Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

[emeraldlonewoulf]

I shall re-phase. A failed mutation is not necessary for the sustained survival of a species, according to what I have learned so far. But, the system doesn't know that, or chance has not yet proved that, until after the fact. Does that suit ?


I may be fucking stupid ( having brought the matter up for discussion at all seems to have proven that), Jillian, but you sir, are being impolite.

I am willing to learn more about your position, and in trying to see things from your perspective. I may not end up agreeing with you, but i would like to know WHY you think the way you do, and how you came to the conclusion you did.

I have not had the benefit of having knowledge spoon fed to me wholesale. I have to pick it out, search over a piece at a time as I have the opportunity.
If there are specific references you have drawn upon you feel would be especially informative, please, let me know. ( I am refering to the God/no god debate, not evolution, just to be clear).

As a completely unrelated side note, after philosophy, have you considered law? Just curious.

[Alan]

I may be an impolite asshole, but at least I'm not a passive aggressive bitch (you know, the whole "I'm sorry I wasn't spoonfed my knowledge and had to form my own position painstakingly unlike you" bullshit)
I will curse because I consciously know it will alienate you from "how" I say it so you better fucking listen to WHAT I say.

Explain me how exactly is it that from precisely what you're saying right now about evolution and just how blind it is, you CAN'T infer from it that the illusion of an intelligent design is so much more easily nothing but that: an illusion?

And while we're at it, explain to me exactly how you justify your position that the Occam's razor is "just a principal"? Can you actually say why without ending up simply saying "it just is"?

[emeraldlonewoulf]

Who says the existence of a god automatically means total controlling intelligent design?

On Occam's Razor : it basically says that the simplest solution is usually the right one. Usually. Not always.

Take the evolution of a species. or several species. They get progressively more complicated over time in order to adapt to their surroundings. More types evolve to fit more types of environments. Things get more complex in order to survive.

Business is another example. You can start out with a simple system, but over time, it grows and separates out into different departments in order to get more work done, in order to specialize, in order to be able to compete better.

If you want a more detailed argument with sources cited, I am not equipped to provide that. I have been taught that it is a principle, not a law. I have not gone through proofs or anything.

As for the passive aggressive thing, you are right. It tends to get my panties in a twist to be called fucking stupid. I'm not used to it.

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by 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".

For making predictions, sure, it's a "principle".

For logic, it's quasi-not. Occam's razor is necessary for logic to function. I'll demonstrate how:

If P then Q.
Q
Therefore, P.

This is a basic logical formula called modus ponens. It's one of the basic argument forms. Due to it's simplicity and consistency, it is considered a valid form of argument.

Without Occam's razor, If P then Q and S and T and U and V has the same logical validity as If P then Q. In other words, you can tack on a hundred different variables and claim that it's just as logically valid as modus ponens. In real terms, this means that you can do this:

If Socrates is human then he is mortal, likes cheeseburgers, watches Baywatch, and listens to Rick Astley.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore he is mortal, likes cheeseburgers, watches Baywatch, and listens to Rick Astley.

And have it be just as valid as "If Socrates is human, then he is mortal".

With Occam's razor, we know that the simplest argument is more likely to be true, which means that If P then Q makes more sense than If P then Q and S and T and U and V. When given two competing logical statements, Occam's razor gives us the most logically verifiable one.

So, even if it is a principle, it's a required principle.

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.

The problem is, something can not be logically necessary and logically useless at the same time. If God doesn't perform some much function that isn't already explained, then it is logically useless. Therefore, it can not be logically necessary.

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.

There is a problem with your thinking:

Your argument supports the existence of everything. From invisible pink unicorns to black coloured white teapots. If you believe that there is a greater probability that things exist somehow or somewhere or somewhen than not existing, you have no logical method for falsifying anything. I could argue that you were conceived by a Martian, and you have no logical way of disproving what I'm saying. I could then argue that you were conceived by the Buddha himself at the same time as the Martian conceived you, and you would have no logical way of disproving that statement either.

It's inherently more coherent to be a skeptic, because you need to verify each individual detail as you go. Unless someone can prove to you why you were born of a Martian, a Buddha, or a Martian-Buddha, you have no reason to believe it.

On Occam's Razor : it basically says that the simplest solution is usually the right one. Usually. Not always.

No, it doesn't. That's the simplified version.

Occam's razor says that you don't multiply arguments beyond necessity. In other words, you don't add variables on to an argument without having definite reason as to why those variables need to be there.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by emeraldlonewoulf

On Occam's Razor : it basically says that the simplest solution is usually the right one. Usually. Not always.

Oh, so you're completely dissing a logical necessity simply because you choose to use the shallow, ignorant, least imaginative, common usage of the principle? Kind of how Obama's a socialist and evolution means survival of the fittest?
Great job.

Take the evolution of a species. or several species. They get progressively more complicated over time in order to adapt to their surroundings. More types evolve to fit more types of environments. Things get more complex in order to survive.

Jesus Christ, you're so dogmatic.
Evolution doesn't lead to more complex lifeforms. Natural selection pressures the maintenance of positive evolutionary traits. There's no fucking direction in evolution, and birds are not 65 million years more complex than dinosaurs.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

Alan -

There is a direction in evolution, it's called time.

I use that version of occam's razor because that is what I have come in contact with.

Maybe I do have that duality of thought you referred to a couple years ago in a similar discussion with HP. I'll have to read up on that.

Again, and for the last time, I will ask for specific references that would help me understand your point of view.

I have tried to be as civil as possible with you, despite your insistence on being an asshole. If you ever hope to help alleviate ignorance in the world, rather than just demean and alienate people who do not understand your reasoning you will have to work on that. Ignorance does not imply stupidity. (there goes that passive aggressive streak again, darn it).

Entropic - thank you for a succinct explanation. I am going to see if I can find a beginner's text on logic. If I ever hope to organize or integrate the types of knowledge and ideas I come across and stumble through I will need a decent framework on which to build. Curiosity, creativity and desire to learn I have in abundance, but logic, analytical skill and organizational ability are somewhat lacking. Hopefully I can correct that.

Thank you for explaining something that should have been obviously simple.

[CptSternn]

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?

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

No one is disagreeing with that idea. In fact, most all text books which go into evolution also mention intelligent design and/or make references to various religious beliefs, early on at least.

Public schools DO teach about religion. Home schools DO NOT teach about evolution. That is a problem.

I mean, how can you teach biology and at the same time say evolution is a myth? How can you teach history and claim dinosaurs walked around when men did?

Teaching evolution does not preclude teaching intelligent design. However teaching that evolution is a myth DOES negate any arguments about many important topics which the average curriculum SHOULD cover.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Still Jack

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

Nope. I thought that as well.

[Tam Li Hua]

About the Religious Aspect

Honestly, most Christians don't believe that fossils were put there as some twisted way "to test our faith". Most of us actually think that that idea is asinine. I have no problem with the idea of God using evolution or adaptation or simply speaking it, and suddenly there was a bird.

Bible scholars have already said that that part of the Bible was never meant to be taken so literally. Me personally, I don't know why so many Christians' faith seems to hinge on this one issue. I mean, seriously, in the scope of other things, how God chose to make the world should really be the least of a Christian's concern, IMHO.

[Underwater Ophelia]

I don't see the problem with most textbooks written for home schoolers being based in Christianity. Um, use a different book?

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Public schools DO teach about religion. Home schools DO NOT teach about evolution. That is a problem.

WRONG. I was home schooled and taught evolution. I didn't know about creation until I was older.

[ape descendant]

God doesn't belong in a science classroom. God is not testable or verifiable, hell, god is barely definable. So, god doesn't belong in a science classroom.

If you want to imagine god or believe in god or ,perhaps, bake god a birthday cake, that's your own thing.

But teaching supernatural, superstitions in a science classroom is wrong and goes against what science is, fundamentally. Scientific knowledge is tested, retested peer reviewed and so on, so that the knowledge that comes out of the testing mill is as close to correct as one can get at the time. To sully such an excellent avenue to knowledge and truth with fairy tales and myth will only serve to throw a wrench in the process and drag us all back to the dark ages.

[vindicatedxjin]

Oh, and it's really frustrating that people seem to see home schooling, as being a one belief/concept type thing when home schoolers are parents, who all have very, very different beliefs. Each and every home schooled friend that I had was taught differently, with different curriculum. Yes about 50 percent of them were raised in Christian homes and taught about creation. But like I said, I was taught evolution and than creation later in life...and so were the other 50 percent of the kids I knew...In our group alone we had wiccans, christians, atheists, and even a buddist... .

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

God doesn't belong in a science classroom. God is not testable or verifiable, hell, god is barely definable. So, god doesn't belong in a science classroom.

Here's the thing. I don't think it should be such a big deal to teach YOUR own child about creation. Ditto to Evolution. As long as they are learning both. And can come up to they're own conclusion of what they consider to be true. We're all human and should be able to come up with our own opinions...regardless of what they are as long as it doesn't involve harming another human being. Because in the end we NEVER will truly know what happened in the beginning for sure. That's why we have THEORIES. In the end it doesn't matter.

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

Here's the thing. I don't think it should be such a big deal to teach YOUR own child about creation. Ditto to Evolution. As long as they are learning both. And can come up to they're own conclusion of what they consider to be true. We're all human and should be able to come up with our own opinions...regardless of what they are as long as it doesn't involve harming another human being. Because in the end we NEVER will truly know what happened in the beginning for sure. That's why we have THEORIES. In the end it doesn't matter.

It is fine to teach your child both. Its great and fine to have opinions.

Science isn't really much about opinion. The scientific method is about testing information and putting together explanations of how everything works, using that information. Creation isn't science. God isn't science. So it doesn't belong in a science curriculum.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

It is fine to teach your child both. Its great and fine to have opinions.

Science isn't really much about opinion. The scientific method is about testing information and putting together explanations of how everything works, using that information. Creation isn't science. God isn't science. So it doesn't belong in a science curriculum.

There's not really a point in trying to reason with people who don't believe in reason. I mean, no, religion shouldn't be taught alongside science, but parents can teach their children whatever the hell they want.

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

It is fine to teach your child both. Its great and fine to have opinions.

Science isn't really much about opinion. The scientific method is about testing information and putting together explanations of how everything works, using that information. Creation isn't science. God isn't science. So it doesn't belong in a science curriculum.

You're right, science is about testing information.... But as far as our beginnings go, there is no absolute answer and we can only grab so much information from a certain point...since everythings progressed. What's the difference in believing a "god" created everything/even with the possibility of evolution still existing or thinking we all came from nothing but an explosion? Hell we can even assume that we are all nothing but a huge scientific experiment created by higher, more intelligent beings than us, such as Sitchins theory's of the Annunaki. My point is that none of us truly 'know' for sure. So why assume a whole group of people that home school with different beliefs, are teaching the same things? And why the hell make a big deal about it?

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

You're right, science is about testing information.... But as far as our beginnings go, there is no absolute answer and we can only grab so much information from a certain point...since everythings progressed. What's the difference in believing a "god" created everything/even with the possibility of evolution still existing or thinking we all came from nothing but an explosion? Hell we can even assume that we are all nothing but a huge scientific experiment created by higher, more intelligent beings than us, such as Sitchins theory's of the Annunaki. My point is that none of us truly 'know' for sure. So why assume a whole group of people that home school with different beliefs, are teaching the same things? And why the hell make a big deal about it?

Who said anything about absolute answers? Science doesn't have absolute answers to everything. But instead of making up stories, effort is made to find out through testing and such.

I'm just saying that things like religions, gods and other supernatural beings aren't scientific. I don't think I'm making a big deal out of anything, just asserting a point.

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

Who said anything about absolute answers? Science doesn't have absolute answers to everything.

Exactly. Which is why I don't understand why people are so upset about certain home schooler's not teaching they're children about solely evolution. If they aren't for sure, why feel the need to push it on kids that aren't even theirs? I don't hear a buttload of christian parents making a big deal about evolution being taught to they're kids in public schools...cuz they chose to send they're kids there, if they don't like it they either send them to a private school or homeschool them...These parents chose to home school...that's all there is to it. Who cares?

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

Exactly. Which is why I don't understand why people are so upset about certain home schooler's not teaching they're children about solely evolution. If they aren't for sure, why feel the need to push it on kids that aren't even theirs? I don't hear a buttload of christian parents making a big deal about evolution being taught to they're kids in public schools...cuz they chose to send they're kids there, if they don't like it they either send them to a private school or homeschool them...These parents chose to home school...that's all there is to it. Who cares?

Well, the big deal about evolution, is that it is backbone of biology. If those kids ever want to have a career in anything related to biology, they'll need to understand it. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life. It is scientifically proven over and over, through observation, through the study of genetics and by fossil evidence as well. It is one thing that IS known.

The reason people who believe in a literal translation of the bible don't like it, is because it scientifically disproves a young earth and special creation. It blows the basis for their world view out of the water.

And there are a plenty of people trying to get "intelligent design", which is creationism with a neat new name, taught in public schools. There have even been court cases about it. It's a big deal because we need the next generation to be scientifically literate.

[Tam Li Hua]

Ape: I think the problem for most Christians comes in not so much with the idea of animals evolving, but rather the idea that humans themselves evolved from an ape-like creature. For the more conservative, that idea just isn't acceptable.

Me, I don't care. God did what God did. It doesn't matter how He went about it. What matters is what we're doing now.

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life. It is scientifically proven over and over, through observation, through the study of genetics and by fossil evidence as well. .

Explain Juseyo...

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by emeraldlonewoulf

I am going to see if I can find a beginner's text on logic.

http://www.fecundity.com/logic/

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

There's not really a point in trying to reason with people who don't believe in reason. I mean, no, religion shouldn't be taught alongside science, but parents can teach their children whatever the hell they want.

Is it good for parents to be able to teach their children whatever they wish?

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

Explain Juseyo...

Explain? What would you like explained? What I had mentioned is covered in volume upon volume of text.

Rather than have me drone on in an incredibly boring way that will please neither of us. Here's a video by DonExodus2, his explanations have pictures and are far more detailed than I can really give you off the top of my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

I hope this helps.

[Delkaetre]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I don't see the problem with most textbooks written for home schoolers being based in Christianity. Um, use a different book?

A large part of the problem is that secular homeschoolers have difficulty accessing non-Christian books. A lot of the suppliers for school books only ship in bulk, not in homeschool-friendly single copies and small orders. The homeschool market is so heavily dominated by the Christian homeschoolers that it becomes very difficult for secular homeschool textbooks to get into the market, and is likely to be highly unprofitable because such a relatively small percentage of homeschoolers are non-Christian.

It'd be great if they could just pick up alternative books that easily, but it's more difficult to acquire them than it might seem at first.

(my comments are based on what I've read from secular homeschoolers, and I admit that I have not researched the revelant figures to check and offer up)