Ned,

In terms of offering support to homeschooling parents, I was actually thinking of Ohio, because I know they have a computer course (and even offer computers) for at least homeschooled high schoolers…I don’t know what Tennessee has in this area.

As for religious views, I’m painfully aware that the majority of Americans reject all forms of rational scientific knowledge in place of whatever their pastor says the Bible says.

It’s not “homeschooling” as Ohio homeschoolers would be quick to point out. OHEN website (scroll down nearly to the bottom or search the page for ‘e-school’.

It’s public funds that pay for the materials. They’re accountable to the public school system. It’s a legitimate education option…but it’s not homeschooling.

I’m painfully aware that the majority of Americans reject all forms of rational scientific knowledge in place of whatever their pastor says the Bible says.

Ouch!!!

I still don’t believe that it’s a “majority.” I just don’t.

Southern Beale:

I don’t think it’s 80% everywhere, but I’m guessing it’s a considerable percentag wherever evangelical and fundamentalist christians are in the majority. I don’t know what’s going to happen if the native American peoples, the Buddhists, Hindus and assorted others start demanding that their creation “theories” get equal billing with the scientific and christian “faith based” versions.

I remember when I once held the quaint notion that folks homeschooled their kids because they didn’t think the teachers were smart enough. Then I learned, from talking to homeschoolers that the teachers were GODLESS and politically suspect. Dear me.

Ned Williams:

You asked me in a different thread where you had used Obama’s middle name.

2/27/08:

“Two seeming examples of the divide on acceptable campaign rhetoric: David Oatney and Brendan Loy have a different perspective on McCain’s “B. Hussein Obama” opening act.”

Now Sean, actually where they’re getting that notion is a still small voice.

And that’s interesting to hear about Ohio . . . good for them.

SB,
Read that poll I linked to if you want a good skeer.

Good research democommie, but I was quoting them and did so with the intent of demonstrating that using Obama’s middle name was controversial.

Oh, and despite what you’ve heard–there aren’t any kids in a Nashville public school being taught religion by their public school teacher–they’re certainly learning a worldview, but it isn’t Judeo-Christian.

Ned Williams:

I read the article you linked to, you certainly were not quoting anything in that article–paraphrasing perhaps, but not quoting.

I never intimated that children in Nashville’s public schools were being taught religion. Or were you addressing someone else with that comment?

BTW, how are you with the teaching of any religious beliefs concerning creation. Norse, ancient Greek and Egyptian creation stories plus the Inuit and other native American peoples all contain fascinating accounts of the beginnings of human life. Of course none of them can be proven to be true…

dc,
“quoting anything”? I’m not sure what your point is, but no, I didn’t intend to quote anyone or anything (except where I used quotation marks or a box quote) in my post.

I was definitely addressing you with that comment about Nashville’s public schools, because you said that some other religions might “start demanding that their creation “theories” get equal billing with the scientific and christian “faith based” versions.” Where will they get “equal billing”? Weren’t we talking about schools?

I don’t think that we should teach religion in schools, just the facts. Unfortunately, evolution is a theory that can’t be proved and shouldn’t be taught as fact, especially since it has serious implications given the subject matter: the origins of life. Obviously there are certain facts that can be taught, but parents have a reasonable expectation–in my humble opinion, that teachers or schools won’t fill in the “knowledge gaps” without regard to conflicting theories/views.

Evolution ≠ abiogenisis, and has nothing to say about the origins of life.

Scientific theories by definition can be proven or disproven, and it is the overwhelming consensus of biological scientists that evolution has been conclusively proven over and over again.

I really don’t want to engage here, and I don’t think that these questions are all that relevant to homeschooling as a general topic, but I feel it to be necessary to point out those facts. For detailed, documented discussion of the many ways that biology indeed addresses the so-called “knowledge gaps,” see http://www.talkorigins.org/

I can’t help but interject with the proper use of terms being used in this thread (truth, theory, prove, etc.) as they relate to science. Please see my blog post from last June here:

http://livelaughlove95.wordpress.com/2007/06/09/science-primer/

Well, it depends on the way it is taught, now doesn’t it nm? And you may be completely comfortable with the conclusions supported by current data to establish the theory of evolution . . . go for it. Based on your last sentence, I guess you don’t think there are any “knowledge gaps”? (Oh, I really don’t want to engage here either; just pointing out facts).

Excellent post DB and thanks for providing a link to it. I will say, however, that I believe parts of your post unjustifiably presumes intellectual purity and neutrality on the part of “scientists,” especially those engaged in explaining/establishing where life came from.

Here’s my opinion on controversial public school topics:

Creation - I don’t have a problem teaching the ‘theory’ of evolution, but to act like that it is factually certain is riduculous. How long ago was a flat earth a fact?

Sex - Schools shouldn’t teach abstinence or safe sex. Schools should merely teach kids what sex is and that it crates babies. Tell them what some common birth control methods are, but that the only safe sex is monogomy. Let the parents teach their kids how to live.

History - Should be tought based on historical facts, not biased from modern day political correctness. Yes, it used to be socially acceptable for white people to call black people the n word. Yes, women used to be little more than property to their husbands. yes, we have learned to live in a way where we all respect each other more, but we still have to understand the past

Ned Williams:

Your most recent comment re: your use of Barack Obama’s middle name:

“dc, “quoting anything”? I’m not sure what your point is, but no, I didn’t intend to quote anyone or anything (except where I used quotation marks or a box quote) in my post.”

refuting my comment, earlier in this thread.

“Ned Williams:

You asked me in a different thread where you had used Obama’s middle name.

(in which) I furnished your comment from 2/27/08:

““Two seeming examples of the divide on acceptable campaign rhetoric: David Oatney and Brendan Loy have a different perspective on McCain’s “B. Hussein Obama” opening act.””

Contradicts your prior comment:

“”Good research democommie, but I was quoting them and did so with the intent of demonstrating that using Obama’s middle name was controversial.”

So, either you used his middle name without quoting someone else in the process or you have a very bad memory.

As to what I said about teaching religion in schools:

The ID faction of fundamental/evangelical christianity has sued, in several states, to have creationism (under it’s nom de subterfuge, “Intelligent Design”) taught alongside the Theory of Evolution in public schools. Thus far they have been unsuccessful, but there ardor seems undiminished. My meaning was that I hope the ID folks are willing, on that great day when they get their way, to give conflicting theological views on the origins of life equal time in the educational process. I think that I already know the answer to that question.

How long ago was a flat earth a fact?

Several thousand years ago.

dc,
Sorry that I misunderstood the “quote” reference. Well, I went back and read the original post and the two posts linked to in the original post and both of them wrote “Barack Hussein Obama” (dang, there’s another example of me using his middle name that you can nail me with . . .); I won’t deny that my post was about the (controversial) use of “Hussein” (dang, another example) by McCain’s opening act. (By the way, did you read the comments under Oatney’s post?) This is a waste of time, dc. I guess you’re trying to prove that I’m a liar or something? How can that be worse than being a “KKKChristian”?

Re. “Intelligent Design,” it is clearly driven by people who believe in Creation over Evolution, but it is rooted in science (inasmuch as it doesn’t simply say, “God created us”); I know, I know, ID isn’t “scientific” in the sense that it can be tested, but it is not rooted in reference to a tablet discovered somewhere in Scandinavia that contains Norse beliefs about origins.

I just realized that the whole flat earth slur against Christianity is accepted to be a myth. Figures.

Ned,

I know, ID isn’t “scientific” in the sense that it can be tested, but it is not rooted in reference to a tablet discovered somewhere in Scandinavia that contains Norse beliefs about origins.

Yep, its just created out of thin air like Mormonism.

The “flat earth slur against Christianity”? Get over yourself. It was an invention ex nihilo by Washington Irving in 1828 to ‘prove’ Catholic inferiority and American exceptionalism. It was never aimed against Christianity in general.

Moreover, the only reason that it isn’t more widely known to be a myth is all that good old-fashioned ‘non-PC’ teaching of history that MichaelinLV would like us to go back to, where we don’t examine what we’ve been told before or the reasons we were told it.

Sean,
Not exactly. ID is rooted in logic; deduction. Is that true of Mormonism?

Ned,

A conscious, intelligent, omnipresent being that controls the evolution of all living creatures isn’t exactly logical. Its a matter of faith.

It makes more sense that animals evolve to adapt to their environment…such as fish that can live in sulfuric water in underground caves, or insects that live in the desert, etc…

nm,
Hmmm, Al Gore used the slur on 60 Minutes within the last 48 hours. Regardless of how Washington Irving intended it, it’s obvious how it is being used today . . . as a slur.

I certainly wasn’t subjected to non-PC education or teaching at any point in my education. But, nm, are you asserting that there is no danger of teaching a slanted view of history?

“Excellent post DB and thanks for providing a link to it. I will say, however, that I believe parts of your post unjustifiably presumes intellectual purity and neutrality on the part of “scientists,” especially those engaged in explaining/establishing where life came from”

Nothing of the sort is intended by that post. The METHODOLOGY is intellectually pure and neutral. Those that apply the scientific method can never be so individually. That is why the method states that universal repeatability is essential to the acceptance of theories.

I have to repeat what nm said about evolution not equaling abiogenesis. Evolution does not cover the origins of life only how it has changed through time. Abiogenesis, frankly, is a mess with only a bunch of shrugged shoulders to show for 150 years of research.

This is one of the reasons I am a staunch church-state separationist. Once one creation story is deemed worthy by acceptance of philosophy as science, then all must be accepted on the same basis. The Flying Spaghetti Monster’s noodly appendage taught along side the work of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob diminishes the Christian God to nothing more than nincompoopery.

Sean,
I’m surprised that you think I disbelieve micro-evolution. I’m also surprised that you seem not to understand what ID is. It is less than you have described (though some would certainly reach those conclusions–you in attempting to deride it, me in attempting to integrate it with my beliefs). It simply states that it is nigh unto impossible that certain biological thingamabobs “evolved” or came about by chance mutations.

DB,
Good points, but I think it is foolish to say that “Evolution”–in stark contrast to “abiogenesis,” is what is taught in public schools. The two words obviously have different meanings, though “Evolution” is plainly shorthand–especially in this context, of wholly-natural explanation for how we got here.

Ned, I heard Gore suggest that not accepting that humans have played a role is climate change was intellectually equivalent to believing in a flat earth. I didn’t hear him suggest that either of those beliefs is a characteristic of Christians or of Christianity. And I have to say that when he made the comparison, I myself thought of the Flat Earth Society, which is hardly a Christian group. It isn’t always about you, you know.

That is why I suggest that there is danger in interpreting that with which one disagrees as slanted while refusing to recognize that that with which one agrees may be equally slanted. And, in terms of the history taught in grade schools, certainly is.

Ned Williams:

Your comment back on 2/27/08 did not indicate that you were quoting something other than the piece you linked to. I don’t read Oatney or Loy so I’ll accept your stating that they said it. That doesn’t change the fact that you did what you did and then tried to say you didn’t. Are you a liar? I don’t know. Was your previous comment about not using “Hussein” correct? No. It seems that anytime you come up against a question you can’t (or won’t) answer the discussion becomes a waste of time. That is certainly one way to end an argument, Ned Williams, but not necessarily a way to prevail.

ID Science is a contradiction in terms. Micro-evolution is evolution. If it exists, it exists.

There are plenty of people of faith who accept science as being valid without losing their faith. Then again, there are those folks who can’t.

The term I use is not KKKChristian, Ned Williams; it’s KKKristian. It’s not a slur agains christians.

Ned,

Evolution is a FACT and a THEORY.

Stephen Gould had the best explanation of this description here-

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

You’ve stated in this thread a couple things that are categorically wrong.

evolution is a theory that can’t be proved

Absolutely false. It can and has been proven several different ways.

The mechanics of evolution are what is the theory part.

It is the same argument with gravity. It is a FACT that apples fall to the ground when they loose themselves from the trees. The THEORY of WHY they fall is called “gravity”. I take this time to quote from the Gould article listed above-

“Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

ID does not have any facts whatsoever that can be used in which to create scientific theories. Therefore, IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

“How long ago was a flat earth a fact?

Several thousand years ago.” - nm

nm, you are a dufus.

It was just a few hundred years ago. Remember Columbus? (Oh, I’m sorry, you must be a product of the public school system).

Tman,
That’s fair . . . I am a novice when it comes to scientific terms. But I’d say that there are facts that lead to inferences that support ID. “Complex and specified information” appears to be the term used in the field. Here’s a link to it. There is a point when it takes “faith” to believe that “complex and specified information” came to be via evolution or natural selection.

But again, it is the issue of Origins–and I would include speciation, which is so “controversial” to me.

dc,
My wife sure wishes that I would sometimes–ever, run away from an argument. As we say in the South, that dog won’t hunt.

As I noted above, the well-known writer Washington Irving invented the idea that Columbus’s contemporaries thought that the earth was flat. He stuck this invention into what he called his “biography” (what we today would recognize as a historical novel) of Columbus, written in the 1820s.

Why did he do this? He wanted Columbus to be a fitting discoverer of America: a proto-Protestant, scientific, breaker of old mythologies kind of guy, a herald of the 19th-century ideal of ‘American exceptionalism.’ Plus, he needed some explanation of why Columbus couldn’t get funding for his trip across the Atlantic from the rulers of Portugal, the foremost funders of exploration in the late 15th century, that wouldn’t suggest that Columbus himself was what Deb calls a ‘dufus.’ So he claimed that the Portuguese and practically everyone else in by-definition-at-that-time Catholic Europe was afraid of falling off the end of the flat earth.

The thing is, we have lots of evidence about (1) what the people of Europe thought about the shape and size of the earth in the late 15th century, (2) why Columbus couldn’t get funding from the rulers of Portugal, and (3) what everyone else said about it from that time until the 1820s. And it makes Columbus look like the doofus and Irving look like the fiction writer he was.

(1) Europeans knew that the earth was spherical; in the 1480s and 1490s they had known this for close to 1900 years. This knowledge seems to have been widespread through both educated and uneducated groups. But in fact, the best scientific minds for all that time had said it was a sphere with a circumference of roughly 25,000 miles.

which leads us to (2). Columbus was asking for funding of a voyage based on the idea that the earth was a sphere of roughly 16,000 miles circumference. That is, he thought that he could sail west and run into Indonesia more or less where Venezuela is. The rulers of Portugal didn’t feel like funding such a crackpot. The rulers of Spain also thought Columbus was wrong about this, but since the Portuguese had funded an expedition around Africa that was going to be entirely successful in putting Portugal in control of European access to spices, the Spanish funded him as a sort of last-minute Hail Mary pass.

And (3) everyone knew all about all of this, but in the Americas it wasn’t discussed much because, well, it was sort of embarrassing. So when Irving came along and invented another explanation, it was embraced with enthusiasm in the cause of nation-building and entered popular mythology.Perhaps if Deb had attended a public school, she would have been informed of facts instead of myths.

nm,
True enough. I’m just thinking of the “deniers” and “flat earth” labels thrown around by atheists like “William” to deride–in every situation I’ve observed, Evangelicals or Religious people.

I don’t for a second refuse to believe that my views on history etc. are slanted . . . you were the one that implied that about your views of what should be taught. I think that educators should be scrupulous to keep their slant out of teaching, and that effort should be proportionate to the publicness of their role and inversely proportionate to the age of the student.

Actually, this post was about me or my counter-point to Sean’s post on homeschooling, but gosh, I know it is “not all about me.” However, that put- down is ironic coming from you who went round and round with me on our first meeting because I dared to opine about Judaism and homosexuality. I will concede that the arrows I see coming my way as an Evangelical in MCB might sometimes also be intended for Asatruars or Wiccans.

there are facts that lead to inferences that support ID

I checked the link. It appears you have fallen for the myth of “irreducible complexity”. This is dishonest for some, and just simply ignorance for others. ID argues that since certain parts of organisms are so “irreducibly complex” that there has to be some type of “designer”. This is also false.

I would suggest you check out this link-

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

Excerpt-

Irreducible complexity, intelligent design’s closest brush with biology, is marked by three ironies.

Despite all this, there is a strong political drive to force public schools to misrepresent neocreationism as science. But misrepresentation is not acceptable. And it would be awkward to tell teachers to teach ID science when there isn’t any. If it becomes politically necessary to teach something about the subject, the present essay contains material for several lessons. And if the plan is to teach ‘the controversy’, it would be proper to tell the students that there is no scientific controversy, although there is a public one. Books like Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution are surely part of the reason. Yet the widespread public acceptance of Behe’s thesis is stark evidence that we need stronger science education, especially about evolution.

You’re a smart guy Ned. The supporting evidence for both Macro and Micro-evolution is abundant and falsifiable. Those who claim to deny that this is true simply have are arguing from either denial of the evidence at hand or lack of observation of said evidence.

[…] a thread about homeschooling (here) that eventually narrowed to a discussion of Evolution, Tman linked to a fascinating essay by famed […]

Yes, Ned, when one opines about Judaism (claiming that Jewish teaching about homosexuality is something other than what Jewish teaching about homosexuality actually is, for instance) it is about Judaism, at least in part. When one opines about the myth of the flat earth (using it as an example of something that is very easy to disprove, and without mentioning or even hinting about Christianity), it just might not be about Christianity.

Ned Williams:

I did not say you walked away from the argument. I said you declared it “a waste of time” and decided to move on, rather than answering the question.

Your comment:

“nm,
True enough. I’m just thinking of the “deniers” and “flat earth” labels thrown around by atheists like “William” to deride–in every situation I’ve observed, Evangelicals or Religious people.”

is, I’m fairly certain, incorrect. William certainly says such things about fundamentalists and some evangelicals, but hardly lumps all religious believers into one group.

You also said to nm.

“I don’t for a second refuse to believe that my views on history etc. are slanted . . . you were the one that implied that about your views of what should be taught. I think that educators should be scrupulous to keep their slant out of teaching, and that effort should be proportionate to the publicness of their role and inversely proportionate to the age of the student.”

Does this mean that you teach your “slanted” view to your own children, in opposition to the view that they might receive from a public school teacher? And what informs your
slanted view of history?