Interesting article on homeschooling curriculum choices

[Pamela H in Texas]

I get what you are saying here, but, honestly, I have the same reaction when I hear/read about Neo-Nazi's who teach their children at home. My first thought is, "those kids aren't hearing any outside sources", which is the concern of many outside the homeschooling community.

 

Yes, when we want to say, "whoa, don't step on my toes," we need look at the big picture. Are we really fine with ANYONE teaching WHATEVER to their children with no "other viewpoint" input?

 

I'm pretty mixed about it myself. Mixed because there pretty much isn't anything I can't expose my kids to as I believe in teaching them what other people believe; I don't find it even slightly threatening. Mixed because I don't think we need more laws to control people within their responsibilities (and making sure kids get an education is a parent's job). Mixed because I hate that some kids are getting no education and others are getting what I consider inappropriate (groomed for hate crimes, for example).

[TXMomof4]

I actually want my children to understand both sides of the issue for the very reason ThatCyndiGirl mentioned. I don't want someone telling my children they are wrong and have it shake their faith. Evolution can be 100% accurate and it won't change for one instant the belief I have that God is the origin of life.

 

I worry that some of these creationist groups are making creationism into a new religion. What you believe about creation or evolution is NOT a major doctrine in our faith.

 

:iagree: If more people would just be honest and say "I don't know" and admit the possiblity that they may not have all the answers there would be a lot less grief all the way around. On all sides of the debate.

[kalanamak]

I was shocked and saddened to read the amount of replies that seemed to have hatred directed at home schooling families.

 

I have come to the conclusion that most people who post after articles are ninnies. Not all, but those that aren't can easily be identified by complexity of vocabulary and sentence structure. Paint me a snob. I snub my nose proudly when it comes to ninnies.

 

One problem is that people are dis-inhibited by the lack of a human face to monitor while they type. I try to ask myself "would I say this in person". In general, everything I post is something I would say. (Hence the fact I will never, ever be "management" at work.:))

[creekland]

Does anyone else wonder why they think this is a new topic? It's been going on for years. Why did they just find out about it?

 

Oh well, we're Apologia users and my highschoolers tutor their ps counterparts. I don't think they're getting anywhere near an inferior education (though we do supplement more on evolution so they know the pros and cons of it).

 

I also know people that have done Apologia and gotten 5's on AP tests, so I seriously doubt those that say the texts should get an "F." They say so just because it disagrees with their views on one main area (in case anyone didn't already figure that out).

 

Like any other controversial topic, it should be great for book sales. :tongue_smilie:

[Just Robyn]

I don't agreee. :glare: Take another look.

 

The secular science textbooks are not easily available to look at and they can be VERY expensive to purchase new. The big name publishers don't make it easy for homeschoolers to use or buy their materials.

 

Some very good secular science textbooks for middle to high school are: Holt, McGraw Hill, Prentice Hall and CPO.

 

Taking a look at middle to high school books would be taking a first look for me. As I said, I have only looked at elementary level books so far. When the time comes, it is possible that I will look at some of the middle or high school level books and maybe I will like them, or maybe I will hate them, but think they are none-the-less perfect for one of my children.

 

That said, the books I don't like don't necessarily have a lack of content, or old information, or things that would make a public school find a science book to be bad. They are written in a way that I find boring to read and the suggested activities are mediocre. They are just very public school-y, which is what I'm trying to get away from. I don't want to bring public school home. This is the reason that my hopes aren't high that I will like the upper level textbooks, but that is yet to be seen for sure.

[Dmmetler]

If you want to see ps textbooks, and you live near a college or university that has an ed program, they'll have, somewhere a room with all adopted texts for the state, so that teachers in training can access them, as can the community.) Sometimes there will also be regional centers (in Texas, they're called Regional service centers) that have these as well. Some will be on-site review (with a photocopier available-bring change) only, others will have some materials (usually non-consumable student materials only) for checkout. One thing I like about these is that they often have manipulatives and supplemental materials for checkout as well, which can be very helpful when your child could really benefit from having the material on hand for a few days to get through that stage of concept development, but isn't likely to need it ever again after that point.

[Parrothead]

I was shocked and saddened to read the amount of replies that seemed to have hatred directed at home schooling families.

I haven't had time to read the replies yet, but are you sure the hatred is directed at homeschoolers? I ask because I'm seeing a lot, a whole lot, of hatred directed at Christians. Maybe the hatred is doubled toward Christian homeschoolers?

 

For high school, why not just go to a college bookstore (Brick and mortar or online) and buy a 1000 level Chemistry, Biology, Earth Science, or Physics text? There's really not that much difference in level between the intro class in college and a good high school course, and used college textbooks are VERY available.

That is exactly what I plan on doing with the time comes.

:iagree::iagree::iagree: This is a major danger - turning evolution/creation into a litmus test for the Christian faith. Really. Where is that in the Bible?

:iagree:

There are some terrific trade books -- not textbooks -- that discuss the tensions between intelligent design, creationism, and evolutionism in the U.S.

I wonder what people outside the US are using for science texts.

[stripe]

I attended a public (and secular) high school.

 

We were specifically told that evolution was only one interpretation of the origins of the world. It definitely had a "disclaimer" feel about it, although I never got the feeling my teacher was a creationist at all. Some public schools (especially in the south) include quite detailed creationism studies (see here and here and here and here). So this is not really a homeschooling issue, it's an issue of the influence of conservative Christians, in my opinion.

[Jumping In Puddles]

May I ask that you consider thinking as it as your specific view of christianity. Many, many christians do not find any problem reconciling evolution and christian belief. It is stunning to me that this statement is one of many made here that assumes christian belief is limited to literal interpretations of the Bible. In fact I have been a Catholic Christian all my life, with Anglican priests for granduncles and missionaries dotting the whole family tree and never knew or talked with anyone who was a creationist until I began to home educate our daughter. It is not just this post but so many here that seem to indicate a monolithic view of what Christians believe. That is not the reality outside of homeschooling circles.

:iagree: I'm also Catholic and I never knew that people had a problem reconciling evolution and Christian belief until I started homeschooling.

 

Then again, I live in the Mid Atlantic region so I wonder if I had been brought up in the bible belt if my experience would be different.

[PineFarmMom]

Dd told me to read this this a.m. She likes Mr. Wile a lot and found it a weird topic. I thought the article was kind of pointless.

 

The only change I think I'd see needing to happen is for those who make public school texts to suck it up and sell to the homeschoolers who want something different. If I'm a homeschool publisher, I'm going to create based on my market.

[stripe]

The only change I think I'd see needing to happen is for those who make public school texts to suck it up and sell to the homeschoolers who want something different. If I'm a homeschool publisher, I'm going to create based on my market.

Well, but what if "the market" is soothed by books saying that white people are scientifically better, smarter and better equipped for leadership than anyone else -- it can't just be giving people what they want regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That is a danger of homeschooling: allowing people to completely shut themselves off from "controversial issues" to the point that someone may not be aware that the vast body of knowledge rejects their perspective OR that there are multiple views on something OR that something is even controversial.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:iagree::iagree::iagree: This is a major danger - turning evolution/creation into a litmus test for the Christian faith. Really. Where is that in the Bible?

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

[PineFarmMom]

Well, but what if "the market" is soothed by books saying that white people are scientifically better, smarter and better equipped for leadership than anyone else -- it can't just be giving people what they want regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That is a danger of homeschooling: allowing people to completely shut themselves off from "controversial issues" to the point that someone may not be aware that the vast body of knowledge rejects their perspective OR that there are multiple views on something OR that something is even controversial.

 

 

Honestly, I think these are two different issues. The article, IMO, seemed to be a complaining on the part of the 20% who want something that agrees with them and are angry that there isn't much. It didn't strike me as advocating the need for those "misinformed" (totally said tongue in cheek) 80% of homeschoolers who believe in creation to have all the bases covered...unless I was reading it wrong. When teaching creation, I don't "hide" from them the fact that people disagree with that pov...we discuss it, which is more than I can say for what I'm seeing on the other side.

 

If we wanted to go there, we'd also need to make sure the ps system was sharing the view that countered evolution, and I'm certainly not seeing much of that!! Goose. gander.

 

I could quote what you said and insert "public school" in there:

 

That is a danger of the public school system: allowing people to completely shut themselves off from "controversial issues" to the point that someone may not be aware that the vast body of knowledge rejects their perspective OR that there are multiple views on something OR that something is even controversial.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Texas T
misspelling

[Jean in Newcastle]

Well, but what if "the market" is soothed by books saying that white people are scientifically better, smarter and better equipped for leadership than anyone else -- it can't just be giving people what they want regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That is a danger of homeschooling: allowing people to completely shut themselves off from "controversial issues" to the point that someone may not be aware that the vast body of knowledge rejects their perspective OR that there are multiple views on something OR that something is even controversial.

 

Some people are going to teach prejudice and superiority etc. in their homes etc. no matter what the official curriculum is. I don't think it is a matter of them using textbooks to teach that kind of stuff. The results of being taught this is often hatred and crimes directed against other people. The law protects people from that and works hard to try to control it, even if it can't totally eradicate it.

 

The issue of evolution vs. intelligent design vs. creationism is one aspect of scientific theory. The result of being taught i.d. or creationism is not hatred or crimes against other people in society. The result of being taught evolutionism is not hatred or crimes against other people in society (although you could make a case that in extreme cases that most people wouldn't go to, it does erode the value of human life).

 

If I teach my child a scientific theory that others think is bunk, then a couple of things could happen. 1. They will meet up with that attitude in college and will be ridiculed and may even flunk certain classes. It's not like they can't understand the issues when they are college age and make a decision even then regarding the matter. 2. They will meet up with that attitude in college or at least in society (if they happen to go to a college that still supports what they've been taught) and will be ridiculed and will still ace all the classes or at least pass. 3. They will go on to become a scientist that utilizes and continues to study this particular scientific theory. They will stand or fall as a scientist. 4. They will go on to become a scientist in a field that doesn't depend on this particular scientific theory. Again they will stand or fall as a scientist but you can't blame it on the theory. 5. They will take just enough science to satisfy general ed. requirements and will go into another field. or 6. They won't go to college and will go into a trade or job that doesn't depend on this theory. Not a huge threat to society.

 

And that's assuming that all textbooks that teach one scientific theory as being fact never mention any other theories. And that's assuming that the person will never use supplemental materials that expose them to other theories. And again that's assuming that you won't come across other theories in literature, media, the arts, news etc.

[Only me]

Have you read some of the comments in the Yahoo article? I am really shocked by some of them and how many people are against homeschooling. I'm a christian but I'm also tired of people just automatically assuming that I am homeschooling for religious reasons. I'm also shocked by all of the anti-christian remarks.

 

As far as the theory of Darwinism I feel that it is important that my kids know about it but realize that it is just a theory. I don't want to shelter them from the theory. They can still know about it but not believe it.

[justamouse]

For high school, why not just go to a college bookstore (Brick and mortar or online) and buy a 1000 level Chemistry, Biology, Earth Science, or Physics text? There's really not that much difference in level between the intro class in college and a good high school course, and used college textbooks are VERY available.

 

 

This is what I'm looking into for now.

 

And, I agree, YEC vs OEC as a litmus test for Cristianity IS a very dangerous thing.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Honestly, I think these are two different issues. The article, IMO, seemed to be a complaining on the part of the 20% who want something that agrees with them and are angry that there isn't much. It didn't strike me as advocating the need for those "minsinformed" (totally said tongue in cheek) 80% of homeschoolers who believe in creation to have all the bases covered...unless I was reading it wrong. When teaching creation, I don't "hide" from them the fact that people disagree with that pov...we discuss it, which is more than I can say for what I'm seeing on the other side.

 

If we wanted to go there, we'd also need to make sure the ps system was sharing the view that countered evolution, and I'm certainly not seeing much of that!! Goose. gander.

 

I could quote what you said and insert "public school" in there:

 

That is a danger of the public school system: allowing people to completely shut themselves off from "controversial issues" to the point that someone may not be aware that the vast body of knowledge rejects their perspective OR that there are multiple views on something OR that something is even controversial.

 

 

I undestand where you are coming from here, but if the public schools countered evolution with creation then they would be teaching religion.

 

NOT okay, imho. (and no, I am not of the belief that evolution is a 'religion'.)

[Guest]

The more informed we are as homeschooling parents the more we can do to combat the kinds of remarks both in the article itself and in the comments. I think having a historical and cultural perspective on why this is such a hot-button issue in the U.S., as opposed to most of the rest of the world (although recent books suggest this is slowly changing) is enormously useful. Many readers might be astonished to learn that the whole idea of evolution and creationism (I'm not talking specifically about young earth theory here but creationism/intelligent design in the largest sense) being in utter conflict only really took off in the 1920s, and experienced its biggest surge as late as the 50s.

 

Reading detailed accounts of court cases and how both sides strategized and presented their side of the argument is also valuable and downright fascinating.

 

This kind of approach seems to me to fit with the classical curriculum's focus on history and rhetorical analysis in so many ways.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

 

As far as the theory of Darwinism I feel that it is important that my kids know about it but realize that it is just a theory. I don't want to shelter them from the theory. They can still know about it but not believe it.

 

Please explain the differences between creation and evolution with something other than "it's just a theory" as THAT argument is one of the reasons that religious homeschoolers get laughed at in college classes. Please teach them the REAL meaning of the word 'theory'!! :001_huh:

 

 

If a kid walks in armed with "it's just a theory" his professors and cohorts will laugh him right out of the room. :lol:

[PineFarmMom]

I undestand where you are coming from here, but if the public schools countered evolution with creation then they would be teaching religion.

 

NOT okay, imho. (and no, I am not of the belief that evolution is a 'religion'.)

 

I do understand your point. There are many, many out there, though, who believe that evolution is a religion as well, though, so we're dealing with different people's definitions.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Texas T

[Crimson Wife]

There are many, many out there, though, who believe that evolution is a religion as well, though, so we're dealing with different people's definitions.

 

Evolution isn't a religion but atheistic materialism is. The problem comes that many of the most prominent scientists out there promoting the theory of evolution also aggressively promote the latter (think Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers). We need more Christians like Dr. Collins and Dr. Owen Gingerich of Harvard (author of God's Universe) to counter the message of the "fundamentalist atheists". No wonder so many Christians feel that they need to choose between faith and reason. :(

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Evolution isn't a religion but atheistic materialism is. The problem comes that many of the most prominent scientists out there promoting the theory of evolution also aggressively promote the latter (think Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers). We need more Christians like Dr. Collins and Dr. Owen Gingerich of Harvard (author of God's Universe) to counter the message of the "fundamentalist atheists". No wonder so many Christians feel that they need to choose between faith and reason. :(

 

:iagree:

I have never believed that there was a conflict between creation and evolution:( I believe that God, the scientist so to speak, created the universe and started the process of evolution knowing what the end result would be ;)

 

From The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Edited March 7, 2010 by priscilla
clarify

[Tracy in Ky]

:iagree:

I have never believed that there was a conflict between creation and evolution:( I believe that God, the scientist son to speak, created the universe and started the process of evolution knowing what the end result would be ;)

 

So do you believe there was death before Adam's sin?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

So do you believe there was death before Adam's sin?

 

I do not believe that the whole Bible is literally true or that it was meant to be taken as all literally true. I believe that the creation stories are figuratively true:) I believe God created the whole universe and everything in it:)

[Tracy in Ky]

I do not believe that the whole Bible is literally true or that it was meant to be taken as all literally true. I believe that the creation stories are figuratively true:) I believe God created the whole universe and everything in it:)

 

But do you believe that there was death before Adam's sin? I am just curious because if evolution is true, then there was death before Adam sinned.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

But do you believe that there was death before Adam's sin? I am just curious because if evolution is true, then there was death before Adam sinned.

 

I do not take the story of Adam and Eve and the origins of sin as literally true. I understand the story as being figuratively true:) The book of Genesis speaks of the truth of God's creation of the universe and of the existence of sin IMHO and the opinion of millions of other Christians. I also understand it to be the understanding of the men who wrote the Bible thousands of years ago, so I also try to understand the context in which it is written as, again many Christians do as well:)

[asta]

I undestand where you are coming from here, but if the public schools countered evolution with creation then they would be teaching religion.

 

NOT okay, imho. (and no, I am not of the belief that evolution is a 'religion'.)

 

This is the position the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster took in their open letter to the Kansas Education Board in 2005 when the board voted to introduce Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of the state. That policy was subsequently overturned in 2007.

 

 

a

[Tracy in Ky]

I do not take the story of Adam and Eve and the origins of sin as literally true.

 

Okay, I see what you mean now. I have one more question, if you don't mind. I am genuinely interested--how do you decide which parts of the Bible to take as literally true and which parts to take as figurative? What criteria do you use to judge each portion of scripture? Am I making sense? Put another way, as you read the Bible, what standard do you use to determine how each portion should be understood?

[asta]

Guys,

 

There are about eighteen bazillion Darwin/ID threads on this board. And an equal number of ID/Creationist/YE/OE/Darwin comparison threads.

 

Let's save Peace Hill Press some money and not start another one. Bandwidth costs money.

 

Just do a search and read one of the old ones. They aren't hard to find. They are each 20-40 pages apiece and have more studies, scriptures and data than a person could ever ask for.

 

 

asta

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Evolution isn't a religion but atheistic materialism is. The problem comes that many of the most prominent scientists out there promoting the theory of evolution also aggressively promote the latter (think Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers). We need more Christians like Dr. Collins and Dr. Owen Gingerich of Harvard (author of God's Universe) to counter the message of the "fundamentalist atheists". No wonder so many Christians feel that they need to choose between faith and reason. :(

 

 

Re: atheism or evolution as religion. Um...you are saying A-THEISM and calling it religion? Isn't atheism the absence of religion?

 

From Merriam Webster:

 

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

 

Not a religion. You can call it atheistic materialism if you want, but still....not a religion.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Okay, I see what you mean now. I have one more question, if you don't mind. I am genuinely interested--how do you decide which parts of the Bible to take as literally true and which parts to take as figurative? What criteria do you use to judge each portion of scripture? Am I making sense? Put another way, as you read the Bible, what standard do you use to determine how each portion should be understood?

 

That is a difficult one which is why I like to see what Christian theologians have to say such as Marcus Borg whom I love;)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Re: atheism or evolution as religion. Um...you are saying A-THEISM and calling it religion? Isn't atheism the absence of religion?

 

From Merriam Webster:

 

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

 

Not a religion. You can call it atheistic materialism if you want, but still....not a religion.

 

Atheism is like a religion in that it is a belief in the non-existence of God IMHO;)

 

OTOH I do not believe that evolution or secularism are religions as some would say. To me, evolution is the general consensus of science and therefore is the best science we have:) Secularism in our schools to me is a way of maintaining neutrality in our schools since there are obviously a plethora of beliefs and non-beliefs;)

[stripe]

If we wanted to go there, we'd also need to make sure the ps system was sharing the view that countered evolution, and I'm certainly not seeing much of that!! Goose. gander.

 

I could quote what you said and insert "public school" in there:

 

That is a danger of the public school system: allowing people to completely shut themselves off from "controversial issues" to the point that someone may not be aware that the vast body of knowledge rejects their perspective OR that there are multiple views on something OR that something is even controversial.

Well, as I posted previously, in my public high school biology class, we were advised that some people believe in creation and that evolution should not be construed as the only way to interpret the origins of the universe, or something like that.

 

That being said, we spent way more time looking at things like cell development than discussing the origins of the universe, which was really a momentary blip in the course.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Atheism is like a religion in that it is a belief in the non-existence of God IMHO;)

 

 

 

 

By that same token I guess I'm a member of the belief system in the belief of the non-existence of fairies and Nessie?

 

:confused:

 

:lol:

[Crimson Wife]

But do you believe that there was death before Adam's sin? I am just curious because if evolution is true, then there was death before Adam sinned.

 

My denomination teaches that Adam and Eve were the first true humans with a soul. The account in Genesis refers to this special creation of the human soul. The early hominids may have had their bodies cease to function but it was not the kind of death that happened to humans post-Fall. The wages of Original Sin was death to the spiritual nature of humans. Animals cannot sin because they lack a soul; the same is true for the early hominids.

[Crimson Wife]

By that same token I guess I'm a member of the belief system in the belief of the non-existence of fairies and Nessie?

 

If you refuse to believe in anything whose existence cannot be proven through science, then you are a materialist. And yes, that *IS* a religion.

[cathmom]

Nessie is real!!

[Tracy in Ky]

My denomination teaches that Adam and Eve were the first true humans with a soul. The account in Genesis refers to this special creation of the human soul. The early hominids may have had their bodies cease to function but it was not the kind of death that happened to humans post-Fall. The wages of Original Sin was death to the spiritual nature of humans. Animals cannot sin because they lack a soul; the same is true for the early hominids.

 

I have never heard of that belief! Thanks for responding :)

 

I wonder then how you explain God's pronouncement that His creation was, 'very good,' seeing that death, disease, suffering, cancer, pain, etc. was present in that creation--(according to your belief)?

[5KidzRUs]

NT

Edited March 7, 2010 by 5KidzRUs

[Crimson Wife]

I wonder then how you explain God's pronouncement that His creation was, 'very good,' seeing that death, disease, suffering, cancer, pain, etc. was present in that creation--(according to your belief)?

 

Pain and suffering were not part of God's original plan for His creation but were brought into this world as a result of the Fall.

 

The body of a lower life form could cease to function without that creature experiencing suffering. The former is happening at a biological level while the latter is a subjective experience.

[Tracy in Ky]

Pain and suffering were not part of God's original plan for His creation but were brought into this world as a result of the Fall.

 

The body of a lower life form could cease to function without that creature experiencing suffering. The former is happening at a biological level while the latter is a subjective experience.

 

I would think that the animals getting eaten and sick and dying would be painful--that is suffering for sure, and that was happening before Adam sinned, based on what your beliefs are. Even if you allow for 'lower life forms' at some point, at least close to the time when Adam sinned the animals weren't 'lower life forms,' any longer. They were fully developed, and yet they were dying and suffering (based on your view)--like animals do today.

 

Just trying to figure out how God could look at His creatures (human and otherwise) dying of cancer and being bitten and eaten and dying and hurting and suffering and pronounce upon that, "Very Good."

 

I don't see how it fits; it just doesn't make sense to me. I appreciate you helping me understand what you believe. I am very interested in others' worldviews on these subjects. I've been studying it a lot lately, and it is very helpful to me to actually talk to people about their views.:)

[ThatCyndiGirl]

If you refuse to believe in anything whose existence cannot be proven through science, then you are a materialist. And yes, that *IS* a religion.

 

 

By this argument, then every single person in the world is a member of some form of religion? That is absurd. That is, in effect, saying that since everything is a religion then nothing can be taught in public schools?

 

That is one of the strangest things I have ever heard. I looked up materalism and it is the OPPOSITE of spirituality, so NO, not a religion. It just seems like an argument based on the desire to call everyone, everywhere "a member of SOME religion". Some of us really don't believe in creation myths, mythical creatures, gods, etc. People can try to pigeon-hole us if they want, but it just doesn't fit.

Edited March 8, 2010 by ThatCyndiGirl

[creekland]

It just seems like an argument based on the desire to call everyone, everywhere "a member of SOME religion". Some of us really don't believe in creation myths, mythical creatures, gods, etc. People can try to pigeon-hole us if they want, but it just doesn't fit.

 

You might not like it, but in our school atheism is treated as a religious belief - the belief that there is no god.

 

I see nothing wrong with classifying it that way.

[Tracy in Ky]

You might not like it, but in our school atheism is treated as a religious belief - the belief that there is no god.

 

I see nothing wrong with classifying it that way.

 

It really comes down to how you are defining religion/religious. Worldview might be a better choice of words; Christianity is a worldview too.