Monday, March 22, 2010

I wish Elijah Friedeman was kidding

I don’t understand the shock that is expressed when homeschoolers teach that God created the earth. It would be one thing if public schools offered a perfectly fair and balanced view of science, but as it is a public school education will teach you that evolution is the only acceptable explanation for our existence. So why is it suddenly outrageous that homeschoolers teach creationism?  I recognize that the criticism for all things homeschool won’t go away for a while, if ever, but the continued misrepresentation of the facts and the double standards are completely unacceptable and should disturb even those who don’t homeschool.

I don't think the problem is that parents are teaching their children that God created the earth, the problem is they are teaching it as Science. Creationism/Intelligent Design DOES NOT stand up to the scientific method, and has no place in a science classroom. Although IF Fundamentalist want to teach it to their kids I support their right to do so.

I don't support Fundamentalist acting like they are the only homeschoolers. There are plenty of  homeschoolers that TEACH EVOLUTION!  My ire is raised when Elijah Friedeman and others lump all homeschoolers together as anti-science buffons.



  1. I think he does make a good point about the YEC texts being up front about their POV while secular texts don't. I also get frustrated when secular books treat certain things as facts rather than qualifying them with "most scientists believe..." or "the best scientific evidence supports..."

    I do believe that the best scientific evidence supports an age of the universe in the billions of years and the evolution of species from a common ancestor. But no human knows for 100% certain and therefore I believe books should not treat them as "facts". I can prove or disprove a fact. When it comes to a theory, I can only say that the scientific evidence supports it or does not support it. And I think it's important to make that distinction.

  2. I mentioned evolution and intelligent design recently, and got the most insulting response from somebody with the point of view that NOT teaching evolution is tantamount to "child abuse". I think that's taking it rather far. *sigh*

    With regard to evolution and intelligent design, I must agree. Evolution is a scientific theory, parts of which are provable or observable, but still which remains a hypothesis.

    Creation is a belief - not a fact or a science.

    So, in our household, we will teach our son the science of the theory of evolution, which parts are proven and which parts are still in question, etc. We will discuss adaptation, survival of the fittest, Darwin, etc. Will will teach the facts as facts, and the questions as something still to be answered (maybe our son will grow up to be a scientist and answer them!).

    And as for our personal theistic beliefs regarding creation, we will teach that as precisely that - a belief, not a fact.

    Phew. Long-winded way to say that I agree with you!

    We homeschool, and we also happen to be theistic, and we teach evolution. :)

  3. Unfortunately, The Crimson Wife is using theory as a stolen concept. Scientific use of the word "theory" is thoroughly different than a layman's use of the same term. Creationists have successfully confused many people by equating the two.

    It is similiar to using the word faith to mean you trust a friend & also using the word faith the mean unwavering belief in God. They are the same word but the context of the usage makes it clear that they do not mean the same thing. A scientific theory is not a supposition that kind of fits a small amount of known data and is on precarious footing. The type of theory that creationists would like their children and the public to think of is akin to waking up and only seeing blue cars out of your window and theorizing that all cars are blue even though there is nothing inherit in cars that would require color to be part of the definition, thus being easily toppled when a red car zooms by.

    Many creationists conflate that use of "theory" with an entirely different use by scientists. When science uses the word "theory", it is more of a convention than an attempt to indicate any uncertainty. When a scientific hypothesis has enormous amounts of supporting data and no contradictory evidence, it is certain. Evolution's history is a long one and it was accepted for almost a century prior to Darwin's discovery of the process of natural selection.

    It does not need to have proof for all possible cases. It is enough to know that there has never been another *scientific* answer for them to still be considered consistent with the theory.

  4. Kim,

    And yet the HYPOTHESIS (not theory)of evolution says nothing about *origins*, now does it?

  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. It's valuable for parents to teach evolution as a scientific theory, even if they don't believe it answers creation. It is also their right to teach their religious beliefs to their children. The problem with the modern dogma of evolution is that it has "evolved" beyond science and become a religion all its own. Legitimate scientists are shunned and ridiculed for providing facts that might lend any credence to competing theories.

  7. A few clarifying points. The theory of evolution is about as proven as anything can be proven; it has a high confidence of being fact. Scientists who challenge evolution as a process are not taken seriously. This is not because they contradict a "religion" of evolution, but because they offer sloppy science. Evolution is real. It can easily be demonstrated. Nothing objectively scientific has called it into question, ever.
    Evolution, indeed any form of science, cannot answer questions of origin. Nothing can. The only way to objectively say where something or everything came from would be to have been there at the time and recorded it (notary public present). Understand that religious faith cannot answer those questions either. Religious faith is not science. It offers not answers with a high confidence of being fact, but stories with a high confidence of feeling the voids that knowledge illuminates. To ofer that God created the universe does not show that it is probable that God created the universe. It only shows that you believe it so. Belief doesn't carry much weight in science.


Spam is not tolerated. I welcome on topic comments from you.