When a new version of the Scholastic Aptitude Test goes into effect this month, students attending schools in districts that have phased out the teaching of evolution will no longer be forced to answer questions about the controversial theory. Instead, they'll be tested on their knowledge about the six days in which God created the earth and the great flood that took place 4,300 years ago.
New version of test to be administered in 'red' states of Georgia, Kansas
By Cole Walters, Education Correspondent
NEW YORK, NY—When a new version of the Scholastic Aptitude Test, or SAT, goes into effect this month, students who live in school districts where creationism rather than evolution is taught in science classes will no longer be forced to answer questions about the controversial theory. Instead, officials from the College Board, the nonprofit entity that administers the SAT, have announced that those students will be tested on their knowledge about the six days in which God created the earth and the great flood that took place 4,300 years ago.
Students who take the revised test, to be introduced in school districts in Kansas and Georgia this month, will no longer be tested on their ability to comprehend passages from scientific texts that are based on the disputed theory of evolution. Instead, they will read excerpts from writings on such creation-related topics as the six days in which God created the earth or the great flood, then answer a series of questions to indicate how well they've understood the passages. (Click image, left, to view questions; or download PDF.)
The revision, says College Board spokesman Lester McCue, is a reflection of the changing nature of science content being taught in high schools around the country. "The SAT has to keep up with these changes or risk being left behind. We can't test kids on material that they are not being taught," says McCue. "In the past, we've evaluated students' ability to comprehend passages about historical scientific events, and while we'll continue to do that, the test now assumes that the world is 6,000 years old as opposed to hundreds of millions of years old."
On the eighth day, testIn the aftermath of the election, proponents of science education based on creationism rather than evolution have made headway in school districts across the country. In Kansas, conservatives who want to challenge the teaching of evolution now represent a majority on the state school board. They are expected to change the state science curriculum as early as the spring; the new version of the SAT will be introduced in Kansas soon after that.
In Georgia, school district officials in Cobb County are under fire for placing "just a theory" stickers on the covers of high-school science books that contain information on the theory of evolution. A US district court recently ordered the district to remove the stickers that called evolution "a theory, not a fact" from science textbooks. Administrators in that district have already approved the use of the modified SAT test.
Testing students on the Truth
"This is exactly what we've been fighting for," says parent Marla DeVries, who has been working with other Cobb County parents to replace atheistic science education in the schools with an approach that credits the role of the Creator. "It doesn't make sense for our kids to have to be tested on something that they don't believe. Would you have them read a passage and answer questions about Santa Claus? I don't think so."
In recent surveys, a majority of Americans indicated that they favor teaching a variety of explanations of human origins and evolution in schools. According to an ABC news poll taken early last year, 61% of Americans believe that the Bible's book of Genesis is "literally true" rather than a story meant as a "lesson."
Do you think that the SAT should eliminate all science-related test questions? Talk back to [email protected]
i love to write SAT
Posted by: ama oduraa kumah | May 30, 2008 at 01:06 PM
This article is 100% wrong. If you in fact check any of the so called facts regarding the SAT or any changes that took place, you will notice that there is absolutely nothing of sort happening. Also, SAT is an international test, and is not limited to US soil only. It would make absolutely no sense to make such changes. If you get your info and/or news from this site, maybe you should try somewhere else. I hate bush just as much as the other guy, and i think that intelligent design is a bunch of nonsense, but spreading false rumors is just as dangerous. There is also no one named Lester McCue working for the College Board to begin with. All this info is easily accessible, all you need to do is call that organization, and they will gladly answer any questions that you may have regarding the exam itself. This is straight bull.
Posted by: Nonsenseseeker | August 30, 2006 at 11:46 AM
I don't understand this at all, this situation is just like the bible - full of contradictions. The argument is made that students should not be tested on something that they do not believe in. What about any Muslim or Hindu (to name a few) students who study in these states? They certainly don't believe in the controversial Christian theory of creationism. Should there be a test designed for every denomination? Or should the religious right accept the archeaological evidence of humans living well before 4000 years ago - what about anthropologists who have discovered hominids? And the majority of geologists who agree that the earth is 4 billion years old (giver or take a few millenia), what of them?
I've heard the argument that Carbon Dating can be affected by the specimens being burnt and that all fossils have been manipulated to support Darwinism. Do you really think that every single fragment of bone ever left by every living thing has been exposed to fire? If you do, you are not faithful, you are just unrealistic.
I'm not an athiest, and infact, the complexity of our world - it's age, its history, its evolution, have convinced me of a god, a mastermind behind these patterns which humans could never engineer or even fathom. Isaac Newton felt the same way - do you believe in gravity -its a scientificly proven fact and I don't see any states contesting this law on the physics exam.
Posted by: Miss Anrias | September 25, 2005 at 03:23 PM
Idiot's scientist can't call evolution a law because it does not meet their criteria for a law. Biology, chemistry, geology, genetics and anthoplogy must all agree.
That's the part where you give the evidence that you are so arrogant about.
They must be worried about the origin of life because curing the common cold or cancer (or proving that cigarettes cause cancer! ), curing aids or proving global warming is caused by man are all too difficult.
You sound just as scared as they are.
Posted by: Dennis Johnson | May 26, 2005 at 05:20 AM
Reading this, and living in Texas, I did have to go to the SAT site to see if it was true. Happily, it was not. Sadly, it could have been.
Equally sad though is the reference by a commentator to the "Meshaf Resh" which is used to discredit religion. As to the specific beliefs of the Yezidi I am ignorant, but the "Meshaf Resh", like the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", is well known to religious scholars as a malicious forgery (http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1340/pg1/)
I will not say that religious questions should not appear on the SAT - given the huge influence of religion upon our history – they should; but, it will be tragic if facts which are not in accord with the Abrahamic religious texts are suppressed. As tragic as the currently fomented idiocy to post the Ten Commandments in US courtrooms as they are, incorrectly, alleged to be the basis of our laws. The first question, of course, is which 10C to post!
Our world works better when PI equals 3.14... , than it would with the demonstrably incorrect value of PI given in the Old Testament. Likewise our science, and our laws, are better when not made handmaidens to ancient, and often savage, belief.
I encourage anyone who values the principles of the Enlightenment to visit the Freedom From Religion site at http://ffrf.org/
Posted by: Nereid | March 12, 2005 at 12:00 PM
"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man INSTINCTS! He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, His own private cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste! Taste, don't swallow. HA! ha! ha! And when you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, f*ckin' ass off. He's a tight-ass! He's a sadist! He's an absentee landlord. Worship THAT? NEVER!"
Posted by: DadBurnedMe | March 06, 2005 at 12:56 PM
Man, this is some excellent satire! It didn't even occur to me that it was a joke until I started reading the comments. I have to take offense at being called a moron, but I can certainly see your point. The thing is, reality is getting really weird. And I just didn't see any reason to doubt it. (It's been awhile since I took the SAT. I forgot it only has verbal and math. But it has reading comprehension sections, doesn't it? There could, conceivably, be a reading comprehension section about evolution that gave the lying creationists a hissy fit, right? And they forced the SAT people to change it to a section on creationism, right? I admit, I made up this rationalization AFTER I discovered I had been fooled, but lame rationalizations are a big part of the New Politics.)
Thanks for the laughs. I'll try to stop being such a moron.
Posted by: Hoosier X | March 04, 2005 at 02:33 PM
When referring to the actions of any religious group, please give the name of the denomination. It is unfair to tar Christians in general with the actions of one or two denominations. And conversely, denominations use this technique to give wider credence to views held only by one creed.
If I haven't spelled "denominations" right, the content of this comment is irrelevant. If I have mispelled "irrelevant", please regard this comment as relevant. Heck, it's all relative, anyway. Which brings us to the question (you might even say it "begs" the question), What denomination do your relatives belong to (or, conversely, to what denominations do your relatives belong), and is it relevant, or relavent?
And wHY DOES MY COMPUTER GET STUCK ON ALL CAPITALS (or capitols) sOMETIMES?
Let's answer those relavent, or relevant questions, before we theorise about evolution.
After all, you can't say "evolution" without saying "evol"! Or almost saying "revolution"!
And you nose I didn't pick my relatives.
Posted by: Derbig Mooser | December 26, 2004 at 02:57 PM
I see that, despite having pointed out that this is an obvious joke (which contributors here should have realized at once on their own), it is still being used by blathering morons as an excuse to launch into vacuous diatribes. Quite frankly, I am more worried about you rubes than YECs.
Posted by: Robert O'Brien | December 20, 2004 at 05:03 PM
It's hard to see so many intelligent people respond so desperately to this false issue; we all know there is a difference in the study of science and the study of religion.
This is about power, don't waste your energy responding to this fake argument. Nobody can make you believe these stupid things. We have a very smart,well educated middle class: if Bush wants to push this fundamentalist "opiate" on us he's going to have a really hard time doing it. We aren't illiterate peons and an opiate's not for us. We couldn't buy it if we wanted to.
Bush and his unscrupulous and unprincipled corporate cronies want to use the religious right like guard dogs to control the rest of us while they skim off our money and do exactly as they please. They won't worry about whether God created the world in six days- they'll just worry about how to spend our money! They won't worry about adultery or any other "sin", they'll just do it if they want to. They don't believe this fundamentalist stuff any more than we do, but they do believe in using fundamentalists to control us. And they believe constant war will control us. We should get busy showing these fundamentalists that their holy emperor is really not very holy, and he's really not on their side. He's laughing at them, he thinks they're fools.
We should also get busy trying to get a revote. Bush will always cheat, always take the elections. If we can't re-establish the rule of law by actually holding Bush accountable under law, then our laws will have lost their meaning at the highest level. If he knew of the fraud, he committed treason.
Posted by: Kim Anderson | December 20, 2004 at 01:09 AM
Good satire.
Good replies too.
The earth is old, so is mankind. Further, we are well over the 6000 year old mark with the recent discoveries of sunken cities off the west and south coasts of India, and increasing proof that the Reg Veda is at least 10000 years old!
We live in a time of denial. All we need to ask is how much longer will we endure the inane denials?
Posted by: boilerman10 | December 19, 2004 at 05:57 PM
Forget carbon dating, try potassium argon, uranium-thorium, and some long-term dating. If these dingbats weren't so entertaining to the elite conservative media I don't think they would get any attention. Give some of these people a week and they would put the books of Fred and Barney into the bible, or at least tell you why the Catholic/Illuminati/Jews/ Masons took them out entirely or excised them from the Apocrypha-The Girls gone wild section of outlaw biblical text.
Posted by: Erik D. Hilsinger | December 19, 2004 at 05:11 PM
What are they going to be teaching next in school? That the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun rotates around us, because God created it? Evolution is not an opinion, it is fact. If a family wants to raise children to believe that the Earth actually was created in 7 days then by all means, do so. But children should at least be able to learn about evolution and then make an educated decision by themselves, without having an opinion crammed down their throats by their parents. If they have so much faith in thier beliefs then what are they afraid of if thier children look at all the options. Some religious people have such a hard time acepting science instead of looking at all the technology our Creator has given us to beter understand our environment.
Posted by: Disgusted student | December 18, 2004 at 11:18 PM
What an ignorant and embarrassing country we've become. The damage that the Bush Administration has trickled down to the mindless minions has set in motion an excuse to set aside a millennium of understanding that we're not at the center of the Universe. If there's anything in history that is to be learned is that organized religion will go to any extremes to stifle science while protecting its foundation built on a very arrogant house of cards. Yet, we're forced to cast aside all this progression of knowledge to provide dumb and ignorant people an excuse to remain dumb and ignorant while catering to their insecurities. There are recorded periods of history such as the dark ages where the human race has literally stood still on common sense and enlightenment . All the signs point towards this as being the direction we are heading in. The powers that be in this country have made it perfectly clear that they don't encourage an egalitarian approach to life and self interest is controlling the helm, therefore making an embarassment out of the SAT's is just another reminder that we're heading down the path towards devolution, not evolution.
Posted by: LTM | December 18, 2004 at 05:29 PM
Hello,
I agree that evolution should be taken out of teaching. Every single bit of theory that there was has been disproved by science. If the theory of evolution was true someone would have found a viable link between man and monkey, you don't evolve overnight and the process would have taken thousands of years. Ancient artifacts are found on a daily basis thousands of years old and there is no in between. A pit bull and a cocker spaniel are the same species they just look different, however there is no link between man and monkey. Even the smartest scientists like the two guys that discovered DNA believed in evolution until they found no evidence. One of them even converted to christianity. Most people who believe in God don't need evidence. Though there is a lot of it.
I am a christian and I did not vote for BUSH.
-It makes me sick to my stomach how he uses christianity for his own personal gain, but it is more disturbing that the majority of christians believe in him. That is why relion gets a bad rap, but it is not everyone.
Posted by: impose the truth | December 18, 2004 at 10:41 AM
Very well done satire. The one comment I'd make is this: it's been a good fifteen years since I took the SAT, so they may have changed it radically in that time, but...well, the SAT is math and verbal. Not science. There are no questions about evolution, obviating questions about creation. The verbal section has always contained passages of fiction -- reading comprehension doesn't depend on whether or not the reader believes the passage.
As long as your target audience completely forgets about that particular facet of the SAT, this is perfectly believable and very well done.
Posted by: Highly Amused | December 18, 2004 at 10:26 AM
Please, please post the original source information.
If this is real, the usefulness of college exams is relegated to getting into the religious colleges. Why would any institution of real higher learning bother with students who score well on these questions?
Posted by: EmlonFabulon | December 18, 2004 at 10:25 AM
Wonderful satire. Evolution is, of course, a factual,natural process. One need only look at the various strains of drug-resistant bacteria for proof. The only thing theoretical about Darwin's theeory of evolution is the process by which it occurs; natural selection. Nobody explained it better than the late, great Stephen Jay Gould.
Posted by: Brian B | December 18, 2004 at 07:30 AM
Science isn't perfect, neither is religion. Science has been hideously wrong in the past, and will continue to make mistakes in the future. Those who get up and wave a science textbook around saying 'someone found out that the world's 4 billion years old' is taking it purely on faith that a/ they are being honest and b/ they got the right answer.
These are exactly the same assumptions any follower of a religion has with the Bible, Qu'ran (Koran) and so on. Lay off the 'holier than thou, I have a faith that can be proven, by someone much smarter than I who just read an article in New Scientist'.
This article may be a joke, pointing out that blind faith in religion shouldn't restrict science. Perhaps the reverse should also be considered, that a blind faith in science can be just as dangerous.
Posted by: Rob | December 18, 2004 at 05:56 AM
Science isn't perfect, neither is religion. Science has been hideously wrong in the past, and will continue to make mistakes in the future. Those who get up and wave a science textbook around saying 'someone found out that the world's 4 billion years old' is taking it purely on faith that a/ they are being honest and b/ they got the right answer.
These are exactly the same assumptions any follower of a religion has with the Bible, Qu'ran (Koran) and so on. Lay off the 'holier than thou, I have a faith that can be proven, by someone much smarter than I who just read an article in New Scientist'.
This article may be a joke, pointing out that blind faith in religion shouldn't restrict science. Perhaps the reverse should also be considered, that a blind faith in science can be just as dangerous.
Posted by: Rob | December 18, 2004 at 05:53 AM
Is this some kind of a joke? There is no evidence or proof that there is any existence of any deity whatsoever. And we have carbon dating for showing how old life is.
Posted by: Robin | December 18, 2004 at 05:38 AM
The scariest thing about this kind of article is that it is _very_ hard to discern satire from reality when dealing with the USA nowadays. Many would believe and not just the out of naivete , what does that say?? What does that say?
Posted by: tim | December 18, 2004 at 04:25 AM
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side." - Aristotle
Fundamentalism isn't about religion. It's about power.
- Salman Rushdie
"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."
- Adolph Hitler, speech to the Reichstag, 1936
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pg. 46
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job."
- George W. Bush, Lancaster County, July 2004
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."
-George W. Bush
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2004/11/theocracy-watch.html
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Theocracy Watch, a site which will become more and more important as the conspiracy to turn the United States into the land of fruitcakes continues over the next four years and beyond). The recent crooked election with its nut-controlled computer voting machine companies is just a small part of the conspiracy. When you see seemingly independent actions across the United States to promote creationism, remove the separation of church and state, applaud the genocidal policies of the State of Israel, and attack human rights, including reproductive rights and rights for homosexuals, you have to realize that much of this is centrally organized and funded by a not-so-vast, but very committed and very well funded, extreme right-wing conspiracy. This particular conspiracy is probably the most important and most dangerous one in the United States, and, due to the fact that it is violently colonialist and militaristic in its pursuit of a Christian empire, the world. Americans now face the very real danger of having the country turned into a religious-fascist dictatorship right under their noses.
Read: "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood to get a fictional prediction of what these people intend to do.
Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people
regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal
from you and understand why you would propose and support
a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.
As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based
between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with
as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind
them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some
other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased
from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that
this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what
do you think would be a fair price for her? (I'm
pretty sure she's a virgin).
3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord -
Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim
the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be
put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself,
or should I ask the police to do it? How can I help
you here?
5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a
lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't
agree. Can you settle this? Aren't there 'degrees' of
abomination?
6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the
altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to
admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to
be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though
this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of
a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play
football if I wear gloves?
9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as
does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it
really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting
the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private
family affair, like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and
thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters,
so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.
Posted by: Mark (not the gospel) | December 18, 2004 at 02:27 AM
The Bible must be understood as God's word, but it must be remembered that there are two kinds of truth within the Bible: Literal truth, and SPIRITUAL truth. Literal truth is what we know to be MATERIAL, and spiritual truth is derived from understanding the symbolic value of many passages and chapters. Not all of Scripture CAN be taken literally, just as not all CAN be taken figuratively. Those who are either die-hard SKEPTICS or die-hard FUNDAMENTALISTS miss the point of Scripture entirely. Jesus tells us in John 6:63, "My words are SPIRIT", meaning that they must be understood in a mostly figurative fashion. In other words, the Bible must be read IN THE SPIRIT, not by earthly, carnal eyes.
Posted by: Ben | December 18, 2004 at 12:15 AM
I beleived this article when I first saw it. That's what's so scary, that I had no reason NOT to beleive it. Then I read the first comment. Randy's attitude is just as much a danger to society as the fundementalist dominion view, primarily because it allows the fundies credibility and gives them a foot in the door. Allowing religion to take a position side-by-side with science and reason is a huge mistake that will allow them to take over. That is precisely what is happening now. Keep them in their churches where they belong and DO NOT let them bring their hate outside.
Posted by: Keith | December 17, 2004 at 10:28 PM