Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

[CptSternn]

http://tinyurl.com/y9ycrsl

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – 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 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious or moral instruction."

"The majority of home-schoolers self-identify as evangelical Christians," said Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association. "Most home-schoolers will definitely have a sort of creationist component to their home-school program."

Those who don't, however, often feel isolated and frustrated from trying to find a textbook that fits their beliefs.

Two of the best-selling biology textbooks stack the deck against evolution, said some science educators who reviewed sections of the books at the request of The Associated Press.

"I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids," said Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the University of Chicago.

The textbook publishers defend their books as well-rounded lessons on evolution and its shortcomings. One of the books doesn't attempt to mask disdain for Darwin and evolutionary science.

"Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling," says the introduction to "Biology: Third Edition" from Bob Jones University Press. "This book was not written for them."

The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its "History of Life" chapter that a "Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is."

When the AP asked about that passage, university spokesman Brian Scoles said the sentence made it into the book because of an editing error and will be removed from future editions.

The size of the business of home-school texts isn't clear because the textbook industry is fragmented and privately held publishers don't give out sales numbers. Slatter said home-school material sales reach about $1 billion annually in the U.S.

Publishers are well aware of the market, said Jay Wile, a former chemistry professor in Indianapolis who helped launch the Apologia curriculum in the early 1990s.

"If I'm planning to write a curriculum, and I want to write it in a way that will appeal to home-schoolers, I'm going to at least find out what my demographic is," Wile said.

In Kentucky, Lexington home-schooler Mia Perry remembers feeling disheartened while flipping through a home-school curriculum catalog and finding so many religious-themed textbooks.

"We're not religious home-schoolers, and there's somewhat of a feeling of being outnumbered," said Perry, who has home-schooled three of her four children after removing her oldest child from a public school because of a health condition.

Perry said she cobbled together her own curriculum after some mainstream publishers told her they would not sell directly to home-schooling parents.

Wendy Womack, another Lexington home-school mother, said the only scientifically credible curriculum she's found is from the Maryland-based Calvert School, which has been selling study-at-home materials for more than 100 years.

Apologia and Bob Jones University Press say their science books sell well. Apologia's "Exploring Creation" biology textbook retails for $65, while Bob Jones' "Biology" Third Edition lists at $52.

Coyne and Virginia Tech biology professor Duncan Porter reviewed excerpts from the Apologia and Bob Jones biology textbooks, which are equivalent to ninth- and 10th-grade biology lessons. Porter said he would give the books an F.

"If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they're being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology," Coyne said. He argued that the books may steer students away from careers in biology or the study of the history of the earth.

Wile countered that Coyne "feels compelled to lie in order to prop up a failing hypothesis (evolution). We definitely do not lie to the students. We tell them the facts that people like Dr. Coyne would prefer to cover up."

Adam Brown's parents say their 16-year-old son's belief in the Bible's creation story isn't deterring him from pursuing a career in marine biology. His parents, Ken and Polly Brown, taught him at their Cedar Grove, Ind., home using the Apologia curriculum and other science texts.

Polly Brown said her son would gladly take college courses that include evolution, and he'll be able to provide the expected answers even though he disagrees.

"He probably knows it better than the kids who have been taught evolution all through public school," Polly Brown said. "But that is in order for him to understand both sides of that argument because he will face it throughout his higher education."

[CptSternn]

Heh - a right wing evangelical who doesn't believe in evolution wants to be a marine biologist. That right there made my day.

[Beneath the Shadows]

How is it that home-schooling material is not put up to the same standards (shitty as they are in this country) as the rest of educational materials?

[Still Jack]

Am I the only one that read the text and thought :" Duh, Kentucky? "

[ape descendant]

This comes as no surprise. Feking creatards are trying to drag us all back into the dark ages, kicking and screaming.

It would be funny if so many children's minds weren't at stake. Its really sad that their parents don't understand that science is based on testable evidence, not bronze age scripture.

[Ben Lahnger]

[Saya]

I swear, Ben, I know a girl who thinks that fossils are a conspiracy. Scientists planted them there.

It depresses me. I used to watch Sailor Moon with her when we were kids.

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by Saya

I swear, Ben, I know a girl who thinks that fossils are a conspiracy. Scientists planted them there.

I thought the official cover story was, "God created the fossils to test our faith".

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Entropic

I thought the official cover story was, "God created the fossils to test our faith".

I don't think she was a religious Christian, at least I never asked her about her faith. I stopped talking to her completely after I found out she was a Neo Nazi.

[ape descendant]

If fossils are a conspiracy, it really makes me wonder about genetics.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Saya

she was a Neo Nazi.

Well, she did watch Sailor Moon... That should have been a hint right?

[Saya]

I watched Sailor Moon, and I turned out heil Hitler! I mean, I turned out okay!

[PortraitOfSanity]

My biggest question is how does a Newfie become a Nazi anyway? I mean... are there minorities, other than Indians of course, within driving distance?

[Saya]

The Inuit actually do suffer from racism very much here, its pretty disgusting how acceptable racism towards Natives is here. That said St.John's while probably far more white than most other Canadian cities does have minority communities, and sadly the whole "they took our jobs! they're taking over the university! They're on welfare!" sentiment arises, although I'm pretty sure the worst we've had of Nazis is just graffiti and the occasional bar fight.

I think she got into it after she went to Fort McMurray in Alberta for a few years, though.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by Entropic

I thought the official cover story was, "God created the fossils to test our faith".

WAIT! Someone believes that?!?!? They believe that there is this omniscient, all-powerful being who created the world and wants people to believe in him/her/it solely on the basis of faith, yet that same being planted false clues like fossils to make us doubt the existence of an omniscient, all-powerful being?

I had a teacher once who put trick questions in an exam. I saw them coming, but it was impossible to answer them correctly, ensuring that no one was getting an A on that test. I hate that bastard to this day.

To think that someone believes in a god that behaves that way is irritating on so many levels.

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

WAIT! Someone believes that?!?!? They believe that there is this omniscient, all-powerful being who created the world and wants people to believe in him/her/it solely on the basis of faith, yet that same being planted false clues like fossils to make us doubt the existence of an omniscient, all-powerful being?

I had a teacher once who put trick questions in an exam. I saw them coming, but it was impossible to answer them correctly, ensuring that no one was getting an A on that test. I hate that bastard to this day.

To think that someone believes in a god that behaves that way is irritating on so many levels.

I'm dead serious about that line.

When I used to go church, we were taught that fossils were the work of the devil, and that God permitted the devil to create fossils as a measure of our faith. Then we were taught that most fossils were the creation of evil scientists who are out to disprove creation even though they knew evolution was wrong. Finally, we were told that belief in evolution would lead us to all sorts of sin, like masturbation, fighting, and drug usage.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

For something from the other side, there is a program from Calvert School in Baltimore, MD that has an excellent, scientifically correct curriculum for home schoolers. I went through their program from 3rd through 8th grade. They've been specializing in distance learning for elementary and junior high students for almost a hundred years.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

From a slightly less scientific standpoint, why is so hard to imagine an omnipotent being that could choose to create something to watch it grow? What is so different between genetically engineering a particular plant to produce a certain characteristic and being interested in its' development and a God creating a planet or universe from scratch and watching it develop and evolve? Evolution is obvious. It is so wrong to think their might be a God glancing down to see how things are progressing from time to time? In the same way a genetics scientist can pick and choose characteristics, some that work and some that don't, could a God not do the same? A geneticist doesn't make every individual plant, but can create a seed that can spread to feed thousands, and then change it to work in a slightly different environment. Why not a God?

Why is impossible for either side of the debate to see a middle ground, where perceptions from both sides can be examined or considered?

Can I not find joy both in spiritual idea of a higher power and also in the beautifully chaotic growth of life around me? Can i not consider a physical aspect of that spiritual being to be part of the world around me?

If I mention that God might be part of the world, I get slammed by atheistic zealots preaching a mantra of scientific, one-sided arguments based on assumed beliefs I don't hold. If I mention that plants and animals change over time to suit the environment they are in, much as human children learn to adapt to our own technological changes, or point out that a human brain can grow and change within a lifetime, and pass on characteristics to the next generation, the religious ones shoot down what is plain before my eyes and refuse to look at what is there, insisting that their static definition of God is the only one possible.

Things grow or die. If it isn't growing, it's dying, or dead, or wasn't alive in the first place.. Why could a God not change, not grow, as well? Why is it that our standard pictures of God are ones that can be classified as static, unchanging, created from inanimate matter or dead and gone? Christians preach of a living God... What is alive and does not grow?

sorry for the double post.

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by emeraldlonewoulf

From a slightly less scientific standpoint, why is so hard to imagine an omnipotent being that could choose to create something to watch it grow? What is so different between genetically engineering a particular plant to produce a certain characteristic and being interested in its' development and a God creating a planet or universe from scratch and watching it develop and evolve? Evolution is obvious. It is so wrong to think their might be a God glancing down to see how things are progressing from time to time? In the same way a genetics scientist can pick and choose characteristics, some that work and some that don't, could a God not do the same? A geneticist doesn't make every individual plant, but can create a seed that can spread to feed thousands, and then change it to work in a slightly different environment. Why not a God?

Very simply, occam's razor.

Unless your omnipotent being (henceforth referred to as god) solves a problem that evolution/the origin of life/the origin of the universe can't solve without god, then god is an unnecessary logical step.

[ape descendant]

The only thing I find wrong about a belief in god is that there's no real evidence for it.

[Alan]

Occam's razor is, of course, not an arbitrary rule nor one justified by its practical success. It simply says that unnecessary elements in any symbolism mean nothing. - Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Occam's razor is more than a simple method. It is in fact a logical necessity. And as Entropic said, if a further step (i.e. God) does not explain anything that isn't explained already, not only is it unnecessary, but it is entirely meaningless.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

At risk of starting yet another revolving shit storm, a few things. Occam's Razor IS a guiding principle, not a fact. It isn't even a theory. It is a "usually' not an "always". Even within evolution, there are many mutations that do not result in a favorable outcome. Many of the mutations that occur are a "try-and-fail" of which one or two are those that survive and pass on the trait. For the purpose of sustained existence over time, only the surviving mutation could be seen as completely necessary, this doesn't mean the other mutations never existed, or that they are perhaps the beginnings of something not needed yet.

Many things exist that are not necessary for one person and vital for another. Please do not suppose you can decide for everyone what is and is not necessary.

[Alan]

Why are you talking about mutations when we were talking about god?
Hell, what you're saying about mutations is precisely why evolution is clearly blind and unguided.
Not all mutations are beneficial. In fact only a small percentage are. And it is possible that a species survives with a harmful mutation out of sheer luck. The harmful mutation made them worse than their ancestors but it didn't harm them enough to not be able to survive in the world. In the end useful mutations give an edge to a species and are probably going to last longer than harmful mutations, but there is no linear goal in natural selection qua natural selection that tries to breed super-animals. An example are those blind fish/salamander things in Texas that only live in caverns.

Where anyone even remotely said anything about them knowing exactly what is and is not necessary is completely beyond me, so please explain.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

I was talking about failed mutations as an example of something that was not necessary and yet exists.

As for my thinking on how something like evolution could exist along with a god, have you never tried an experiment without knowing exactly what the results were going to be, or surprised at them? Or started a painting or a song and not known what the ending result would look or sound like?

Just because something can exist without outside force doesn't mean the outside force doesn't exist, or even that the outside force didn't affect the thing existing.

The last part of my statement refers to the idea that because something is not explaining something that hasn't been explained already, it must be unnecessary and therefore must be meaningless.

For some, a God may very well be necessary, because it/he/she is not necessary for a certain understanding of things does not negate the possibility of its' existence and effect on life.

I suppose my point of view has more to do with an optimistic or imaginative outlook. I prefer to think that things are possible, that other sets of circumstances are possible, even likely, given how vast existence is, and how very little of we have actually seen or heard or experienced.

I would rather believe in the possibility of things that don't make sense right now, because the only absolute thing i can be sure of is that i do not know all the surrounding facts. Our senses only reach so far. To me, it seems that things have a greater probability of existing somehow or somewhere or some-when than not.

How many things currently accepted as fact would turn one into a laughing stock a few hundred years ago? 50 years ago? ten?

History and science have proven more things once thought to be from the land of whimsy and imagination true than we could possibly count.

Even a scientific experiment, if it is to prove something new and not just reiterate something safely proven, must start with ideas and imagination.

I prefer to think of possibilities than to stand on a pillar of negation. If it makes me a laughingstock, as belief in a God seems to do in the present age, oh well.

I do not assert, hands-down, completely and with no chance of changing my mind that GOD, in the protestant, biblically based, southern culture sense of the word exists. I assert that the possibility of a being whose identity has been vastly distorted by the above is likely to exist.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by emeraldlonewoulf

I was talking about failed mutations as an example of something that was not necessary and yet exists.

A mutation is not logically unnecessary. We're talking about logical necessity.
Seriously, I could be gentler about it, but that was fucking stupid.
God fuck it, didn't you just condemn us for supposing that "you can decide for everyone what is and is not necessary"
And now it turns out your whole fucking argument is based on the idea that YOU KNOW a harmful mutation ISN'T logically necessary?*


*(which by the way is a stupid assumption)