Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

reply to post by Xtrozero


Are you kidding? The theory of evolution affects everything in the field of biology, from medicines to food. If fewer people learned about it, society would clearly suffer.

reply to post by harvib


False historical facts have occasionally done that, but teaching kids nonsense in science classes will repeatedly, and frequently screw up society.

reply to post by harvib


Start a law suit against the body issuing the curriculum. It's not as if that's a relatively-unknown process.

reply to post by davesidious

False historical facts have occasionally done that, but teaching kids nonsense in science classes will repeatedly, and frequently screw up society.

So we can agree that it is ill advised to allow our children to be taught falsehoods. Now who has more of a motive to teach falsehoods the parents or a corporate Government. Futhermore if we concede we must protect children through Government from bad parenting are we to leave any legal remedy or recourse for the parents for bad Governing?

Start a law suit against the body issuing the curriculum. It's not as if that's a relatively-unknown process.

A law suit only holds merit if you are entitled to legal remedy or recourse. Yet most of you arguing against my position seem to wish to give unchecked authority to another. You seem not to care that what you support offers no legal remedy or recourse. You and others have continually indicated a lack of concern over a Government that wishes to have unchecked ability to create it's own curriculum. You seem to lack concern that there is no legislation that ensures that such curriculum is created by true experts.

Furthermore, some of you are actually arguing against the first amendment saying that it is dangerous. Stating that parents should not only be forced to teach certain "curriculum" but should be forced to not teach their own beliefs.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I am not going to answer all that dodge, weave and ask silly ness.
I may put you on ignore like davey boy. You also seem more agenda driven than sensible too.
At least try some simplicity when it comes to evolution. It is so simple a kid can get it right?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

That's because electronics isn't in the field of biology. Although today many different fields incorporate lessons learned from evolution. One example would be genetic algorithms used in computer programming. As time goes on the importance and application of evolution grows, until soon it will be almost impossible to get a decent job without knowing at least the basics of evolution.

This is fine but to champion evolution over all the other un taught disciplines
is ridiculous to me. unless you subscribe to this---
Here is the crux of how the teaching of evolution has been miss used in the past.

Hitler,Lenin,Stalin,Mao...
Firmly convinced that evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern .... It further symbolized the core of Marx's Communism which Lenin set about ...

www.fixedearth.com/hlsm.html - Similar

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Evolution is the underpinning of all of biology. Those other theories are not required to be taught because while important, they are ancillary to the fields of science in which they reside, and has been pointed out to you require a much greater scientific knowledge before being possible to understand. Evolution is a very simple theory, which everyone can understand.

Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao did not use evolution. Their selection was decidedly unnatural, not natural. Your assertion is one commonly trotted out by science-denialists. It is untrue.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

I am not going to answer all that dodge, weave and ask silly ness.
I may put you on ignore like davey boy. You also seem more agenda driven than sensible too.
At least try some simplicity when it comes to evolution. It is so simple a kid can get it right?

Dodge and weave? I answered your points directly, it is odd you talk of dodging and weaving when all you do is ignore questions put to you and then go on ad hom attacks. I am getting tired of clearly responding to your points only to have my own completely ignored.

This is an incredibly rude thing to do.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Alxandro

 

Because those kids have had their education wasted, and by the time they want to go to college (to not study biology), they need years of further education to undo the mess their parents inflicted on them.

Child abuse.

Quite a PC explanation but nonetheless extremely weak.
Which prooves my point even further, because if they want to "waste" their education, it's their problem.

If and when they finally get to College, you won't be the one paying for their edumacation, so again
...what's the big deal?

reply to post by Donny 4 million


You are talking of eugenics, which is separate from evolution. It is an artificial selection, as opposed to natural selection and is not a part of the modern evolution theory. Not only that all of the people you mentioned misinterpreted Galton's research to support their own agendas. So, I fail to see how that damns evolution, especially considering that every part of the modern theory of evolution has been supported by scientific study and empirical observation.

reply to post by Alxandro


PC? Hardly. A good education is not politically correct. How is it PC?

The kids don't choose to be mis-educated. The parents choose to mis-educate their kids. That is my point.

And how will I suffer if the world has a number of people rattling around in it who can't tell the difference between a fairy story and scientific fact? You need me to spell that out for you? Civilisation depends on the people that constitute it. If we allow various sections to retard themselves, then civilisation, and everyone in it, hurts.

The world does not end at your front door or at your wallet. Every day each person you interact with, and the scores more you don't, directly affects your life.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


One question at a time is fine with me. As I tried nicely to explain to you.
You must realize that you complain about how things get to confusing to understand. Slow down a little double check what I say and what you say and we should get along just fine. Let dave sling the ignorant crap.
I don't want to hear it (see it). Evolution is for kids remember?
Thank you

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

You are talking of eugenics, which is separate from evolution. It is an artificial selection, as opposed to natural selection and is not a part of the modern evolution theory. Not only that all of the people you mentioned misinterpreted Galton's research to support their own agendas. So, I fail to see how that damns evolution, especially considering that every part of the modern theory of evolution has been supported by scientific study and empirical observation.

Tell us how you seperate it.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Eugenics is focused on selective breeding in order to "improve" a gene pool. This is an artificial form of selection, not natural, thus it is not true evolution. Much in the same way that selective breeding in dogs is not true evolution. Furthermore, the basis of Galton's theory of eugenics was that since physical characteristics were heritable that intelligence would be as well. However, there are a lot of confounds in studying something as indefinable as intelligence. Even today we lack a satisfactory definition of intelligence. Also, as intelligence isn't really an observable trait all one can ever do in studying it is to correlation studies, which cannot be used to determine the trait's cause. Therefore, it cannot be adopted into a theory based on empirical research.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Eugenics is focused on selective breeding in order to "improve" a gene pool. This is an artificial form of selection, not natural, thus it is not true evolution. Much in the same way that selective breeding in dogs is not true evolution. Furthermore, the basis of Galton's theory of eugenics was that since physical characteristics were heritable that intelligence would be as well. However, there are a lot of confounds in studying something as indefinable as intelligence. Even today we lack a satisfactory definition of intelligence. Also, as intelligence isn't really an observable trait all one can ever do in studying it is to correlation studies, which cannot be used to determine the trait's cause. Therefore, it cannot be adopted into a theory based on empirical research.

So how the heck is a school kid going to figure out exactly what he or she might be, being taught? A eight year old.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Because their teachers will teach them evolution. Which doesn't include mass-murder, even though you seem to think it does.

reply to post by randyvs


you've lost your damn mind if your gonna beleiv those coincedences mull over this

The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.

“And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night....’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).

-evilbible.com

e

Originally posted by ashanu90
reply to post by randyvs

 

you've lost your damn mind if your gonna beleiv those coincedences mull over this

The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.

“And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night....’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).

-evilbible.com

These are Hebrew texts. Why do you type Christian?
Do you have any idea what you are on about?
Are you anti-semetic?

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Angus123

 

Even the home-schooled have to learn a specific curriculum.

I think filling the heads of children with abject nonsense is very dangerous to the child in particular, and society in general. Surely we want intelligent kids with all the facts, not just drones wandering around regurgitating the nonsense spoon-fed by their religious parents.

I couldn't agree more man. My oldest niece whom I love with all my heart was home schooled by her mother after she divorced my brother.
They moved to a Southern state because her mom actually told her God loves people more down there.

I so wish that was a joke but it's true.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


yes i realize that it is from the torah however it is the basis of christianity understand now?

reply to post by ashanu90


also just because i point out holes in the torah doesnt make me anti semetic

just because i dont like one black guy doesnt make me a white supremist

just because i say something bad about something doesnt make me anti this or that

why would you ask if im an anti semite?
also theres a forum on ats that says jews arent semite look it up