Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates...

[Dr Adequate]

Prehistory and early history will have to go. And geology. And geography (well, contenental dift will have to go --- "Please Miss, why does it look like the continents are one big jigsaw puzzle" --- "Because God wanted it that way. Now shut up") And optics (the rainbow is a miracle --- it says so in the word of God, y'know). And the Copernican theory (yes, there are real live stationary-earthers, though I believe that all the flat-earthers are jokes). Oh, and cosmology --- bye-bye to the Big Bang. And what if teacher makes some trivial little slip like pointing out that insects have six legs, not four, or that mustard doesn't grow on trees, or that rain doesn't come through windows in the sky, or that the sky isn't a solid dome with stars attached to it...

Anyone who reads the Bible will discover, sooner or later, that it isn't accurate with respect to natural history. The way to avoid realizing this is to keep away from the Bible, not to keep away from reality.

 

[tsg]

Anyone who reads the Bible will discover, sooner or later, that it isn't accurate with respect to natural history. The way to avoid realizing this is to keep away from the Bible, not to keep away from reality.

Or, just to be fair, don't treat it quite so literally.

 

[Mojo]

Prehistory and early history will have to go. And geology. And geography (well, contenental dift will have to go --- "Please Miss, why does it look like the continents are one big jigsaw puzzle" --- "Because God wanted it that way. Now shut up") And optics (the rainbow is a miracle --- it says so in the word of God, y'know). And the Copernican theory (yes, there are real live stationary-earthers, though I believe that all the flat-earthers are jokes). Oh, and cosmology --- bye-bye to the Big Bang. And what if teacher makes some trivial little slip like pointing out that insects have six legs, not four, or that mustard doesn't grow on trees, or that rain doesn't come through windows in the sky, or that the sky isn't a solid dome with stars attached to it...

Thanks, Dr. A. I had a feeling you'd be able to provide a decent list of examples...

 

[Beth]

An organization, where all the whacky agendas cancel out to some degree. By no means am I suggesting that parents are generally incompetent to steer their kids' education. But left to themselves, some parents will steer their kids right over the cliff.

~~ Paul

An organization like the Kansas BOE for example? You are right that some parents will steer thier kids wrong. That's inevitable. But their errors are confined to their kids. OTOH, an organization like the State BOE setting curriculum can end up steering all the kids in the state wrong.

 

[Beth]

I couldn't disagree more. In my opinion, and I'm fairly certain I'm not alone in this matter,

No, you're not alone. I am. I realize my opinion is not a common one. It's mine alone. Please don't make the mistake of attributing it to any group. I'm unaware of any organization that endorses my opinions

 

[Beth]

As a home-schooler myself, I know there's a HELL of a lot you're leaving out of this discussion: like the fact that most home-schoolers who 'outperform' their peers ARE taking a State-mandatory curriculum; and the majority of home-schoolers who are consistantly scoring HIGHER are not being force-fed religious education that is CONTRARY to state standards. Nor, for that matter, does your statement take into account the fact that many states are considering eliminating many home-school approaches that do NOT meet state-established requirements - which is why the K12 program is having a tremendous success. Which, by the way, mentions religion in the contest of myth and legend - the proper way to do so.

So... tell me more about home-schooled kids?

I'm unaware of the fact that homeschoolers who outperform their peers are taking a state-mandatory curriculum. My sources indicated that homeschoolers in states that did not require them to take the standardized tests performed even better, but since taking the tests was optional in those states, it's reasonable to conclude that the difference is due to selection bias.

At any rate, if you have any cites for research on homeschoolers that breaks it down by religious affliation of the parents and/or curriculum and approach to homeschooling - which also varies tremendously - I'd be interested to read it.

As far as deviating from a more traditional curriculum, I think that liberal homeschoolers who adopt an unschooling approach are far more likely to do that than are the conservative religious fundamentalists. In my experience, the latter group are more likely to adopt an approach similar to traditional schooling following a more traditional curriculum and deviate mainly in regards to evolution and not the other subjects.

Now, your turn. Tell me more about home-schoolers. What is your approach? Why did you choose to homeschool?

 

[Beth]

Beth:

I've read this thread fully and I find your comments to be very astute and interesting. You are obviously an intelligent person.[./quote]

Thank you. <blushing modestly>

However, what you posted is totally wrong.

Well, I'm often wrong, but most of what I posted is my opinion and it's hard for me to get that wrong.

Evolution, as it is today, is the result of the best research and evidence that is known to this point. It says "this is what we have found to be the truth so far, if you don't believe us, look for yourself". It benefits the rest of the world, religious or not, to let that truth be known far and wide, and to let others see it for themselves.

I don't disagree with any of that and I haven't posted anything contrary to that.

Religion doesn't do that. It is a dogma. It says "what we say is the truth, it will never change, don't ask questions. Just believe."
I think that is dangerous, and I think it's detrimental to home-schooling. There is no peer-reviewing, no checks and balances. Just "this is it. You're done."

Okay, you're entitled to your opinion.

Earlier, you talked about how evolution would lead to "Such a loss of faith can lead to a rift in family relationships that may last for decades or even lifetimes. It is not something to be taken lightly. "

Well, that's bullcrap. World Wars, epidemics and other disasters have not lessened family relationships one bit. I fail to see how evolution could even make a dent.

Then you must be unaquainted with people for whom it has made a difference in their family relationships. Look, your logic here is faulty. You're saying that A, B and C do not cause result R, therefore, neither does D. That doesn't logically follow not to mention that wars, epidemics and other disasters can affect people's family relationships.

 

[fishbob]

Umm, perhaps you weren't aware, but attending college post-high school already is optional. College isn't appropriate for everyone and there's nothing wrong with choosing a profession that doesn't require it.

College may not be appropriate for everyone, but for those missing out on high school science, college is no longer an option. A profession that does require college is no longer a choice. The kid's choices have been limited before he has learned enough to choose.

 

[Beth]

College may not be appropriate for everyone, but for those missing out on high school science, college is no longer an option. A profession that does require college is no longer a choice. The kid's choices have been limited before he has learned enough to choose.

Only his/her choice of colleges has been limited, not the chance to attend college. Junior colleges are quite easy to get admitted to. In addition, there are colleges such as Oral Roberts University that draw their student body almost solely from children of families with fundamentalist religious beliefs.

 

[hammegk]

Prehistory and early history will have to go. And geology. And geography (well, contenental dift will have to go --- "Please Miss, why does it look like the continents are one big jigsaw puzzle" --- "Because God wanted it that way. Now shut up") And optics (the rainbow is a miracle --- it says so in the word of God, y'know). And the Copernican theory (yes, there are real live stationary-earthers, though I believe that all the flat-earthers are jokes). Oh, and cosmology --- bye-bye to the Big Bang. And what if teacher makes some trivial little slip like pointing out that insects have six legs, not four, or that mustard doesn't grow on trees, or that rain doesn't come through windows in the sky, or that the sky isn't a solid dome with stars attached to it...

Anyone who reads the Bible will discover, sooner or later, that it isn't accurate with respect to natural history. The way to avoid realizing this is to keep away from the Bible, not to keep away from reality.

Wow! That's more strawmen in a group than I've ever noticed before.

It's fine to have faith. It's not fine to accept faith OVER fact. When faith and fact collide, fact should be chosen - full stop.

Like the fact you have faith your axioms are actually tautologies?

 

[petre]

Now, your turn. Tell me more about home-schoolers. What is your approach? Why did you choose to homeschool?

Not personally, but I have a cousin that was homeschooled. She was the youngest in the family, the other 4 went to public school. She chose homeschooling because she couldn't adjust socially (like most of my family, she has a weight problem and the teasing was too powerful an emotional stress).

Unfortunately, I can only provide the why, as I don't have contact with that part of my family anymore. In addition to the social aspect, part of it may have been an attitude that "school education isn't that important". I base this on the fact that the eldest child in the family did well in school and even got a scholarship to college, but turned it down to go work as a janitor since they don't believe in higher education, and college doesn't leave enough time to pass out religious pamphlets anyway.

And while I'm injecting random thoughts, I'll add one last note that I don't believe there can ever be a good common ground between those with strong religious beliefs having limited scientific understanding and those with strong scientific understanding and limited religious beliefs.

Without understanding the scientific principals, it might as well be magic, and as far as a zealous religious person is concerned it doesn't matter how much earthly power such knowledge gives you -- it's still just evil dark magic if it turns you away from a religious belief and will suffer you the torments of hell.

From the scientists' point of view, you make your case and if your model of the universe helps you make future predictions and/or master control of the universe better than any other model put forth, then yours is the prevalent theory -- and yet it's just somehow infurriating that despite all that, a segment of the population sticks their fingers in their ears and says, "Nyea nyea we're not listening, we still think we're right and you're wrong because you don't understand the entire universe"

The two groups have entirely different goals, and that's the problem. Sure, they'd both have a better shot if they could isolate themselves from each other, but they both have to share the same world.

 

[PatKelley]

Wow! That's more strawmen in a group than I've ever noticed before.

Nope. They all have bearing; children ask questions, especially when presented with puzzles and evidence. Show a kid a mule and they go from there. What else produces offspring? Why are some sterile? If a tadpole can move from water to land as an adult, did other animals do this permanently? The two means of avoiding the questions are hiding the facts or ignoring the questions, both of which are anathema to teaching. One would eventually have to explain to the children why what works for other classes suddenly ends with biology; namely, that observation and inference can lead to new discoveries.

Evolution is not an aspect of biology that can be dismissed. It is the basis of modern biology. Even medicine; one cannot discuss population genetics without evolution coming up, and this comes up when discussing sickle cell anemia, double-recessive or sex-linked lethal recessives (hemophelia). Else one drops a major tool and is left with eighteenth century anatomy as a guide.

How do you avoid discussing evolutionary theory, without dismissing biology entirely? How is that a straw man? What about Beth's suggestions that it would be okay for a parent to prepare their children for a life of low wage or low skill jobs because of theology?

I really chafe at the modern Biological Luddites who insist that evolution is somehow not necessary, not beneficial, not important or worst of all not an accurate description.

 

[drkitten]

Umm, perhaps you weren't aware, but attending college post-high school already is optional. College isn't appropriate for everyone and there's nothing wrong with choosing a profession that doesn't require it.

Attending college is optional.

Being qualified to attend college, under the current system, is more or less mandatory in most state curricula. One of the things that most Americans consider to be an advantage of their system (over, for example, the three-track system the Netherlands uses, or the 11+ system that used to be in force in the United Kingdom) is that there is no vocational tracking, and no one is going to be forced into an educational system where they cannot better themselves through further education.

I knew a very nice man thirty or so years ago in London, a policeman. One of his deepest regrets was that he would never be able to make detective. But back in the 1950s, when he was 11, he hadn't scored well enough on the state tests to get into university when he was 18, and the local police department required (and may still) a college degree of its detectives.

What would you tell that man if you ran into him in Topeka, and he said that he wanted to be a detective, but that his parents had deliberately prevented him from being able to go to college, because they wouldn't let him take the prerequisite classes?

 

[drkitten]

Only his/her choice of colleges has been limited, not the chance to attend college. Junior colleges are quite easy to get admitted to. In addition, there are colleges such as Oral Roberts University that draw their student body almost solely from children of families with fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Yes, but Oral Roberts University requires two years of science as well. Check it out. So your science-optional students wouldn't even be able to get into ORU. And getting into a junior college by definition will not get them a college degree (only an associates'), unless they can transfer at the end to a four-year college, which will typically require a science background.

Of course, the chance of a student, even one who manges to get admitted through legacy status or something, being able to graduate from a four year college are quite small, because almost all reputable colleges have a college-level science requirement for graduation, and if the student hasn't had any science background since the 8th grade, they're not even going to be prepared to take and pass physics-for-poets.

The student's chance to attend college has been severely curtailed.

 

[Beth]

Attending college is optional.

What would you tell that man if you ran into him in Topeka, and he said that he wanted to be a detective, but that his parents had deliberately prevented him from being able to go to college, because they wouldn't let him take the prerequisite classes?

I'd tell him that now that he was an adult, he could take the prerequisite classes and get into college and become a detective. That he should stop blaming his parents and get on with his life because there is nothing that now prevents him from getting that education he wants.

I also think there is a great deal of difference between parents making choices that will eventually limit options for their children (all parents are forced to do make such decisions as some point in their childs life) and the government forcing such restrictions upon the unwilling. The example you gave is that of the government limiting options for children, not parents doing so.

 

[Beth]

Yes, but Oral Roberts University requires two years of science as well. Check it out. So your science-optional students wouldn't even be able to get into ORU. And getting into a junior college by definition will not get them a college degree (only an associates'), unless they can transfer at the end to a four-year college, which will typically require a science background.

Of course, the chance of a student, even one who manges to get admitted through legacy status or something, being able to graduate from a four year college are quite small, because almost all reputable colleges have a college-level science requirement for graduation, and if the student hasn't had any science background since the 8th grade, they're not even going to be prepared to take and pass physics-for-poets.

The student's chance to attend college has been severely curtailed.

I don't think there are many fundamentalists that reject all of physics and chemistry. Any reason those sciences courses wouldn't be acceptable to ORU or other colleges? At any rate, you've changed the discussion from the child not being able to attend college at all (clearly not true) to the probability that a child will be able to attend being reduced. Well, there are a lot of things that figure into the probability that a child will be able to attend college. I agree that religious fundamentalists that keep their children from studying any science will have reduced chances over a child who does study science. If that is a sacrifice they are willing to make for their religion, I feel that it is their right. Just as in increased chance of certain diseases is the price that those who forego vaccination must pay. If they feel their religious beliefs are worth that price, IMO that is their decision, not mine and not yours.

 

[Z]

And I suppose, Beth, that those who feel the Bible tells them that the best way to discipline their children is through brutal beatings, well, that's their right too, right?

Same thing. Abuse is still abuse.

 

[hammegk]

... One would eventually have to explain to the children why what works for other classes suddenly ends with biology; namely, that observation and inference can lead to new discoveries.

Evolution is not an aspect of biology that can be dismissed.

How do you avoid discussing evolutionary theory, without dismissing biology entirely?

SKAIK, even Beth did not suggest those courses of action for public schools, and I sure don't.

I really chafe at the modern Biological Luddites who insist that evolution is somehow not necessary, not beneficial, not important or worst of all not an accurate description.

Find one, and chafe all you like. Even Kansas (and Dover) will teach The Theory, (assuming they do so already).

 

[Dr Adequate]

Wow! That's more strawmen in a group than I've ever noticed before.

They must be holding a convention.

Seriously, though, there are real stationary-Earthers who claim that there view is the Bible view. But the fact that they've made this part of their religion doesn't mean that teaching Galileo is too sensitive to do. The same applies to people who deny continental drift and the Big Bang --- they really do exist. In fact, they're the same YECs who object to evolution. But the fact that they've made this part of their religious agenda shouldn't give them a special right to set the agenda in schools.

No-one, so far as I know, is arguing that mustard grows on trees. I can't help felling that Biblical literalists ought to, but for some reason, after getting the whole of biology wrong from start to finish, they baulk at a little botanical mistake like that. What was that about "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel"?

 

[Belz...]

Now try and get your head around the fact that radical materialism is entirely faith-based along with the view that matter transmutates into consciousness (some type of combustion that doesn't seem to use up any energy). The counter position of consciousness being known to exist while the 'substance' of matter (as opposed to it's continuity and structure) is forever unkowable isn't faith based. (What that leads to, of course, is an open question.)

Hey. You know you don't actually have to say the same thing in each post on each thread of each forum of each web site on the planet, Hypno.