We’re back to Science of the Physical Creation’s chemistry section, which has proved to be a series of warm desert islands devoid of nonsense, where we bask in delightful rays of pure science, only to suddenly find ourselves mired in stinky bogs of creationist crap. The pattern is not to be broken in this edition.

We shall pass lightly over the pages explaining the rate and types of chemical reactions, which contain only one forlorn attempt to wedge God in:

Your own body has thousands of different types of catalysts called enzymes that God designed to regulate chemical processes in the human body.

Okay, Sparky. Whatever you need to tell yourself in order to get the science down the hatch. I know you SPC writers are getting desperate, though. Mindless, automatic chemical processes don’t lend a lot of support to the idea of a God who cares about you sooo very much that he’ll send you to Hell for not believing in him properly, and/or for playing with with your naughty bits.

Salts, Acids, and Bases are dealt with without recourse to a deity. Electrochemical reactions, anodes and cathodes, and batteries merit no mention of the Lord. I am disappoint. You know the ACE people would have found a way to work God in there.

The SPC writers even make it through a long discussion of organic chemistry without mentioning God. Of course, they also carefully avoid mentioning that we’ve found organic molecules in space, and I can’t help feeling they’re afraid to mention that molecules containing carbon aren’t unique to Earth.

But then we get to biochemistry. And of course they lose all sense of self-control. They begin by breathlessly quoting Psalm 139:14. After an introduction that admits that cells operate on ordinary chemical reactions despite how complex they seem, the authors have to finish by burbling about how biochemistry “reveals the marvelous mind of our Creator at every turn.”

Uh-huh. Sure. You know, considering bacteria dramatically outnumber every person on this planet, I’ve got a few suspicious about the mind of this creator of theirs.

After all that gushing, they go a long time not mentioning God. They talk about carbohydrates, and lipids, and proteins, and only at the end of several pages of this do they tack on a pathetic “God designed cells to operate very efficiently.” There’s also a tiny nod to creationism in the info box about the enzyme papain, when they say it’s “designed” for cutting protein molecules. All very weak tea.

They they’re on to DNA, and they start raising that creationist flag high. In their 5-point list of things DNA does, they say

5. It controls heredity (the passing of traits from one generation to another), ensuring that all living things reproduce after their kind.

Those of you not completely familiar with creationist crap might have missed the dog whistle, but “kinds” are a creationist concept, arising from Genesis and all its blather about God creating thus-and-so after their own kind.

Then they hit us with another dog whistle: “DNA is a marvel of precision and design…”

Ah, yes. Such precision. Much design. Wow.

After a basic explanation of what DNA is and how it works, we arrive at the info box for “Mutations and Evolution,” which is a full page of creationist pablum. It contains such gems as:

God designed several mechanisms to ensure that DNA is copied correctly. Due to the curse of sin upon creation, however, these mechanisms occasionally make mistakes.

Of course. The old creationist cop-out: God isn’t a shitty designer! He designed everything perfectly! It’s just that this chick and her hubby ate some fruit off the wrong tree and God got all pissed and broke everything, which is why babies die of horrific genetic errors! Brilliant. This is obviously such a better explanation than “Shit breaks because natural processes can’t plan ahead.”

They go on to emphasize How Terrible errors in replication are because in Creationist Land, there can be no beneficial mutations. They can’t conceive of the idea that a mutation that disables a gene, or can cause certain genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia, can actually confer a survival advantage (like making a person resistant to HIV or malaria). They ignore the fact that evolution is a numbers game: some mutations will do unexpected good things, conferring some small benefit, and those benefits accrue over time in the lineages that are winning the genetic lottery.

The of course harp on the Second Law of Thermodynamics again, to which I say “Not a closed system, asshats!” They bleat about random processes, to which I yell, “Natural selection, damn it!”

They try to talk about “taking a well-written essay and randomly scrambling letters to see if it improves the writing style,” which is a slick but invalid way to demonstrate the principles of mutation and selection. No, if you were being honest, you’d take thousands of copies of each essay, make random but small changes to the punctuation, spelling, word order, etc. (but no more than, say, 3 changes per essay), then have them graded by distracted professors. Toss out all but a tiny number of the Ds and Fs, keep most of the Cs and aboves. Make multiple copies of the survivors. Separate some of them into isolated groups. Repeat billions of times. Eventually, you’ll end up with whole populations of excellent essays, and good enough essays, and a few that survive a first or second reading but would get tossed out on a fourth. You’d have a few essays that look like new and improved versions of the ancestor. You’d have entire sets of essays that bear little resemblance to it, but are solid in their own right. And you’d have a few that look completely different, yet read very well.

That’s more like evolution, people. And I’m still simplifying the shit out of it.

They go on to point to all sorts of terrible diseases to prove that mutations are never good, but fail to point out the mutant people and pets who are blessed with beneficial mutations. Then they pretend the science of evolution isn’t validated by countless experiments. Then they pretend they’ve won. So sadly typical. Creationists have to cheat. Otherwise, they can’t win.

The section on chemistry ends with a brief bit about metabolism, which has a sentence stuck in to make it look all designed and not a result of mindless natural processes: “However, God wisely designed the human body to trap this ‘waste’ heat in order to maintain its temperature near 98.6°F…” See, God loves us mammals, but doesn’t give a fuck about reptiles and shit.

And that’s it for chemistry according to creationists. Next, we’ll see what the SPC folks have got to say about physics. It should be a scream.

What could be worse than ACE, amirite? After that fuckery, BJU’s Earth Science Fourth Edition will be a breath of fresh air. I mean, A Beka’s Science of the Physical Creation wasn’t unmitigated horror, and Bob Jones University’s history books aren’t as frothing fundie as them, so this might not be utterly awful. One may even begin to believe this can be got through without undue damage to the liver.

Until we open to the first chapter.

And begin to wonder if the products of one vineyard will be enough. Continue reading “(Repost) Adventures in Christianist Earth Science Education IIb-1: In Which I Advise You to Buy Shares in Columbia Valley Vineyards” →

Have I mentioned lately the BJU folks who wrote Earth Science 4th Edition don’t like other Christians? They really don’t. It’s obvious throughout this, erm, “science” textbook that they believe there’s only One Real Way to Christian, and everyone who doesn’t Christian that way are substandard Christians who probably aren’t Christians at all. Certainly, they’re all wrong about the Bible, because the Only True Way to read and understand it is the Bob Jones Way.

So, before they tell us How God Did It, and after they finish trashing How [they think] Secular Scientists Believe It Happened But Of Course They’re Wrong Because God Did It!, they take another swipe at Christians Who Are Wrong Because We Said So. This time, they’re sniping at framework hypothesis Christians, because seeing Genesis 1 as “a descriptive pattern or framework of creative acts” is just soooo not True Christian. I know nothing about folks who interpret Genesis 1 through this framework hypothesis thingy, but after seeing how carefully the BJU writers distorted the secular scientists’ ideas on how our solar system formed, I’m fairly comfortable saying we shouldn’t trust their description to be true an accurate in every particular.

Anyway, it seems the framework folks aren’t interested in a literal interpretation of a literary work. They look at Genesis as more of a narrative that speaks deep truths, sort of like poetry, only more meaningful. And of course it’s in a genre of its own. Meanwhile, the BJU folks treat it as an encyclopedia entry. Continue reading “Adventures in Christianist Earth Science Education XXX: Wherein A Poorly-Interpreted Bible Story is Claimed to be Science” →

The best thing about being an adult is that I get to read textbooks by choice*, something my younger self would find fairly horrifying. The other best thing is that I don’t have to read them sober.

When it comes to Christianist educational materials, it’s best to be slightly sloshed. Less painful that way. Novocaine for the brain. So, let us lift our trusty glasses of whatever aids our concentration, and find out What Science Is according to Good Christian™ Publishers.

In our A Beka Book, Science of the Physical Creation (SPC), we learn that physical science is “the systematic study of God’s physical creation and how it works.” Ah. Not even a paragraph into the book, and it’s got God all over it.

The subsequent section on mathematics as the language of science isn’t bad, and I like the clear and simple explanation of how equations work. However, comma, we then come to “Limitations of Mathematics,” which goes all on about how “people are not bound by the laws of the universe to act a certain way,” which seems kinda inappropriate in a straight-up science textbook: free will belongs in philosophy class. SPC also wants to assure us mathematics can’t “prove or disprove the existence of God.” Glad we got that cleared up. We’re then treated to several paragraphs about how scientists can make mistakes (egads, stop the presses!), are “subject to the sin of pride,” and can totes use math and data “to deceive people or distort the truth.”

Certain information may be purposely or erroneously omitted from a presentation of data, or it may be presented in a way that appears to favor the viewpoint of the one presenting it.

And after pounding on this point for a bit, they finish with this flourish: Continue reading “(Repost) Adventures in Christianist Earth Science Education IIa: In Which We Are Told About Science!” →

Well, my darlings, we’re on to Science of the Physical Creation’s “Chemistry in Action” chapter. I have got good news and bad news for you.

The good news is, this chapter has the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in it, and you know what that means! Lots of creationist fuckery. Oh, yes, we won’t be left starving in a desert of secular sensibility this time.

The bad news is, real kiddos are taught this bullshit is the truth. And with it embedded in basic chemistry facts, they’ll have a hard time sorting fact from fuckery.

We begin with only a reflexive nod to religiosity, as they state in their intro that “Studying chemical reactions helps us more clearly understand the workings of God’s physical creation.” Yes, okay, whatevs. Hey, kids: just don’t forget how much room for error and general misery God left in his supposed creation, okay? And before you go relying on the Fall to excuse him, just remember: he could have made it failsafe from the beginning. All he had to do was keep one pest out of the Garden. Or, y’know, give Eve and Adam enough knowledge and wisdom to be able to avoid temptation. The fact we had a fall in the first place is completely on God.

Right. Good talk. Let us proceed.

The first few pages of the chapter are unexceptionable: they’re a workmanlike discussion of chemical equations, balancing of same, conservation of mass, and the energy required for chemical reactions. We learn about exothermic versus endothermic reactions, which includes explaining how instant cold packs work. I liked that. See? This is why it’s so very neat to be alive in this particular age: we’ve learned how to do a bunch of really neat stuff. How did we learn? By using science. Note: we didn’t pray for instant cold packs and get the method for making them handed to us by God. We did all the work.

Not that the SPC authors will ever admit that.

Now we arrive at entropy, and, as we all know, creationists loves them their Second Law of Thermodynamics. In the main text, they don’t babble about God, but they’re very careful not to explain that the 2nd Law only refers to isolated, or closed, systems. They’re also loathe to admit that, even in a closed system, entropy can locally decrease as long as it increases elsewhere. This is a very inconvenient truth for them.

The real shenanigans start when we get to an info box entitled “Thermodynamics and the Bible.” Let us take its parts apart.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics demonstrate the agreement between science and the Bible. The first law states that although matter and energy may be freely converted into each other, neither is created or destroyed. The Bible tells us that God’s work of creation is complete and that the universe is being conserved (Gen. 2:1; Neh. 9:6).

Firstly: the Bible ain’t science. It is not a science paper, nor a science book, nor even a real true history. It’s an often-contradictory collection of myths, fables, stories, religious rules and rituals, and many outright forgeries, but it’s 100% definitely not science. Quoting it as if it settles a scientific question or claim murders your credibility deader than God killed Aaron’s sons when they messed up the incense.

Next, the 1st Law can’t be used to prove science wrong and the Bible right about the origin of the universe, because nothing in it precludes the universe from coming into being all on its own. No God is required to make a universe.

The second law of thermodynamics states that for every process, there is an overall loss of useful energy and a tendency toward greater disorder. In other words, the universe is slowly “running down.” We see evidence of this law everywhere we look: rocks and soil erode, machines wear out, and people grow old. The Bible states that the heavens and the earth are wearing out like an old garment (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Heb. 1:11-12).

We also see new rocks and soil forming, new machines being made, and new people being gestated and born. The earth receives energy inputs from the sun, you jackasses. Where is your Bible now? This is a super bad argument. You fail.

The second law of thermodynamics is the most important scientific principle showing that there had to have been an act of creation. If the universe is now “running down,” there must have been a time that it was “wound up” more than it is now. Evolutionists try to avoid the necessity of a Creator by proposing that billions of years ago, a huge explosion from nowhere (the “Big Bang”) created the universe by chance, out of nothing.

First: the fact that the universe is evolving doesn’t mean it’s “running down.” Right now, it’s expanding. Lighter elements are being forged into heavier elements in the hearts of stars. Stars eventually die. There’s less free gas for new stars to form. This might go on until the heat death of the universe, sure. Then again, the universe may stop expanding and start contracting, until all that matter and energy is compressed into a tiny singularity, causing a brand-new Big Bang and birthing a bouncing baby universe. Some models say we live in only one universe in a multiverse, with new universes being born as old ones die, and for all we know, that cycle is perpetual, with neither beginning nor ending. We don’t know yet. We’re still trying to find out.

One thing we can be pretty sure of, though, is that in our particular universe, there was indeed a Big Bang. We can even see echoes of it today.

Science told us it would be there, and there it was. We predicted this with the theory of the Big Bang. Your Bible didn’t predict it would be there. Science pwned your holy book. Again.

Of course, we know that the universe is not the product of some spontaneous explosion, but was called into existence by the words of God Himself.

You don’t know any such thing. You’re basing your “knowledge” on a book that is no more true than the Qu’ran or the Upanishads. I could point out verses of the Tao Te Ching that match observed reality better than the Bible. That doesn’t make it true in all its particulars. And none of those texts, including yours, has the explanatory and predictive power of a well-developed scientific theory.

Creationists: stop clinging to the 2nd Law. You don’t understand it, and it doesn’t support your arguments.