Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

reply to post by davesidious


Don't give me the old press the linky crap.
Put the words I type up here where all can see them.
Put them here in context.
Forget about Jarmo. That went over your head.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

Originally posted by 911stinks

Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

news.yahoo. com

Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth's creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious or moral instruction."

(visit the link for the full news article)

The AP article "Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution" is a typical hit piece on home schooling. It says the textbooks dismiss evolution and give the prices of the books (as if all textbooks aren't expensive), but does not even bother to state how the textbooks dismiss evolution. Interesting unanswered questions would be:
1. Do they dismiss evolution, by pointing out all the whole in the theory?
2. Do they dismiss evolution, by setting up silly straw man arguments?
3. Do they dismiss evolution, by totally ignoring it?


[edit on 8-3-2010 by CharlesMartel]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Now if you want to talk evolution and scientific conspiracy. Start here with my hypotstasis---
All are welcome.
No religon bashing might keep most away though.



Alcohol and Measured Human Evolution

No Gene for Alcoholism, but a possible way to measure Human evolution.

This hypostasis of mine is 20 years old. I would like to explore it with you members as genetics and origins seem to be topics of interest.

My belief is that If you were to examine the genes of a society or culture that has weaned it self away from the use of alcohol---- say CHINA . Less than one percent of the population use alcohol. Compare the Chinese to a culture of 80 percent users. Australian and North American aboriginals are 80 percent users.
You would be able to measure the difference genetically and establish a time line for that transition.

Here are some facts to get started.

If you look at the global percentages of consumption of alcohol. Then start in China and follow a spice trade like route east. You will find India Indians have a 25 percent rate of use, Asia Minor and the Mediterranean countries about 35 percent. Northern Europe and Africa clock in at about 55 percent.

The most interesting is pre European North America and Australia at an amazing 80 percent.

I compiled this data after having a very heated debate with NIH scientists . It was about the foolish breeding of Super Rats, the study of twins and convicts to find the DNA markers that prove their parent or parents caused them to become alcoholic by passing them a bad gene or predisposition for what they were now calling a disease.

When I had collected the factual data I looked at its Linearity and surmised that there could be genetic reason for the east - west increase in consumption due to reproduction.

Everything looked pretty good until I got to the Atlantic Ocean and became confused.
The science at the time was saying alcoholics inherited a predisposition from an alcoholic parent or parents much like cancer. At the time cancer had the visible DNA markers.
That could explain, that if the societal use of alcohol started in China and then copulated its way West with the spices over a period of time, you would find no barrier to stop its dissemination.

Stick with me here because I think this is the most important part.

I now had the two interesting dilemmas.

1----How did this disease copulate its way across the Atlantic and Indian ocean?
2----Why did the data percentages seem backwards?

There is no record of large scale use of alcohol in pre European N. America or Australia and no reports of massive inter-breeding to facilitate a grand scale genetic change in the aboriginal populations over night.

And why in the world would there be more drunks in those populations than in the once pie eyed Chinese.

( Absolutely no disrespect to any of the countries or cultures here.) Every culture and country in it's turn has had an identical scenario.

It occurred to me that the aboriginals didn't get the sex, just the hooch. And the booze got them drunk not their folks.

After thinking about this for awhile, I figured the data wasn't backwards at all.

If the Chinese were first to use alcohol, using the left over rice from a newly contrived agriculture ------
(my calculated guess is 7 -8,000 years ago) and if they past that process west, the numbers from the data start to make sense.
This is ok but does a poor job of explaining why there is today more use in the west than there is in the east.
Aha ha! What if the Chinese became slowly immune to the poison by a evolutionary process.
Selection of a mate, social awareness, depletion of food sources etc.

Repeat this process west ward and the data are looking pretty good.

Ok then, HOW do you prove this!
And I am not saying I can.
If I had a bunch of sober Chinese DNA donors and some from pure blooded North America and Australia aboriginals and a test lab, that would be a start.

Way unlike the National Institute of Health's program.
Perhaps it has changed in the last 20 years but I doubt it.

This was the end of my thread when I last posted it.
I was banned for some month so the thread fell apart.

Do to help from other members I found out some good recent news that fits well in the Hypostasis.
Dr. Lee of the Nat Institute Of health has reported that central Asians have been assaulted with a flush gene that keeps Chinese folks from consuming. I was right!
Russian geneticist have tracked and documented that gene.
Their maps look exactly like my spice trade Hypostasis.
It also shows the dissemination of the gene south through the South Pacific.
Unfortunately they think it is a bad gene because it seems to can cause esophageal cancer in those that still attempt to consume alcohol. They don't connect it to a antidotal type of gene that has mutated to change the ability to consume it. Alcohol is a slow poison, The human factor responds slowly.
I contend the only predisposition to consume is good health.
I am bucking convention with my thinking and would like some input Thanks you all.

Originally posted by 911stinks
The discussion in this thread is interesting. So much information from so many minds. Glad to see it going on. Both sides have a powerful argument.

I just choose the God side. My kids are in public school. I teach creationism, they teach evolution. My children have time to decide which they prefer.

This is healthy. There is nothing wrong with children knowing the jury is out on origins of man. They have a right to understand people believe different things. They will have more respect for you and credit your faith if you do not try to hide one side of the discussion from them.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
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.

Dont get me wrong. I'm in NO way a bible thumper!

The thing is when you start getting deep into quantum, there is the Unknown variable that causes change.

I posit that as being "spirit". The divine spark itself?

Why does science have to be so "sterile" that there is no room for the last element (or first?) being "spirit". That thing that animates all things?

I agree with the big bang theory. It makes sense as a POSSIBILITY.

what created that which the matter for the bang was in to begin with? There has to be a source! Humans can peg whatever name to it they want to make it more palitable to contemplate. God or Goddess. It makes no difference.

Have a look at the kabbalist tree of life. It is a metaphor that explains a great deal. ain, ain soph, ain soph aur.

Unless you want to put that athiest BS everywhere. Athieism is a child stamping his feet and screaming "NO!" at the top of his lungs!

Scientific method NEVER eliminates ANY possibility.

So far, I've not had anyone give a good reason why spirituality cant co-exist with science. They work quite well with each other.

Notice I dont use the word "religion".

Originally posted by davesidious
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.

I dont take this as an attack. Actually, this would be quite fun to discuss over several good beers (Guinness, Kostritzer, or Warsteiner?) and too many smokes .

I have adequate knowledge of scientific method. One theory is as good as any other. The info has to be put out for the budding "scientist" to absorb and assimilate. I dont think the kids need to be told strictly that dinosaurs were on the planet 4000 years ago and nothing existed 8000 years ago. Thats just stupid....but. That is up to the parent. IF thats the worst thing their religion does to anyone thats fine by me. The kid will figure it out.

I just have a problem with athieism in science. Its like a missing element. When everything else is explained but problem "x", maybe it is a "spirit" energy? Quantum physics that I have read has (to me) explained how metaphysical research and physical research collide and complement each other. Its another energy.

Maybe myself and others are nuts. Thats ok. They said Kepler, Galileo, Tyco Brahe, and Immanuel Velikovsky were also. I consider that fairly good company.

When I'm dead, I'll contact you with my "final thesis" and submit it for your approval.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Why then were children 50, 100 150 years ago taught a better education than today?

Are you serious?

In what way was it 'better'?

Before you launch into your answer, consider the purpose of education. What is it? And in what way was that purpose better served by the education systems that prevailed (where?) fifty, a hundred or 150 years ago?

You are uttering wild generalizations you will find impossible to substantiate.

It was because families vested more interest in their children.

How do you know this?

Where is the evidence?

What makes you think it is even true?

Have you any idea how children were raised in middle-class European and American homes a hundred or 150 years ago? For your information, most children rarely saw their parents all day. They were at school or they were out of the house, playing with their friends.

Among the poor it was even worse--you may have heard how working-class mothers in Victorian England would feed their babies opium- and alcohol-laced gripe water to keep them unconscious all day while they were out working. As for older working-class children, most of them received their education on the job in factories, workhouses and sweatshops.

Children in better-off families they were raised and educated by nurses and tutors. They saw their parents for only a few minutes a day. Or else they were sent off to 'public' (meaning private) boarding-schools and never saw their parents at all, except during the holidays.

Public examinations and education standards were primitive or nonexistent.

You are making up your history out of whole cloth. Either substantiate these statements or withdraw them.