Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

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]

THANK YOU!!! i don't know what donny's problem is, but he keeps twisting everything around and we keep having to go off subject to explain something. thank you so much

reply to post by Astyanax

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

My friend, you need to reread my post. You have missed my point entirely. I suggest the importance of educating children to be self sufficient. I make the point that those who can't afford to buy food and pay for shelter may be able to afford to pay for their shelter if they had the proper education to minimize food cost. In return you respond with this nonsense:

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?

In America we have had record foreclosures in the last few years. Yet these individuals buy cell phones, computers, and televisions. If they took a portion of that money and invested it into means to provide for themselves they would most likely fare such hard times with much less turbulence. They would not have to learn such a hard lesson on the pitfalls of being completely reliant on another. However maybe they feel like you and are too "civilized" to provide for themselves and therefore are now foreclosed upon. And our educational system supports such ignorance.

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.

This is simply not true. I grow a large varieties of vegetables, all organically, and do so very cheaply. I add compost and organic amendments to my soil every season and supplement with compost tea. If the vegetables need a little extra food I add a little bat guano to my compost tea. This produces big beautiful vegetables very cheaply.

Again: in a modern society, the kind of thing you're talking about is simply impracticable. It's a survivalist fantasy.

Maybe you have been "educated" into thinking you are not able to provide for yourself? Maybe you haven't attempted to rethink your education? We don't have to labor such long hours to simply survive. If the average American would just turn their lawns into a vegetable garden they would lessen their monthly expenses.

Unfortunately you are simply wrong. I am not a "survivalist". I just choose to use my "lawn" to feed myself and my family. Only in such a poorly educated society would this be looked upon as "impracticable".

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!

Unfortunately another unfounded and incorrect statement. Again people are losing their homes not because they are meth heads but because their monthly expense out weigh their net income. In most neighborhoods lawns are a common place both in their front yards and in back. This is big enough to support several full sized raised vegetable beds. 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.

So we have established and are in agreement that a corporation may concern themselves with the general populaces ability to produce what the corporation produces and that the corporations influence is greater then the individuals influence.

Does it not become evident that the corporation may not only have an interest in the education of the populace but the means to do so?

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?

Take it easy champ. Not everyone has the mental superiority as you. Please forgive me if that is the case and indulge me. Let's try to find out if I am too wrapped up in my "apparatus of delusion".

The question that must be posed is can a person be elected without the proper funding for a campaign? I believe that those who make large campaign contributions may be also wrapped up in "delusion", they surely believe that their funds will greaten their candidates chances of being elected.

You talk as if 'Government' and 'Corporations' are monstrous alien lifeforms of some kind.

No, I talk as if it is natural for Governments to wish to obtain increasing authorities in order to more effectively Govern the populace and I talk as if it is natural for corporations to attempt to find ways to more effectively increase profits. I know, crazy "conspiracy theory".

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?

I have never advocated "pulling children out of society" or "marginalizing" them. I just happen to believe that the parent, generally, will be more likely to have a child's best interest at heart as opposed to a corporate government.

Furthermore it would be difficult for me to raise "little right-wing Christian guerillas" as I am not "right-winged" nor am I Christian nor am I a "guerrilla".

reply to post by Xtrozero


I cannot agree more,
I do not worry about the Chinese communists because they have forgotten about converting the souls of Christian since Genghis Kahn's sons retreated to China a thousand years ago,
All they want is our money. And that makes sense. They need it.
The brand of communism that I think is attempting to infiltrate further into American society IMHO comes from the ousted leaders of the Russian Revolution and there cronies. They have an ax to grind, They know as the Nazis did ---If you control the minds of the youth you control the future. I have no problem with the Theory of evolution.
I have a BIG problem with those that would abuse it.
Especially against my fellow Americans. What surprises me is the number of the "stuff the Theory of evolution down a kids throat" are ashamed to even declare to where or who they owe their allegiance to.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Especially against my fellow Americans. What surprises me is the number of the "stuff the Theory of evolution down a kids throat" are ashamed to even declare to where they owe there allegiance

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

Once again you completely ignore a reply to a question that you asked, indeed it was a challenge you spewed fourth and it was dealt with, yet it's like you never asked it. What a very strange mindset, to ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs.

Then you come up with this, pathetic ad hom aimed at an entire group of people who simply choose to believe in the facts. Have you considered donny that the reason the people who accept evolution and wish to see it taught in schools are not coming out as communists is because we are not communists. Are you able to understand that or are you going to go off on yet another lying tirade, paranoid drivel about communists.

Ahh well i wasn't going to stay long so i guess i'm out again. Donny, you're truly adept at avoiding both questions and reality.

reply to post by harvib

There is nothing material to address in your post and I have already demolished all your previous arguments, so I will just say this: unlike you, I have plenty of experience of the kind of 'self-sufficiency' you propose. It was an unmitigated nightmare for all concerned and utterly useless to boot.

Many years ago, the South Asian country I call home went through an experiment with socialism that lasted half a generation and coincided, more or less, with my childhood and adolescence. In that time, the government severed its commercial ties with the western world and embarked on a wholesale programme of industrial nationalization, land reform and redistribution, all the time fulminating against big corporations--just as you do--and evil landowners, which meant anyone who owned over fifty acres. Imports of 'luxury goods' (anything that wasn't a staple of life, essentially) were banned and the State became almost the only manufacturer or importer of anything, as well as nearly the only distributor. Private enterprise wasn't forbidden, but it was severely legislated against and heavily taxed; the result was a near-comatose private sector. How you would have loved it, harvib, to see the corporations tumble!

But we didn't love it, for our lives were growing ever more deprived and miserable.

Pretty soon, the national economy had collapsed. The government couldn't discharge a moiety of the responsibilities it had taken upon itself. It turned in desperation to China and the USSR for support, but the Communist giants weren't exactly munificent towards their wannabe comrades, and besides they had economic troubles of their own. There was 'aid' of a sort--for example, a cement factory and a steel plant, decommissioned and condemned in the USSR, were broken up and shipped to my country, where they were reassembled to provide rather a lot of employment for people with government connexions but very little cement or steel.

So in despair the government urged us to be 'self-sufficient' (self-sufficiency was the great national mantra of those times). Since the shops and warehouses were empty as drums four days of the week and mobbed the remaining three, we had little choice. We were told to grow our own food. Children were taught how in school.

Flowerbeds became allotments, lawns turned into vegetable patches. At school, we dug up the quadrangle and the playing-fields to plant vegetables. When harvest-time came, the school had more vegetables than the boys in the boarding-house could eat, and no-one to buy the surplus except the State, which did so at derisory prices that didn't compensate the school for the expense of growing the damned things in the first place (not even allowing for the fact that labour cost nothing--we schoolboys were the labourers, child labour mandated by the government).

There was--understandably--an attempt at a military coup and another at proletarian revolution. Both failed. At length, for reasons too complex to go into here, the government was forced to hold an election. It was trounced, reduced to a rump, and the country went back to the social-democratic model of former times (free-enterprise capitalism with substantial social provision, e.g. free education and health care for all). The economy has continued to grow steadily and healthily ever since. We have had many other troubles since, largely political, but economic growth has been strong and steady in an integrated, strongly entrepreneurial economy.

You will say that what I have just described is socialism, the state gone mad, and what you prescribe is the opposite: individual self-sufficiency and survivalism. But what my country tried to do, on a national level, is just what you are prescribing for individuals, and after a while what was mandated for us on the national level was forced on individuals, too. Guess what: it didn't work.

The outcome of your prescription would be anarchy and chaos. Your armed, self-sufficient survivalists would never produce enough to keep society going. Because of scarcities, shortages and conflicts over land, they would be engaged in an endless war of all against all--either that, or the state would have to reestablish order with draconian laws and punitive enforcement. America might still be the Home of the Brave after that, but you'd have to kiss the Land of the Free goodbye. Good thinking, Harv.

reply to post by Astyanax

There is nothing material to address in your post and I have already demolished all your previous arguments

I don't believe you have. The whole premise of my argument has been the importance of the individual retaining their rights. We have both agreed that the corporate interest may oppose the individual being able to provide for themselves. We have also established the corporation has a greater influence then the individual. What do you think this combination leads to? The individual most not become complacent and never complicit.

I have plenty of experience of the kind of 'self-sufficiency' you propose. It was an unmitigated nightmare for all concerned and utterly useless to boot.

Growing a vegetable garden as opposed to a lawn was a "unmitigated nightmare". Because that is the extent of self sufficiency I propose. The rest you have falsely attributed to me.

But for what it's worth I am sorry to hear of your suffering and I am glad life has gotten a little easier and wish you continued happiness.

all the time fulminating against big corporations--just as you do

I never fulminated against big corporations. What I have fulminated against is individuals not retaining their rights.

I am pro capitalism and vehemently oppose socialism because of the limitation of rights and the strength of an oligarch it requires. However, in a capitalistic society the individual must always be aware that profit will act for profits sake and must be aware of the implications. They must anticipate the motives of corporations and not consent to the loss of their rights. They must realize that corporations will try to gain control of legislation and be vigilant in opposing such efforts.

But what my country tried to do, on a national level, is just what you are prescribing for individuals, and after a while what was mandated for us on the national level was forced on individuals, too. Guess what: it didn't work.

I never prescribed that the U.S. "experiment with socialism" or "severe its commercial ties" or "embark on a wholesale programme of industrial nationalization, land reform and redistribution" or highly taxing and legislating the private sector. These sound like the issues that caused your Countries economic crisis.

Again my argument has been that allowing a corporate Government to have complete jurisdiction over the education of the nations children may have negative repercussions.

Your armed, self-sufficient survivalists would never produce enough to keep society going.

When did I state anything about being "armed"?

reply to post by harvib


It totally amazes me that members here keep trying to install the Theory of evolution into American schools and home schools as a replacement for the current curriculum.
They tell horror stories of their home countries and NEVER show or demonstrate where it is that the forced teaching of evolution to children has ever done any one any thing positive. Others seem ashamed to declare exactly where they live and how the THEORY of evolution has enhanced the prosperity of their home land or the country they represent.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by harvib

 

[quote[
It totally amazes me that members here keep trying to install the Theory of evolution into American schools and home schools as a replacement for the current curriculum.

Bollocks. It's the other way around, completely. Evolution is part of the curriculum of every industrialized country since at least the 1920's and 1930's. What we are dealing with here is religious people who are trying to install the Mythology of Creationism as science.

No one wants to install evolution in to the curriculum as it has been part of it for almost 100 years now - to claim the opposite is intellectually dishonet. Just look at the title of the thread - it will clear up the chain of causation (Eliminating Evolution from the science curriculum).

They tell horror stories of their home countries and NEVER show or demonstrate where it is that the forced teaching of evolution to children has ever done any one any thing positive.

That's because the member that wrote about self-sufficiency in his home country wasn't adressing the thread in general but answered a specific question that was posed to him. Nowhere did he imply that his post was a general answer to the thread - he responded to the opinion that schools should teach self-sufficiency. He did not tell the story of his country to show negative or positive effects of teaching evolution. You might want to re-read his post.

Others seem ashamed to declare exactly where they live and how the THEORY of evolution has enhanced the prosperity of their home land or the country they represent.

That's because the topic of the thread is about omitting Evolution in science classes and instead teaching mythology as science. The question is not if Evolution is materially beneficial as a doctrine, the question is should it be taught as science.

But if you indeed need a material reason why Evolution is beneficial look no further than American Biology. America has produced a whole generation of leading Biologists - notably all people who believed in teaching evolution and being taught evolution. If you're familiar with the history of Biology, you'd have no problem seeing the institutional/scientific benefits it has brought to American science in general. That wouldn't have been possible if those generations were taught that Mythology is science and vice versa.

Anyway this last part was off topic: Evolution is taught in school because it has scientific merit. We do not compose curriculums by guessing about what could be most beneficial for the country or for the country's prosperity - we compose curriculums by applying standards of scientific merit. That's the way it has been, that's the way it will be.

------
And a last off-topic discussion. Donny, do you honestly believe that the whole of local comittees that determine curriculums for american public schools are infiltrated by communists from the ex-soviet Union?

robertbartholomew.newsvine.com...

I'm trying to follow your logic. We have been discussing the Texas School Board's decision to oust Jefferson from the curriculum in another thread. Let's use that example.
According to your theory, these boards are infiltrated by communists from ex-soviet russia. Can you point out which members you suspect of being closet communists from this list?:

www.tea.state.tx.us...

I'd be very interested in your answer. It seems to me that the infiltration of 50 boards of education averaging 10+ members would be a pretty big operation. Not to mention that they are not the sole authorities in determining the curriculum.





[edit on 15-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by Donny 4 million

It totally amazes me that members here keep trying to install the Theory of evolution into American schools and home schools as a replacement for the current curriculum.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

That's because the topic of the thread is about omitting Evolution in science classes and instead teaching mythology as science.

To me the topic of this thread is about the retention of rights. I could care less about the whole evolution vs. creationism debate. I read this thread and was alarmed at the number of individuals that were willing to give up their own parental right.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by endisnighe
Just another attack on the homeschooled?

I am sorry, I learned more from my life and family then I did in school.

Read a book, open your eyes, critical thinking, NOT indoctrination.

Who cares what people are being taught in home schools?

Is it anybodies business but the parents? HELL NO!

I am going to post a members name just to show the way I feel-

tired of control freaks

I'll give you my take on homeschooling. I run a business - a forensic science consulting firm specializing in aviation forensics. If I hire an aeronautical engineer, I want him to use 3.14159265358979 3238462643383279 5028841971693993 7510582097494459 2*6406286208 9986280348253421 1706798214808651 3282306647093844 6095505822317253 as the value of pi, not exactly 3 just because the bible says it's 3. (1 Kings 7;23) That's not because I hate the bible or the fundies who believe every word in it is true. It's because 3.14... is right. When I hire a janitor, I don't care what he thinks pi is. So, if all you home schooling parents want to make sure your kids are forever doomed to be janotors, keep at it. If, however, you want your children to excel in life, have them get a science education that is based in science, not some iron age superstition.

Teach your children that a man that thinks he is above his janitor to work for someone else. This must be what evolution warns against .
Stamp out foul mutations.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

reply to post by ashanu90


Start another. That is the essence of ATS.
Since you posted about Jeffery Dahmer,
You could call it "The eating habits of Jeffery due to lack of education in evolution."

» Origins and Creationism » Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

Please focus further responses on the Actual topic, NOT on each other's perception of a given member's character or person.

Thank you.


» Origins and Creationism » Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

reply to post by 12m8keall2c

What topic? There's nothing left of it after that seven-page spitball fight. What a roiling Sargasso of bile this thread turned into.

My compliments to all still following the thread, from which I unsubscribe herewith.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

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)

Teaching the bible in a science class will always be wrong, sure they can learn about the bible, they just don't have to learn about it during science class.

why you think teaching the bible in a science class is wrong? i think its wrong not to and only a moron world not what it to be. unless you can prove theres no god oh i forgot u can't i bet the feild you what them teching can't be proved eather so why one over the other?