Top home-school texts dismiss evolution for creationism
Jason Spaceman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISVILLE, Kentucky � 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.
Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been
studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's
excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section
of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed
Charles Darwin's theory.
"I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her
daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's
like, 'This is not true!"'
Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education
market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And
for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth's
creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show
83% of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious
or moral instruction."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-03-08-home-school-christian_N.htm
J. Spaceman
Ron O
wrote:
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> LOUISVILLE, Kentucky 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.
>
> Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been
> studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's
> excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section
> of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed
> Charles Darwin's theory.
>
> "I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her
> daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's
> like, 'This is not true!"'
>
> Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education
> market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And
> for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth's
> creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show
> 83% of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious
> or moral instruction."
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> J. Spaceman
It is about the best means that they have of keeping their kids as
ignorant as possible. Some of the kids may get a clue if they go to
college (some of them will feel betrayed), but some of them will also
end up like NashT, Ray and adman. Kind of sad, but those are the
chances that you take when you resort to lying to your kids.
Ron Okimoto
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nashton and Adman accept the concepts of evolution and selection to
exist in nature (like all Atheists)----I do not.
And Creationist home educators are not the least bit annoyed at being
called a liar by a person who says apes morphed into men over the
course of millions of years.
Ray (Old Earth-species immutabilist)
Kermit
They also accept that the sun rises in the East (like all atheists).
Do you not?
>
> And Creationist home educators are not the least bit annoyed at being
> called a liar by a person who says apes morphed into men over the
> course of millions of years.
Correct. Like you, they feel smugly self-righteous. I was raised by
people who, through hard work and determination, remained ignorant all
their lives. I did not consider them role models as a child.
>
> Ray (Old Earth-species immutabilist)
Kermit,
who joined the reality-based culture at thirteen
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Acceptance of evolution means you are deluded, living in a private
world ruled by Atheists and their science fiction fantasies.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Which is your own folly. Evolution is observed in nature. Selection
is not only observed in nature, it's practiced by human beings on
domestic crops and animals.
>
> And Creationist home educators are not the least bit annoyed at being
> called a liar by a person who says apes morphed into men over the
> course of millions of years.
The evidence clearly shows that humans are apes, and that they have
evolved over many generations from other ape species. Being called a
liar is because one lies, and telling children that humans did not
evolve is telling a lie.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
No, it just means one is aware of the evidence, and has the mental
capacity to reason from that evidence. Atheism has nothing to do with
acceptance of evolution, and there's no reason to assume that atheists
"rule" the world.
It's odd to see you try to project your own delusional state onto others.
DJT
John Vreeland
Where is this world run by atheists? If I thought there ever actually
was such a place I might try moving there. Alas, faith rules
everywhere as far as I can see.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 9, 1:17�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Nashton and Adman accept the concepts of evolution and selection to
>> > exist in nature (like all Atheists)----I do not.
>>
>> They also accept that the sun rises in the East (like all atheists).
>> Do you not?
<crickets>
Harvest Dancer
wrote:
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> LOUISVILLE, Kentucky 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.
>
> Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been
> studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's
> excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section
> of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed
> Charles Darwin's theory.
>
> "I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her
> daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's
> like, 'This is not true!"'
>
> Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education
> market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And
> for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth's
> creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show
> 83% of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious
> or moral instruction."
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> J. Spaceman
For those who are not religious nutballs and want to home school for
the simple reason that public schools graduate functional illiterate,
the real crime is that the major textbook distributors, with better
offerings, generally refuse to sell to home schoolers.
That story is from the point of view of a parent who wants a good
textbook. This will, of course, be looked at through the lens of
"home school parents want to ensure their kids don't learn science".
Jason
Steven L.
news:2fa3e2a6-4462-4f3a...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> For those who are not religious nutballs and want to home school for
> the simple reason that public schools graduate functional illiterate,
> the real crime is that the major textbook distributors, with better
> offerings, generally refuse to sell to home schoolers.
Just this past week, on the "Why Evolution is True" blog, they've been
having a big discussion about this. Also on "Pharyngula." Well worth
your time.
Quite a few *secular* parents posted that they had pulled their kids out
of public school and homeschooled them instead--because in the public
schools, their kids were being constantly terrorized by bullies and
crazies. Even more than the poor quality of the instruction, the parents
feared for their kids' physical safety.
This came as a genuine surprise to Jerry Coyne and P.Z. Myers, who
assumed that homeschooling was only for the religious.
But I don't think the textbook problem is all that severe. I survived
the 1968 New York City teachers' strike, which went on for two months.
In those two months, we kids had no choice but to be "homeschooled." And
we used the same textbooks we were given by the public schools.
In a pinch, to teach your kids, you can use the exact same textbooks and
lesson plans that the teachers use. Heck, you might even do a better
job than they would.
-- Steven L.
Eric Root
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:58:27 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
Ray considers everyone in the world except him, huckster Gene Scott,
and Rev. Bubbles to be atheists. Excuse me, Atheists.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> "Harvest Dancer" <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
For a while I taught at a small private school that got its start as a
"hippie" homeschool collective. Nearly all the families I worked for
had homeschooled and were coming to us because homeschooling is very
time consuming but were interested in avoiding public schools not only
for reasons such as bullying, but because they were very interested in
a DIY, hands-on approach to their children's education.
When you are schooling children yourself, in small collective teams
(maybe the stay-at-home parent with the bio degree teaches several
families science; then, the parent with the English degree teaches
language arts) or in small schools with high parental involvement, you
can make sure that the kids are learning the material before you move
on. If a kid doesn't get something, you come up with a different
approach until they do get it. You don't fail to notice they are
falling behind, you fix it immediately. Also, not near as much time
is wasted trying to get large numbers of kids pointed in the same
direction for transitions.
The textbook problem is very real, and too many homeschool materials
_are_ religious crackpottery, so secular homeschoolers often do a lot
of dumpster diving for old textbooks when a public school adopts new
ones.
Eric Root
Kermit
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:58:27 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> >On Mar 9, 1:17 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Nashton and Adman accept the concepts of evolution and selection to
> >> > exist in nature (like all Atheists)----I do not.
>
> >> They also accept that the sun rises in the East (like all atheists).
> >> Do you not?
>
> <crickets>
Yes. Ray never answers this question, or others like it. That would
acknowledge that he accepts *some beliefs of atheists, but not others,
and that raises the question of how he decides between the two
categories of assertions. It's pretty clear that he rejects some
claims based on his emotional needs or perhaps the authority of Dr.
Scott (He had a degree! In education!), rather than the evidence or
because they are held by "atheists".
Kermit
Kermit
I would think with the advent of Amazon.com and similar internet
access in the last few years, the choice of textbooks is much better
at a reasonable price. We gave serious thought to home schooling our
daughter but moved to another state to a school district that could
handle her. We still bought her supplementary texts, and have plenty
of books at home.
Kermit
Mike Lyle
motivated by religious considerations. There's an organisation called
"Education Otherwise" which supports them, if anybody's interested in
finding out more than I know.
--
Mike.
Eric Root
Plus, there now are many internet teacher-assistance websites that are
good for generating worksheets and lesson plans.
Eric Root
Desertphile
<unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2:15 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:58:27 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Mar 9, 1:17 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Nashton and Adman accept the concepts of evolution and selection to
> > >> > exist in nature (like all Atheists)----I do not.
> > >> They also accept that the sun rises in the East (like all atheists).
> > >> Do you not?
> > <crickets>
The silence is screaming.
> Yes. Ray never answers this question, or others like it. That would
> acknowledge that he accepts *some beliefs of atheists, but not others,
> and that raises the question of how he decides between the two
> categories of assertions. It's pretty clear that he rejects some
> claims based on his emotional needs or perhaps the authority of Dr.
> Scott (He had a degree! In education!), rather than the evidence or
> because they are held by "atheists".
Actually, he doesn't seem to mind atheists: it's Atheists he
hates.
> Kermit
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Kleuskes & Moos
wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:25:49 -0800 (PST), Kermit
>
> > On Mar 9, 2:15 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:58:27 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >On Mar 9, 1:17 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > Nashton and Adman accept the concepts of evolution and selection to
> > > >> > exist in nature (like all Atheists)----I do not.
> > > >> They also accept that the sun rises in the East (like all atheists).
> > > >> Do you not?
> > > <crickets>
>
> The silence is screaming.
The wind cries Mary...
"De maan lacht, de wind huilt, mijn brommer heeft er zin in"...
Ron O
They call the wind Mariah.
Frank J
Ray is an enigma, even among creationists. Not only does he know well
enough to evade question like yours (where both "yes" and "no" answers
would undermine his point), he also knows well enough to repeatedly
evade questions like mine, which ask merely for more details on a
position that *he* started describing. Specifically, in what must
horrify "big tent" strategists, he asserted that the Earth is much
older than the current biosphere, *and* that there were other
biospheres before the current one. If one admits that much, why stop
there, and suddenly go all new-agey with "time is meanignless"
nonsense? My admittedly cynical guess is that he does *not* think
"time is meanignless", and is just stalling rather than being too
obviously ignoring the question. That's what I'd do if I wanted to
offend the least number of creationist lurkers, and can't "take back"
my original admissions. But then Ray goes on to offend *all* other
creationists with the "they're in your camp" nonsense. Go figure.
Frank J
That's because it's sound has a frequency range of 5 octaves.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "De maan lacht, de wind huilt, mijn brommer heeft er zin in"...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
hersheyh
So what, exactly, would *prevent* the amount of 'morphing' (change in
body shape) required to convert an ancestral ape of some sort into H.
sapiens in the time available since that ancestor? And wouldn't the
expected intermediate states resemble some of the fossils that have
actually been found?
Is it your claim that there is no genetically-influenced variance in
body form within modern (and ancestral) populations of organisms? Is
it your claim that mutation does not produce genetically-based
variance? Is it your claim that natural selection cannot ever, under
any condition, lead to directional morphologic change when we know
that even neutral drift can lead to change? Is it your claim that
there is insufficient time available to generate the amount of
variance?
Let's have your evidence and explanation, not more contentless
assertion.
> Ray (Old Earth-species immutabilist)
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evolution is impossible. But if you're an Atheist you literally have
no other choice. I'll make it easy for you: forget human evolution;
provide evidence of microevolution, that is, one slight successive
modification accomplished by unguided material force. If you can do
that I will concede the Creationism v. Evolution debate in behalf of
Creationists.
Ray
bpuharic
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ray (Old Earth-species immutabilist)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Evolution is impossible. But if you're an Atheist you literally have
>no other choice. I'll make it easy for you: forget human evolution;
>provide evidence of microevolution, that is, one slight successive
>modification accomplished by unguided material force. If you can do
>that I will concede the Creationism v. Evolution debate in behalf of
>Creationists.
>
>Ray
the evolution of antibiotic resistance by bacteria.
now let's see. he'll probably ignore this respsonse or, if he does
respond with something like 'what i meant to say was you have to show
the development of some new completely speciated feature...'
blah blah blah...
jillery
The bacterial digestion of synthetic plastics.
The new strains of influenza and HIV.
The salamanders of California's Central Valley.
The different variations by location of elephants, lions, finches,
seals, penguins...
And of course my favorite, the unladen african swallow.
Ernest Major
<16a04cf1-3408-4885...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes
>On Mar 14, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 9:46 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 9, 4:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 9, 4:53 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Mar 8, 3:06 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > From the article:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > LOUISVILLE, Kentucky 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.
>>
>> > > > > Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been
>> > > > > studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's
>> > > > > excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section
>> > > > > of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed
>> > > > > Charles Darwin's theory.
>>
>> > > > > "I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her
>> > > > > daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's
>> > > > > like, 'This is not true!"'
>>
>> > > > > Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education
>> > > > > market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the
>> > > > >
group frequencies in Mennonite colonies; Lenski's E. coli.
--
alias Ernest Major
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Evolution is impossible.
Evolution is an observed fact.
> But if you're an Atheist (sic) you literally have no other choice.
Theists have no choice in the matter either.
(CUTS)
Frank J
Ray, if you keep telling that falsehood, Gene Scott himself might come
back to smack some sense into you.
In the meantime you'll have to settle for what this atheist (your
definition) has to say:
I choose for evolution to be false, and for independent abiogenesis of
"kinds" to be true. I also choose a yet-unknown time warp which places
that independent abiogenesis just when *you* think it occurred
(whenever that is -you refuse to specify despite my frequent
requests).
As an "atheist" I don't have to worry about any consequenses of
bearing false witness, so I don't have to worry about telling others
that what I choose to be true is true.
> I'll make it easy for you: forget human evolution;
> provide evidence of microevolution, that is, one slight successive
> modification accomplished by unguided material force. If you can do
> that I will concede the Creationism v. Evolution debate in behalf of
> Creationists.
As you know, most (all?) other *creationists* will gladly do that for
you. But you won't concede the "debate" for them either, because you
will simply use your own definition of "microevolution."
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -