Intelligent Design Religion science education

Will home-schooled Christian students be the science leaders of tomorrow?

Spread the love

Louis Markos, PhD
Louis Markos

Don’t laugh. A Houston Baptist University English prof observes:

As in most schools I’ve visited, Mars Hill’s curriculum balances pagan (i.e., Homer, Aristotle) and medieval Christian (i.e., Dante, Chaucer) authors with major authors from the last 500 years of European and American literature (i.e., Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Faulkner).

In contrast, Western society today is increasingly eager to cut itself off from both its Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman roots. America’s elite universities, and increasingly non-elite ones, have rapidly jettisoned requirements for courses in Western thought (in 2011 the pro–liberal arts group National Association of Scholars documented the “near extinction” of Western Civilization from core curricula at top colleges). If the seeds for this wholesale abandonment were sown in the protests of the 1960s, the anti-Western flame became a wildfire in 1988, when protesters at Stanford University famously chanted, “Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture’s got to go.” Louis Markos, “The Rise of the Bible-Teaching, Plato-Loving, Homeschool Elitists” at Christianity Today

In the United States, homeschoolers rose from (National Center for Educational Statistics) 1.7 percent of the student population in 1999 to 3.3 percent in 2016, with over 100,000 believed to be using classical Christian programs.

It will be interesting indeed if the legacy of the thought traditions that provided a basis for science in the western world ended up being carried on mainly by devout Christians. While the official science world continues to mires and beclown itself in a war on objectivity.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

26 Replies to “Will home-schooled Christian students be the science leaders of tomorrow?

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    If there’s a correlation, it’s likely because home-schooled Christian kids spend more time living in the physical world. They’re outside more often, and they have to do useful work around the house. You learn more serious science from cooking and gardening and sewing and setting mousetraps than you do from either Aristotle or Dawkins.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    It will depend on the standard of home-schooling. There seems to be a presumption that it is superior to school-based tuition and it may well be in some cases. But, if children are being denied access to some areas of science simply because it is held to be in conflict with their religious beliefs, then their education is lacking to that extent. They are being taught, in effect, to fear even knowing something, that knowing the principles of the theory of evolution, even if they do not believe them, is a threat to their faith. At its most extreme it can reinforce a tendency towards reclusive and cultish behavior.

    As we have been told many times here, many of the great scientists of the past were Christians of varying degrees of devoutness, Their beliefs didn’t prevent them from making great contributions to science. The only potential problem is where there is a conflict between the dogma of their faith and what science indicates. If religious belief – or political ideology – trumps scientific theory in any case where there is a conflict then you will have religious or political Lysenkoism.

  3. 3
    johnnyb says:

    They are being taught, in effect, to fear even knowing something, that knowing the principles of the theory of evolution, even if they do not believe them, is a threat to their faith.

    To avoid arguing generalities, can you point to a homeschool curriculum that does this? (treating the principles of evolution as being problematic to teach even as an incorrect viewpoint)

    Do that do that in Classical Conversations? Apologia? Berean Builders? Veritas Press? Sonlight?

    Would like to know which one you are referring to so I can help people avoid it.

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, you leave off the impacts of some key effects studied by educators, including the two-sigma challenge. It turns out that the factory model curriculum is grossly inefficient and that approaches based on higher interactivity and targetted mastery in sound order overwhelm the alleged advantages of our factory curriculum schools. That’s one reason I have thought that digital tech may be helpful in individualising and promoting interactive learning. As for the alleged superiority of education in soul-crushing ideologically imposed a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism dressed up in the lab coat, that is utterly fallacious and in fact under the condemnation of causing little ones to stumble. Instead, learning the nature, strengths and weaknesses of science in a context of logic and studying sciences informed by relevant history, would have advantages. KF

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, apparently completely oblivious to the irony of it all, states:

    “As we have been told many times here, many of the great scientists of the past were Christians of varying degrees of devoutness, Their beliefs didn’t prevent them from making great contributions to science. The only potential problem is where there is a conflict between the dogma of their faith and what science indicates. If religious belief – or political ideology – trumps scientific theory in any case where there is a conflict then you will have religious or political Lysenkoism.”

    as to:

    Sev: “As we have been told many times here, many of the great scientists of the past were Christians of varying degrees of devoutness,”

    A true statement in so far as it goes. Christians were at the founding of every branch of modern science. You will be very hard pressed to find ANY atheists on the list of founders of modern science.

    50 Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God by Tihomir Dimitrov
    PART IV. FOUNDERS OF MODERN SCIENCE
    (16th – 21st Century) – page 89
    http://nobelists.weebly.com/up.....nglish.pdf

    Even Darwin himself was dependent on (faulty) theology, (and was not dependent on experimentation and/or math), in order to make his ‘one long argument’ for evolution is his book “Origin”:

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    SKEPTICS OF DARWINIAN THEORY
    Sedgwick to Darwin
    “…I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction (Bacon’s method of repeated experimentation), and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”
    Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860
    http://veritas-ucsb.org/librar.....itics.html

    as to:

    Sev: “Their beliefs didn’t prevent them from making great contributions to science.”

    This is where Seversky starts to go off the rails. Far from ‘preventing’ them from making great contributions to science, their Christian beliefs are exactly what enabled them to make their great contributions to science. Science is simply impossible without presuppositions and/or beliefs that can only be grounded with Christian metaphysics. (Indeed, that is why it was necessary for Darwin himself to use faulty liberal theology in order to try to make his case for evolution)

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

    THE CHRISTIAN ORIGIN OF MODERN SCIENCE – FEBRUARY 6, 2016
    Excerpt: Among other things, Hodgson argues that Christian theology which maintains a fine balance between order and freedom was necessary element (for the rise of modern science). The Christian God is both rational and free. “Tip the balance one way or the other and science is destroyed.” He states. “Deny the freedom of God and you have a necessary world and no incentive to make experiments. Deny the rationality of God and you have a chaotic world.”
    With regard to freedom, if the world is fated or entirely predestined, then there is no incentive to overcome disease, or to truly alter one’s perceived destiny. With regard to order, if one believes the world is inconstant or that God (or the gods) are inconstant, then one has no incentive to develop rules or to trust in scientific laws.
    https://blogs.baylor.edu/ian_panth/2016/02/06/the-christian-origin-of-modern-science/

    as to:

    Sev: “The only potential problem is where there is a conflict between the dogma of their faith and what science indicates.”

    The irony in that statement is literally dripping off of every letter of the statement. The conflict between the dogma of Seversky’s faith in Darwinian evolution “and what science indicates” is found at every turn in empirical science. Here a few “conflicts”, (i.e. falsifications), of Seversky’s faith with the scientific evidence. ‘Conflicts’ that Seversky simply refuses to ever accept as genuine conflicts with his faith, indeed, ever accept as outright falsifications of his faith in Darwinian evolution:

    Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.

    Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    Sev: “If religious belief – or political ideology – trumps scientific theory in any case where there is a conflict then you will have religious or political Lysenkoism.”

    Again, the irony in that statement is literally dripping off of every letter of the statement. Lysenkoism was a political campaign conducted by Trofim Lysenko, his followers and Soviet authorities against genetics and science-based agriculture. Stalin himself was “enthralled” by Lysenkoism. Soviet Russia, besides persecuting scientists who disagreed with Lysenkoism, as should be needless to say, was an atheistic hellhole with the blood of tens of millions of its own citizens on its hands.

    In other words, totalitarian atheism itself is what enabled the persecution of anyone who dared question Lysenkoism in the former Soviet Union. And yet, with no sense of irony whatsoever, Seversky apparently sees no problem whatsoever comparing Lysenkoism with Christianity.

    Shoot, we don’t even have to go to the former Soviet Union to see atheists trying to dictate science by government decree, nor to see them persecute anyone who dares dissent from the pseudoscience of Darwinian evolution.

    Right here in present day America atheists have managed, by deception, to flip the original intent of ‘separation of church and state’ on its head so as to legally prevent any designed based alternatives to Darwinian evolution from being taught in public schools. And have also systematically persecuted anyone who dares question the validity of Darwinian orthodoxy.

    In fact, the term ‘separation of church and state’ does not even appear anywhere in the constitution but is a term that was lifted out of context from one of Jefferson’s personal letters to the Danbury Baptists, and then twisted almost 180 degrees out of its original context. The term ‘separation of church and state’, as Jefferson originally intended it, meant that the Danbury Baptists could rest assured that they were free to exercise their religion as they so fit completely free from any government interference. I.e. The first amendment was originally devised to protect the church from the state’s influence, not to protect the state from the church’s influence.

    The Truth About “Separation of Church and State”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS6QGyWVgZY

    Charlie Daniels: Separation of Church & State Is Not About ‘Religion’; It’s a Battle Against Christianity By Charlie Daniels | September 18, 2017
    Excerpt: Many people think there is a section in the Constitution, or somewhere in the federal papers that demands separation of church and state, but there is no such terminology.
    The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
    Separation of church and state is part of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, whose original intent was far from what the enemies of public displays of religion would have you believe.
    https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charlie-daniels/charlie-daniels-separation-church-state-not-about-religion-its-battle

    Darwinists, (in large measure via the 180 degree twisting of ‘separation of church and state’), are notorious for legally trying to stifle free speech when it comes to Darwinian evolution

    On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits – September 2011
    Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry.
    *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....50451.html

    Most importantly, enforced Darwinian orthodoxy, via Lysenkoism style persecution of anyone who dares dissent from Darwinian pseudoscience, is rampant within American academia:

    Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality.
    Scott Minnich
    Richard Sternberg
    Günter Bechly
    Eric Hedin
    Don McDonald
    David Coppedge
    Caroline Crocker
    Bryan Leonard
    Martin Gaskell
    Dean Kenyon
    Roger DeHart
    Granville Sewell
    https://freescience.today/stories/
    Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/

    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

    Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
    Volume 1 of a trilogy, the disturbing premise of this book documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not applicable to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The book also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters often results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.,,,
    “If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller
    http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte.....0981873405

    Slaughter of the Dissidents – Dr. Jerry Bergman – June 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5nAYU2GD0

    Bottom line, since Darwinian evolution has no empirical evidence substantiating its grandiose claims that all life on earth arose via mindless processes, (indeed Darwinian evolution is contradicted by the empirical science at every turn), Darwinists are forced to enforce their pseudoscience on public schools system by legal fiat, i.e. by twisting the original intent of ‘separation of Church and state’ 180 degrees out of context, and by ruthlessly suppressing any dissent of Darwinian orthodoxy in academia. In short, Darwinism, as it is maintained in America, actually is very much in the style of Lysenkoism of the former Soviet Union.

    And all this irony is apparently completely lost on Seversky.

    Apparently, Seversky is completely blind to the fact that Darwinism in and of itself, is a dogmatic belief system, even a religion, that is far more intolerant of any dissenting views than mainstream Christianity is.

    “Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview”
    – GIVING UP DARWIN: A fond farewell to a brilliant and beautiful theory – By David Gelernter – May 1, 2019 –
    – David Gelernter is professor of computer science at Yale University, chief scientist at Mirror Worlds Technologies, and member of the National Council of the Arts.

  7. 7
    Silver Asiatic says:

    There are some newer schools that mix homeschool with classroom. Two days a week in classroom with kids, the rest at home. It’s a nice combination.
    The Christian homeschoolers I know teach against Darwin with ID friendly or creationist material. The kids can simply go outside in nature and see the glory of God in creation. Darwin is rendered a very silly joke by then. Fighting materialism does not hurt one’s scientific education at all.

  8. 8
    Truthfreedom says:

    @ Silver Asiatic: ‘Fighting materialism does not hurt one’s scientific education at all’.

    In fact, fighting materialism is fighting superstitious belief.
    ‘Universes pop out of nothing’. Lulz.

  9. 9
    Silver Asiatic says:

    The poet William Auden came to the kind of realization that we mention often here:

    In a 1957 essay, Auden described a sojourn in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War, at a time when the Republican struggle against Francisco Franco’s fascists was a cause célebre for the West’s liberal intelligentsia. Following the example set by left-wing regimes from Mexico to Moscow, the Republicans had launched a campaign of persecution against the Spanish Catholic Church, and Auden arrived to find that all of the city’s many churches had been closed and its priests exiled or killed. “To my astonishment,” he wrote, “this discovery left me profoundly shocked and disturbed. . . I could not help acknowledging that, however I had consciously ignored and rejected the Church for sixteen years, the existence of churches and what went on in them had all the time been very important to me.
    What he felt during his Spanish encounter with left-wing anti-Christianity was similar to his reactions to the anti-Christianity of the right. The “novelty and shock of the Nazis,” Auden wrote, and the blitheness with which Hitler’s acolytes dismissed Christianity “on the grounds that to love one’s neighbor as oneself was a command fit only for effeminate weaklings,” pushed him inexorably toward unavoidable questions. “If, as I am convinced, the Nazis are wrong and we are right, what is it that validates our values and invalidates theirs?” The answer to this question, he wrote later, was part of what “brought me back to the church.” When confronting the phenomenon of modern totalitarianism, he argued, “it was impossible any longer to believe that the values of liberal humanism were self-evident.” Humanism needed to be grounded in something higher than a purely material account of the universe, and in something more compelling than the hope of a secular utopia. Only religious premises could support basic liberal concepts like equality and human rights. Only God could ask human beings, as the poet put it, to “love their crooked neighbor with all their crooked heart.”

    “If, as I am convinced, the Nazis are wrong and we are right, what is it that validates our values and invalidates theirs?”
    The Nazis could certainly be right under the ideas of Darwinism or materialism, although there really isn’t even a need to determine right or wrong in that system.

  10. 10
    Silver Asiatic says:

    TF

    In fact, fighting materialism is fighting superstitious belief.
    ‘Universes pop out of nothing’. Lulz.

    Interesting. Materialism is anti-scientific.

  11. 11
    Bob O'H says:

    johnnyb @ 3 – see Silver Asiatic’s comment @ 7.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    ^^^^^ HUH???

    You do realize that teaching children about some of the abundant evidence against Darwinian evolution IS NOT ignoring evolution do you not?

    Public schools are the ones who ignore scientific evidence that may contradict evolution in that they simply refuse to ‘teach the controversy’: For one recent example, out of many,,,,,

    “It was like the Darwinian Gestapo,” he said.,,,,
    Darwin vs. Darwin – by Terrell Clemmons
    Excerpt: In subsequent editions of The Origin, Darwin himself responded carefully to his critics and added, “I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.” Attorney Herman Bouma thought Darwin had provided us with a good example of respectful engagement with criticism, and so he submitted a proposal to speak on that topic at the NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) 2019 national conference. His talk was approved months in advance and scheduled for 8:00 am on April 14, the final day of the conference.
    At about 7:40 am, as Bouma was setting up his equipment, three NSTA officials came in and said his presentation had been cancelled. Someone had contacted the NSTA the prior evening, he was told, whereupon NSTA officials had consulted the website for his nonprofit, the National Association for Objectivity in Science, and deemed it “fake science.” Beyond relating those details, they were “not at liberty” to discuss the cancellation. The officials then moved to the door to prevent anyone from entering, and four security guards arrived to ensure that Bouma left the room. An older gentleman, unaccustomed to being manhandled, Bouma was flabbergasted. “It was like the Darwinian Gestapo,” he said.
    He requested a follow-up meeting, but NSTA executive director David Evans said no, noting, “We firmly oppose advising teachers to ‘teach the controversy’ regarding evolution by natural selection, as there is no scientific controversy.”
    So now, Darwin’s theory is “science,” but Darwin’s engagement with criticism is “non-science.”,,,
    https://salvomag.com/article/salvo51/darwin-vs-darwin

    In other words, public schools are indoctrinating students into Darwinian evolution by only allowing a severely biased presentation of evidence. They are not educating children to think for themselves, with a full presentation of evidence, whether they think Darwinism may be true or not.

  13. 13
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Bob O’H
    johnnyb @ 3 – see Silver Asiatic’s comment @ 7.

    …can you point to a homeschool curriculum that does this? (treating the principles of evolution as being problematic to teach even as an incorrect viewpoint)

    In the case, I mentioned, the principles of evolution are taught as an incorrect viewpoint.

  14. 14
    Silver Asiatic says:

    the principles of the theory of evolution

    There’s really not much to talk about here. The “principles of the theory”, to the extent that anything is agreed-upon are quite simplistic.

  15. 15
    ET says:

    seversky:

    They are being taught, in effect, to fear even knowing something, that knowing the principles of the theory of evolution, even if they do not believe them, is a threat to their faith.

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution to teach.

  16. 16
    Truthfreedom says:

    ‘Kids, you are semi-evolded monkeys with no value and no purpose. Morals are illusory. Now be good and don’t do drugs’.

  17. 17
    johnnyb says:

    Bob –

    That is a similar phenomenon where I teach homeschool co-ops. However, the claim by seversky was that the students are not even taught what evolution says. Let me reiterate seversky:

    They are being taught, in effect, to fear even knowing something, that knowing the principles of the theory of evolution, even if they do not believe them, is a threat to their faith.

    There is nothing in the description by Silver Asiatic of fear, or of avoiding the principles of evolution. It’s just that, for most people, the principles of evolution are self-evidently incorrect. For those with philosophical training (as most homeschoolers receive, having explicit education in philosophy, fallacy detection, and formal logic), the failure of evolution to overcome the modest hurdle of the principle of sufficient reason is sufficient to reject it,

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    SA, a note, by way of expanding “Nazi” — national socialist German workers party — i.e. Fascism is right of Stalinism but is left of almost anything else. They hit on a cleverer solution than, shoot the capitalists. Turn them into cartelists under control of the state and its Nietzschean superman political messiah. They won’t realise by and large, that the gold plated chains around their wrists are chains, not a fashion statement. Unless, they are foolish enough to get out of line. For reference, see what Milch et al did to Professor Hugo Junkers. Milch was apparently a former employee of Junkers. Let’s just say his family was so incensed they refused to entertain the Nazis at his funeral after he had been hounded to death, Junkers, of course, as in 52, 87, 88 and the Jumo series of piston and jet engines. KF

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    JB, so far as I am concerned, once it was clear that D/RNA is machine code with associated execution machinery, thus algorithms and language at work in the heart of the living cell, it was irretrievably over. There is precisely one credible source with adequate empirically warranted capacity to cause language, and it is not blind chance and/or mechanical necessity! KF

  20. 20
    Silver Asiatic says:

    KF

    Fascism is right of Stalinism but is left of almost anything else. They hit on a cleverer solution than, shoot the capitalists. Turn them into cartelists under control of the state and its Nietzschean superman political messiah.

    It’s interesting. I think the biggest problem has been a misinterpretation of Dignitatis Humanae and this has gone on for almost 60 years now. Religious liberty has been viewed as a function of Enlightenment liberalism which regards the state as a means of insuring personal freedom and thus as a reductionistic way as simply preserving one citizen from harming another.

  21. 21
    jerry says:

    Fascism is right of Stalinism but is left of almost anything else

    Mussolini died while trying to rewrite the Communist Manifesto.

    What is left of communism? Does it make much difference?

    One could argue that leftist ideology is based on resentment. Combine that with power and one gets 100 million dead.

    But this is a diversion from home schooling.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, actually, Frankfurt school type cultural marxism, aka critical studies has become one of the major academic and education policy driving forces. It and linked forces have wrecked English Literature, have done serious harm to Civics, history and law, and much more. It is part of the game to dismiss the US Founders and framers as racist, slave owning or condoning, women oppressing dead white men who are thereby dismissed. As a result, the crucial breakthrough, paid for in blood, that opened up modern liberty and self government, is being taken away, making children vulnerable to political messianistic manipulation. We can go on and on. KF

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    SA, we need to get back to the civil peace of justice, which is the due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. In turn it reflects built in law rooted in our creation in God’s image but manifest to the reasonably sound moral thinker. The undermining of God-awareness in the civil society has done great harm to our civilisation. KF

  24. 24
    tjguy says:

    Seversky says: “They are being taught, in effect, to fear even knowing something, that knowing the principles of the theory of evolution, even if they do not believe them, is a threat to their faith. ”

    Actually, I think you would be surprised at just how much they do actually study the Darwinian paradigm. You seem to think they are never taught it so as to protect these kids from learning about something that is “a threat to their faith”. But actually I think the opposite is true. They are taught it, but are also taught how to properly evaluate the claims, hypotheses, and beliefs of evolutionists as well. They learn proper thinking skills that do not prevent them from questioning the consensus like all good scientists should be able to do. Of course there are probably examples of bad teaching, but actually many are being taught not to be afraid to question the consensus views like good scientists should be able to do.

  25. 25
    Axel says:

    Well, I believe it is an axiom of our Cristian faith that we are called upon to draw order out of chaos, and because the process is ongoing, so must our endeavours in that direction. So much for anti-ID thinking, the randomness that, in reality, promotes chaos and entropy, the antithesis of design.

    How ironical, this tragic, probably terminal, corporate entropy that Boeing is currently undergoing. Fred Hoyle, thou shouldst be living now.

  26. 26
    Axel says:

    “‘Seversky says: “They are being taught, in effect, to fear even knowing something, that knowing the principles of the theory of evolution, even if they do not believe them, is a threat to their faith. ”’

    There are theories and there are theories. Serious thories and Dawkins-type theories. Darwins’ fall into the latter category.

    You can only marvel at the obtuseness of Dawkin’s wonderful dictum that the world only lends itself to empirical, scientific investigation (It only appears to be designed).

    Starting off from a bizarre fantasy as his original hypothesis, trashing a cornerstone of the scientific method, takes some beating ; on a par with his definition of ‘nothing’.

Leave a Reply