Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Prove something is off topic before you in gage in name calling.
People who do that get tagged Pinocchio.
I won't call you a liar though, if you tell me something on topic sonny.
Are you saying mankind can evolve without babies? Weird.

You can call me what you like, and make what you will of my statements into the bargain. I'm here to engage in a serious conversation, not pay attention to the problem child at the back of the class. Get well soon!

You know I can't do that. There are rules you are protected by here on ATS.
This off topic rude childish post really show your knowledge of the subjects at hand.
What was it again you wanted me to teach you about them?
Creation evolution manners?

reply to post by Donny 4 million


There you go again with your "Communism" bogey man.

Science is not communism. A solid, factual eduction is not communism.

Can someone explain to me the logic behind proving the existence of a being that you believe in by faith? I never really understood that.

Back on topic:
How credible are these religious texts?

Originally posted by davesidious


There you go again with your "Communism" bogey man.

Science is not communism. A solid, factual eduction is not communism.

But if I understand all your posts you want to outlaw the teachings of any belief that is not directed by the state. Be careful of what you wish for my friend. So this means you want to force people who privately teach their children something that they do not want to. So if they don’t what then? Jail time, heavy fines, take their kids and put them in a state run school? If this is not a police state that you are suggesting then I do not know what is.

You must just understand that there are people out there who have different cultures and beliefs and living in America gives them the right to live as they want to live even if you disagree with them. There are lots of things I disagree with, but hey power to the people to live as they choose to. I for one do not want the state to dictate everything I need to do and not do.

IF what they are doing harms, delays intellectual growth, imprisons, etc these kids then that is wrong, but that is not the case here. There are quite a few religious practices in the world that should not be allowed here in the US because it affects the people’s rights, privileges, and freedom, but in this case you have not put forth a convincing argument with homeschoolers, and the large amount of unbias data collected by the state doesn't show any of this either.

The other point that a few have hinted at is just how important is the theory of evolution or creationism to a grade/high schooler anyways. If you did a random sampling across the nation of let’s say 19 to 21 year olds and asked them basic questions about evolution what do you really think they might know about it, and more importantly does that knowledge, or lack of, really affect their life in anyway.

We all have seen on the Leno show of him asking really basic questions to the general populace, and we laugh at the extremely ignorant answers, but these people all have at least a high school education, and I would bet you would find most people rather ignorant as to what evolution is all about even though they had the subject in school. I really don’t remember much about it from my high school and the majority that I do know has been from college and my own personal interest.

With that said you just might be fighting for something that most people really don’t care about or understand very much about it. It is not like it is a fundamental such as reading, writing and math that even in these fundamentals we see lacking in a much larger percentage of the population than what it should be.



[edit on 11-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Xtrozero

But if I understand all your posts you want to outlaw the teachings of any belief that is not directed by the state. Be careful of what you wish for my friend.

Sorry to snip in like this again.

You say he wants to outlaw any teaching that is not "directed by the state".

Hasn't he made himself clear that his benchmark is not "state direction" but science?

He is advocating that schools should teach nothing but science in science classes. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

If you are homeschooled - the home is your school as the name implies. So that school too should not mix up things - teach science in science lessons. and religion in religious lessons.

Isn't the whole issue that theology is not science and therefore should not be taught in science classes?

Creatonism is not science, as it is not derived through the scientific method. Hasn't he made clear that he has nothing against teaching religion in the proper class (say religion ed or theology, whatever you call it nowadays.)

Where I went to school we were taught about science in science classes, and we studied the bible, koran and torah in religious ed. Would you object to such a system?
It seems very reasonable to me. But then again, that wasn't in the US, but I think that doesn't have much bearing on the validity of the observation.

reply to post by Xtrozero


No, I'm saying it would be a good idea for science classes to teach science. It's not about state-mandated beliefs, but the protection of kids from having their heads filled with nonsense. Damaging nonsense.

Evolution is important because it teaches the scientific method itself, as well as being the underpinning of the entire discipline of biology. It is a fantastic opportunity to teach science in general. It is fundamental, as the only way creationism can be taught is to say "the scientific method is wrong", which it most certainly is not. Take that away, and the students won't be able to engage in any science lessons, as they'll always be able to sit there, smirking at the "stupid" teacher for believing non-God-based explanations for observable physical phenomena (which is a damn sight easier than actually studying).

Science lessons = science
Religious lessons = religion

Simple. Adhere to that, in public schools or home schools, and there will be no problem.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Exactly. Thanks for snipping in - you took the words right out of my mouth.

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Can someone explain to me the logic behind proving the existence of a being that you believe in by faith? I never really understood that.

Back on topic:
How credible are these religious texts?

A ---If you will give me your definition of faith I am sure I can answer that for you with logic.
B ----Exactly what text are you refering to?

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

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 you are saying that if someone creates a genetically altered fruit fly in a lab
and calls it proof that science can create new species-------
That person would have a pant load suited for a farm fertilizer.
Or full of crap. Right? It would have nothing to do with evolution. Right?

Lab work is different from selective breeding. The reason why fruit flies are so commonly used is because their gestation period is so short and they produce a lot of offspring. Therefore, the scientists don't choose who the flies are mating with, instead they let the flies mate with whoever they want and the scientists monitor the results. Since they are able to produce numerous generation over the course of a month it allows them to monitor how mutations occur in a population that is choosing their own mates and what mutations will prevent a new generation from breeding with a previous one. It is at this point that scientists are able to determine that a new species has been produced.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

Nich,
I see you have quite a few stars you will have mine if you reply.
I haven't seen the entire post cause I have davey on ignore.
Be that as it may your idea is leaps and bounds away from anything the communists want. They want to wipe out the age old tradition of religious freedom like Lenin did in the USSR. Jail you if they catch you even practicing it in a basement with the blinds closed.
You really need to look in to this movement It is called Marxist Bolshevik Communism. When you do, you will see the difference in what you are saying. When you think there is room to teach each--- both side by side. Which IMHO is what should be done.
Let the good folks of the USA decide not a socialistic government. Or a bunch of foreign Internet hacks and trolls. If I am out of line for some reason we can discuss my error or errors.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Creationism is not science. Teach it in religious classes, pray at home - anything. Just keep it out of science. That is not communism, that is common sense.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin


Hasn't he made himself clear that his benchmark is not "state direction" but science?

Who controls science and inforces these benchmarks?....the state

He is advocating that schools should teach nothing but science in science classes. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

I agree, and that is why they homeschool. My taxes don't pay for their home schooling and my kids will not be going to it either.

If you are homeschooled - the home is your school as the name implies. So that school too should not mix up things - teach science in science lessons. and religion in religious lessons.

Yes that is your opinion, but not the opinion of those who home school, and they do teach science, just not the science that goes against their beliefs.

Isn't the whole issue that theology is not science and therefore should not be taught in science classes?

Creatonism is not science, as it is not derived through the scientific method. Hasn't he made clear that he has nothing against teaching religion in the proper class (say religion ed or theology, whatever you call it nowadays.)

One small flaw in your logic...trying looking at this from their perspective and not one that doesn't believe in creationism. It is reality to them not some theology concept as it is to you.

reply to post by Xtrozero


The scientific method controls science, not the government. The government asks the various scientific education organisations for guidance on the school curriculum.

It's pretty clear from just understanding creationism that it is not science. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out it shouldn't be in science classes.

If they are not teaching science that goes against their beliefs, then they are not fit to be teachers. The truth isn't dependent on the person teaching.

Creationism is not science, and can never be science, as it is not falsifiable, and can never be used to predict anything. It's bunk. It doesn't matter how much you believe in it - that doesn't change its ridiculous premise and bizarre notion of "evidence".

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I know all about this. I think I learned it when I was a kid.
My problem lies in the fact that a lab is not a naturally selected fly environment. And one that is not evolving at the same rate as the fly genes. It could also possess contamination that could spark the mutations.
At best this experimentation is only a half truth. I think that is a very, very low standard for science.
One I would not want my child subject to. Also, you are aware of the competitive nature of these Braniacs.
The process we are talking about leaves to many unanswered questions.

You understanding is fine with me. Your scrutiny needs a little work.
just sayin

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

reply to post by Donny 4 million


"Not a naturally selected fly environment"?? Do you even know what the theory of evolution states?

You are clearly so ignorant of science, yet insist on attacking it at every turn, it's quite obvious you need science to fail to keep your flimsy world-view that science is bad, and that God is the only answer.

reply to post by davesidious

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

How? Let me tell you how.
"they need years of further education to undo the mess their parents inflicted on them. Child abuse."

It seems you are wanting to pamper the kids and make them the victims here.
Poor little Johnny?, ...puh-leeze

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

What Utopian world do you live in where kids do everything their parents ask of them?

Hate to tell you but a parent can only do so much when it comes to educating their children. There are tons of able bodied students that may hold back a bit, refuse to study and choose instead to hang out with their cool influential friends.
Trying to spoon feed those that refuse to open their mouths is what I would call a waste of education, as is the case with most public schools.

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.

This country is suffering enough already because the current educational system keeps lowering the bar to make it easier for poor little Johnny to advance to the next level, all because we certainly don't want to hurt his poor little feelings.
Give me break, there's that PC crap again.

To make matters worse, you also have class clowns and trouble makers of which there are at least one or two in every class. They refuse to learn and many times keep others from learning.

Why do we allow this section of society to retard themselves?

To be honest, I think you underestimate the mind, character and quality of the home schooled.
These are the kids that welcome furthering their education, even if it's to undo, what you might consider to be, a wrong inflicted upon them by their parents.
By the time they make it to college they'll be able to come to their own conclusion because they will a lot more informed that their public school educated counterparts. Heck they might even prove the point that "scientific fact" can be itself a "fairy story" sometimes.

So don't be so worried about the home schooled or consider them victims because they'll be a lot better of than those kids currently being churned by the public education system.

Just let them be.

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Alxandro]

Originally posted by davesidious
No, I'm saying it would be a good idea for science classes to teach science. It's not about state-mandated beliefs, but the protection of kids from having their heads filled with nonsense. Damaging nonsense.

Their beliefs are their reality...how hard is that to understand. They do not see it your way or the way of the scientific community. You want to force them to teach something they have no belief in.

There you go with that whole it’s bad for the kid "damaging nonsense" thing. Read some of my past posts for this is totally false, please stop it., it doesn't help your point..lol

In your opinion it is damaging, ok we get it, but maybe if you just once followed your own scientific ways and research this you would find it is not damaging in anyway.

Evolution is important because it teaches the scientific method itself, as well as being the underpinning of the entire discipline of biology. It is a fantastic opportunity to teach science in general. It is fundamental, as the only way creationism can be taught is to say "the scientific method is wrong", which it most certainly is not.

I agree, but re-read my longer post a few up for this is not about science and theology it is about rights and freedoms.


[edit on 11-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero


They owe it to their kids to give their kids the best education they can. If they don't believe in evolution, then they are bad teachers. If a history teacher didn't believe in the American Revolution, they'd not be teaching long.

It is not about rights and freedoms to teach creationism in lieu of evolution. It's about giving kids an education they deserve, not just one consisting of the facts their parents believe.

It is damaging to usurp the scientific method. I don't know how you can think otherwise.

reply to post by Xtrozero


I think it is impossible to appeal to those that have never experienced choice and have most often tried to snuff it out in others they are jealous of. They find the masochism of genuflecting to flesh and bloody, blood.
of their masters more their need.

Originally posted by davesidious

They owe it to their kids to give their kids the best education they can. If they don't believe in evolution, then they are bad teachers. If a history teacher didn't believe in the American Revolution, they'd not be teaching long.

I'm starting to find your posts of a young and naive person. How long are you going to ignore the fact that they GET A BETTER EDUCATION than public schools, and only catholic schools beat them out. I have said this with facts a half dozen times to your half dozen times of suggesting they get a poor education. My god man, just what do you based this repeating fallacy on?

The world and even America is not a cookie cutter everyone is the same or should be the same utopia, or hell, it’s which way you might look at it.

It is not about rights and freedoms to teach creationism in lieu of evolution. It's about giving kids an education they deserve, not just one consisting of the facts their parents believe.

Ok, let’s take your logic all the way through.... You want the parent to teach something that goes against what they see as the truth, right? Ok just how do you do that? How do we make them see evolution as the truth and not their belief? Do you just think they are/will say "ok, you are right we will teach your false ways"

How about an education that public kids deserve? Does evolution make theirs better...nope...so what is your point? I think I'm done on this subject for you are stuck in your grove and can't see plain truth in even with their faults of teaching creationism they are still providing a much better education than what the state provides....

It is damaging to usurp the scientific method. I don't know how you can think otherwise.

No it is not, that is just stupid. This is a small group that wants to teach their own beliefs in a very limited area, and they do a much better job over all than the state.

Plain and simple


[edit on 11-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero

You want the parent to teach something that goes against what they see as the truth, right?

Yes, that is essentialy what I want. A teacher in every school with biology subject has to teach evolution, even if he considers it false. A parent homescholing his child is no exception.

Thats what teaching scientific consensus means - that teaching only your opinion is not enough IMHO.

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Maslo]