Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

arthurdent

bootlegger10 wrote:

Considering that Darwinism and evolution are theories, I wouldn't mind that these theories are not included in my kid's textbook. When someone proves evolution exists, then I would believe it. Since no one has proved it, or even come close, then I say leave it out of the textbooks.

do you even know what science is??? ALL OF SCIENCE IS BASED ON THEORIES!!!!!!! this is the way it works. You cannot prove a theory. EVER!!!!!!! You can find evidence to support a theory, and until such time as evidence to the contrary is discovered, a theory stands. Theories are based on evidence which can be shown experimentally or through natural observation. And since evolution can be observed... IT IS A THEORY!!!!!!



Creationism, or whatever the fuck you want to call it, can neither be shown experimentall, nor through natural observation. It is a matter of faith. And therefore has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN A CLASSROOM!!!!!




**class dismissed**

arthurdent

TravisTheSky wrote:

Don't worry, arthurdent!

Home schooling is quickly becoming illegal. Parents may end up with no rights at all.

children should not be held responsible for the sins of their parents. In this case, the sin is ignorance.

justam

aerial wrote:

flywallyfly wrote:

aerial wrote:

Now it’s an atrocity to teach your own children....

Where did anyone suggest this?

Right here

I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to home school their children.

Doesn't that limit their children? I'm a very educated person but even I think it's better to have different people educate my children. I teach them what I know after school hours. They get exposure to other people's ideas during the day. I think that's good. It seems like my children would get a less broad education if I was their only teacher.

Can someone explain to me why home-schooling is so popular?! Do these people WANT to keep their children in the dark?!

Where in this did I call it an atrocity?

I ASKED why people thought it was a good idea. Answer the question. TELL me why you think it's a good idea. I have a good set of ears and I'm curious to know what reasons people might have.

You have the chance to tell everyone who reads this all the positive things about home schooling. Why wouldn't you take advantage of that?

flywallyfly

aerial wrote:

flywallyfly wrote:

aerial wrote:

Now it’s an atrocity to teach your own children....

Where did anyone suggest this?

Right here

I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to home school their children.

Doesn't that limit their children? I'm a very educated person but even I think it's better to have different people educate my children. I teach them what I know after school hours. They get exposure to other people's ideas during the day. I think that's good. It seems like my children would get a less broad education if I was their only teacher.

Can someone explain to me why home-schooling is so popular?! Do these people WANT to keep their children in the dark?!

He didnt even come close to what you accuse. :!:

bootlegger10

arthurdent wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

Considering that Darwinism and evolution are theories, I wouldn't mind that these theories are not included in my kid's textbook. When someone proves evolution exists, then I would believe it. Since no one has proved it, or even come close, then I say leave it out of the textbooks.

do you even know what science is??? ALL OF SCIENCE IS BASED ON THEORIES!!!!!!! this is the way it works. You cannot prove a theory. EVER!!!!!!! You can find evidence to support a theory, and until such time as evidence to the contrary is discovered, a theory stands. Theories are based on evidence which can be shown experimentally or through natural observation. And since evolution can be observed... IT IS A THEORY!!!!!!



Creationism, or whatever the fuck you want to call it, can neither be shown experimentall, nor through natural observation. It is a matter of faith. And therefore has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN A CLASSROOM!!!!!




**class dismissed**

Well, I did win the freshman chemistry award in college when I was a business major, so I feel like I know a crapload about science. Did you win the freshman chemistry award? If you did, congratulations.

Okay, so freshman chemistry is all about memorization, and doesn't have crap to do with real science. I'll give you that. I understand science is about theories and creating a hypothesis. If you understood critical thinking you would probably understand the point of my post was that the theory of evolution isn't as well proven as say the theory of gravity.

ReachingForThinAir

previously: "If you understood critical thinking you would probably understand the point of my post was that the theory of evolution isn't as well proven as say the theory of gravity."


or Moses' theory of creation.

it was that damn burning bush.

markin ball

bootlegger10 wrote:

Considering that Darwinism and evolution are theories, I wouldn't mind that these theories are not included in my kid's textbook. When someone proves evolution exists, then I would believe it. Since no one has proved it, or even come close, then I say leave it out of the textbooks.

The theory of evolution is the leading scientific hypothesis of how life became what it is today. What would you like your kids textbooks to say on this subject?

aerial

Neither theory can be proven...so it’s really a personal choice of what a person believes....which will depend on what you were taught by your parents, teachers, or books a person has chosen to read on the subject.....there is really no reason to say one person is less intelligent than the other because of what they choose to believe.......

arthurdent

aerial wrote:

Neither theory can be proven...so it’s really a personal choice of what a person believes....which will depend on what you were taught by your parents, teachers, or books a person has chosen to read on the subject.....there is really no reason to say one person is less intelligent than the other because of what they choose to believe.......

Intelligent design/creationism does not qualify as a "theory" in any scientific meaning of the word. There are no testable predictions to be observed. It's a pig wearing lipstick, so please don't try to mask that fact.

Kel Varnsen

aerial wrote:

Neither theory can be proven...so it’s really a personal choice of what a person believes....which will depend on what you were taught by your parents, teachers, or books a person has chosen to read on the subject.....there is really no reason to say one person is less intelligent than the other because of what they choose to believe.......

Evolution can be proven, on a microscopic scale. Look at things like drug resistant bacteria. How did that come to be if not for evolution and natural selection? Look at viruses like the flu that mutate every year. The idea that everything was created at one point and every species is exactly the same as it was at the beginning of time is pretty easy to prove as false.

cincybearcat

Ok...I have a question...and it's one of the reasons I'm skeptical about home schooling and home schooled kids...

What parent (teacher in this case) gets a book for a kid for school...and doesn't have ANY idea at the content. Just hands it over for the kid to start learning? Seems like very lazy home-schooling if you ask me.

primussucks

Who wrote the laws of nature?
The important point is not that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and tied together. Einstein spoke of them as "reason incarnate." The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked-and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.
Also, many prominent scientists of the modern era have regarded the laws of nature as thought of the Mind of God. Stephen Hawking ends his best selling A Brief History of Time with this quote:

"If we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers , scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we should know the mind of God."

On the previous page he asked: "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

arthurdent

primussucks wrote:

Who wrote the laws of nature?
The important point is not that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and tied together. Einstein spoke of them as "reason incarnate." The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked-and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.
Also, many prominent scientists of the modern era have regarded the laws of nature as thought of the Mind of God. Stephen Hawking ends his best selling A Brief History of Time with this quote:

"If we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers , scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we should know the mind of God."

On the previous page he asked: "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

You people keep glossing over the basic definition of "theory" and continue to spew your pseudoscience gobbledy-gook in the hopes that nobody will notice that your emperor is wearing no clothes. In fact, there's quite a bit of controversy over whether or not "string theory" is even a valid scientific theory. Because the predictions it makes currently aren't testable or observable in any form.

Believe whatever you want, but keep the bullshit out of the science classroom.

arthurdent

Hear it from the man himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGNRYNdVT7g

Smellyman

arthurdent wrote:

primussucks wrote:

Who wrote the laws of nature?
The important point is not that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and tied together. Einstein spoke of them as "reason incarnate." The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked-and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.
Also, many prominent scientists of the modern era have regarded the laws of nature as thought of the Mind of God. Stephen Hawking ends his best selling A Brief History of Time with this quote:

"If we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers , scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we should know the mind of God."

On the previous page he asked: "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

You people keep glossing over the basic definition of "theory" and continue to spew your pseudoscience gobbledy-gook in the hopes that nobody will notice that your emperor is wearing no clothes. In fact, there's quite a bit of controversy over whether or not "string theory" is even a valid scientific theory. Because the predictions it makes currently aren't testable or observable in any form.

Believe whatever you want, but keep the bullshit out of the science classroom.

Edit: Misinterpreted your posts......

catefrances

arthurdent wrote:

Mar 6, 6:26 PM EST



By DYLAN LOVAN
Associated Press Writer


LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn't taken a friend's advice and tried a textbook from a popular Christian publisher for her 10-year-old's biology lessons.
.....

really???
:roll:

aerial

arthurdent wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

Considering that Darwinism and evolution are theories, I wouldn't mind that these theories are not included in my kid's textbook. When someone proves evolution exists, then I would believe it. Since no one has proved it, or even come close, then I say leave it out of the textbooks.

do you even know what science is??? ALL OF SCIENCE IS BASED ON THEORIES!!!!!!! this is the way it works. You cannot prove a theory. EVER!!!!!!! You can find evidence to support a theory, and until such time as evidence to the contrary is discovered, a theory stands. Theories are based on evidence which can be shown experimentally or through natural observation. And since evolution can be observed... IT IS A THEORY!!!!!!



Creationism, or whatever the fuck you want to call it, can neither be shown experimentall, nor through natural observation. It is a matter of faith. And therefore has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN A CLASSROOM!!!!!




**class dismissed**

experimentall = experimental
See how annoying it is to be corrected

aerial

The Washington Times
December 14, 2009

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/washingt ... 912140.asp


Washington Times Op-ed—Socialization not a Problem


by J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President

One of the most persistent criticisms of homeschooling is the accusation that homeschoolers will not be able to fully participate in society because they lack “socialization.” It’s a challenge that reaches right to the heart of homeschooling, because if a child isn’t properly socialized, how will that child be able to contribute to society?

Since the re-emergence of the homeschool movement in the late 1970s, critics of homeschooling have perpetuated two myths. The first concerns the ability of parents to adequately teach their own children at home; the second is whether homeschooled children will be well-adjusted socially.

Proving academic success is relatively straightforward. Today, it is accepted that homeschoolers, on average, outperform their public school peers. The most recent study, “Homeschool Progress Report 2009,” conducted by Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute, surveyed more than 11,000 homeschooled students. It showed that the average homeschooler scored 37 percentile points higher on standardized achievement tests than the public school average.

The second myth, however, is more difficult to address because children who were homeschooled in appreciable numbers in the late 1980s and early 1990s are only now coming of age and in a position to demonstrate they can succeed as adults.

Homeschool families across the nation knew criticisms about adequate socialization were ill-founded—they had the evidence right in their own homes. In part to address this question from a research perspective, the Home School Legal Defense Association commissioned a study in 2003 titled “Homeschooling Grows Up,” conducted by Mr. Ray, to discover how homeschoolers were faring as adults. The news was good for homeschooling. In all areas of life, from gaining employment, to being satisfied with their homeschooling, to participating in community activities, to voting, homeschoolers were more active and involved than their public school counterparts.

Until recently, “Homeschooling Grows Up” was the only study that addressed the socialization of home-schooled adults. Now we have a new longitudinal study titled “Fifteen Years Later: Home-Educated Canadian Adults” from the Canadian Centre for Home Education. This study surveyed homeschooled students whose parents participated in a comprehensive study on home education in 1994. The study compared homeschoolers who are now adults with their peers. The results are astounding.

When measured against the average Canadians ages 15 to 34 years old, home-educated Canadian adults ages 15 to 34 were more socially engaged (69 percent participated in organized activities at least once per week, compared with 48 percent of the comparable population). Average income for homeschoolers also was higher, but perhaps more significantly, while 11 percent of Canadians ages 15 to 34 rely on welfare, there were no cases of government support as the primary source of income for homeschoolers. Homeschoolers also were happier; 67.3 percent described themselves as very happy, compared with 43.8 percent of the comparable population. Almost all of the homeschoolers—96 percent—thought homeschooling had prepared them well for life.

This new study should cause many critics to rethink their position on the issue of socialization. Not only are homeschoolers actively engaged in civic life, they also are succeeding in all walks of life. Many critics believed, and some parents feared, that homeschoolers would not be able to compete in the job market. But the new study shows homeschoolers are found in a wide variety of professions. Being homeschooled has not closed doors on career choices.

The results are a great encouragement to all homeschooling families and to parents thinking about homeschooling. Homeschoolers, typically identified as being high academic achievers, also can make the grade in society.

Both “Homeschooling Grows Up” and “Fifteen Years Later” amply demonstrate homeschool graduates are active, involved, productive citizens. Homeschool families are leading the way in Canadian and American education, and this new study clearly demonstrates homeschool parents are on the right path.

Michael Smith is the president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He may be contacted at (540)338-5600; or send email to <!-- e --><a href="mailto:media@hslda.org">media@hslda.org</a><!-- e -->.





As far as evolution verses The Bible that would be up to the parent . . . and neither deserves to be degraded for what choice they make.

arthurdent

aerial wrote:

experimentall = experimental
See how annoying it is to be corrected

Actually, it was supposed to be "experimentally." It was a typo. Slight difference from a homophone error. :P

arthurdent

aerial wrote:

The Washington Times
December 14, 2009

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/washingt ... 912140.asp


Washington Times Op-ed—Socialization not a Problem


by J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President

One of the most persistent criticisms of homeschooling is the accusation that homeschoolers will not be able to fully participate in society because they lack “socialization.” It’s a challenge that reaches right to the heart of homeschooling, because if a child isn’t properly socialized, how will that child be able to contribute to society?

Since the re-emergence of the homeschool movement in the late 1970s, critics of homeschooling have perpetuated two myths. The first concerns the ability of parents to adequately teach their own children at home; the second is whether homeschooled children will be well-adjusted socially.

Proving academic success is relatively straightforward. Today, it is accepted that homeschoolers, on average, outperform their public school peers. The most recent study, “Homeschool Progress Report 2009,” conducted by Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute, surveyed more than 11,000 homeschooled students. It showed that the average homeschooler scored 37 percentile points higher on standardized achievement tests than the public school average.

The second myth, however, is more difficult to address because children who were homeschooled in appreciable numbers in the late 1980s and early 1990s are only now coming of age and in a position to demonstrate they can succeed as adults.

Homeschool families across the nation knew criticisms about adequate socialization were ill-founded—they had the evidence right in their own homes. In part to address this question from a research perspective, the Home School Legal Defense Association commissioned a study in 2003 titled “Homeschooling Grows Up,” conducted by Mr. Ray, to discover how homeschoolers were faring as adults. The news was good for homeschooling. In all areas of life, from gaining employment, to being satisfied with their homeschooling, to participating in community activities, to voting, homeschoolers were more active and involved than their public school counterparts.

Until recently, “Homeschooling Grows Up” was the only study that addressed the socialization of home-schooled adults. Now we have a new longitudinal study titled “Fifteen Years Later: Home-Educated Canadian Adults” from the Canadian Centre for Home Education. This study surveyed homeschooled students whose parents participated in a comprehensive study on home education in 1994. The study compared homeschoolers who are now adults with their peers. The results are astounding.

When measured against the average Canadians ages 15 to 34 years old, home-educated Canadian adults ages 15 to 34 were more socially engaged (69 percent participated in organized activities at least once per week, compared with 48 percent of the comparable population). Average income for homeschoolers also was higher, but perhaps more significantly, while 11 percent of Canadians ages 15 to 34 rely on welfare, there were no cases of government support as the primary source of income for homeschoolers. Homeschoolers also were happier; 67.3 percent described themselves as very happy, compared with 43.8 percent of the comparable population. Almost all of the homeschoolers—96 percent—thought homeschooling had prepared them well for life.

This new study should cause many critics to rethink their position on the issue of socialization. Not only are homeschoolers actively engaged in civic life, they also are succeeding in all walks of life. Many critics believed, and some parents feared, that homeschoolers would not be able to compete in the job market. But the new study shows homeschoolers are found in a wide variety of professions. Being homeschooled has not closed doors on career choices.

The results are a great encouragement to all homeschooling families and to parents thinking about homeschooling. Homeschoolers, typically identified as being high academic achievers, also can make the grade in society.

Both “Homeschooling Grows Up” and “Fifteen Years Later” amply demonstrate homeschool graduates are active, involved, productive citizens. Homeschool families are leading the way in Canadian and American education, and this new study clearly demonstrates homeschool parents are on the right path.

Michael Smith is the president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He may be contacted at (540)338-5600; or send email to <!-- e --><a href="mailto:media@hslda.org">media@hslda.org</a><!-- e -->.





As far as evolution verses The Bible that would be up to the parent . . . and neither deserves to be degraded for what choice they make.

Gee, a study by the home-school institute shows there's nothing wrong with home-schooling. What. A. Shocker. Biased research, reported by a right-wing loony (gotta love Rev. Moon) and published on a biased website. That's three strikes, right?