Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

Originally posted by marg6043

Religion was in schools, but the "issue of religion was not a problem" so tell why now has become a "problem".

You always have extremist on both sides, and so I would not paint the 99% that happen to be religious without extremist views as extremist. With 75% plus of America religious, if they were extremist too then religion would be huge part of schools with just the majority ruling, but that is not the case, is it. The small groups but loud religious extremist are people we all disagree with.

Religion really is still not a problem, but that is not the point here. The point in this debate is that a group here wants to force families in their own home to teach their children as the group sees fit, and because they are not religious they see no problem with forcing their views (kind of in a religious extremist way) on others who disagree with them. Creationism is not taught in schools, and so those that follow that belief can only teach it in their homes as they see fit. I say great let them...

Then we have this same group that insist that homeschooling in this way is somehow bad, retards the intellectual growth, delays etc the education of the poor isolated homeschooler, but just plain emperical data proves the total opposite that they decide to ignore or avoid.


Then we have this off topic offshoot discussion of forced religion in schools which homeschooling provides a non-confrontational way to have both.... so I'm not quite sure what the point is anymore hehe.

I'm not very religious, but my wife is a diehard catholic and I can tell you we do not have a poor education problem in my family, so I fail to see the connection. I truly see schools as about 80% daycare and 20% learning, and with my two boys, grades 1 and 4, they are so far ahead of their classmates I am truly sad for the other kids. As example my one son was enjoying the Harry Potter series as his classmates still struggled with Doctor Suisse.

A big part of their success was that we homeschooled them starting at the age of three with reading and spelling, numbers and writing at four , and we do homeschooling throughout the summers (learned that living in Japan for 5 years).

So my point of view on all this is I really do not care if they want to teach creationism, just the process of their personal involvement in their children will put their kids so far ahead of the typical public school grad that this whole evolution/creationism point is moot.

reply to post by Astyanax


I don't know...maybe if you Googled "dumbing down America's education" or something along those lines. I really do not want to start an off topic debate for I don't really care, but what is taught in schools today is rather different than when I went to school and even as I said 50 100 150 years ago. As you Google you can take this 8th grade exam from 1895.... good luck

This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 from Salina, Kansas. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smoky Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, Kansas and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7-10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts. per bu, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $.20 per inch?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?
10.Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, and 1865?

Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic orthography, etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e'. Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: Card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences, Cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10.Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of N.A.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fermandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers
10.Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the earth.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Interesting, but I think it all depends on when the Alcoholic DNA was established, and whether alcohol was a cause or affect. If it was established in Europe from normal DNA mutations then it would not have been in China even though alcohol was first introduced there. Once alcohol found its way to Europe it became an affect that allowed the disease to physically manifest.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Your evidence for the superiority of long-ago education is a hoax email circulated around the world, one that I and probably every other person on this thread has seen at least a dozen times already?

Here, read what Snopes has to say about that test.

Please do better than that; I'm not interested in joke responses to my posts. Not, that is, unless they're actually funny.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Here, read what Snopes has to say about that test.

I realized at some point that it helps to check snopes whenever I see a story circulating around the internet like that, it's a good source to check with.

It turns out the answer to whether kids are getting dumber or not, is not so simple, and this analysis gives some real facts. Turns out that SAT scores have "stayed the same" but they really haven't, they've gotten lower but the scores have been adjusted so they appear students haven't really gotten dumber.

So based on that at one point I thought maybe students are really getting dumber. Well, yes and no. Students entering college are, but that's not because the students are all collectively dumber but because more of the dumber students are attending college so they drag the scores down. Tarnim Ansary asks Tom Williamson about some of the issues:

www.beachbrowser.com...

I called Tom Williamson, a former president of the Psychological Corporation (one of the big three of American test publishing). "Do you think kids are getting dumber?"

"No." His answer was so emphatic and immediate--it almost preceded my question. "We always tend to complain about the achievements of the current generation and exaggerate the accomplishments of our own."

"I think both schools and kids are doing a better job than they ever have," Williamson said. "You have to take into account that classrooms are much more diverse now. With mainstreaming, you've got kids with physical and emotional problems in regular classrooms. Students who used to be excused from taking standardized achievement tests are no longer excused. If you test a broader range of kids you're going to get a slightly lower score."

His bottom line: The SAT scores can't tell you.

"Why not?"

"Because," he said, "the sample is self-selected."

In other words, students themselves decide who among them will take the SAT. There are no controls. Here's an example to illustrate the point. Suppose you go to a mall and weigh everyone who lets you. Then a month later you go back to the same mall and weigh everyone who lets you. If the numbers are higher the second time, you can't conclude that people are getting fatter. All you can conclude is that more heavy people participated the second time around.

And what was Tarnim's conclusion after doing all his research (which is more than most of us have done):

I don't know if kids are getting dumber

Neither do I. By dumber I mean not just raw intelligence but the entire product of that plus their environment, education, etc that allows them to perform well.

However, I must conclude that if we collectively as a society are teaching more of our kids that evolution didn't happen, we are making them dumber, at least the students who receive such instruction, and never figure out the truth.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

It's not your country. It's the United States of America. And as I said, I am an american citizen.

Although I don't get the question because ATS allows anyone to post on any topic even if you dislike it.


What do you mean by designation? I already told you that I have a major in history... What else do you wanna know? what my minor is in ? what kind of secondary school I visited? I already told you that I haven't been to an american school in over ten years... But I was once..

[edit on 8-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

You see here Nich how worthless posts are without the words of the quote you want to address. If you did you would know that designation was your word and you are oblivious of it.
Who cares where you used to live. If you told us where you live and work now it would give your argument much more weight. You would be viewed as one who is sincere and not hiding in some cubicle trying to shout down others freedom.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

If you don't want to use factual data to teach your children then please feel free to take them out of school and homeschool them.

Creationism is a religious idea and you have absolutely no right, at all to force it upon children who may not be religious or may hold to an entirely different faith.

Looking at the opening post of this thread i will say people can teach their children whatever they like at home and the government doesn't have a right to say what can be taught at home (as long as what is being taught is legal of course). At the same time parents have no right at all to say that children in school have to learn a non scientific theory as if it were scientific. Separation of church and state, remember?

Well said and agreed. That is the premise of my argument. I am not arguing for the merits of teaching a child "creationism". I am arguing for the merits of the parents of the child retaining all rights to that child's education. It is disturbing when individuals demand that parents have no rights over their own child's education.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Is that your non- ignorant, non-dishonest way of saying give me two steps mister and you won' t see me no more?

Ok donny if you are going to continually avoid the questions posed to you there is an easy way to fix it. Lets be clear you just asked me to debate evolution and i accepted yet you just go ad hom again.

So donny, ATS has a function whereby two people can have a formal debate, where mods rule and socratic questions are asked. I have never taken part in one but if you wish to set it up i will give it a go because that way you cannot skip around things that are asked of you. You cannot avoid questions, you cannot throw out ad hom attacks.

I leave this with you donny, i am throwing down the gauntlet, slapping you with a glove, mooning you from a bus. It's up to you. As it is now 00:18 here in the UK i'll be off to bed. I expect an official challenge in my U2U box tomorrow donny. If i don't get one then it shows you up as nothing more than a coward, with an argument that cannot be backed up by logic.

I beg you donny, start that official debate, because i'll rip you apart with facts. Creationism has never stood up to the scientific method and it will be a real pleasure to tear down one of it's proponents publicly.

I don't know if I replied to this silly post of yours here or not but it deserves special attention. The weakness of your arguement begins with the fact that you can not FIRST prove that I am a proponent of Creationism. And I will take an apology on that before more egg is planted on you mug.

reply to post by davesidious

The science curriculum? Yeah. Weird, innit?

My question was rhetorical. Scientist are not in charge of mandating what is taught in science class or any other class for that matter...

Mod Note

Please remain on-topic an civil in the discussion. Confine remarks to the topic without insulting your fellow members.

Posts containing personal insults are subject to deletion. That's a shame when the post may in fact contain some valuable input but ends up as actionable within the T&C.

Courtesy is MANDATORY. Please review.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Interesting, but I think it all depends on when the Alcoholic DNA was established, and whether alcohol was a cause or affect. If it was established in Europe from normal DNA mutations then it would not have been in China even though alcohol was first introduced there. Once alcohol found its way to Europe it became an affect that allowed the disease to physically manifest.

Yes it is interesting and I produced the results with deduction and not Harvard wallpaper.
I will post the studies that are brand new that prove the Hypostasis. It is now a theory. I hope you stick with me. The hounds are baying and the donkeys are braying.

Originally posted by harvib
Well said and agreed. That is the premise of my argument. I am not arguing for the merits of teaching a child "creationism". I am arguing for the merits of the parents of the child retaining all rights to that child's education. It is disturbing when individuals demand that parents have no rights over their own child's education.

I would agree to this, however only if we are talking about home education. A parent has no right to mandate that a non scientific theory is taught in a government run educational institution. If the parents do not like what is being taught then they have two options. The first is to debate the facts of what is being taught and to present an alternative, scientifically recognised theory. When it comes to creationism, it does not meet this standard.

The second option is to teach their children at home. I have no problem with them doing this, and i agree wholeheartedly that the government has absolutely no right to tell any parent what they can teach their child in the privacy of their own home. While i think this will hold kids back, it is not the job of the government to jump in to this situation.

So i think in essence we agree

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Interesting, but I think it all depends on when the Alcoholic DNA was established, and whether alcohol was a cause or affect. If it was established in Europe from normal DNA mutations then it would not have been in China even though alcohol was first introduced there. Once alcohol found its way to Europe it became an affect that allowed the disease to physically manifest.

Yes it is interesting and I produced the results with deduction and not Harvard wallpaper.
I will post the studies that are brand new that prove the Hypostasis. It is now a theory. I hope you stick with me. The hounds are baying and the donkeys are braying.

What do you hope to prove and how will it help in the understanding of the predilection (if not disease) of alcoholism?
I am trying to guess, why hounds and donkeys?
Are you finding alcoholics are tending toward A+ blood type? Predominantly Indians and Irish and Catholics since wine is used in the services. Seldom Jews are found to be alcoholic.

It is a malady quite often coupled with sheer obstinacy for no reason other than the sake of obstinacy. It is as if these drunks know something and cannot cope with the knowing.

Yes, this is me attaching some kind of ESP to some peoples alcoholism. I said it. Course this doesn't let everyone off the hook.
edit:
And we are so off topic I thought I was replying in the wrong thread.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by felonius


No, the two "theories" are not as good as each other. I'm sorry, but they simply aren't. One (the theory of evolution) is a scientific theory, meaning it is substantiated by actual evidence, and can be used to accurately predict outcomes. The other (creationism) is not even a hypothesis. It makes a claim that can never be proven by scientific means, and which can never be used to make a prediction.

Science does not concern itself with atheism - only what can be demonstrated. If 'x' can be spirit energy, and that can be demonstrated, science will indeed stand firmly that 'x' is spirit energy. If the answer to everything was "God did it", then science would be the staunchest supporter of it. If, though, people demand or expect science to say that 'x' is spirit energy just because they believe it is, and without evidence, then the scientific method will tell them to go take a running jump, as that's not how humanity learns. Science is not a popularity contest.

One is science, the other theology. To teach the kids that baseless guesswork can rival the standing of established scientific theories is lying to them.

Warsteiner is pretty good

reply to post by Astyanax

America's school system is, for a country so advanced and powerful (and one which spends so much per child on its schools) a disgrace.

Some say this is by design. An institution designed to ensure that children are made to be ideal employees. With a lack of focus on analytical thinking and comprehensive reading most children put through the public school system will never be able to survive outside of the corporate structure.

There was an interview I heard a few years ago with a teacher who worked as an "educator" in the public school system for over 50 years. He had won teacher of the year award several times but ended up resigning stating he could no longer knowingly damage children. I wish I could remember his name.

reply to post by Astyanax

How is it, then, that people in Britain, France, Germany and other Western European countries, in Nordic states like Sweden, in countries like South Korea where education is both closely and very successfully regulated (Koreans have among the world's best secondary-education outcomes) don't fear those dangers or suffer those consequences? In Sweden, even nursery school is compulsory. Are Swedes a bunch of Orwellian robots?

It is dangerous because if and when the oligarch in control of "educating" a specific nations children becomes corrupted or influenced then the focus is no longer on producing self sufficient, intelligent, healthy human beings but an individual that is indoctrinated into fulfilling the wishes of the oligarch.

You may state some fine examples of Nations who's educational system have not become corrupted but there are just as many and several more who's Government mandated curriculum has produced unquestioning soldiers and slaves.

Which is I disagree so strongly with this quote:

This necessary indoctrination cannot possibly be left entirely to parents.

I believe that it should only e left up to the parents because although parents may sometimes err in judgment they, in general, have the children's best interest at heart.

These are not mutually exclusive theories.

The image of God may be our brain and what makes us tick. Evolution is the path God took. What's the problem?

Why are we arguing and fighting about this while on the news nightly a child is stolen from our midst. Taken from their beds. You turn away and decide to fight over something else rather than get together and use both your and your enemy who is not your enemy's eyes to catch these culprits.

You slap at each other in town hall meetings over when life begins, whether men can marry, and if God created monkeys then us...and you go home exhausted yet swearing to fight on...

...and while you and your opponent and all your children sleep the sleep of the just a predator roams the streets searching for the lost and devouring them and tossing their wasted bodies in dumps.

You wake up afresh. It is on the news.

You can't get together and form a vigilant protective body for your own children because you fight tooth and nail day after day over inconsequential bull crap like this.

Shame full.
1800thelost

Child abduction has gone up 300% since the 80's.

You can't teach them anything if they are gone.

reply to post by rusethorcain


I have proven where US (NIH) science fails in it's approach to evolution.
You did not even see the word blood in my paper.
This is not off topic at all unless a mod or the OP says it is.
RE read the paper as you are way off base understanding it's sample and precise
points. This is science and evolution and not Christian bashing.
You will see those bashers (anti Christians) fold like wet noodles.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Most kids are taken by their parents or other family members, so there's not much we can do about it.

Also, where did you get that "300% increase" statistic?

But anyway, let's try to stay on topic, please?

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Astyanax

 

America's school system is, for a country so advanced and powerful (and one which spends so much per child on its schools) a disgrace.

Some say this is by design. An institution designed to ensure that children are made to be ideal employees. With a lack of focus on analytical thinking and comprehensive reading most children put through the public school system will never be able to survive outside of the corporate structure.

There was an interview I heard a few years ago with a teacher who worked as an "educator" in the public school system for over 50 years. He had won teacher of the year award several times but ended up resigning stating he could no longer knowingly damage children. I wish I could remember his name.

It is nice to see some light shed directly on the problem instead of a bunch of trolls and hack jumping all over folks freedom of religion.
Refreshing