Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

msjones

Theory of Evolution -- do you avoid teaching it?

Recommended Posts

I'm intrigued by the notion of 'avoiding evolution.' (The Noeo science thread got me thinking.)

 

I'm wondering what this means to those of you who 'avoid' it.

 

Is it must macro-evolution (as in 'gazillions of incremental changes finally leading up to earth as we know it') that you avoid? Or do you also not teach micro-evolution (as in 'head-lice are evolving and now cannot be killed with most over-the-counter lice killers').

 

Do you discuss it at all? Or is it a taboo subject altogether?

 

Is your choice primarily based on your faith beliefs, or on scientific research?

 

Were you taught evolution as a child?

 

I ask this because I don't think I know anyone who doesn't accept evolution as a plausible theory. So, it's a stretch for me to understand what seems to be a trend in some home-schooling circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We haven't focused on it--yet--but we've talked about it. We have no problem with evolution, though. (We are also religious.) I'm hoping to be able to buy that timeline from Charlie's Playhouse this year...

 

I can't remember learning much evolution as a kid in school, though it was there. I just had a rotten education. :001_smile:

 

I do know quite a few people who only teach 'creation science.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important to be clear with your children. I was taught evolution and cave men in public school. Then I would get home and read about Adam and Eve, etc. I believed both and it never occurred to me until later that I couldn't. So, I make sure that I explain to Emily when we watch a show on the Galopagos Islands for example, that it is amazing that these creatures could adapt to their environment... but the lizards are still lizards and the birds are still birds, Noah put animals in the ark according to their kinds... so some of the other things that the scientists say don't really add up.

 

I can see avoiding the topic of evolution until logic stage. That really isn't possible considering that every nature show talks about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the other thread... but I can say I'm a Creationist in my own beliefs after growing up as a Theistic Evolution believer - only having been taught Evolution from the beginning through college (Physics degree). I only became a Creationist as an adult... and plausibly looking at their reasons for why they believe what they believe. I went into that as a skeptic...

 

That said, we teach our kids both and discuss the pros and cons of each. I think it would be a HUGE disservice to send a kid into the adult world without knowing a major theory out there (and why people believe it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have always taught both sides, even though we are Creationists. I wanted my children to be prepared for what they would be taught in college science. We teach evolution as a theory, but choose to believe ID instead. After digging into this with my older two (and getting ready to with a third) it has only strengthened our beliefs.

 

I was taught evolution in school, but I wasn't very science focused and I knew it was going to be taught and that it wasn't what I believed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't do formal science until 7th or 8th grade. Once we get to it we cover evolution in-depth. I don't understand why someone wouldn't at least go over the basic ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm 'wearing the other shoe'.

We're evolutionists, but we use creationist material. Therefore we discuss creationism, why people believe it, why we don't. And why it doesn't matter much in every day life but it matters a lot if you go in certain scientific fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DISCLAIMER: I wanted to be HONEST but I do worry that the below could offend both creationists AND evolutionists. These are my honest thoughts about these things. My goal in stating it the way I did was not to offend but to state the belief as strongly as I believe it. Maybe there was a better way to do so, but I couldn't do it this morning.

 

We don't avoid evolution AT ALL. By discussing it, it strengthens our faith because it's so ludicrous. Mathematically and scientifically, it's IMPOSSIBLE that it happened that way. There HAS to an intelligent designer behind it.

 

However, we also aren't young earth creationists (though I believe it could have happened that way, the evidence scripturally and scientifically doesn't point to that it DID happen that way). And I don't understand throwing adaptation out the window at all.

 

Anyway, the scientific facts are AMAZING as are various beliefs, the reasons and people behind them. I have no reason to add or take away from the science OR scripture in regards to this topic as what is available is plenty to keep me in awe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it must macro-evolution (as in 'gazillions of incremental changes finally leading up to earth as we know it') that you avoid?
Followers of evolutionism typically do not make the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. They lump the two together and put forth the evidence for micro-evolution as evidence for "evolution". Since no one has observed new information (not duplicate, but NEW) being added to the genome of any species, ever, we teach that the belief that molecules-to-man evolution is a religious belief, not a scientific theory. We also teach that the idea that life evolved from non-living matter is a direct violation of the scientific Law of Biogenesis. This is still, today, a scientific law since no contrary evidence has ever been recorded, even though many contrived experiements have been created to try to invalidate it. Those experiments, in truth, further validate this law. Part of the indoctrination involved with evolution involves NOT teaching about the Law of Biogenesis.
Or do you also not teach micro-evolution (as in 'head-lice are evolving and now cannot be killed with most over-the-counter lice killers')?
We cover individual cases of micro-evolution and show that in every known case resistances developed in a population are due to a loss of genetic information. As such, these changes ARE capable of creating speciation in the sense that populations of organizations may eventually lose the ability to interbreed, etc., but that these changes cannot, in any way, be used as an explanation of the origin of life on earth.
Do you discuss it at all?
Yes, often.
Or is it a taboo subject altogether?
Nope.
Is your choice primarily based on your faith beliefs, or on scientific research?
It's both.
Were you taught evolution as a child?
Taught? No. Indoctrinated? Yes. In other words, I was only told about so-called evidence for evolution, most of which is now considered either incorrect or misguided, even by evolutionists. Were you taught about scientific creationism as a child?
I ask this because I don't think I know anyone who doesn't accept evolution as a plausible theory.
I'm wondering if you might be confusing the theory of natural selection with the theory of macro-evolution. We teach that natural selection is a theory which is well-supported by the existing body of scientifc evidence. Unfortunately, many scientists put for evidence for natural selection as evidence for macro-evolution. Simply put, evidence which supports the theory of natural selection does not provide evidence for evolution since it does not explain where new genetic information might come from.

 

As mentioned, I do not consider macro-evolution to be a scientific theory. While it did explain the available evidence at the time that it was put forth by Darwin, the detailed knowledge of the inside of the cells in all living things we have today now renders it to be simply a religious belief. Many cling to this belief because of the metaphysical implications, not because the theory has any basis in observational science.

So, it's a stretch for me to understand what seems to be a trend in some home-schooling circles.
Perhaps the lack of any scientific evidence for molecules-to-man evolution is sufficient justification for some to not teach it in their school? But we do here, since it is such a prevalent belief.
I can see avoiding the topic of evolution until logic stage. That really isn't possible considering that every nature show talks about it.
I agree. That sounds like a stretch, but it amazes me that they feel compelled to stick in a one-liner about the evolution of some particular animal, even when the show has NOTHING to do, whatsoever, with origins.
That said, we teach our kids both and discuss the pros and cons of each. I think it would be a HUGE disservice to send a kid into the adult world without knowing a major theory out there (and why people believe it).
Agreed.

 

I'm wondering, does the OP teach your children about scientific creation? If not, why not? If so, what materials do you use for your instruction? I submit that secular materials defending creation theories do NOT exist purely BECAUSE OF the metaphysical implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I missed the other thread... but I can say I'm a Creationist in my own beliefs after growing up as a Theistic Evolution believer - only having been taught Evolution from the beginning through college (Physics degree). I only became a Creationist as an adult... and plausibly looking at their reasons for why they believe what they believe. I went into that as a skeptic...

 

That said, we teach our kids both and discuss the pros and cons of each. I think it would be a HUGE disservice to send a kid into the adult world without knowing a major theory out there (and why people believe it).

 

Same here (except the Physics degree.) :D

 

I also can't see how you could avoid it. It is *everywhere*. We've discussed it so much, and my kiddos see it all the time and discuss it.

 

Like PP said, they insert a plug for the theory of evolution into almost any science program, whether it has anything to do with the topic or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I teach evolution because that's what we believe, just like we believe that all those other scientific theories are fairly accurate representations of reality. I also tell my kids that they may meet people, particularly among their homeschooling friends, who don't believe in evolution and that they need to be respectful of that.

 

BTW--just a note on semantics--the word theory, when used by scientists, does *not* mean "hypothesis", which so many folks who choose not to believe in the theory of evolution seem to think. A hypothesis is an educated guess made by scientists prior to conducting an experiment. A theory is a synthesis of facts and well tested hypotheses. A theory goes beyond laws (hypotheses tested again and again and not contradicted ) or facts (something that competant observers can agree to be true). There are many other scientific theories, for example, physicists use quantum theory to explain the behavior of light and geologists use the theory of plate tectonics to explain how the continents move.

 

Here's what I really don't understand. It seems to me that placing all the species on earth fully formed is how a *man* would think of doing it. It seems that a truly supreme being would be more likely to set up some laws (or *one* unifying law) and then say, "Let her rip!" thereby setting the universe into motion, perhaps starting with the Big Bang or some time prior to that. Is it possible that the guy who actually wrote down the stuff in the Bible misinterpreted what he was supposed to write? I find it amazing that what is in the Bible is so remarkably similar, in an allegorical sort of way, to what scientists believe actually happened. It seems to me that taking the creation story so literally actually lessens God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory I have no problem calling evolution a theory b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture

 

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-Myth.html

 

"myths appear to be about putative matters of fact (e.g. about the origins of the cosmos, or of death) and are often aetiological (giving an account of the reasons why events or objects, etc., came into being)"

 

Here is "myth" from the OED

 

1. a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

 

Myth doesn't mean "falsehood" nor does it mean legend. It doesn't mean the story is "true" either. It just refers to sacred stories that attempt to explain man's origins, and the like.

 

The Theory of Evolution could just as easily be called the Myth of Evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I find it amazing that what is in the Bible is so remarkably similar, in an allegorical sort of way, to what scientists believe actually happened.
:iagree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who believe that no new species have come into being since the Garden of Eden, and that literally every species of land animal was on Noah's Ark, how do you reconcile this with the literally millions of animal species in existence, or even the tens of thousands of species of vertebrates? Even the world's biggest zoos have only a few hundred species.

 

I mean, there are 456 genera and 2,900 species of snakes alone. Did the ark have cobras, king snakes, gopher snakes, rattlesnakes, boas, pythons, milk snakes, garter snakes, ribbon snakes, racers, corn snakes, adders, vipers, coral snakes, etc., etc., etc? What did they eat? Seaweed?

 

And how did all these animals get distributed after the flood? Did Noah visit each and every island and continent, dropping off kangaroos and wallabees in Australia, kiwis in New Zealand, bison in the Americas, lemurs in Madagascar, etc.? There are thousands upon thousands of islands on earth, each with its own species, many found nowhere else on earth. How long would it take this enormous floating zoo to visit each and every one, dropping off animals and enough food to keep the predators fed for generations until the prey species had reproduced enough to be hunted?

 

The whole thing reads a bit like the story of Zeus changing himself into a bull to abduct Europa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Theory of Evolution could just as easily be called the Myth of Evolution.

It is worth noting that "theory" has a quite different use in common parlance than in scientific jargon.

 

The term "theory" in common language tends to be more like "hunch" or "idea."

 

Scientifically, that "hunch" would be called a "hypothesis," and a "theory" is so called after the idea has been tested.

 

Per dictionary.com:

 

Synonyms:

1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, there are 456 genera and 2,900 species of snakes alone. Did the ark have cobras, king snakes, gopher snakes, rattlesnakes, boas, pythons, milk snakes, garter snakes, ribbon snakes, racers, corn snakes, adders, vipers, coral snakes, etc., etc., etc? What did they eat? Seaweed?

 

Micro-Evolution. 2 Snakes were loaded onto the ark and many species were formed out of the two. Noah was instructed to pack food for the trip. Snakes don't eat often. Most carnivores don't.

 

And how did all these animals get distributed after the flood? Did Noah visit each and every island and continent, dropping off kangaroos and wallabees in Australia, kiwis in New Zealand, bison in the Americas, lemurs in Madagascar, etc.? There are thousands upon thousands of islands on earth, each with its own species, many found nowhere else on earth. How long would it take this enormous floating zoo to visit each and every one, dropping off animals and enough food to keep the predators fed for generations until the prey species had reproduced enough to be hunted? Intriguing questions.

 

The whole thing reads a bit like the story of Zeus changing himself into a bull to abduct Europa. So... all of these species came from a single celled life form and happened to evolve at the same time as their prey? The whole thing reads a bit like the story of Hades kidnapping Persephone and causing the seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, scientifically speaking, not common parlance, a theory holds the most weight over all others - including facts and laws.

 

The "theory" of evolution has been supported by many fields of science - geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, population genetics, biogeography, embryology, and more.

 

Nobody disputes the "theory" of gravity.

 

By saying evolution is a theory, people are doing it justice, better than just saying it's a thoroughly proved fact. :) (Too bad most people don't know enough science to realize what a theory means though.)

 

Remember, not too long ago, people argued that the earth was flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, and now argue against evolution. (There are still a few thousand people that argue that the world is flat because the bible says so.) It will take time, but eventually most of us will accept evolution. Thank goodness it's already unconstitutional to teach otherwise in public schools.

 

My 4 year old daughter has already had a great education on evolution. She now uses it in everyday use talking about her animals. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Micro-Evolution. 2 Snakes were loaded onto the ark and many species were formed out of the two. Noah was instructed to pack food for the trip. Snakes don't eat often. Most carnivores don't.

 

 

So you believe that a snake could evolve into thousands of species over a few thousand years, together with adaptations like venom, rattles, hoods (cobras), blindness for subterranean snakes, expandable ribs for gliding, sidewinding movement technique, constricting, etc.

 

And yet you don't believe that over hundreds of millions of years a lizard could have gradually lost its legs and become a snake?

 

And creationists are constantly saying, "If evolution is happening, where are the new species." Yet there should be a new form of snake appearing every year to 18 months if we can get from one species to 2,900 in a few thousand years. Your hypothesis is actually accelerating evolution.

 

So... all of these species came from a single celled life form

 

Over hundreds of millions of years.

and happened to evolve at the same time as their prey?

 

No, you should read more about evolution if this is what you believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm intrigued by the notion of 'avoiding evolution.' (The Noeo science thread got me thinking.)

 

I'm wondering what this means to those of you who 'avoid' it.

 

Is it must macro-evolution (as in 'gazillions of incremental changes finally leading up to earth as we know it') that you avoid? Or do you also not teach micro-evolution (as in 'head-lice are evolving and now cannot be killed with most over-the-counter lice killers').

 

Do you discuss it at all? Or is it a taboo subject altogether?

 

Is your choice primarily based on your faith beliefs, or on scientific research?

 

Were you taught evolution as a child?

 

I ask this because I don't think I know anyone who doesn't accept evolution as a plausible theory. So, it's a stretch for me to understand what seems to be a trend in some home-schooling circles.

 

I teach it, but as a theory. I try to explain the reasons those who support evolution use to do so. Sort of "This is why they believe this."

 

I also teach creation. But I teach it as truth. And I teach why I believe it is truth.

 

I use both scientific research and my faith beliefs.

 

I was taught evolution as a child. I grew up in an atheistic home and became a Christian in college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently reading Why Darwin Matters by Michael Shermer. He used to be an evangelical Christian and die-hard creationist. Once he actually researched evolution for real, his prior beliefs shattered, and he thought "it was like confessing a murder".

 

His book makes a case against Intelligent Design. For example, why would an intelligent designer have created these in humans? Either we all still have these remnants of our ancestors, or only some of us still do.

 

 

 

  1. Male nipples
  2. Male uterus
  3. Thirteenth rib (from when we branched off from our common chimp ancestors)
  4. Coccyx (useful when we used to use our tail to grasp tree branches and maintain balance)
  5. Wisdom teeth (useful when we used to chew and grind a lot of plants)
  6. Appendix (useful to digest cellulose when we were mostly vegetarians before we become omnivores)
  7. Body Hair (left over from thick-haired apes and hominids)
  8. Goose bumps (useful when we used to have to puff up the above body hair for heat insulation or threat gestures)
  9. Extrinsic ear muscles (thank our primate ancestors who developed more efficient means of determining sound location)
  10. Third eyelid (that tiny fold of flesh in the corner of our eye, used to be added protection and cover our entire eye)

 

There's dozens of examples like this. We don't need any of them anymore!

 

Why do whales have tiny skeleton limbs in the back that they no longer use? Because they evolved. Same type of example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when I look for a science curriculum, I'll be looking for a 110% secular program that is "laced with Darwinism", hehe. :) Any science program that says they're secular but doesn't cover evolution is simply not science to me.

 

I have been fascinated with this evolution/creationism/ID debate ever since I was shocked to find out that some of my good friends on another forum in the homeschooling thread said they believed that humans ran along dinosaurs. It opened my eyes to the large percentage of homeschoolers who don't accept evolution. It makes sense, it's unconstitutional to teach non-science like ID/creationism in public schools, so many don't send their children to school and teach them at home instead.

 

Since then, I've purchased every book on the topic, watched every movie on the court cases against creationism and ID, and even started a website that I will dedicate part of my life to help others understand. So you can see, I'm quite passionate about this topic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you believe that a snake could evolve into thousands of species over a few thousand years, together with adaptations like venom, rattles, hoods (cobras), blindness for subterranean snakes, expandable ribs for gliding, sidewinding movement technique, constricting, etc.

 

And yet you don't believe that over hundreds of millions of years a lizard could have gradually lost its legs and become a snake?

 

And creationists are constantly saying, "If evolution is happening, where are the new species." Yet there should be a new form of snake appearing every year to 18 months if we can get from one species to 2,900 in a few thousand years. Your hypothesis is actually accelerating evolution. But the difference is that they were programmed to do so, within their genes, and had a conductor. It all happening by chance is much different. I believe that a group of people (most of which are not professionals) can build a modern house that lasts without problems in two days. I have seen it. I do not believe that the same house will build itself with no direction over hundreds of millions of years.

 

No, you should read more about evolution if this is what you believe. Really? Okay. Will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm currently reading Why Darwin Matters by Michael Shermer. He used to be an evangelical Christian and die-hard creationist. Once he actually researched evolution for real, his prior beliefs shattered, and he thought "it was like confessing a murder".

 

His book makes a case against Intelligent Design. For example, why would an intelligent designer have created these in humans? Either we all still have these remnants of our ancestors, or only some of us still do.

 

 

 

  1. Male nipples

  2. Male uterus

  3. Thirteenth rib (from when we branched off from our common chimp ancestors)

  4. Coccyx (useful when we used to use our tail to grasp tree branches and maintain balance)

  5. Wisdom teeth (useful when we used to chew and grind a lot of plants)

  6. Appendix (useful to digest cellulose when we were mostly vegetarians before we become omnivores)

  7. Body Hair (left over from thick-haired apes and hominids)

  8. Goose bumps (useful when we used to have to puff up the above body hair for heat insulation or threat gestures)

  9. Extrinsic ear muscles (thank our primate ancestors who developed more efficient means of determining sound location)

  10. Third eyelid (that tiny fold of flesh in the corner of our eye, used to be added protection and cover our entire eye)

There's dozens of examples like this. We don't need any of them anymore!

 

Why do whales have tiny skeleton limbs in the back that they no longer use? Because they evolved. Same type of example.

Fascinating! Thanks for sharing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So when I look for a science curriculum, I'll be looking for a 110% secular program that is "laced with Darwinism", hehe. :) Any science program that says they're secular but doesn't cover evolution is simply not science to me.

 

I have been fascinated with this evolution/creationism/ID debate ever since I was shocked to find out that some of my good friends on another forum in the homeschooling thread said they believed that humans ran along dinosaurs. It opened my eyes to the large percentage of homeschoolers who don't accept evolution. It makes sense, it's unconstitutional to teach non-science like ID/creationism in public schools, so many don't send their children to school and teach them at home instead.

 

Since then, I've purchased every book on the topic, watched every movie on the court cases against creationism and ID, and even started a website that I will dedicate part of my life to help others understand. So you can see, I'm quite passionate about this topic!

 

You sound a lot like me. I'm sort of stunned by the idea of 'young earth.' I had never heard of it until I began homeschooling.

 

So, which books on this topic have you found most helpful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, scientifically speaking, not common parlance, a theory holds the most weight over all others - including facts and laws.

 

Evolution as a theory does not have the same definition as other theories. An evolutionist explained it to me. I will try to find it.

 

Remember, not too long ago, people argued that the earth was flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, and now argue against evolution. (There are still a few thousand people that argue that the world is flat because the bible says so.) It is so sad that both people who believe the scriptures and those that don't are ignorant of what they actually say. Isaiah 40:22, "There is One who is dwelling above the circle (חוג (khoog) as a 'circle, sphere, used of the arch...of the sky'.) of the earth."

 

Job 26:7, "God is... hanging the earth upon nothing."

 

Ecc. 1:7, "All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; back to the place from which the streams ran they return to run again."

 

Psalm 104:6, 8 "...Mountains proceed to ascend..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the evolution books geared to children are on my blog, found in the History tab, mostly covered evolution in lesson 2, but evolution is everywhere, so it's covered in many of our prehistory books.

 

From Netflix we got:

Before the Dinosaurs (my dd wants to watch this ALL the time)

Evolution (I've only seen half of this 7-part series so far, but it covers so much, like Darwin, what evolution is, the incredible diversity of animal life, extinction, what about God...)

Evolve (this series follows several genetic traits and shows how it has evolved from the beginning, such as how the complex eye has evolved)

Flock of Dodos - humorous documentary on evolution being taught in schools and why ID is a scam

Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - covers the legal battle (Kitzmiller vs Dover) of evolution/ID in schools just a few years ago. shows explicity how an ultra-conservative judge ruled out Intelligent Design as a form of religious creationism. (Also shows how absurd ID is.)

Inherit the Wind - watching this now, 1960 classic covering the Scopes Trial

 

For books, I really am enjoying Why Darwin Matters. Since he's been on the "other side", Shermer speaks a bit more gently about those that might believe in creationism/ID, and as a former psychologist, has helped me understand why people might believe the way they do. This might be a good intro to evolution for creationism/ID believers, he does not talk down to people. Whereas, most of the other books on evolution I've read, are by intelligent scientists who think the debate is beneath them and ridicule non-evolutionists.

 

For other books, I have mostly on my Kindle, and will have to pull that out to remember which specific ones I've thought helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my knowledge of Evolution comes from the early 80's like when Francis Hitching says in the Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, page 19, "When you look for links to major groups of animals they simply aren't there."

 

Has more evidence been found since then? What should I look at that is more up to date?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't exclude anything purposely from Diva's education, so I don't see why I'd start now. Being Christian to *me* doesn't equal being ignorant. Always rather amazes me when that assumption is made.

 

Anyways.

 

We discuss it, look at it from many different vantage points, and will continue to do so through out her education. Its simply a part of a topic. No great importance, really, in that I don't highlight it as being any more weighty than any other science theory. Its simply what some believe *might* have occurred. *shrug* Not teaching it, to me, would lend it far more importance than it has, by implicating that its so potentially shattering to our faith that it couldn't be taught or discussed. Not even close :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We focus on both and show holes in the evolution arguement. We try to show where they say "proven" but it is all estimations, guesses, and theories.

 

If we ignore it, they will not be prepared to stand up against it in the future. They must understand it to debate it and defend other theories & arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread had been most helpful. I will be covering evolution from a secular viewpoint this fall at the start of our ancients year. We will be reading Genesis and other world creation stories along with it. Prior to homeschooling and reading posts on forums like this one, I lived in a creation/evolution bubble. Foolishly, I thought that one could believe in a higher being/consciousness and follow evolution. I still do believe that.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution as a theory does not have the same definition as other theories. An evolutionist explained it to me. I will try to find it.

 

The theory of evolution has probably actually more scientific facts leading to it. :) There's overwhelming evidence pointing to evolution, which if scientists weren't trying to be so "scientificky", they'd call evolution a fact. All of the major science organizations in the U.S. have issued statements asserting that evolution is a strong scientific theory. Evolution is one of the most thoroughly tested theories in biological science.

 

By the way, religion had its chance with me. I went through 8 years of private, religious school. My first class in college was physics, and I learned not to chalk up all the unknowns to a supernatural god. So knowing that, I typically won't even acknowledge bible "facts".

 

Lovedtodeath, you sound like you'd really benefit and enjoy all this by reading up on it all. A quick google brings up hopefully some helpful sites:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876

http://opa.faseb.org/pages/PolicyIssues/evolutionresources.htm

http://www.teachthemscience.org/statements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the so-called "vestigial organ" claims by evolutionists ever hold up. The fact is that the parts of the body are very well designed to do what they do. Here are a couple examples of the fallacies you have put forth.

4. Coccyx (useful when we used to use our tail to grasp tree branches and maintain balance)
You could only come to the conclusion that the coccyx is useless if you did not look past the skeletal system. In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the pelvic floor. What's interesting is that Michael Shermer knows this since he has been told this during debates in which he has participated. By repeating such a lie, he is being disingenuous.
Wisdom teeth (useful when we used to chew and grind a lot of plants)
5. I use mine for chewing every day. Saying you can pull them out an still live is different than claiming they have no use.
6. Appendix (useful to digest cellulose when we were mostly vegetarians before we become omnivores)
The appendix has several uses which have been discovered recently, some of which are related to the immune system. It is not vestigial. Again, saying you can remove it and live is different from claiming there is no use.
7. Body Hair (left over from thick-haired apes and hominids)

8. Goose bumps (useful when we used to have to puff up the above body hair for heat insulation or threat gestures)

9. Extrinsic ear muscles (thank our primate ancestors who developed more efficient means of determining sound location)

10. Third eyelid (that tiny fold of flesh in the corner of our eye, used to be added protection and cover our entire eye)There's dozens of examples like this. We don't need any of them anymore!

Notice that all of your parenthetical statements *assume* evolution. Circular reasoning does not provide any form of evidence of the theory. It is a common form of logical fallacy used in evolutionary defences.
Why do whales have tiny skeleton limbs in the back that they no longer use? Because they evolved. Same type of example.
They use these tiny bones for copulation. Without these, no more whales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could name hundreds of examples of strange things that an intelligent designer wouldn't have designed.

 

And pro-ID arguments such as the complexity of the eye, the bacteria flagellum, and more have all been put to rest easily and shown to the world in the famous Evolution vs ID trials.

 

This has already been proven in the court cases, and is why evolution is taught in public schools. ID is not a science, you cannot study it. You can study evolution in dozens of scientific fields though.

 

After the Scopes trial, evolution was taken out of science texts. America turned ignorant and fell behind the rest of the world. Evolution is now back, and I would love to dedicate part of my life to making sure homeschoolers get the best possible education.

 

Now I understand that die-hard bible literalists and Intelligent Design believers are not going to have an open mind, so I know they are not going to change their minds, thus is a waste of breath for me. I would like to talk to those that do have an open mind and simply don't know. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I understand that die-hard bible literalists and Intelligent Design believers are not going to have an open mind, so I know they are not going to change their minds, thus is a waste of breath for me. I would like to talk to those that do have an open mind and simply don't know. :)

 

Actually there are two groups without an open mind... you've named the first, and are part of the second... :) (NOT said with a mean tone)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that parents have the right to pass along their beliefs to their children, even if this belief denies commonly accepted scientific knowledge. I'm pretty sure, however, that if any of our children decide to pursue biology, archeology, geology, physics, medicine, or most other scientific disciplines, that they will invariably come to accept evolutionary theory. If they don't when they are being homeschooled, they certainly will as they gain deeper knowledge in their chosen scientific discipline.

 

If you won't want your children to believe in evolution, you might steer them away from a career in science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RegGuheert, so if an Intelligent Designer designed all of the above for crucial purposes, why are we losing them? Why are many humans born without the above? If truly an intelligent designer "designed" these, they would be present in every human still today.

 

Here are a few more useless body parts:

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/useless-body-parts/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

 

I'll let neutral people decide whether these are features that show human evolution, or whether they were "absurd mistakes" thrown in carelessly by an Intelligent Designer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is important to be clear with your children. I was taught evolution and cave men in public school. Then I would get home and read about Adam and Eve, etc. I believed both and it never occurred to me until later that I couldn't. So, I make sure that I explain to Emily when we watch a show on the Galopagos Islands for example, that it is amazing that these creatures could adapt to their environment... but the lizards are still lizards and the birds are still birds, Noah put animals in the ark according to their kinds... so some of the other things that the scientists say don't really add up.

 

I can see avoiding the topic of evolution until logic stage. That really isn't possible considering that every nature show talks about it.

Actually I believe in theistic evolution and a literal Adam and Eve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll let neutral people decide whether these are features that show human evolution, or whether they were "absurd mistakes" thrown in carelessly by an Intelligent Designer.

 

You can see the ad hoc evolution of the human body by examining the spinal cord and central nervous functions. It's one thing after another thing cobbled together. This is because evolution can't "design" anything. It's got to work with the systems it's already got. The end result is something that works, but not always elegantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually there are two groups without an open mind... you've named the first, and are part of the second... :) (NOT said with a mean tone)

 

I have an open mind, I have been through religion/bible half my life. :) And when I read, I always throw in a book from the other side. Also, I do plan to teach my child the other side, what others believe, so she is well educated, but not this summer. We will cover the most popular creation myths. And just for fun, we will cover a few other fantastic creation myths, such as when people believed that the world was created from the insides of a giant animal, a bird laying an egg, a ripped up corpse, dude that created it all in 7 days and a big flood, a raven coaxing humans out of a clam, etc... :) All highly entertaining!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that parents have the right to pass along their beliefs to their children, even if this belief denies commonly accepted scientific knowledge. I'm pretty sure, however, that if any of our children decide to pursue biology, archeology, geology, physics, medicine, or most other scientific disciplines, that they will invariably come to accept evolutionary theory. If they don't when they are being homeschooled, they certainly will as they gain deeper knowledge in their chosen scientific discipline.

 

If you won't want your children to believe in evolution, you might steer them away from a career in science.

 

 

And yet. Satori mentions the PBS series Evolution/What About God?, which is brilliant and moving. I can't get enough of it. A young geologist from a creationist family is struggling with his new scientific knowledge. His family is concerned. They interview all of them. It's very well done, imo. In the end, he never loses his faith, or his love for his childhood God. He does however, abandon creationism. He tells us "God is bigger than the box we put Him in". Even as an atheist, I loved what he had to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet. Satori mentions the PBS series Evolution/What About God?, which is brilliant and moving. I can't get enough of it. A young geologist from a creationist family is struggling with his new scientific knowledge. His family is concerned. They interview all of them. It's very well done, imo. In the end, he never loses his faith, or his love for his childhood God. He does however, abandon creationism. He tells us "God is bigger than the box we put Him in". Even as an atheist, I loved what he had to say.

 

Is this series at a level a 6th grader can understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up in a religious family, and have tons of online religious friends, so this whole debate, while fascinating, also rips me apart. I'm a very peaceful and friendly person.

 

The movie "Judgment Day - the Case Against Intelligent Design", made me cry. The journalist was a woman with a born-again father. Throughout the movie, they show snippets of her talking about him. Only toward the end, do they show her, near tears, how he was so scared that she would go to hell if she believed in evolution. A few days after the trial, her father died. Knowing that there are some people that belive their children will go to hell if they believe in evolution, has shown me a different side of this debate (powerful, emotional, and divisive), and I will try to approach it gently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He tells us "God is bigger than the box we put Him in".

 

Yes! This is exactly what I'm talking about! I must watch this series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LaurieNE, I would think a 6th grader would understand. My daughter watched a few episodes, and she is only 4. :) It was a bit over her head, but I simply had her in the room with me while I watched, and she enjoyed it.

 

The genetic trait of sex though, you might want to leave out, there's a few parts in there you might not be ready to explain. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We try to show where they say "proven" but it is all estimations, guesses, and theories.

 

 

 

Do you do this with all scientific theories, such as the theory of plate tectonics or the germ theory of disease, or just evolutionary theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that parents have the right to pass along their beliefs to their children, even if this belief denies commonly accepted scientific knowledge. I'm pretty sure, however, that if any of our children decide to pursue biology, archeology, geology, physics, medicine, or most other scientific disciplines, that they will invariably come to accept evolutionary theory. If they don't when they are being homeschooled, they certainly will as they gain deeper knowledge in their chosen scientific discipline.

 

If you won't want your children to believe in evolution, you might steer them away from a career in science.

My daughter is very keen on science, and I encourage her wholeheartedly. She's much like her mother ;) I had a career I was planning on furthering in health care until my injury. Why is it that the demand exists for people to lay aside their faith and 'believe as I do' to have a career in science? Scientists themselves don't make that demand, only people who aren't in the field assume its mandatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that the demand exists for people to lay aside their faith and 'believe as I do' to have a career in science?

 

Why do you have to believe in science to have a career in science?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My daughter is very keen on science, and I encourage her wholeheartedly. She's much like her mother ;) I had a career I was planning on furthering in health care until my injury. Why is it that the demand exists for people to lay aside their faith and 'believe as I do' to have a career in science? Scientists themselves don't make that demand, only people who aren't in the field assume its mandatory.

 

I don't think there is any such demand. I know many, many scientists with strong faith. I don't personally know of any that are creationists though. Any advanced study and practice of science is incompatible with a belief in young earth creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...