Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

I'm going to home-school my child (should I ever have one), but I wouldn't just teach them the stuff that they teach in school, but lots of other stuff. Such as, which herbs are good to use in a tea if you're not feeling well (from headache to muscle pains) or which herbs to rub on your wounds to have them heal faster and cleaner, on how to identify these in nature and how to extract them. How to hunt/fish, skin/descale, dry, cook, and store food. Also, would teach him to get his own garden growning, can his vegetables, philosophy, and the general fallacies of following the mainstream logic. And then ofcourse a lot of the basic cirriculim: sciencies, maths, literatures, and ofcourse music and art. There is a lot to teach you're children so that when the time comes they have the knowledge to take care of themselves, but should they want to they can immerse themselves into society and see what I've taught them in practice. Also, I would teach them kung-fu for self-defense and all other things that come with it balance, hand-eye coordination, and ofcourse self-disipline. Thats my opinion on what someone should be taught...or atleast some of what someone should be taught.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by agentofchaos]

reply to post by agentofchaos

If these are the plans you have for your children, I truly pity them. They are going to have their parent in their face all the livelong day.

It's plain to see, however, that you are a young person who has no real concept of what it means to be a parent. It is a highly rewarding occupation, but it is also physically and mentally exhausting, time-consuming, frustrating and, at times, frightening.

When you become a parent, you won't have nearly enough time and inclination to complete the educational programme you envisage--thank heaven.

Originally posted by ashanu90

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

Communism
The evil
Communism
Because no evidence supports their faith, the communist state attacks freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Apart from their brutality, ...

markhumphrys.com/communism.html -

philosophies of fascism and communism were the two great 20th century mass killers. Of these, communism was the greatest killer. 100 million men, women and children have been murdered by socialism so far, and the killing continues today, notably in North Korea. In terms of body count, socialism is by far the most evil religion, the most evil ideology of any sort, of all time.
Behind the Iron Curtain, communists stamped out freethought as efficiently as in any authoritarian religious state. Communists are not sceptics, and are atheists only superficially. Marx and Lenin founded an irrational religion every bit as dogmatic, credulous, and opposed to freethought as any of the older religions they criticised.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Astyanax
If these are the plans you have for your children, I truly pity them. They are going to have their parent in their face all the livelong day.

Actually my kids love to hang with me all day if they can. When I can go to their school they are proud that I'm there for them, but yes I can see your point in you feel being around parents all waking hours of the day might be a curse, and because of that thought process I don't think you really understand the efficiency of home schooling.

A tipical day is three hours of classroom instruction long before noon followed by projects in the afternoon, and that followed by sports, music, dance, field trips and of course play. In a typical year a home schooler still gets about one third more instruction than the typical public student in time spent on subjects, and when you also add in the value that they are personally/directly instructed compared to the kid in the back of the room sleeping it is a termenious difference and a big reason they score so well on standarized tests and do great in college.

The burden is not on the children but on the parents, and why they have my respect. As said before 80% of a school day is actually daycare, add in travel time, then homework you can see public education is not all that efficient, but hey it allows all those parents who work time away from their kids.

I can see your tone has changed from anti-creationism homeschooling to just anti-homeschooling in general. Many times we get into the mode to debate just to debate , but I would suggest that if you challenge your own views you might be surprised as what you may see differently.



[edit on 13-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Because no evidence supports their faith, the communist state attacks freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Apart from their brutality, ...

Don,

The reason is because religion, communism, nationalism etc are all human motivators. With many of these they want to strip away what beliefs and morals a society may already have and then incorporate their own. The big difference is that most mainstream religion has a big foundation built on morals that spanned 1000s of years and these others have no morals at all as a part of their foundation.

Though religion has had its bad points in history it always drifts back to its moral base, and when you do away with this motivator and few other morally based motivators to force on society one of these others you end up with a society that only has the morals of those who just happen to be the leader at that time.

This has led to the greatest atrocities in the history of mankind with no morals or center line to drift back to, and we saw this with China starving to death 100 million as they put all their resources into their communist industrial age, communist Russia in purging 40 million people, Nazi German with their nationalism during WWII and the final solution, and even small but very dramatic cases like Pol Pot Cambodia where 2 to 3 million were purged, but in aways that was totally void of all morals and humanity, even well beyond any of these other atrocities, to create his short lived communist world.

A big part of creating these cultures is to outlaw other motivators and their teachings while setting up state controlled schools to teach the propaganda of the state to everyone with no other outlet for learning. Though I do not view America anyway like this, the closer we get to it the more nervious I become.



[edit on 13-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Astyanax


So Americans don't revolt? I thought your country was founded in a revolution. I believe you had a civil war about 150 years ago; am I wrong? And I seem to recall your ghettos were in flames in the 1960s, and that riots have occurred in your cities even as recently as the 1980s...

That's the trouble with far-right conservatives; they so cherish their fantasies of the Good Old Days they dare not remember their own history.

That was days gone by. Today we mow our lawns, shop and polish our cars, our lives are much too nice to consider any kind of revolt, even our poor are considered well off in many other countries. I'm also not far-right wing; I'm very center in my thinking drifting across the lines.



[edit on 13-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

Click here for more information.

One and only warning

Knock off the personal attacks and sniping or further action will be taken.

I hope thats clear.

Just to establish or repeat my point.

We were discussing the kind of enforcement that goes into safeguarding the teaching of curriculums in public schools and in home-schooling.

I've made the point that the enforcement consists of testing of the students - be that public school or home-school.

There is simply no repression involved. There are no criminal statutes, no one will come knocking on your door, and no one will take your kids away for the sole reason that you've failed to mention evolution while teaching biology.

The enforcement is simply the test. If you take a final exam in biology and write down that the argument from irreducibility is valid and you go on to label the Hardy-Weinberg principle not valid (something that you will if you're taught only creationsim with no mention of evolution) you will fail the test or your chances of succeeding will be severly diminished.

This is the whole extent of the mentioned "repression". Basically, it runs down to this:

If you're taught creationism as science and evolution as myth it will be:

Wal-Mart instead of Har-Vard

[edit on 13-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

The enforcement is simply the test. If you take a final exam in biology and write down that the argument from irreducibility is valid and you go on to label the Hardy-Weinberg principle not valid (something that you will if you're taught only creationsim with no mention of evolution) you will fail the test or your chances of succeeding will be severly diminished.

Is that not already installed? These kids do extremely well on all standardized tests including SAT/ACT so this means one of two things. Either the tests do not cover science and if they don't then what we are debating about if the educators, themselves, don’t deem it is necessary.

The other one is that these kids actually do learn evolution, but I'm sure with creationism pushed as the truth. Either way they know enough to pass science tests, and most likely know more about it than their public school counter parts who might just sleep through the lectures without a notice from the teacher.

So which one is it?

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero


Again. This thread links to a story that describes how the most popular home-schooling books teach creationism as science and don't mention evolution.

I am not at all saying this is the regular case - I am just commenting on the story linked to in the OP.

Of course what you write is true for some (or even most) cases but that's not what is linked to in the OP.

And yes, it is already in place - that was pretty much my point.

As I've never read unbiased statistics about who has the better average SAT scores, I can't really comment on that.

But I do figure that having a text-book that omits evolution yet teaches creationism as science can't really be beneficial for one's chances of passing an SAT.
If the kids that used these text-books pass the SAT anyways, then it was not because of the text-book but in spite of it - something you yourself imply by noting that the parents can supplement evolution or use other text-books.



[edit on 13-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin



A very nice and rational post.

2nd line

reply to post by Xtrozero

I can see your tone has changed from anti-creationism homeschooling to just anti-homeschooling in general. Many times we get into the mode to debate just to debate , but I would suggest that if you challenge your own views you might be surprised as what you may see differently.

Is it because I suggest that overegimenting a child's life and not giving it those essential hours free of parental interference are bad things? Or because I predict that such a project will fail due to the exigent demands of parenthood?

To repeat myself, the thread is really about home-schooling textbooks in which an important part of the curriculum has been omitted, glossed over or distorted. Understandably, it has developed into a discussion of what homeschooling parents teach their children, and the rights and wrongs of that. I am certainly against children being taught creationist doctrine as science, whether it is done at school or in the home.

Still, if you want my opinion on homeschooling, I will give it to you: I think homeschooling should be--as Bill Clinton said of abortion--safe, legal and rare.

By 'safe', I mean that it should be closely regulated in terms of curriculum, teaching methods applied, texts used, etc.

As for 'legal and rare': in a country the size of the United States, containing very sparsely populated regions, it would have often been difficult or impossible, in the past, for some children to attend school. The reasons were poor communications and the distances involved. Such a situation is the only one in which, to my mind, home schooling is acceptable. It is a substitute--a necessary but inadequate one--for real school when the latter is not accessible.

I don't know if there are still places in the USA where these issues of distance and communication obtain, but as long as there is any doubt about it, the state should allow home schooling--but only, I believe, if parents can demonstrate the impracticality of getting their children to a real school.

And that's as far as it goes. It should be compulsory for any child born within the catchment area of a real school to attend that school. And the education delivered there should be regulated and mandated by the state--together, again, with the didactic methods and materials used.

donny 4 million,

the problems in children that come from bad parenting:
social awkwardness
mentaly instabilty
warped views on life
often psychosis

examples
rod ferell- lack of parenting

one day a mother grounded her son and took away his copy of halo 3, he killed her and resumed playing. if your willing to kill your own mother something is wrong between your relationship with her

jeferry dahmer- obsessed with his mother

john wayne gacy- mother was insanely religious

charles manson- probably an all together lack of parenting

adolf hitler-beat by his father daily, mother fixated she died

pastor fred phelps-a bad father and grandfather preaches lies

richard kuklinski-beat nearly to death by his father several times, he grew up and became a hitman for the mafia filled windex bottles with cyanide and sprayed it in peoples faces, put it in 'his' bevereges and 'accidentily' spilled it on his victims(he didn't drink them of course)
that's a very sick person their i think

are you seeing the pattern donny? or are you just trolling?

Originally posted by ashanu90
donny 4 million,

the problems in children that come from bad parenting:
social awkwardness
mentaly instabilty
warped views on life
often psychosis

examples
rod ferell- lack of parenting

one day a mother grounded her son and took away his copy of halo 3, he killed her and resumed playing. if your willing to kill your own mother something is wrong between your relationship with her

jeferry dahmer- obsessed with his mother

john wayne gacy- mother was insanely religious

charles manson- probably an all together lack of parenting

adolf hitler-beat by his father daily, mother fixated she died

pastor fred phelps-a bad father and grandfather preaches lies

richard kuklinski-beat nearly to death by his father several times, he grew up and became a hitman for the mafia filled windex bottles with cyanide and sprayed it in peoples faces, put it in 'his' bevereges and 'accidentily' spilled it on his victims(he didn't drink them of course)
that's a very sick person their i think

are you seeing the pattern donny? or are you just trolling?

I don't know your definition of a troll so I don't know how to answer that.
Are all of these people in the list above "home schooled?
Do you think any of the persons on the list were involved
in the education or use of the Theory of evolution?
Well besides Adolf Hitler?
I would be much more clear of what you are trying to say if you posted some sources for your opinions.
thanks Donny

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
in the education or use of the Theory of evolution?
Well besides Adolf Hitler?

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread again and i have no intention of taking part for long but Donny you obviously know nothing of the theory of evolution or Adolf Hitler.

Hitler did not apply the theory of evolution, he used Eugenics, a very different theory to evolution. Evolution says survival of the fittest via natural selection, this does not mean the physically strongest, smartest, most aesthetically pleasing or anything else you can think of. It simply means the individual best suited to a given environment. So a mammal with thick, insulating hair will, generally speaking, be far more succesful in an arctic environment than a mammal with short hair.

Eugenics however is the theory of taking individuals with traits that humans see as advantagous and selectively breeding them. Natural selection is destroyed within Eugenics.

If you're going to argue a point donny then maybe you should have some idea of what you are talking about. But i think, as others have said, you're a troll aren't you

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
in the education or use of the Theory of evolution?
Well besides Adolf Hitler?

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread again and i have no intention of taking part for long but Donny you obviously know nothing of the theory of evolution or Adolf Hitler.

Hitler did not apply the theory of evolution, he used Eugenics, a very different theory to evolution. Evolution says survival of the fittest via natural selection, this does not mean the physically strongest, smartest, most aesthetically pleasing or anything else you can think of. It simply means the individual best suited to a given environment. So a mammal with thick, insulating hair will, generally speaking, be far more succesful in an arctic environment than a mammal with short hair.

Eugenics however is the theory of taking individuals with traits that humans see as advantagous and selectively breeding them. Natural selection is destroyed within Eugenics.

If you're going to argue a point donny then maybe you should have some idea of what you are talking about. But i think, as others have said, you're a troll aren't you

Wow! thanks for taking the time to point that out.
Wow
You do know that there was an entire post and you just singled out just a tinny weany selected part of that reply to another member, I might add.
Would you now like to educate us to---how eugenitics can be used without first understanding the Theory of evolution?
Thank you

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Wow! thanks for taking the time to point that out.
Wow
You do know that there was an entire post and you just singled out just a tinny weany selected part of that reply to another member, I might add.
Would you now like to educate us to---how eugenitics can be used without first understanding the Theory of evolution?
Thank you

It wasn't a small thing donny and the fact you don't realise that says more and more about your level of education and your understanding of history.

As for explaining how eugenics can be used without knowledge of evolution, well here i go!

Slaves donny, back in even roman times, slaves were being bred because they were the strongest and it was thought that by breeding two powerful slaves you would have an even stronger slave. Gladiators were treated in the same way.

Not only that but infanticide was commonplace! It is even a part of the twelve tables, number IV i think. Basically a deformed child was to be put to death. That is a practice of eugenics.

So there you have it donny, eugenics without evolution existing first. But hey i'm sure you'll ignore that and avoid the points made because that's all you do donny. When someone proves you incorrect or asks something you can't answer well you just avoid it don't you

Although by me saying that hopefully i've painted you into a corner and you'll be forced into answering the points made.

Damn those pesky facts, they really get in your way don't they donny

[edit on 14-3-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]