evidence, and that it does not conflict with the spirit and intent of The Bible. People don’t get mad at you because their desperate, they’re mostly just FRUSTRATED. As long as you mix your religious faith with your understanding of the natural world, you will be unable to objectively judge the arguments. Being “impervious” isn’t the same as being “right”. You have to listen and leave your preconceptions and interpretations at the door. Your posts are just as damaging to meaningful dialog as Dr. Plait’s misguided humor. You ARE allowed to believe the evidence for evolution and still be a Christian. Really.
I remember 4th Form Maths here in New Zealand. (Thats age 14 years, for those that are unfamiliar with the Form system).
Answers were provided in the back of the book, upside down, with the teacher noting that “You shouldn’t use them”. In other words we policed ourselves from cheating. You can imagine how long that lasted.
One day, while checking answers to the previous night’s homework, John (names changed to protect the guilty) asked about the answer to question 17.k, as the teacher only answered up to 17.j. Teacher and half the class erupt in laughter. John gets zero mark for the homework.
As it turns out, there was one error in the book. Question 17.k was retracted from the final version of the book. Answer 17.k remained in the answer section. If anyone asked for confirmation on 17.k, it meant they’d copied the answers without looking at the questions.
The teacher called it his most effective anti-cheating device.
Mike J, once you have absorbed the basics of science, as pointed out by the good people here at BA central, here’s your lesson for next week. You wrote
The concept of a watertight proof in mathematics is from a relatively recent date (late nineteenth century). Giants like Euler and Gauss had a somewhat cavalier attitude towards proof by today’s standards.
And then there is the issue of the interpretation of mathematics. Do mathematical concepts exist all on their own in a Platonic realm of perfect forms? This is the platonic interpretation. There are other interpretations as well, for example intuitionism and constructivism. Intuitionism renounces the idea of proof by contradiction. Since this is a widely used method in regular maths, intuitionism does not have the same theorems as regular maths.
Isn’t the real world wonderfully complex?
Uh, Mike J:
“NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN OBSERVED.. therefore you BELIEVE it!!”
Police don’t generally observe crimes being commited, so they use evidence to get the bad guys. Does this mean that forensics for example is a “belief”?
“which is why you refuse to hear the OTHER theories.”
Could you provide us with an ALTERNATE theory?
“I’d say we’ve won that battle.”
“it makes them look bad, and quite desperate actually.”
Of course, since the creationists have lost EVERY court case they’ve been involved with and they STILL try and put their nonsense into schools through illegal means, not to mention they STILL have not made a single contribution to science in any way whatsoever. WHO is looking bad? And quite desperate?
Plus, how does evolution and the Big Bang relate to atheism again, since many of your fellow Christians have no problem with it?
Carry on posting away, Mike. You do “our side” a favour by doing so - and you’ll never understand why.
mikke j on 26 Nov 2007 at 9:15 pm, you asked me, “Who brought religion into this.. i’m not telling you to follow any certain belief system..”
I now say YOU brought religion into this:
# mike jon 26 Nov 2007 at 5:47 pm said, “Well .. actually math is PROVED, i.e. not subject to an atheist or christian interpretation, and evolution is THEORY er hypothesis.. and is “believed†by those who don’t “believe†in a creator.”
See? Right there. You said it before I did. I was simply trying to tell you that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific fact, not an alternative to Adam and Eve creation. I didn’t know if you understood this fact or not.
OK, enough of the conflict. Can we just change the scientific term of “theory” to “Substantiated Theory” in an effort to get people to understand what a theory truly is in the world of science?
also, judging from some of the posts, the English language is a bigger problem. Please, please, please get a dictionary and learn the difference between “their” and “they’re” as well as “your” and “you’re”.
Remember, you can’t spell IDIOT without ID.
Got that from the Dawkins website. Thought it was pertinent.
@jotrry: Sorry for arguing, but sometimes it just so much fun!
On a related note, I don’t know why you think the scientific community should have to change its verbage to suit the uneducated. That would further exasperate the problem of dumming-down America. Why not try INCREASING our education?
@Skepterist: I will agree the arguments are a good time. Just trying to make a point. As far as the dumbing-down is concerned, however, I’ve worked with the public at large and believe me, if you don’t make things a basic as possible, without possible other meanings, you won’t get your point across. No, the scientific community should not HAVE to change (and I was being facetious), but you have to start somewhere.
Mike J. said on 26 Nov 2007 at 9:15 pm
Now its just a matter of raising awareness that the house of cards (called evolution) only need to have one or two cards removed to make it fall….
=======
Hmmm? A painstakingly built house of cards vs a single 800 year old book?
+++++++
only a few people need to look into the big bang theory to see that for evolution to be “true†the evolutionist must explain the natural causes that made the universe come into existence out of nothing… lol..
=======
an 800 year old book faces no such demand?
Mike J, I think I should also note that Evolution isn’t trying to make a declaration of “WHY” the process of evolution is taking place. It is only describing what is happening. Then, as a means of testing the validity of their observations, biologists attempt to make predictions.
Its not about solving for “Why” but simply explaining “What, Where, How, and When”.
Speaking of “Why”, why is it so important for you as a faithful believer to insist others share that belief?
> Speaking of “Whyâ€, why is it so important for you as a faithful believer to insist others share that belief?
‘Cuz he’s worried ’bout our souls, Brother, and perhaps even his own. Soul-savin’ definitely puts the shine on an otherwise undistinguished soul what’s gonna make Paradise ‘cuz a man’s gotten to know Pops through acceptin’ The Kid via the work of the Spook.
Yes, I fully know I’m going to burn in hell. If not due to Christian theology, then due to someone else’s concept of the Bad End afterlife. I therefore figure I’d best get in some choice blasphemy while doing good deeds whilst I can.
@owlbear1,
It’s not really important to your main point, but it reflects poorly on your own credibility to refer to the Bible (specifically Genesis) as an “800 year old book”. I think even the most skeptical readers will concede that it’s considerably older, on the order of 2500 to 3000 years old. In fact, I’m not aware of any parts of the modern Christian Bible that are less than 1800 or so years old, but I haven’t researched it thoroughly.
Hey Wayne,
Maybe he was referring specifically to the King James version, which was the standard Book in most parts of the US until the New Bible. The KJ Bible is probably what, 600-700 years old? I’m too lazy to look it up.
And unless you were brought up reading the original Hebrew, most people will consider the most recent version of the Bible to be the most correct. Biblically speaking, of course.
B-)
Oh Wow Wayne you sure got me.
Ok, sure if you want to make it a single 3000 year old book as your only source of information…
Wayne: I think even the most skeptical readers will concede that it’s considerably older, on the order of 2500 to 3000 years old. In fact, I’m not aware of any parts of the modern Christian Bible that are less than 1800 or so years old, but I haven’t researched it thoroughly.
This is wrong - understandable, but wrong. One of my classes this semester was a 400/500 level history class, The History of Christianity to 1500. Taking your last point first, the four gospels of the New Testament weren’t even decided upon until well after the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The first true Latin version of the bible (meaning properly and carefully translated) was the Vulgate, which was completed in the early 5th century. And the gospels of the NT weren’t “published” together, between one set of covers, until the 9th or 10th century. So take your pick, but you really can’t argue that the NT is at least 1800 years old.
Incidentally, the Vulgate was also the first bible to be translated into Latin directly from the Hebrew, rather than the Greek, bible.
Okay, when did this become a discussion of versions and translations? Assuming that we’re talking about the actual CONTENT and not the particular words or language or compilation etc., then it seems to me that the date it was written would be the “age of” the creation story. It seems silly to say I’m “wrong” when I thought I was clearly talking about authorship, but I will concede that my reference to the “modern” Bible made it more ambiguous, especially regarding the NT.
Also, please note that I’m NOT a creationist, the 800 year thing just struck me as incorrect without any qualifiers. Incidentally, people who think that KJV is THE Bible drive me nuts.
I am probably the only one posting here who has kids in the Texas public school system. One is in elementary school, one is in middle school and one is in high school. The oldest one is also in special education, but she does attend regular education classes.
First of all, as I’ve said before, that contrary to various blogger’s opinions, religion (creationism or ID) is not being taught in Texas public school science classes and none of the science textbooks contain any language suggesting that the Earth is only 6000 years old. My son is studying the solar system right now and guess what, he is being told that the solar system is 4.6 billion years old (gasp). Last year it was rock formation and guess what, he was being told that Earth rocks could be million and possibly billions of years old (gasp). Now some individual teachers may try to thrust their beliefs on their students, but as school policy, evolution is the only subject taught in Texas.
With regard to the math textbooks. First of all, it is 164 books and online materials, not just books. Second, in my school district, in addition to Spanish, materials are also available in Urdu and Vietnamese, so I see big possibilities for translation errors. There are also materials for special education students too. My son’s math textbook is approximately 925 pages longs and with 666 errors per book, that equates to something close to seven errors every ten pages. As a reviewer of articles for technical journals, I consider that to be well within a normal number of errors.
> As a reviewer of articles for technical journals, I consider that to be well within a normal number of errors.
Shush. The orthodoxy of Reason Triumphant needs not your experiential logic–we are haranguing the unenlightened heathen Believers!
Wayne:
Okay, I’ll concede on the discussion of translation/version/etc versus actual content. I could probably try to debate the dating of the actual content as well, but it’s not a big issue and I’m lazy.
I didn’t read your post as meaning you’re a creationist and didn’t assume as such or anything. My apologies if I came across that way in mine.
[…] Bad Astronomy blog posted an article last November about reviewers of Texas Math books finding 109,623 errors among the books they […]
BA said: For those of you wondering about why I would mention math mistakes and creationists, you are missing the most obvious example: they think 6000 = 4.55 billion. What’s a factor of 768,000 between friends nemeses?
768,000 * 6000 = 4,608,000,000
758,000 * 6000 = 4,548,000,000
But what’s 10,000 (or even 60,000,000) between friends? Wait what was this original post about? Oh yeah, math errors.