Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

reply to post by Xtrozero


You are correct in your thinking IMHO.
Just consider that the Russians kept their faith underground all through the horrors and murders of the Communists regime until it was ousted.
The Russians are laughing at the Americans as we speak. They are rolling in the isles now that we are facing the slugs that they learned about and sent fleeing in our direction. Actually to all the easy Christian nations that have anything left to rob. Including their religious freedoms.

reply to post by Xtrozero

How long are you going to ignore the fact that they GET A BETTER EDUCATION than public schools

Yes they do, because homeschooling is more effective. But its because of other reasons (stressless environment, enough time...), not because they are free to ignore curriculum, more like inspite of that.
Do you think that if they have to follow the curriculum, suddenly will their education be worse? No, it may be even better, and parents who want to teach their children false personal opinions in place of science (child abuse imho) would be out of the game.

reply to post by Astyanax

Not uncivilized, just unnecessary beyond a certain point--enough, say, to enable one to take care of oneself for a day or two on a wilderness excursion, a single-handed sailing trip or when the car breaks down in the middle of nowhere.

It is clearly not unnecessary to the individuals that are starving. It is not unnecessary to those that don't have enough money to pay for their monthly expenses and yet they are too ignorant to alleviate some of those expenses through growing their own food. You believe self sufficiency to be unnecessary however what can be a more necessary education then the ability to provide for one's self.

I don't think it's necessary for citizens in an advanced society to learn farming.

I have a feeling those that are starving may disagree.

No. But only in a democracy can citizens do very much to prevent it.

Maybe. And only if they retain their rights to do something about it. A society that is educated in only concrete thinking will never have the ability too avoid oppression. Again we have people that don't have enough money too have shelter and food. Yet they can't figure out that if they grew their own food they would be able to have both. A shred of analytical thinking would reveal this.

But it isn't a serious problem in America--and far less so than it used to be fifty, a hundred or 150 years ago.

No? Based on what evidence? Where is your data? Please substantiate your statement.

They do, as is only fair, seeing that they are major taxpayers and contributors to charity. I don't believe their influence is decisive or overweening.

Seeing how we are in agreement that corporate influence outweigh the influence of the individual. Can we agree that sometimes corporate interest are opposed to individual interest. In other words the individual wishes to live a life with their basic human needs fulfilled. However if the individual is able to fulfill those needs himself then the corporation will die. Therefore would it not be in a corporations best interest to gain hold of education in order to ensure that the individual is never taught how to fulfill those needs himself?

No. Politicians fear voters more than they are beholden to political contributors.

Again you need to substantiate this because the evidence doesn't support what you say. The legislation is passed based on corporate interest in conjunction with a campaign to appease the individual. Let us not forget that the deep pockets fund the campaigns therefore they control the legislation.

Again, you're talking like a conspiracy theorist.

Hmmm. Your constant reference to a conspiracy theorist is meant to be intentionally provocative. It is not going to have the effect you are hoping for. Let us realize that it is Governments job to conspire. This will occur in both a noble Government and a corrupted Government.

Of course the West is subject to history. Of course there is some evidence of corruption in America, but compared to most of the rest of the world, it is trivial. You guys are doing pretty well at holding it down.

I'm glad you can concede that there is corruption in America. I can also appreciate that America's state of affairs is not as dire as other nations. However should American's be condemned for looking to history in order to understand the mistakes of those nations. Should we not try to prevent making those same mistakes? Is it not a basic model, when attempting to fundamentally change a nation, to gain hold of the mind's of the children first? Should we not safeguard against such a danger?


[edit on 11-3-2010 by harvib]

reply to post by Xtrozero


A science education that omits evolution is a bad science evolution. That is my point. I don't care about teaching English or Maths - that is not the topic at hand.

If the parent isn't able to teach science, then they shouldn't be teaching science. If their views are so perverted that they can't accept a long-standing and fantastically-demonstrated theory such as evolution, they shouldn't be teaching. It's pathetic to think that anyone should be able to teach if they think they want to, whether it be their kids they're teaching or otherwise.

Evolution is not just a "very limited area" - it is the entire underpinning of biology, and to teach kids that a fundamental tenet such as the theory of evolution is wrong, is damaging to their entire science education, not just biology.

Some crazed idiot who doesn't understand the very basic theory of evolution should not be teaching kids science. It'd be like some idiot who thinks 2+3 = 1,405,244 teaching maths, just because they heard it in some story their parents told them when they were young. Bad teaching.

reply to post by 911stinks


Well you owe us a recap.
If you will include your childrens thoughts also I would appreciate it.
No one works for nothing. lol

reply to post by Xtrozero

How long are you going to ignore the fact that they GET A BETTER EDUCATION than public schools?

Cripes. Are you still flogging this dead donkey?

If a child's education leaves out a vital aspect of the science she is supposed to be learning, she is not 'getting a better education' no matter how good her examination results and how many university places she is offered. She is getting an education with a massive hole in it.

*

reply to post by Maslo

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.

Absolutely. This is the crux of the argument. Parents shouldn't make 'elective decisions' on academic subjects for young children. They are patently unqualified to do so--as some of the defenders of homeschooling on this thread demonstrate with every fulminating post they shoot off.

Anyway, this thread has gone way off topic, in typical ATS fashion. It is not about what parents teach their children in 'home school' ( )--it is about whether or not the publishers of textbooks used to teach the official curriculum should leave out parts of it, or include non-state-mandated (and patently false) information in them.

Obviously the answer is no, and there's an end to it.


[edit on 12/3/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

Nich,

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.

that is a very paranoid statement big brother is not watching methinks maybe your imagination is getting the better of you

reply to post by harvib

(Survivalist-style self-sufficiency) is clearly not unnecessary to the individuals that are starving...

They're starving? Prove it.

In some developing nations where famine is widespread, hunger manifests itself as severe and very visible clinical malnutrition. In the United States hunger manifests itself, generally, in a less severe form. This is in part because established programs – like the federal nutrition programs – help to provide a safety net for many low-income families. While starvation seldom occurs in this country, children and adults do go hungry and chronic mild undernutrition does occur when financial resources are low. The mental and physical changes that accompany inadequate food intakes can have harmful effects on learning, development, productivity, physical and psychological health, and family life.

--Hunger in the USA at Food Resarch & Action Centre

But let's say you're right, and people really are starving. What should they do about it with the survival skills you want to teach them? Steal rifles and ammunition (can't buy 'em, no money), go out and shoot a few deer and barbecue them in the parking-lot at the back of the local Wal-Mart? Or steal seeds from the local home-and-garden store and start planting corn on the central reservation of the nearest Interstate? While taking shelter under the nearest overpass?

Why don't they just mug passing motorists for money and buy food with it? That would be no more unlawful than what you are proposing.

Can't you see that your silly prescription would promote further social disintegration and anarchy? Is that what you want?

You are talking impracticalities, my friend. In modern societies, these matters cannot be addressed the way they could when the wild frontier of your survivalist dreams was still open.

We have people that don't have enough money to have shelter and food. Yet they can't figure out that if they grew their own food they would be able to have both. A shred of analytical thinking would reveal this.

Except that they couldn't grow their own food unless they had their own land, and they couldn't have that unless they took it away from other people who owned it, or destroyed pristine and ecologically valuable wilderness. That is what a shred of analytical thinking would reveal. Are you a survivalist--or are you a Communist?

*

Astyanax: (Systemic corruption) isn't a serious problem in America--and far less so than it used to be fifty, a hundred or 150 years ago.

No? Based on what evidence? Where is your data? Please substantiate your statement.

Always a dangerous demand to make of little Astyanax.

150 years ago:

Civil War Procurement Fraud and the False Claims Act

Corruption during the Grant presidency

The Stolen Presidential Election of 1876

The Tweed Ring & Tammany Hall

100 years ago:

The Standard Oil Trust

Trusts & Trustbusting

Let Us Prey: Political Corruption in the Late Nineteenth Century

As for political corruption fifty years ago, I hardly think you need documentary sources to be reminded of John Kennedy's sex life, the machine politics of Chicago under the first Mayor Daley, or the exemplary career of Richard Milhous Nixon?

*

Seeing how we are in agreement that corporate influence outweigh the influence of the individual. Can we agree that sometimes corporate interest are opposed to individual interest?

No. Corporate interests are just the interests of groups of individuals known as shareholders.

Astyanax: Politicians fear voters more than they are beholden to political contributors.

Again you need to substantiate this because the evidence doesn't support what you say.

The evidence is in the fact that you hold elections every two years, and politicians bend over backwards to get themselves elected. The evidence is in the fact that many idiotic laws remain on the statute-books because electors want them, even though politicians and political scientists alike agree they are deleterious to the functioning of society; for example, the California law that allows voters to vote down individual pieces of proposed legislation, including--god help us--tax laws.

The evidence is all round you; you stumble over it every day of your life. You're just refusing to see it because it is fatal to your worldview.

Is it not a basic model, when attempting to fundamentally change a nation, to gain hold of the mind's of the children first? Should we not safeguard against such a danger?

No. I have some knowledge of attempted revolutions and coups. The first thing the conspirators must do is sieze control of the levers of power and the infrastructure of communications. Perverting the education system is something that can only be done once the new regime is well established in office and fears no immediate threat to its rule. It happens much later; years later.

The problem with your viewpoint is that you more than half believe the coup has already taken place, that the government of the United States is somehow illegitimate and, as you state, is conspiring against its citizens. Indeed, your statements imply that you are entirely convinced of this. That is why I say you are talking like a conspiracy theorist. Such beliefs are, of course, baseless and preposterous.

[edit on 12/3/10 by Astyanax]

To be perfectly honest, I see this as nothing more than propoganda. Proganda that is used in order to demonize anyone who dares to adhere to strong family values.

Any parent who wishes to educate their own child on a one on one basis in an environment that promotes more time spent with family as opposed to complete strangers who are tasked with looking after thirty or more children at once, must be abusive, unintelligent or a religious fundamentalist.

I was home schooled for a couple of years and I found it to be a very enjoyable experience. I was able to spend more time with my mother. As well, when I needed assistance I was lucky enough to recieve it right away.

Personally, I believe the fact that both parents need to work these days just to put a roof over their heads, and food on the table has played a major role in the degredation of family values as well as morals throughout the western world.

The majority of children these days are raised by complete strangers for the majority of their developmental lives. They are at school being raised by complete strangers and then they often come home to a babysitter who watches them until the parents return home from work.

It doesn't matter whether the father or the mother stay at home in order to spend more time with their children. Either way, I believe that growing up with a parent around at all times, will ensure a much better upbringing and in turn will produce a much happier child as a result.

Originally posted by galacticos
To be perfectly honest, I see this as nothing more than propoganda. Proganda that is used in order to demonize anyone who dares to adhere to strong family values.



Personally, I believe the fact that both parents need to work these days just to put a roof over their heads, and food on the table has played a major role in the degredation of family values as well as morals throughout the western world.

The majority of children these days are raised by complete strangers for the majority of their developmental lives. They are at school being raised by complete strangers and then they often come home to a babysitter who watches them until the parents return home from work.

It doesn't matter whether the father or the mother stay at home in order to spend more time with their children. Either way, I believe that growing up with a parent around at all times, will ensure a much better upbringing and in turn will produce a much happier child as a result.

i agree with some of that i think that most problems with children are the fault of the parents

Originally posted by Maslo

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.

Ok, lets take this logic but switch it around. Lets say that the 80% plus of the American population, being religious, all decided to become extremest and force creationism as to what will be taught in schools. Are you going to say "ok I highly disagree, but hey we will run with it" or are you going to home school your kids....

I know, boy do I know, that your argument back at me will be that it is not a good example because creationism is not accepted by the scientific community, but the one thing that is common in both is that both are a reality to people.

Personally I find evolution is correct in many ways, but I see it as a very basic understanding with many holes left to be filled. Think of it in the terms of math to being equal to basic math of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. There is a huge amount of math outside of the basics, and as with evolution we are still at the basic level, but there is a lot more to it that the science community either doesn’t care to look at just yet or dismisses outright. There are also lots of questions that evolution cannot answer today, though its basic laws do correctly work.

It is incomplete to say the least and there are people outside of the scientific community that do have other pieces to this puzzle, and in time there will be a point that the scientific community will not be able to ignore or discount, so do we in the mean time cover our ears and say na na na to everything that others truly believe in as what is their reality?

I’m in total agreement with all of you that I wish every child would have the quality education that homeschooling provides, but with a wide range of teachings to include ALL sciences as the foundation, but we are talking about people here and as evolution suggests everyone is a little different.

One small diamond in the rough from all this is that people who tend to have a different upbringing than the normal develop a different way of looking as things. When you go back in history and research all the great discoverers you will find that many had unusual upbringing, conditions, education that set them apart from the masses that allowed them to see things differently.

reply to post by galacticos


I agree, I’m fortunate enough that my one income is more than enough to provide for my family without my wife needing to also work. As I said in past posts my kids go to public schools (WA schools are great) but my wife, mostly, does lots of home schooling on the side. (none of it is theology based BTW). I also take great interest in their activities as my wife does and I have found that not only are they well advanced as to what I was at their age, but extremely advanced to their classmates. Even right now I’m in Afghanistan and I still do home work with my 10 year old over internet chat.

We are 110% involved in our kids, but I see other children around the neighborhood that are not so lucky. As you suggest, I see both parents working and in many cases well into the evening that causes the situation of kids watching kids. I go to reading day so my sons can read to their dad, and I end up with five or six other children wishing to read to me too, which I endure. What is most striking is how poor they are at it. This suggests to me that they do zero reading outside of school, with zero parent support in their lives other than providing the basics.

My oldest at the age of nine asked me if he can now say the world “crap” (he spelled it out to me…hehe) I said, ok now that you are older you can say that word, of course his younger brother was delighted that his older brother could say such a hideous/forbidden word and proceed to tell his mother all about it. Well when my kid's friends come over I can tell rather quickly once again where zero parent supervision, care, mentoring is present.

This is all too common that it greatly affects our society as a whole. There is like 30 million in America who graduated high school and cannot read as example. When I see a local family that home schools not only do I see a very happy family, but also one that both parents are very committed to their children, and the growth of their children in all areas.

As others have said, I think homeschoolers are the least of our problems in America, and I wish more people would even be half as much like them.

Originally posted by 911stinks


Personally, I feel the child should know both, to be able to make their own decision. The study of the differences between the two would probably make an interesting subject on it's own.

The bible, to me, is a fascinating piece of history, and is full of good instruction. Teaching young ones about the differences between creationism and evolution gives the child a chance to see that there really are two completely trains of thought on how we came about.

I think good, God respecting parents are fed up with the holes in evolution, and the constant changing of science to fit with inconvenient truths, and the forcing of the religion (evolutionism) down our childrens throats.

news.yahoo. com
(visit the link for the full news article)

well, its people's choice what they want to teach their kids & its part of their right to religious freedom. It doesn't matter to kids what their parents, neighbors, teachers or governments teach them. Kids are responsible for their own actions, choices, & making decisions for themselves after a certain age. They can learn secular ways of thinking by simply being around other kids in their school, church, or neighborhood even when they're between 3 to 7 years old. Other than that, they can learn by watching TV programs. Even if their government doesn't allow access to TV channels that show foreign content, they can use a dish antenna or rent cable connection to view the outside world. Its that easy. And if they don't have access to electricity due to natural causes, then there's still cell phones, iPods, mini-TVs & radios that run on batteries.


If they still want access top better education, they can go to public schools. If their country or state doesn't have access to adequate forms of higher education that they want, they can just choose to be homeschooled. And if their families don't want them to learn the type of things they wish to learn, then they can move to another state or immigrate to another country.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by killyou]

reply to post by Astyanax

But let's say you're right, and people really are starving. What should they do about it with the survival skills you want to teach them? Steal rifles and ammunition (can't buy 'em, no money), go out and shoot a few deer and barbecue them in the parking-lot at the back of the local Wal-Mart? Or steal seeds from the local home-and-garden store and start planting corn on the central reservation of the nearest Interstate? While taking shelter under the nearest overpass?

I didn't suggest any of the things you proposed. You missed my point entirely. Here is my quote:

It is not unnecessary to those that don't have enough money to pay for their monthly expenses and yet they are too ignorant to alleviate some of those expenses through growing their own food.

I feel I made my point clear but I will try to clarify. If people can't afford their current monthly expenses they would be able to alleviate some of those expenses by providing for them selves what they are able. However maybe they feel like you and believe themselves to be too "civilized" and therefore face loss of shelter and land.

You are talking impracticalities, my friend. In modern societies, these matters cannot be addressed the way they could when the wild frontier of your survivalist dreams was still open.

It's not impracticalities. The average American uses their land to grow beautiful lawns why not use that same land and water to grow beautiful food?

Seeing how we are in agreement that corporate influence outweigh the influence of the individual. Can we agree that sometimes corporate interest are opposed to individual interest?

No. Corporate interests are just the interests of groups of individuals known as shareholders.

So a corporation that produces a specific good would not be concerned if the general populace could produce that good themselves?

and politicians bend over backwards to get themselves elected.

No they are funded...

No. I have some knowledge of attempted revolutions and coups. The first thing the conspirators must do is sieze control of the levers of power and the infrastructure of communications. Perverting the education system is something that can only be done once the new regime is well established in office and fears no immediate threat to its rule. It happens much later; years later.

I am not talking about how individuals would gain control of Government I am talking about how Government gains control of the individual.

The problem with your viewpoint is that you more than half believe the coup has already taken place, that the government of the United States is somehow illegitimate and, as you state, is conspiring against its citizens. Indeed, your statements imply that you are entirely convinced of this. That is why I say you are talking like a conspiracy theorist. Such beliefs are, of course, baseless and preposterous.

The debate isn't about whether or not this has or hasn't happened. It makes no difference. I am arguing that the individual needs to foresee the mistakes of other nations and avoid making the same mistakes.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Be that as it may your idea is leaps and bounds away from anything the communists want.

Of course it is - because the subject we are discussing has no bearing on communism at all. I've made that more than clear in my previous posts.

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.

Why do you use the present term? There is no Soviet Union anymore, and there are no Communist states anymore. No serious historian considers China or Cuba to be communist in anything but name anymore today. Neither China nor Cuba does actively prosecute practioners of religion anymore - as far as they are considered to have no political ambitions.

And yeah, the UdSSR did marginalize and battle the church - as did many other countries, movements, and political ideologies. This has nothing to do with communsim per se.

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.

The term Marxist Bolshevik Communism is not a scientific term. Historically, there is Marxism-Leninsm, Bolshevism and Communism. All of them denote different things, ideologically and historically. You are just throwing together names here. Marxism-Leninism is an ideological term that denotes someone who has modified his traditional Marxist views to include the doctrines of Lenin ("Imperialism as the highest stage of Capitalism" / " Empiriocritiscm and Materialism). The term Bolshevism is used to denote a certain fraction within the Revolutionary movement in Russia, it is not a coherent doctrine and never was.
Communism is a name for a historical political system. Lenin was not fond of the term, but the West kind of adapted it, and Stalin went along with it. Historically, it is used to denote systems that are run along the lines of the pre-WW2 UdSSR, but it is not a term that has a sctrict definition that is agreed upon in historic research.

Which IMHO is what should be done.

I have no problem with teaching both. I've learnt both. As long as you learn about science in science classes and about religion in religious ed, teach both, for all that I care. But if you start on insisting that Creatonism belongs in a biology lab - well, that's the point where I have to take a stand for science and against pseudoscience devised to smuggle religion into science classes.

Let the good folks of the USA decide not a socialistic government.

That's what is the case now. It's not the government that decides - it is the people who have invested time and effort in their education and are now respected researchers or academics. Their consensus, which is as objective as it can get institutionally, is what determines what is taught. It's not decided in some smokey backroom in Washington.

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.

Your disdain for people who have another perspective disgusts me. As I have said repeatedly - this is an internet forum in which each and every perspective is welcome. There's no issue of nationality here. Anyone can and may post on any topic he wants to and that's one of the main reasons I'm here.

If you want to change those facts - Well, in your book you're a communist then, right?


Donny - this is the last off-topic post I have made in reply to you. Communism is not the issue and I refuse to be further sucked into a derailment of this thread. You have all the material you neet to see that the issue at hand is not communism. It is not even state repression of belief systems. It is about the enforcement of existing curriculums.



[edit on 12-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 12-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 12-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by Xtrozero

Ok, lets take this logic but switch it around. Lets say that the 80% plus of the American population, being religious, all decided to become extremest and force creationism as to what will be taught in schools. Are you going to say "ok I highly disagree, but hey we will run with it" or are you going to home school your kids.... I know, boy do I know, that your argument back at me will be that it is not a good example because creationism is not accepted by the scientific community, but the one thing that is common in both is that both are a reality to people.

You do realize that homeschooling parents are free to teach creationism, too, and I agree with that. I am fine with children knowing both views, but I dont believe parents are competent or have the right to present only their view, and exclude the scientific one. That is simply not a decision a parent does, IMHO.
You guessed it correctly, it is a decision a scientific community does.

I would even agree with having creationism mentioned as a view some laymen adhere to, it is important for general knowledge to know that there are people like this. But to teach it as a scientific view,or to teach it as an only view is an indoctrination, and a child abuse, and a crime, IMHO.

Everyone is different, but facts are facts, they do not change.
Thats why we need to have both some standardized knowledge base chosen by the only compenent people - scientists, and teached in schools (including homeschools), and some variable knowledge, teached by parents, peers, environment etc (thats where creationism belongs).
When either one is absent, a child will be negatively affected.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

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

That's not true. Though the institutional frame may be given by the state, the people who decide about this are not institutions, but people. Those people have earned the right to make these decisions because they have dedicated their life (as in their time, their effort, their willingness not to cash in on their education) to science. Like it or not, it is not the "guv" that dreams up curriculums in smokey washington back-rooms, but local institutions. In America, those aren't even scientists most of the time, but public educators and other political appointees. So yeah, I have plenty of criticism for the process - but the underlying idea is still the right one: You let the people who have proven themselves to be knowledgable and have specialized expertise decide about what to teach in the field that they know about. This way you were destined to get a curriculum based on scientific consensus, most of the times with good or perfect results.

Of course we can discuss the change in these systems - away from scientific experts to public educators, political trolls and local petty dictators, but I still support the overall idea behing the system.

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.

But your taxes pay for their homeschooling. Not for the schooling itself, but for establishing homeschooling standards, enforcing them and taking the tests. That's all done with your tax money - so it is only fair to apply the same strict standards to the people enjoying your tax contribution - be that in public school or in homeschooling.

If "homeschooling" means " go out of school and let the parents decide " I wouldn't care too much about what was being taught. But homeschooling is a regulated process - as you can get the same kind of degress like in public schools - so we better have the same standards or the whole system will lose it's sense.

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..

Uh--- Here's the argument from relativity. Always a major one with anti-staters.

Look, if they teach creationism as science - they have no idea what science is. Creationism is not derived by the scientific method - this is a fact, not an opinion, that can be put to a test by anyone with a thinking mind. Leave out the question about which is right just for now - surely you do not want to make the claim that both have been discovered by applying the scientific method?

Science teachers must teach things that goe against their beliefs all the time. That's the whole point - their beliefs don't count, the science does. As someone who teaches history at a University, I teach stuff that I don't necessarily believe in all the time (no, not because "the state" forces me to - he doesn-t - but because some things are based on demostrable facts and sources and other stuff seems more plausible but has no documentation) yet I have no problem with it.

If you refuse to teach objective facts that don't jive with your belief system, you have no right to be a teacher. A teacher must by definition be ready to teach against his very beliefs, and most teachers do at one point or another.

What you're saying is: " Hey, there's your truth and my truth and every one elses truth. Let's teach them all" . In that case the worth of your education is contingent on the whim and the belief system of the person teaching you - truly a horror-scenario. We need standards, and we need to enforce them. Science and the scientific soncensus gives us these standards, not the state.

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.

When it comes to establishing educational benchmarks your belief has no vote. Many scientists believe in god yet they do not write "here a miracle happens" into their scientific papers. They are able to distuingish their beliefs from knowledge they have derived through application of the scientific method.

Show me one person that came to the conclusion that creationism explains it all while applying the scientific method. By definition, this is not possible, and I know of no one who ever claimed something along those lines.

Your just playing with language games. "Belief" means different things in science and in theology. To believe in gravity is conceptually a totally different thing than to believe in god since the process that leads you to believe in the one or other are totally different. Regarding science, this process can be shared and peer-reviewed and therefore objectified and perpetually refined to a consensus that can't be attacked without new data.
While the process that leads to the belief in god doesn't share those traits, at least not in an empirical sense.

I can only object to this "teach whatever you believe in" project as I find it very dangerous and detrimental to a childs education. We need standards. Objective standards.
What I find even more repugnant is the argument from relativity. It is intellectually dishonest to promote such ideas because not one single person on this planet behaves like that is the truth. If epistemological relativity was really what you believed in, by definition you would not be writing on a public forum. While the argument may be appealing the observation that we all do not act as if epistemological relativism is true does tell us something about human nature (that it doesn't consider itself relativist in an epistemological sense).

If I'm right, and you're right - and the whole slippery slope. Well you know where you end up then, right in the middle of the tractatus. That's where you could learn that an epistemological relativist would by the very definition of his philosophical outlook be a silent hermit. And any deviation from the life of silent hermit would mean giving up the claim of being an epistemological relativist.
If you're ok with the teach what you believe narrative - send your kids to my university. I'll teach them whatever I believe at the moment and we'll see if that would please you more than the regular education they would get here.


[

[edit on 12-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by Maslo

Yes they do, because homeschooling is more effective. But its because of other reasons (stressless environment, enough time...), not because they are free to ignore curriculum, more like inspite of that.
Do you think that if they have to follow the curriculum, suddenly will their education be worse? No, it may be even better, and parents who want to teach their children false personal opinions in place of science (child abuse imho) would be out of the game.

And so the questions are if the parents were not the way they are (the good and the bad) would they be homeschooling at all? Why do they homeschool? Why do they have this desire to be so involve with their kids?

You just can't say well this part is bad (child abuse) and so we can change just that one part. There are a huge number of parents that do not invest anything into their kids. They let the school system do it all and then blame that same system when it can't do everything. now that is child abuse IMHO, and we are not talking 1% maybe 2% as we are with homeschoolers who only teach creationism. BTW does anyone actually have the numbers as to how many homeschoolers ONLY teach creationism? Just because they order a book that has it in it doesn't mean that is all they teach.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Just because they order a book that has it in it doesn't mean that is all they teach.

Now that's a really good argument. It does not mean that is the only thing being taught to the children, individually.

But it does point to a certain trend withing homeschooling - doesn't it? Let's assume the market functions in this segment - that would tell us that DEMAND by homeschooling parents has caused learning material with a anti-evolution bias to be the most prominent. This could be circumstancial evidence that points out to the reasons people have for homeschooling - not to give the child a better education, but to have more control over what they are being taught.

And from the op's link I do remember that those textbooks aren't inclusive - they don't teach both - they teach creationism as the driving force in biology which is blatantly unscientific and must be harmful to anyones scientifc outlook on the world being formed.

So the fact that those are the most popular textbooks could be indicative of larger trends within homeschooling - of course that is a hypothesis that would need more empirical backing than I have provided.

But just to point out where I do see dangers relating to this topic - as I said I agree with your initial statement. But maybe it is wishful thinking to suppose that kids taught with those text books will develop an unbiased biological outlook.

Concrete proof of some of Davesidious' fears is not hard to obtain. I'd say this link shows exactly how detrimental doctrinary creationism masked as science can be to the academic outlook of young people...

rawstory.com...

My argument is that this link describes the worst case scenarion pointed out by Dave. These people mentioned in the article have ZILCH chance of ever becoming respected biologists at a non-christian educational facility since they have come to think of science and mumbo-jumbo as interchangeable.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 12-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 12-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 12-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by harvib

I didn't suggest any of the things you proposed.

Indeed you did not. That's because you hadn't properly thought through the consequences of what you did propose.

If people can't afford their current monthly expenses they would be able to alleviate some of those expenses by providing for them selves what they are able.

Seed costs money. Farming implements cost money. Fertilizer, organic or otherwise, costs money. Water costs money. Cereals and vegetables take many months to grow, and in the meantime life must be sustained somehow. That costs money. Even a compost heap takes months before it is ready. That, too, costs money.

Because of the economies of scale enjoyed by large producers, it costs more to grow your own food than to buy it in the supermarket. That's why the people who do grow their own food either do it as a hobby, without counting the cost, or else do it on a commercial scale and sell off the considerable surplus they produce--which puts them right back into complex modern society with its zoning laws, regulations concerning the use of fertilizers and weedkillers, water-use laws, food safety rules, accounting rules, tax laws and all the rest. Again: in a modern society, the kind of thing you're talking about is simply impracticable. It's a survivalist fantasy.

The average American uses their land to grow beautiful lawns why not use that same land and water to grow beautiful food?

The average American is not starving--far from it. The ones who can't afford groceries don't live in houses with beautiful lawns. If they do have a patch of arable land round the back of the shack that isn't being farmed, that's probably because they've got a (far more profitable) crystal meth still on it. Get real, man!

So a corporation that produces a specific good would not be concerned if the general populace could produce that good themselves?

Probably. Has it ever happened? Has it ever happened without the help of some other corporation? Can it happen without the help of some other corporation? And even if it did, what do you fear the consequences will be?

(Politicians don't bend over backwards to get themselves elected), they are funded...

I begin to fear that I am talking to someone so wrapped up in their own apparatus of delusion they are unable to discern reality at all. However much politicians are funded in America, in the end they are either elected or not elected depending on how many people vote for them and how many vote for the other guy. Why do I have to state the obvious to you?

I am not talking about how individuals would gain control of Government I am talking about how Government gains control of the individual.

You talk as if 'Government' and 'Corporations' are monstrous alien lifeforms of some kind. They are not. They are created, controlled and constituted by human beings. Individuals. I grant you they have emergent properties not manifested by their individual constituents, but that is true of all humanly constituted entities, even a barbershop quartet. Again, you're thinking like a conspiracy theorist--which is to say, you are ignoring the evidence of reality where it is in conflict with your belief system.

I am arguing that the individual needs to foresee the mistakes of other nations and avoid making the same mistakes.

By pulling children out of society and marginalizing them through homeschooling? Brilliant solution, I must say. What you would really be doing is raising little right-wing Christian guerillas. But then, that's really what this is all about, isn't it?