The thing is, its only marginally worse than what high school students in typical public schools learn, which is next to nothing. They probably are taught that there is a such thing as evolution (which many probably already know), and that there's also something called natural selection. But ask any of them to make a distinction between the two. Or to discuss specific ways in which evolution occurs. They will fail, and its not their fault (completely, anyway). High school biology books intentionally avoid "controversy" by shying away from the most important concept in biology. Instead of teaching about evolution and then branching into every other biology subtopic from there, they threat it as if its just one of many topics that should be covered, on par with, say, naming the organ systems of the body. There isn't another analogy in any other science that I know of. It would be like treating the periodic table as just on component among many in chemistry, or pretending that that laws of motion are a small piece of the classical mechanics curriculum. We can all sit in judgement of the backward and silly ways evolution is treated in podunk Louisiana, but those in glass houses...
I think what infuriates me the most about this is how they twist the facts about evolution. Examples: "Fossils do not always follow the patterns evolutionists expect." The patterns follow exactly what would be expected if life evolved. As Richard Dawkins famously said "There are no fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, if there were we would have to rethink how life evolved." "Earth is millions of years old." It is billions. That is not a minor distinction. "Man is the highest level animal" No evolutionary scientist would that statement. That is a notion from a school of Aristotelean philosophy and was adopted by the church. If you study evolution you realize that there is no such thing as a "highest level animal". Animals are all uniquely adapted to their own environment. Humans may be unique for their level of intelligence and ability to accumulate cultural information over generations, but we are not the best at everything. Two final points: It's ridiculous that they frame the discussion as an evolution vs. creationism discussion as if there were a discussion to be had. Climate change deniers do the same thing. It's also ridiculous that "God's word" is sufficient proof for "man" and dinosaurs co-existing. Nice find easynow
It makes me a bit sick to my stomach. The Creationism doesn't bother me, but the characterization of 'evolutionists', and then misrepresentation of what an 'evolutionist' might even believe is pretty awful. But I noticed that these are 'State Sponsored Schools', and not public schools. I'm not sure how the funding works in Louisiana. It's possible that these are charter schools getting funding that would have gone to a public school for the pupil. Not that it's much better, but it might be less widespread.
I dislike the very term "evolutionist." In the context in which it's used, the -ist suffix connotes a sense in which evolution (the preceding term) is some unproven or unverifiable concept which may or may not be believed. An -ist suffix itself is innocuous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ist) but by and large we only see the term 'evolutionist' presented in contrast to 'creationist' as if they are diametrically opposed. In reality any scientist studying evolution would be properly termed an evolutionary biologist or something similar. Such wordplay is just another attempt by religious nuts to drag science down to their level so they can refute what they view as challenging their religion. Science and religion are the proverbial apples and oranges, and should be treated as such. There's no reason religion can't accommodate scientific facts, as long as the religious are flexible enough to allow it. If someone isn't flexible in that regard, it signifies they aren't a thinker, which in turns shows that they have no business discussing scientific matters at all. I know that sounds harsh, but the older I get, the less I am concerned with improving my own life and more concerned with what world I will ultimately leave behind for others. Isaac Asimov famously said, "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" People who lack the ability to think rationally and who espouse disdain of scientific facts shouldn't be allowed any sway over educational and scientific endeavors.
IMHO this is what separates the boys from the men (or girls from the women, as the case may be.)I know that sounds harsh, but the older I get, the less I am concerned with improving my own life and more concerned with what world I will ultimately leave behind for others.