Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by felonius

 

Creationism is not as legit. There is no evidence for it. There is a pile for the Theory of Evolution. Loads. In fact, there is no evidence against it.

If people are to home-school their kids, and outright lie to them and corrupt their education, then that is something that is going to put that kid at a great disadvantage, without the kid's consent. It's disgusting. It's tantamount to child abuse, as it will hurt the child's future, and require years to correct.

Creationism should be taught in religious studies classes, from a neutral standpoint (i.e. "This is what Christians believe..."). They should know it, just so they know how great swathes of the world think. As a method of explaining where anything came from, or how any species was created, it's as useful as just asking the kids to come up with their own explanations - they'll be just as valid, and just as accurate.

The education that was available 60 years ago is straight-up archaic, inaccurate, and lacking about 60 years of history. Brilliant.

You seem to forget part of my point. Evolution is still a theory. You MUST have a point of origin. Science without Spirituality is as much use as a Eunic in a red light district!

Push the question back! Why do you have an issue with a Diety?

I also think you should reconsider education of 60 years ago for the basics. The "lacking 60 years of history" is a BS argument.

Asking kids to come up with their own answers? Kids are here to be instructed. That is a parents job. You are either a laise faire parent or none at all i would guess.

reply to post by ReelView


So what do you tell the children?

Who did Adam and Eve, Cain and Seth mate with to produce the rest of the people of the earth?

I missed the passage where God made "the others."
And why was the first product of Gods creation a murderer?
Great job God.

Do any of you think children do not wonder all this? Kids aren't stupid. They will tell you anything you want to hear in public. Privately they will believe something else.

You think children don't realize this is some sort of "creative license" you are using in this "education"?
And doesn't this first lie you are sharing with them...then go on to give them tacit permission to fabricate stories and lie themselves, whenever it suits their own purposes?

Bad practice.
Bad precedent.



[edit on 7-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by felonius

You seem to forget part of my point. Evolution is still a theory. You MUST have a point of origin. Science without Spirituality is as much use as a Eunic in a red light district!

Evolution is a theory! Religious people keep on harping that evolution is "only" a theory.

It is a theory! Just like gravity theory, electronics theory, and just about anything else in science.

A theory is created to fit the observations in nature.

Science does not concern itself with spirituality.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


and music theory , etc etc etc

but are you sure your not mixing up theory with hypothesis ?

Originally posted by Conclusion
Ah. Okay I got it. You can't. If you cannot back up your own claims with your own work and proof, please make no such allegations.

Don't make more of a fool of yourself than you absolutely have to. Clearly I know what I am talking about; I have already cited chapter and verse. Why should I spoonfeed you? All you've done on this thread is blow hot air--venting your own opinions without citing a single piece of evidence or even offering a single thought-out argument to suport them. Get off that well-fed fundament of yours and do a little work for a change.

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by RuneSpider

 

I don't think either or should have full rights.

Being parents doesn't make someone the right person to raise a child, and the government is a structured system of rules and regulations, and people tend to get lost in the mix.

This particular debate is about who retains the right to educate the child as they see fit. The parents or the Government. I feel truly sorry for a society that would consent to give another exclusive jurisdiction over the education of their child. Parents may err in judgment but history has shown the dangers of allowing the state exclusive rights to education. The common citizen normally ends up as a soldier or a slave and too ignorant to avoid being one or the other.

This is why we have a society that instead of having the ability to be self sufficient is currently demanding that the Government provide more "employers" they can "work" for i.e. "jobs".

What about they both retain the right to educate the child?

Scientists, not parents or everyone else, should decide what would the children learn in natural sciences!

Curriculums represent the opinion of the scientists. Therefore, the government has the right to demand that your child learns everything in
curriculum. And it has a right to enforce this, just like it has a right to enforce that your child learns to read and write.

I am all for homeschooling, it is a more effective and overall better way to teach your child the basics. But, I repeat it again, you have to teach your child not only what you think is true, but also what scientists think is true.

I am sure that you love your child, but that does not make you any more competent to judge what is important to learn in exact sciences. For that, you need a degree in biology.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Maslo]

reply to post by harvib

I assume that you believe that the Government should raise and educate a parents child as they please?

The state, not the government. Educate, not raise, though the state certainly can and should play a part in that, too. Given those caveats, yes, I do think the fundamental responsibility for education, and therefore the right to curricular and methodological decisions, lies with the state.

In practice, education is a collaborative act between the parent, the state and (of course) the child. The state has the principal responsibility, but there is certainly room for parental choice. Home-schooing is the worst possible choice because it puts the child's education in the hands of poorly trained and self-interested amateurs. It is better for the state to insist that all children attend school, while leaving to the parent (and from early adolescence onward, the child) some degree of choice concerning what school and what subjects to choose.

Since everyone seems to be referring to their own experiences, allow me to offer mine. I was educated at a private school in my home country, at some expense to my parents, who felt that state schools suffered various deficiencies--as, indeed, they did and still do. Education is free and universal in my country, but the state is very poor.

At the school I attended, I was taught the entirety of the state curriculum in preparation for public examinations also conducted by the state; but in addition, my fellow-pupils and I received additional teaching in other subjects and participated in numerous extracurricular activities, none of which were mandated by the state.

Doubtless I was privileged in my education, but I do not tell this story in order to boast of it. Instead, I would like to make two points. Point one: at no point did my learning omit subjects taught at state schools. Despite the fact that my education was private, it was at all times overseen and regulated in detail by the state.

Second, my parents (and I) were allowed a substantial amount of educational choice within the framework of the state curriculum. In richer countries than mine, such choices are often underwritten by the state, and can be made at little or no financial cost to parents.

What I am getting at here is that state-mandated and -regulated education is not some Orwellian brainwashing exercise; it can take a multitude of forms, and there is plenty of room for alternative choices of all kinds within it.

*

reply to post by lynn112

Ma'am, your defence of home schooling has been reasoned and temperate. However, reading the posts of your fellow-defenders on this thread suggests that parents such as yourself are very much a minority in the home-schooling community. By their fruits ye shall know them.

You have argued throughout that home-schooling is as good or better for children than schooling in the community, and your arguments have all been based on your own interpretation of your own experience. This, I fear, is where you go consistently wrong. In the first place, you are a sample of one, an inadequate population on which to base any trustworthy conclusion; in the second, you are obviously biased to look upon your own choices favourably, which casts severe doubt on any statement you care to make here.

Let us examine your latest post in the light of those observations.

Everyone is entitled to their faith.

Indeed. Does that mean they are entitled to program their children with it? Why should they be?

Originally posted by DJW001
The concern that some have about home schooling is that the parents will stifle their children emotionally and intellectually. Being raised in relative isolation and socializing only with a peer group that is selected by the parents can make dealing with adult society difficult. Much of what is learned in school, whether public or parochial, is how to negotiate social interactions without a parent's authority.

My son is far more social now than he was when he attended public school... he belongs to several peer group that he chose & not one of them is even remotely religous.

Again, an argument from a sample of one. And one, moreover, that cannot possibly be true. You say he has more time to spend with his friends because you 'teach twice as much in half the time'. It follows that the 'more time' he has to spend with his friends is time they do not have, since they are either attending school at that time or doing their homework.

Besides, as DJW001 explained, it isn't just about meeting children out of school. Social interaction is learned (and, not incidentally, social status and respect are earned) in school. This is a vital point which you have failed to take on board. By excluding your child from the agora of childhood, you run a grave risk of condemning him to a life on the margins of society. Perhaps you think this is a good thing, as so many home-schooling proponents insist; it most certainly is not. Marginalized children grow into marginal, maladjusted adults.

Also, doesn't public school (versus) private school, (versus) school districts already socially segregate children somewhat? I mean, if you are rich, your children will likely go to a private school with other wealthy children. If you are a farmer, your kids will likely go to school with others who have farmers for parents because it is a rural area....

Should the parents have a hand in selecting the childs peer group or should we leave it up to things like income or zip code?

Definitely the latter.

The truth is that parents have far less influence on their children's development than they like to think they do, and the more influence they seek to exert, the worse the kids usually turn out. Children learn to live and interact in society not from their parents, or even from their teachers, but from their peers. It is natural, and healthiest, for these peers to be of similar social background to themselves. Income and zip code are good predictors of social position. Parents who attempt to meddle with this kind of thing may do their children a terrible disservice by forcing them into situations where they are social misfits. They may also cause themselves much grief and heartache as they watch their children grow ever more alienated from and contemptuous of them.

Those who school their children at home are seeking far more control over their children's social lives than they have a natural right to. The community, not the family, is a human being's proper theatre of action; the function of the family is to be a resource and, at times, a refuge. Those who insist on home-schooling their children seem not to realize how unnatural and artificial an environment they are creating; throughout history and prehistory, children over the age of weaning have been cared for and educated in groups. In primitive times, the elder women of the tribe generally served the function of community caregivers for children. In more civilized ancient societies, there were nearly always schools--for boys, at least; girls were trained for marriage in the home. No doubt such arrangments originally evolved as a convenience to parents, mothers especially, who had pressing domestic chores and younger infants to take care of; but whatever its origins, schooling in the community is the natural human pattern, and parents who defy it invite Nature's wrath--which, as we know, is terrifying, pitiless and unavoidable. It is a shame so many home-schooling parents are too bigoted and ignorant to realize it.

*

Originally posted by Conclusion
Oh the old property argument. Well I could just reverse it and say they are not the property of our government either.

No, you can't just reverse it. You have to explain why. Start by explaining how you are not the property of the state.

Oh by the way you spelled miss-educate wrong. lol. wow.
Your education scares me.

miseducte

Home-schooled, were we?

Originally posted by Maslo
Every child has a goddamn right to learn about evolution, for one simple reason - it is current scientific consensus about lifes origin.

Is evolution really a learning fundamental? Also do you really think that being taught creationism will in some way prevent the child from excelling in life and education? I don’t believe in creationism other than maybe a simple way to explain how man came about, but I do not see evolution as some kind of must have education.

Also, maybe the vast majority that home school do it because of their faith and that faith conflicts with the general schools, and so of course the majority of the text books published and used will be based on creationism. So what we have here are dedicated parents that devote a lot of time and effort in their children, and all will be exceptionally educated compared to their 20 to 30 per classroom, understaffed, underfunded with zero motivation or ambition counterparts.

YEAH! How dare they teach creationism!

If you consider it false, you have to teach it your child, too, or you should not be allowed to homeschool your child.

Then when your child understands evolution (which I doubt he/she will, when you dont understand it yourself, but he/she has to pass a test or something...), then you can teach whatever creation myth you consider true, but keep it out of school.

How about once they pass all the tests on creationism then you can show them some other(s) theories too.

Anything else that you would like to dictate as what must or must not be taught?

My sister was homeschooled, and it was a good thing, but only till her 4 grade, then the stuff gets a little more advanced, and only a professional teacher should teach.

Need to raise the BS flag on this one....home schooling is by far better than public schools. So just what is a professional? I did platform instruction in the military that I received a practicum certificate for and I have a BS in physiology and with these two pieces of paper I can teach public schools in 40 states without an internship program required.

Does that make me a professional, or more importantly more professional then those who choose to home school?





[edit on 8-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by karl 12
On the subject of creationism - heres a video of what happens when religious extremists are allowed to teach their 'opinions' to young children as factual in context - its one of the most disturbing things I've seen in quite a while.

Thanks. I'd seen a similar clip before, but I don't remember seeing the interview with the tour guides at 8min20sec in this video where Nightline asks: "Why are human and dinosaur remains not found in the same sedimentary layers?", and the reply:

"There are several problems for the creationists, there's no doubt about that, and one would be that". I thought these guys had an answer for everything, like the 250,000 years worth of annual layers in the Antarctic ice cores where they claim we get 30 annual layers a year, so that's why it's not as old as it looks.

But it's really scary to imagine any kids being taught to think like that video shows. We can only hope that the curator is right and some of those kids will start to think for themselves, like he did.

Originally posted by Astyanax

The state, not the government. Educate, not raise, though the state certainly can and should play a part in that, too. Given those caveats, yes, I do think the fundamental responsibility for education, and therefore the right to curricular and methodological decisions, lies with the state.

In practice, education is a collaborative act between the parent, the state and (of course) the child. The state has the principal responsibility, but there is certainly room for parental choice. Home-schooing is the worst possible choice because it puts the child's education in the hands of poorly trained and self-interested amateurs. It is better for the state to insist that all children attend school, while leaving to the parent (and from early adolescence onward, the child) some degree of choice concerning what school and what subjects to choose.

So when you say the "state not the government" are you saying a non-governmental office that controls the schools? Or do you mean the state govenment and not the federal government?

Lets talk a minute about the poorly trained homeschooled childern and their parents/teachers.


Taking 8th grade national math results homeschools scored 295 national average with public schools the lowest at 282 national average. The only school that had a higher average than homeschooling was private catholic schools at 297. On the hardest subject to teach I would say they did rather well wouldn't you?

Hmmm, lets talk education level of the parents who homeschool shall we? I took this off of NCES.ed.gov and the odds ratio below shows that the parents are more likely to have BS/BA or higher degree than just a HS or lesser education, so I do not agree with your views that poorly educated people are homeschooling.

Parents' highest educational attainment
(High school diploma or less) 1.000
Voc/tech degree or some college 1.345
Bachelor's degree 1.895
Graduate/professional school 1.741

I think you are somewhat bias based on what you experienced in another country which might be perfectly valid points there but do not work that well here in the US.



[edit on 8-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Astyanax

The state, not the government.

In the US the Federal Government requires students to take and to pass federal testing. Therefore the public schools curriculum is based around exactly that.

The state has the principal responsibility, but there is certainly room for parental choice.

See this is where we disagree. The dangers of a society allowing their Government to "educate" their children, I believe, is self evident. American's no longer have the ability to be self sufficient. Most of us would end up in dire straights with out our corporate masters and/or the Government providing for us. This is not a strong healthy society. I believe that comes from a lack of education.

reply to post by Maslo

Therefore, the government has the right to demand that your child learns everything in curriculum. And it has a right to enforce this, just like it has a right to enforce that your child learns to read and write.

No the Government does not have this right. The parents retain this right unless given up by consent.

But, I repeat it again, you have to teach your child not only what you think is true, but also what scientists think is true.

So the scientist are in charge of mandating the curriculum?

Originally posted by harvib
So the scientist are in charge of mandating the curriculum?

Scientists present factual data and it is then the governments job (if they are offering state education) to relate those facts. If you don't want to use factual data to teach your children then please feel free to take them out of school and homeschool them. Creationism is a religious idea and you have absolutely no right, at all to force it upon children who may not be religious or may hold to an entirely different faith.

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

Science in science classes.

Religion in religious study classes.

Whatever you like at home as long as it's legal.

reply to post by felonius


You seem to not understand what "theory" means in a scientific context. Where life comes from is not covered by the theory of evolution - as it is a different phenomenon. The theory you are looking for is abiogenesis.

I don't have issues with dieties, or even deities. They just don't have a place in science classes, as they are unscientific.

Clearly, if even some parents think like you, asking parents to teach their kids is asking for trouble. I'm not attacking you, but you clearly are lacking some basic knowledge about the scientific method.

reply to post by harvib


The science curriculum? Yeah. Weird, innit?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So when you say the "state not the government" are you saying a non-governmental office that controls the schools? Or do you mean the state govenment and not the federal government?

Governments come and go. States endure.

A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. In Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". It thus includes such institutions as the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police.

Although the term often refers broadly to all institutions of government or rule... the word is often used in a strict sense to refer only to modern political systems.

Addressing the rest of your post: I don't recall seeing anyone on this thread suggest that home schooling produces inferior exam results. My own objections to home-schooling are that

1. it deprives children of their right to an education and social life free of the overwhelming and often oppressive influence of their parents, and
   
   
2. it perpetuates antisocial attitudes and breeds social misfits.

Even so, the comparison of home-schooled American children's results with those of their school-educated compatriots is misleading. You should compare them with the educational outcomes of children in countries that have more effective education policies. America's school system is, for a country so advanced and powerful (and one which spends so much per child on its schools) a disgrace.

• US Slipping in Education Rankings
  
  
• U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around World on Math-Science Test
  
  
• Comparative international test scores
  
  
• Stupid in America: How Lack of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education

As you will see from the sources I've chosen to quote, I am certainly not against parental choice in education. I am, however, convinced that home-schooling should not be one of those choices.

I should add, in fairness, that higher education in America, which is governed by different authorities, is brilliant. You have easily the world's best universities, especially when it comes to scientific and technological subjects.

Finally, I urge everyone reading this thread to have a look at the Wikipedia entry on Education in the United States. It is quite illuminating.

reply to post by Astyanax


American schools still teach that Columbus discovered the world was round and that vomitoriums were/are used for vomiting, what are you going to do when ignorance is institutional?

Originally posted by harvib
See this is where we disagree. The dangers of a society allowing their Government to "educate" their children, I believe, is self evident.

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

Let's talk turkey, shall we? In one very real sense, education is indoctrination. Call it brainwashing if you like. An important part of education is teaching children to rub along with others so that they will become peaceable, productive, cooperative citizens. This essential truth precedes the development of formal education; it goes all the way back to primitive hunter-gatherer bands, which (surprise, surprise), in their way, educate and indoctrinate their children as earnestly as civilized folk do.

It is plain to see the concept of education as indocrination sticks in your craw. Very well; I don't find it an easy swallow myself. But it is inevitable and necessary. Humans are social animals, but we are also murderously selfish; the process we call growing up is more accurately termed socialization, and consists in learning how to balance one's personal needs, wants and views with those of the folk around you. Getting it right demands as much exposure as possible to the ambient society and culture. Up to a point, the more frequent and total the immersion, the better. Privacy and personal reflection are important, too; as I said before, it's all about striking a balance.

This necessary indoctrination cannot possibly be left entirely to parents. They already provide the basics--toilet training, elementary moral instruction, good manners, key opinions. That is more than enough. The rest is--indubitably--the business of the wider community into which the individual must be integrated. In modern, advanced societies, that means the state.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


1. Do you have evidence of that?

2. Even if that is in the curriculum, that is hardly as bad as teaching kids that the entire scientific method is wrong. A simple incorrect fact here and there can be easily fixed. Screwing up a kid's understanding of how mankind can and has learned takes years to fix.

It is not a parent's job to screw up their kids because the parent has some bat-poop crazy notion that science is bad, learned from some bat-poop crazy preacher or Fox News or otherwise.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

But it's really scary to imagine any kids being taught to think like that video shows. We can only hope that the curator is right and some of those kids will start to think for themselves, like he did.

Arbitrageur, thanks for the reply and I think you hit the nail on the head there.

I know the video is an extreme example (and I actualy felt quite sickened when I watched it) but perhaps all this religious indoctrination and conditioning is more about 'desperation and insecurity' than anything else.

After all, unless theres an unhealthy agenda involved, what can anyone possibly have against 'affording children the luxury of arriving at their own conclusions'?

Cheers.