evolution and homeschoolers...

[cleofus1]

What can you do when so many people homeschool for religious reasons?
Their arguments are so well rehearsed....for example,

" am currently home-schooling my son, not because I think I am even remotely qualified to do so, nor does my son care to, but I home school because I have no choice. The evolutionary belief system/religion is being taught as fact to mostly unaware children who do not realize, nor are they warned, that not all people believe it is how we came to exist. These teachings are fed to children a little bit at a time, in various ways, even as early as kindergarden. Yes, our taxes do pay for the belief/religion of evolution, which not all people believe in or want their children subjected to in any way, shape or form.

Evolution is not science. It is a theory that spawned from the use of scientific procedure, and this theory has become a belief system/religion for some. No one has a right to force their beliefs onto a vulnerable, unaware group of people."

http://www.adn.com/letters/



so tell me what is a good counter argument to this drivel?

[OpSomBlood]

1. The counter...

Is to tell them that a scientific theory should not be viewed as something that hasn't been proven, but something that hasn't been proven wrong yet. Tell them that gravity is a theory too, that usually works.

People get too semantic about the word "theory" because the scientific use of the word is very different from the layman's use.

[Az]

5. No, it doesn't usually work

I have debated too many creationists and too many fundimentalists. Explaining the facts to them does not work. Particularly because they do not accept them as facts. Secondarily because there are many in the creationist community that have decided that confronting the evils of science are so important that it out weighs any ethical need to stick to the truth. I have witnessed countless cases of debates where a particular argument is tried by a creationist only to be completely dismantled before a particular audience (ie 2nd law of thermodynamics) only to be brought back up by the creationist as soon as a new audience is available.

Unfortunately what we face in this issue is not one of reason. It is one of neurology and human nature. Specifically it concerns how we form beliefs. Our minds work based on beliefs. What we learn and experience form our beliefs and become the filter through which we see the world around us. When confronted by something that vies with our beliefs, unless it carries more emotional weight than our existing beliefs it will be discarded after consideration of our mind. This is not a reasoned basis of through process but it is how our minds work. Some people have leveraged their reliance on reason and logic to carry more emotional weight than others. While others rely on their direct experience and expectations created by their religious and cultural backgrounds.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. You are absolutely right...

that this is not in the realm of rational thinking, and no amount of argument or reason will convince them.

Non-rational thinking is not irrational thinking, and is simply another means that we have developed to get at "the truth." Faith is not limited to religion, and spills over into such things as arguments over the death penalty and economics. People get some very strange ideas from some very strange places.

Attacking this sort of faith in the usual ways is doomed. It is not derived from logic, but from impressions. Memes.

The only possible way I can think of to counter this thinking is not to attack the premises, but to slide around them. Perhaps agree that evolution is just a theory, but understanding it (even if it is false)makes one better able to understand other, more agreeable, things in science.

Always understand the other side's belief structure. Never argue with a Republican that they should vote for a Democrat because Democrats are better-- just that one particular Democrat may be better in a particular case. Never argue with an atheist that Christianity is truth-- just that some Christian ideas may be useful to atheists.

[Daedalus]

28. Good Post

I agree with 90% of your post...to believe in an alternative theory even if it is in the minority does not make that belief "non-rational"..because you must remember that belief in something because the majority believes it and arguing based upon that is a logical fallacy...

But the rest of your post is excellent...it is in away based upon the priniciples of Aikido...you don't attack your opponents strength with strength...but use his/her strength against them...

The problem is we are so busy trying to be "right" we don't see the real effects of what we are doing...and as we take a position we are more likely to defend that position even if logic states it is the wrong position to take...due to things like cognitive disonance and other psychological traits inherent to us as humans...

"Always understand the other side's belief structure. Never argue with a Republican that they should vote for a Democrat because Democrats are better-- just that one particular Democrat may be better in a particular case. Never argue with an atheist that Christianity is truth-- just that some Christian ideas may be useful to atheists."

[Az]

38. Rational thought within systems

Rational thought is a learned tool. Logic and reason must be learned. These processes are then turned on the foundations by which we already view the world around us and applied within the structure we have learned. Thus a person that in fact believes something that is untrue can still be rational within the structure of their belief system. They simply have not yet pierced the veil of their particular filter.

The thing is that most belief systems work. They function to the extent that they answer enough questions for people to abide in this world and in most cases actualy provide a broad number of benefits. With the number of beliefs systems at play, some of them are clearly going to be wrong (the problem of course is which ones). Yet even the ones that are wrong function. They are evolved systems of social constructs that have developed (mostly) over great periods of time. As such they are highly evolved and efficient on many issues.

Thus these highly developed systems can function within systems that predicated themself on rational thought and reason despite a few points of contention. The god of the gaps effect innoculates people from have to deal with a total collapse of their belief system while enjoying the benefits of the social structure created by the belief system.

The problem enters into the system at the point that the religion prefers to remain fixed in nature. While evolution has provided it the means of attaining its current position mutation is always a undesired subjective event. Simply put any religion wishes to remain as it currently is. Thus as changing social values butt up against fixed religious dogma friction increases. This friction forces change which creates stress along the contact points.

It is this stress and conflict that those that are not adherants to the beliefs systems react to. They see these fixed points as threats to their embracing social change. The religions proclivity to bring these fixed social values is percievd as a threat and thus the religion is opposed. When the concept that the religion may be in fact grounded on a false central belief the reaction to their fixed social dogma becomes increased. The fact that it has been functional for centuries carries no weight to those who percieve its premises as flawed and it's current social values as overbearing.

However a head on clash between positions is useless. The nature of belief is such that the only way to bring about change in another is to get them to initiate it themself. They have to develop a competing set of beliefs in their own mind that becomes more reliable and emotionally dependable than their existing beliefs. Simply telling them they are wrong does nothing but build up their emotional rejection of your position. If you need to hasten their progress (a subjective value) then you need to work within their current mindset and lead them to discovering the path for themself. You cannot force them on it. But you can show them a path and provide support for it in ways they can accept.

[Slowtrances]

54. Conflict

"It is this stress and conflict that those that are not adherants to the beliefs systems react to. They see these fixed points as threats to their embracing social change. The religions proclivity to bring these fixed social values is percievd as a threat and thus the religion is opposed. When the concept that the religion may be in fact grounded on a false central belief the reaction to their fixed social dogma becomes increased. The fact that it has been functional for centuries carries no weight to those who percieve its premises as flawed and it's current social values as overbearing."

Being religious, I simply question the validity of the premise that change because of change is good. In addition I reject the relativist notion that there is no such thing as objective standards that transcend culture. So then what occurs is a clash between two very distinct perspectives: One that says there are certain standards that should be adhered to regardless (generally based upon a concept of a god or beind or idea which transcends humanity), and another that standards are relative and driven by culture (geerally based upon a concept that man is the highest form and therefore man derives whats best for man). As you can see, an adversial relationship is inherent between these two perspectives.


Why care about how you are created? This the evolutionist attacks the creationist, in my opinion, no so much because of the irrationality of his/her beliefs, but because of the implications of those beliefs. Simultaneously, the creationist attacks the evolutions because of the implications of those beliefs. So in reality, the question of creationism versus evolutions is a smaller part of the greater question of objectivity versus relativity I believe

[Az]

56. Changing social values

Do you still believe that slavery is valid? Do you embrace the notion that women should be beaten with a rod to learn respect? Do you believe that children who disrespect their parents should be stoned to death?

If not then you have embraced the current moral values adopted by the majority of religious institutions. They do not come to this position by means of doctrine. They do so because of social pressures and changing values.

As to why science and religion collide. Stephen Gould often argued that science and religion could easily coexist. He did so because he claimed that they focused on widely differeing areas of focus. Religion focused on the morality issues and ethics while science focused on the nuts and bolts of the universe.

Unfortunately religion pinions its claims of moral authority upon the notion being the bearers of truth. They extend this concept of truth to describing the nature of the universe. When they do so they collide with science.

A person proclaiming they were created by a smurf would have no impact on a skeptic. Until they began trying to assert the morality of their smurf based creation on others around them. At this point it becomes a battle of whether their argument bears any credibility. Since their claim for moral authority is derived from their claim of creation it becomes entwined in the argument. Thus because creationism does not exist in a vacuum and is actually the political arm of fundimentalism it brings science into the struggle for social/political reform as a counter point.

[TreasonousBastard]

45. Just a small side issue...

the term "non-rational" may not be generally understood the way I understand it.

I'm talking about pretty much any way we come to knowledge without some variation of the scientific method. Actually, that's probably pretty much how we come to most knowledge.

We dream, we imagine, and we observe. We have inspirations. Rarely do many of us do much with our observations, but just sort of file them away. We might see a sunset that makes us realize some deep thought we have had lurking underneath the conscious for some time, or view an artwork where the artist answers a question we had. Read a poem that makes us stop short and awakens another thought we had lurking. Witness a crime or an act of heroism or charity that makes us understand humanity just a little bit more.

I suppose art is the great non-rational communication. We may read vast amounts of teatises on how war is such a dreadful thing, but just looking at Guernica puts it all together in one place and we simply understand. Or read a short piece about a small child caught in a firefight, and that means more than all the fiery speeches ever made.

[VTMechEngr]

46. I have used the gravity one a lot

They say Evolution is just a theory...
I say: Gravity, Its just a theory. Why don't you prove your faith that theory is not the highest recognized science in a case where a mathmatical proof is not possible by walking off the roof of that 12 story building there and showing how God actually is behind gravity by not letting your dumb ignorant ass go splat.

It gets attention.

[DarkPhenyx]

2. Religion should be taught at home.

Your belief in God is somehting that you should teach your children, not the schools.

Evolution is not a belief or a religion. It is a well defined and researched scientific fact. Yes, I know they call it a theory, but this does not eman it is unproven. Scientists use theory in a slightly different way.

If they are still lietening you start giving them websites and resources about Evolution. They probably won't be, however, so it is going to be a waste of time after that. At least you will be able to say you tried.

[boobooday]

3. Poor children

But I agree, why can't they do what people have done all along? Send their kids to school and then teach them religion at home and in church on Sundays.

Edit: And two more words about religious homeschoolers: Andrea Yates.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[cleofus1]

4. hurmmm

can anyone recommend a good website that talks about evolution?

[Birthmark]

7. The definitive website for evolution (and creationism)

http://www.talkorigins.org/

[Az]

9. That site cannot be stressed enough

It is truly the definitive collection of work on the evolution/creation debate. Nothing even comes close.

[kitkatrose]

16. YES!!!!!!!!!

I used it for a paper, and it does a better job of explaining the 'theory' of creationism, than some of the creationist sites. :)

[NewJeffCT]

6. "theory" of evolution

Just like that pesky "theory" of gravity and that silly "theory" of relativaty. All theories, but nobody should dispute them.

Believe it or not, arch conservative George Will wrote a good article about this many years ago in defense of evolution.

[madrchsod]

8. there is no counter argument

they will never accept anything that doesn`t fit their idea of the world. their concepts are derived from their narrow interpretation of the bible and they refuse to think that there is anything else. i`ve tried to talk to these people but as soon as i bring up the possibly that that the words in the bible may mean something different than what they think, they tune me out as if i was a non believer. a word from the wise-don`t waste your time

[mmonk]

10. Easy

Creationism is religious which is based entirely on a belief system. Evolution is a scientific theory based on the use of the scientific method and observation. Therefore, creationism has no place in a science classroom or curriculum.

[Az]

11. The Institute for Creation Research

This is one of the primary foundations dedicated to undermining evolution. They fancy themself a scientific research institute but they have their researchers sign a contract that completely discredits any claim to real science. All researchers sign a waiver stating that if they discover any evidence that would discredit the bible in any way they must discard it as false evidence. This is not how science works. If you find evidence that disproves your claim you must discard the claim, not the evidence. Anything else is not science.

[The White Tree]

12. There is unintentional irony in

this statement:

No one has a right to force their beliefs onto a vulnerable, unaware group of people.

Doesn't that describe what this homeschooler is doing to his/her children.

You might build an argument on that but I don't think you'll get much mileage out of it. Thought I'd point it out though.

Homeschooling in the manner suggested by this writer maybe is best left to run it's natural evolutionary course. If the parent is unqualified and the child is unwilling then the learning is going to suffer. Ultimately the child may either take matters into his/her own hands regarding learning or may fail in the sense that he/she will not be as succesful/happy. This may result in the child taking a more progressive approach to his/her own children.

Not sure I helped you.

[Ilsa]

13. And here's the reminder that not all homeschoolers

are doing so for religious reasons. Some like the freedom it provides for scheduling their family's life. I dread summer vacations: going somewhere new where there are thousands of other people there for the first time for 24 hours.

Besides, those kids won't be able to major in a science field without being confronted with the truth; they'll be eaten alive by the professors.

One of my comments to fundies is that they shouldn't take advantage of medical technology involving radioisotopes if they don't accept the possibility of evolution. It uses the same science using particle decay as a measurement.

[trogdor]

14. Fight fire with fire.

Here's a rant that basically throws their bullshit back in their faces.

These are the same people who think gays go door to door trying to convert people. Absolutely ridiculous. These people are either beyond help, or so far gone they probably not worth the effort. Nevermind the many benefits of secular science they take for granted; they not only don't understand things like the scientific method, they don't want to. God only knows what these poor kids are going to do with themselves after "school." Most likely it has nothing to do with science. I hope not.

The real problem is, these people pop another one out every year until they're physically unable to continue doing it, while more enlightened people usually stop at two. Thus, they usually don't pay much in the way of taxes for the state to "shove evolution down their children's throats" because they get to take six, seven, eight, or whatever exemptions on their tax forms every year. The rest of us are, in effect, subsidizing the spread of fundamentalist stupidity by our tax policy. On the other hand, they are doing us a public service by not burdening our already overcrowded school systems with their ever-burgeoning broods by keeping them out of the system.

That ought to shut 'em up.

[Stockholm]

15. Visit this site for tons of arguments and facts...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

Not just helpful regarding science but also adresses possible pitfalls and roadblocks to teaching about evolution.

[Jim__]

17. You might try telling them what the Theory of Evolution is about

A few thoughts. I agree with most of the posters above, you can't win the argument because their belief that the Theory of Evolution is wrong is not based on reason but on faith. That said, there is some information about the actual scientific Theory of Evolution that may help. My understanding from all the reading I've done is that the Theory of Evolution does not concern the origin of life, it's about the way life changes over time (I'm not a biologist, so if I have that wrong, I'm sure someone can correct me). This is useful because many creationists have been incorrectly taught that the Theory of Evolution not only concerns the origin of life; but the origin of the universe. The Theory of Evolution as it is taught in school concerns the way life changes. If you can get through to them that they've been (deliberately) misinformed as to what the Theory of Evolution actually is about, you may get them to start investigating on their own. A little knowledge can go a long way in disabusing people of the misinformation they've been fed.

[Az]

18. Abiogenesis

is the name of the field that concerns itself with the origin of life. Much of the confusion of this issue comes from the work of Darwin and the name of his book. The Origin of the Species may occlude peoples understanding of what the field of evolution covers. Specifically evolution covers changes in genetic code over time in existing replicating organice processes. ie life. Evolution does not tell us about the beginning of life. It only tells us about what happened after life began, however it began. The problem is of course that it does paint a convincing picture of everything up to the moment and it does not seem to involve a mound of dust being shaped into a human being. That may be part of the problem some have with it.

[Bill McBlueState]

42. evolution vs. biogenesis

When the fundies complain about evolution being taught in school, it makes me wonder what actually *is* being taught.

In my high school "evolution" was really a few weeks on genetics in tenth-grade biology. We spent a lot of time making little charts to determine how certain traits propagate through a population. And maybe, for a few minutes on the last day of the unit, we were presented with sort of the extrapolation of genetic theory -- that mutations in the gene pool could result in the emergence of different species over time.

None of my high school science classes had anything to say about astronomy, so there was never anything about the big bang or the formation of the solar system.

I'm curious if what I learned was in some way crafted to avoid complaints from the fundies, or if this is a pretty typical way of covering genetics and evolution. (I went to school on the fringe of the Bible Belt.)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

19. i home schooled my children for the 1st 7 years of their education and

taught the science of evolution NOT creationism....not all home schoolers are religious fundies....the home school net-workers in my area were all fundies and taught creationism (a scary group of people)... i rarely used any of the resources they offered. i was basically on my own. My children have now been in public school for 2 years and are on the superintendents honor roll (96% - 100% GPA) and are both John Hopkins talented youth scholars.

[Az]

21. My opinion

there is nothing wrong with homeschooling. Unfortunately it does seem to draw an inordinant quantity of individuals who reject some fundimental concepts that are being taught. Because they reject these foundations they have little choice other than to teach their own concepts. This lends an unfortunate taint by association to any others that homeschool for a number of valid reasons.

[cleofus1]

22. you are right...

not all homeschoolers are part of the evil empire...

[Stuckinthebush]

23. That is a good point to remember

Not all home schoolers are religious fundamentalists. There are many reasons to home school, one of the primary reasons is that the public school system in one's area is not very good.

I have a friend who home schools because she believes that the system where she lives is not adequate nor does it include enough arts for her tastes. I respect that. She does have a very hard time finding home school groups in the area that are not fundamentalist based groups, however. After a lot of hard work, she has assembled a group of non-religious home schoolers with whom she and her child meet with on occasion.

I also know a number of University professors that home school because the system where the university is located is truly awful and the private schools are not much better and extremely expensive. Home schooling by necessity....

[VioletLake]

20. Try these sites:

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/

National Science Teachers Association
http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10

[randr]

44. And another excellent site

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

[Ilsa]

24. In a few years, we all may be homeschooling because

the public schools will be run by creationists and fundamentalists.

There are people in my kids' schools trying to re-institutionalize prayer in school.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

25. this is a good point...and it may become the new reality

:scared:

[Daedalus]

26. I Home School

Well...my wife homeschools my four children...

And the majority of homeschoolers even the "religious ones" don't homeschool because of "evolution"...they home school because of the retardation in the public school system, plus they believe that the stability of the home, the smaller classes, the adaptability and flexibility, is better in many instances that the instability of the school...now you are going to have poor "homeschool teachers" just as you will have poor "public school teachers" obviously...

Remember...there are alternative options other than homeschool, such as private school that are potential alternatives as well...so over all I think to argue that large portions of individuals homeschool simply to avoid evolution is a poor and not well thought out argument...

As far as theories...

1. The evolution theory is just a theory...unlike gravity which is readily demonstratable by walking off a building...you can't walk off into evolution...there are many conflicts within the evolutionary circles, even by those who adamantly agree with it over the process and theories involved...so as any theory I think it should be taught as such, with it's strengths and weaknesses, along with other theories inclusive of it's strengths and weakness, to children at an appropriate age (which I submit is late adolescence when critical reasoning skills have begun to develop)...it is interesting, when we deal with psychological theories there are always theory/counter theory, derivation of that theory, etc. But the public schools do not teach evolution as such...why?

2. The "belief" in science is the "belief" in change...IE it is instable because the minutia of what we know and can know based upon the infinite nature of complete knowledge...for example since we are talking about evolution, science, and teaching...Darwin was a monogenist (believe that all humans had a common ancestory) but simultaneously promoted the theory of inferiority among the Africans based upon natural selection, and considered them a lessor evolved type of human...IF he would have taught that in the public schools, like it was being taught to the American public at the time (passive support of slavery based upon natural selection and black inferiority), would argue the same way, that this theory should just be taught in the school without alternative theories etc.? Of course the post-modernist would not...but yet that is your "theory based upon scientific method"...what errors are we teaching today that are said to be "theories" but are being taught as objective truth?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

On a final note, it scares the hell out of me to see what the public schools teach...I serve as a varsity girls basketball coach in the public school system, and the problem is not so much what is being taught but how it is taught, the quality of the teachers, in general, and the quality of the curriculum...at least where I live (Nebraska)the system gets about a C+...my children hold the most value to me, why would I leave them to someone I do not trust equip them above a C+ level during their most formative years (3 to roughly 8?

[truthspeaker]

30. Evolution IS taught the way you suggest

Except for the "other theories". There are no other scientific theories explaining the diversity of life on the planet.

[Daedalus]

41. Then you don't study

.

[truthspeaker]

47. I do know a little about biology, and evolution is the only theory

that hasn't been falsified. There are no competing theories at this time.

[Az]

48. Better explain

why Creationism is not a theory. :evilgrin:

Specifically a theory has to be falsifiable. That is you have to provide a means by which you can demonstate the idea to be false. Creationism does not allow for this. It is simply a stipulation that this is how it is. Any evidence that refutes it is discarded as false evidence. This is the reverse of how science and theories are supposed to operate. Creationism is not science. It is argument from authority.

[trumad]

31. What..as opposed to a fundie school teaching my kids about GOd

Please

[cleofus1]

33. my impression is...

You need to attribute your sources of information. You make some interesting points...but I need to see where you get your numbers.

"And the majority of home schoolers even the "religious ones" don't home school because of "evolution""

is this based on personal experience?

And the fact that you work for a school district that you claim scares you makes you sound conflicted at best.

'On a final note, it scares the hell out of me to see what the public schools teach...I serve as a varsity girls basketball coach in the public school system, and the problem is not so much what is being taught but how it is taught, the quality of the teachers, in general, and the quality of the curriculum...at least where I live (Nebraska)the system gets about a C+.'

Conservatives up here in Alaska make the same claims...In my experience the Teachers that my kids come in contact with are top notch and very competent...

[Daedalus]

40. Yes...

"is this based on personal experience?"

Yes. I know a myriad of homeschooler parents through homeschool associations. Evolution does not make the top ten.

And no I am not conflicted at all. I believe in the value of education and in coaching. I get to impart knowledge and discipline, positive self-esteem and a winning attitude. Simply because I believe the infastructure of public education in America is deteriorating, particularly in heavily minority and inner city areas, to the point where I don't trust them enough to put my children in there is completely unrelated to my desire to serve the community and help other kids become better players and better people.

The problem Cleofus is I am not the only one "working" in public schools who feels this way. At least not here. I am tangental to the whole system as I do nothing but coach, but my close friend who is a teacher, and many of her teaching friends feel the same way as I do. Now this is a predominantly inner city school, so there are differences mind you, but I submit you evaluate a system not by its best but by its worst.

[gpandas]

50. the source of gravity remains unknown...

as does the source of mankind. proving that gravity exists is easy, and proving that mankind exists is easy. the origin of mankind is what this thread is about. naturally, teaching does not attract the best and brightest all the time because of the starting pay, interference from parents(lawsuits, fundies, punishment, discipline, and all around lack of respect. teachers, cops, and firemen all have difficult jobs and are not well paid or appreciated.

[rman]

29. "Evolution is not science"... nonsense

"It is a theory that spawned from the use of scientific procedure"

Which, by definition, makes it science.
Theory is the closest thing to fact that science can offer.

Also, why would you not want your kid to attend any of the other classes which have nothing to do with evolution (ie math, reading)?
You could just have you kid go to school and then 'counter-educate' him/her at home wrt evolution vs religion.

[NewJeffCT]

58. a lot of nonsense

Ask them if the Theory of Gravity is true, or the Theory of Relativity?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. kids are smart...help them chose

Hello all...long time no-post...but I have a thing that I would like to share here.

I think that science classes should mention Evolution in the same breath with Creationism. For those of you unfamiliar with me, I am a fundamentalist (in some respects), and I believe all of this was created and didn't just happen. However, I believe that evolution can and does occur in this system as it was created and designed to do. My belief is that God started it all in motion with a set of rules to brings us to where we are and to get us where He desires we should go. Now, can I prove that??? Heck no...and I would be a fool to try and prove it.

Why present both in the classroom? Because kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Let them see the science behind Evolutionary Theory and the science behind Creationist Theory. Granted, the science in Creationism would be a short section...

The benefit is this: You give kids two sides of a situation, one backed up in reason and one backed up in faith, the kid is gonna fall on the side of reason almost every time. You don't have to prove one or the other. The kids will KNOW which one has more merit. Now, here's the kicker: for all us fundy-types, we get what we have been clammoring for forever (well, since a couple of weeks ago). And you know, if someone is developing a belief system that their parents want them to have, doing it this way doesn't violate that. You can leave room for faith while explaining the world the way it is.

Ok, rant over...any thoughts...am I just nuts??? I could be, ya know! :-)

theProdigal

[cleofus1]

35. so what next?

why can't my kids learn native american creationism right next to your christian beliefs? How about Voodoo?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. that's fine with me

I have no problem with that. I just meant creationism in general...should not have capitalized it.

What so many of my fundy brethren don't get is that kids are going to be exposed to this somewhere. If they want to have any hope of instilling a lasting belief in their children, it has to be held up to scrutiny.

More to write... hang on... gotta work for a second...

theProdigal
on edit :

Heck teaching them other views young in life allows them to see that the world is not a one dimensional place. It actually prevents the shock that occurs in many fundies later in life when they finally have their system confronted and have nothing to refute the confrontaion with but, "Mommy and daddy said so."

The people who fear other viewpoints and religious structures are the ones who are afraid of one of two things, in my experience. 1) They do not really know WHY they believe what they believe. 2) They have no way of effectively conveying that belief structure to their children...

Thanks for rantII
tp

[Bill McBlueState]

34. the loser misspelled kindergarten.

geez.

[The Spirit of JFK]

36. Anti-religious perception

You are never going to change the minds of people who are both ignorant and have their "religious beliefs" threatened by it. But...I have said this to one of my more....conservative friends. Seemed to work to some extent.

Basically, all "evolution" means is "biological changes over time". And that's it. There is nothing about being descended from apes and there is nothing about God..or certainly nothing that would attempt to discredit the acknowledgment of a divine creator. In fact, if you truly believe in God, then believing in evolution would only serve to strengthen acknowledgment and praise of his divine plan....creating a system that continuously improved itself is truly inspirational. The same is true with science in general. It simply tries to understand and explain the physical world...not the spiritual. Anyone who is threatened by this cannot be too committed to their religious beliefs.

That seemed to do pretty well with my friend.... Of course, I added that the Church has had a long standing grudge against science starting around 1600 when scientists were burned at the stake and tortured for saying the earth was not the center of the universe. And that Spanish religious leaders at the time almost put Columbus consigned to the Inquisition for his theories. Proving that the sun was the center of the universe and the earth is round has not discredited God's existence in any way. Since the Church could no longer control science it made it it's mission to discredit it. Then I just had to add that there was less than a 2% difference between human and some species of monkey DNA....oops!

[Bridget Burke]

39. The Church made peace with science some time ago.

The Roman Catholic Church, that is. There were some problems during the Renaissance, but they've been cleared up.

Catholic schools teach science. Catholic universities can produce fine scientists.

It's some of the fundy Protestant churches that have problems with Evolution.

[Az]

43. To be specific

The Pope held meetings with some leading biologists and other scientists and now concedes that Evolution is a factor of life. Evolution has shaped life and continues to shape life. However he maintains that in the case of Human Beings there still remains an act of divine intervention.

[The Spirit of JFK]

53. True, but

while THE Cathololic Church may be okay with it, there are a lot of very conservative churches and other denominations who dig up and flame old schisms for their own directions, and/or disagree with the Catholic Church/Pope to begin with. Most mainstream Catholics I know are "fine" with evolution.

I'm curious to know how non-western religions deal with evolution.

[democratreformed]

49. To add to other responses,

I seriously considered homeschooling but decided on private school - not b/c of evolution - but because the public school system severly failed my child. At the end of his first kindergarten year, he could barely write his own name. For his second year of kindergarten, they placed him with a NEW teacher who, according to her own statement, didn't even want to teach kindergarten in the first place - she had hoped for placement at the 5th or 6th grade level. That year, it took her all of three days to report that my son would fail kindergarten AGAIN or else be "socially promoted" without knowing anything.

He has been in private school for three years now. It is bothersome at times (the religion part) b/c we are not religious people and do not attend church. I feel like that is a very small price to pay, though, for my son to have a place where he is happy, he thrives, and he actually LEARNS.

[LeahMira]

51. Hugely inaccurate and sad for the student involved

" am currently home-schooling my son, not because I think I am even remotely qualified to do so, nor does my son care to...

That sounds like a recipe for disaster right there. Unqualified instructor, resistant student... learning must be a daily battle of wills rather than the pleasant experience it's supposed to be. I think that if I had that sort of experience as a young person, I'd never want to open another book, visit another museum, or hear another lecture for the rest of my life!


Yes, our taxes do pay for the belief/religion of evolution, which not all people believe in or want their children subjected to in any way, shape or form.

Wondering just what is so fear-inspiring about evolution here. The writer sounds as if s/he sees learning about evolution as something as dangerous as being alone with a pedophile.

IMO, the writer needs to spend a few days or weeks in an elementary school classroom. S/He might learn a bit about how to teach children, and s/he might also be convinced that the theory of evolution does not permeate the classroom learning experience. S/He might also want to look at the state standards in his/her state. It's been a while since I've been in the classroom, but I don't recall evolution being part of the required learnings at the kindergarten or elementary levels. Another possibility might be to examine the teacher's edition of the textbooks that are used in the classroom. This would provide some insight into the understandings and concepts that students are expected to have as the lessons are taught.

[DrWeird]

52. If you don't teach evolution, you shouldn't be teaching kids.

You can't just take your kids out of school and sit them down and teach them all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories. There are standards, and a basic science education is one of them.

[Blue_Chill]

55. I take the worry about your own damn kids approach

I prefer to protect a parents rights to raise their kids as they see fit, over the right of society to decide what each child should be taught. There will always be some fringe element out there that think what is accepted scientific theory is wrong or bad in some way. I don't have time to worry about them and I won't weaken parents already fading rights to deal with such a small problem.

[cleofus1]

57. so....

The public school system is under attack by conservatives and religious fundamentalists. Their goal is to defund the public schools system there-bye crippling it financially. Fun-dies want to be able to use tax money to teach religion to their children. We can only hope that the school system doesn't collapse thru these financial attacks. WE must vote in politicians that will fully fund the public school system. This is not a matter of parental control...do you decide whether or not your child learns math? Science must be taught without interference from the fundamentalists.