Another option, one I wished I had done, is to just drop out and go directly to community college. A high school diploma is not required for that (at least here in Cal) and once you've done the GE classes at the JC, you can transfer as a junior to a university. An architect friend did this and skipped two worthless years at high school and got his masters two years earlier.

He went to the same worthless high school I did, which was really worthless. My public schooling was so bad that I sent my kids to private school until the economy dictated that I not do that any more. Thankfully, the public schools here in Fullerton are pretty good. My kids are, unfortunately, learning the laziness that it seems public schools are good at teaching...

Religious education does not inherent mean bad education, you're right. But we're talking about parents teaching their kids that Jesus rode dinosaurs.

This science reader examines dinosaurs from a Creation Science viewpoint. Discover how fossils are formed, dug up, and assembled for museums. Travel with the dinosaurs as they board Noah’s Ark and then enter the strange new world after the Flood. Find out what happened to the dinosaurs and if there are any alive today.

This isn't education, this is indoctrination. And I'm not cherry-picking here. That was from the first result from Google for "home school books", and the first (claimed) high-school level book I saw in their "Creation Science" section. And the only evolution-related books they offer seem to be titled things like "Evolution: The Lie".

As John points out, home schooling, when you're got a good community to do it with, can work great. One of my former grad students was a Mormon with three kids, and his wife was their full-time care-giver/teacher. He talked at great length about how the community would come together for things like science classes, including trying to get access to real high school labs.

In his opinion, the big benefit of home-schooling was that you could pace the learning directly with the student's needs. If they can go fast, you go fast. You don't need to saddle better students with make-work, and you can spend the extra effort when there's confusion.

I'm entirely sold on home schooling... except that it's completely infeasible for my own situation. Also, I'm freaked at the thought of teaching college freshmen because they don't know very much yet. Teaching high school or lower just wouldn't fit me.

I never said that. I was offering an observation about why I thought people in my area, which is filled with nationally-ranked public schools, might choose to home school.

If I appeared to inject any personal bias, it certainly wasn't that I thought this practice was evil, and it's insulting that you say I did. If I have an emotional reaction to religious home schooling, it's that there are two solutions I don't believe are healthy: 1) separating yourself societally from those who think differently from you (home schooling**), and 2) insisting that everyone else thinks the same as you (campaigns for school prayer, equal time for creationism, etc).

I prefer the "believe what you want, but don't force me to believe what you do." Sadly, the absence of religion always seems to be seen as an indictment of it.


** And I apologize for turning it into a religious issue, when there are clearly other reasons for home schooling, as I was implying in the first place when I said that not everyone has access to excellent public schools like the people in my county.

And why is this invalid? Are people not allowed to teach their children alternative theories of origin? It's not as if the theory of evolution has been undeniably proven, despite the massive amount of resources that have put into trying to do so. So if the parents believe in Creationism and are willing to teach their kids good science and not shoddy science, why is it bad to pass on that belief?

I'm truly sorry that loving Jesus is so offensive to you. It's really not so bad. You should try it sometime

Then I sincerely apologize.



Here we agree. There are other good reasons to home school. I don't think that should be the primary one. I think I could make a pretty good scriptural case against it.



truly ironic.

I'm mixed on the whole "creation science" thing. Fundamentally, science, the way real scientists do it, is all about falsifiable hypotheses, for which we design experiments or otherwise collect data. "Creation science" is no such thing since you can't falsify it.

I have no objection to teaching your kids any religion or belief system you want, but if you teach them "creation science", you're undercutting what science is all about, and you're creating a kid who's going to be at a serious disadvantage if and when they ever want to be a real scientist.

Of course, there's a fundamental problem when science has very particular things to say about the history of the world and of the universe, backed by solid evidence, and religious systems also have very particular things to say, based on... other things. If you teach your kid what it means to do science, then that's going to have some incompatibilities with certain religious beliefs.

Needless to say, plenty of religious scientists have no trouble threading that particular needle, but they're not "creation scientists," either.

What he said.

Short answer: "creation science" is inherently shoddy science. So is the notion that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

Dan pretty much summed up my thoughts as well. The popular attack on evolution is that "it's only a theory", and that statement alone proves the speaker has no concept of the basic scientific principals. What bothers me about creationist based "science" is that it invites people to pick and choose what to believe in regarding science. Gravity is also "just a theory", but I don't hear the creationist side trying to disprove it as strongly as they try and disprove evolution.

This is another issue I have with creationism vs evolution. Evolution is not an origin theory in the same way creationism is. Evolution only describes an observable system for biological change on this planet. Creationism tries to explain how, and why everything came to be. To me, the why questions belong in a philosophy class, not a science class. Sadly philosophy classes are pretty rare prior to college, and more and more teachers seem to be shying away from teaching proper evolution due to the controversial issue that it has become, again. Starting to wonder when we will have a repeat of the Scopes Trial in this country.

Can the theory of evolution be falsified? Not if you add in enough time.



And yet, it doesn't. There are exactly 0 incompatibilities between scientific laws and Biblical Christianity (other than what are clearly described as supernatural events.) I embrace good science as much as the next man. Furthermore, if science didn't reinforce my beliefs, I would discard them immediately in favor of science.



That would, of course, be your opinion based on your starting premise that there is no creator.



Didn't you watch the Flintstones? Of course they did

No, that would be a statement about what is science and what isn't, based on the definition of science used by essentially all actual scientists. Dan's post above sets out pretty clearly what something has to be in order to be science: a rational (i.e. constructed from logic) system of gathering knowledge based on falsifiable hypothesis tested by experiment.

While there are some who would claim that nothing extrarational is true, that in itself isn't the argument against Dinosaurs By Design. The point we're making there is that nothing extrarational is science.

Peter

Sure it could. For example, any solid evidence that a species spontaneously occurred. Creationists try to use this exact method to disprove evolution. The most compelling example is the bombardier beetle's high-pressure steam defense mechanism.

Something I haven't figured out, is why this obviously brain-dead idea of "creationism" even exists.

I mean, the religious and Christian people I know see it as total rubbish, and not founded on any reasonable basis in their religions. These are very bright people, not given over to putting on blinders when something appears at first to contradict their knowledge and/or religion. They see (real) science as 100% compatible with God -- no conflict there.

So.. this creationism crap. It's not the sort of design that any intelligent and educated person would genuinely come up with on their own. So, like most things, somebody is pushing it out there, for some reason.

I wonder what that reason is?

Control and power are the two normal motivations for propaganda crap like this. But I'm having difficultly seeing the exact links here.

Is it being used simply as a way to "unite" a vocal population subset against a "common enemy", for political gain? And perhaps to distract those voters from far more disdainful (or "evil") activities hiding underneath?

It does seem born from the idea that one might impeach a party/president for fibbing about sex, but retain one who takes much of the planet to the brink of war. Given something like that was possible, why not invent a similar "moral" way to distract voters again.

Or something like that. As I said, I'm having trouble figuring this out.

Cheers

Because a strict literal interpretation of the Bible is in conflict with evolution. Wikipedia has a good article on creation science.

I think it's an old problem. Just look at the Catholic church's condemnation of Galileo for the heresy of... heliocentrism. The church taught that the sun revolved around the earth and, well, it just doesn't work that way.

Evolution is the current version of the same issue. Evolution is one of the most rigorously tested theories in all of science. Evolution, alongside theories of the Big Bang and so many other things, completely and utterly disproves Young Earth Creationism. However, there's still lots of room under the Old Earth Creationism banner for religion to thrive.

Just as the Catholic Church turned around on heliocentrism (although if Wikipedia is to believed, their first formal apology wasn't until the 1990's via Pope John Paul II), it's just a matter of time (perhaps centuries) before Young Earth Creationism is left behind as an anachronism, and religions adapts themselves to reality as we best know it.

I've never read an original copy of Genesis, and I really doubt that anyone alive has.

I have read many translations of translations of copies of translations of it, but I don't put on blinders and "believe" things word for word from those.

Besides, really only the word "day" is in conflict there. If one substitutes "stage" (or "phase") for "day", there's hardly any disagreement at all.

So why is this bizarre fantasy being heavily promoted all of a sudden (past decade or so)? Who is trying to gain what from it?

Cheers

The real reason I think that creation science (and the more marketable offshoot known as "intelligent design") are being promoted so heavily is actually quite simple: to spread the word of Christ into public schools. Proponents of these movements feel that Jesus gets short shrift in science class, so they find a way to make religion look science-y.

It's got nothing to do, IMHO, with any tension between the Bible and science itself -- it's all about getting more Jesus into the classroom. For Christians, that is its own reward -- they are commanded to spread the word of Christ, and by getting it into science curricula, they've succeeded in doing that.

That is always how I have thought. They don't really say how long a day is.



I think it's backlash because when someone is very religious they are often seen as a nut by a large percentage of the population now a days.

Tony's theory, that it's all about getting religion into school, has some interesting consequences that don't seem consistent with what we're seeing. Otherwise, religion would be cropping up in all kind of other classes where it arguably really does belong, like the basis for the modern legal system.

Nope, I see this creation science and its derivatives as an attempt to fight back against science. These folks really don't like it when the progress of science challenges their religious beliefs.

Side note: I'm amused when they talk about "teaching the controversy" in science classes as if there's any scientific controversy. The discussion of this particular controversy belongs more properly in classes that consider religion and society. And, for that matter, one place where "teaching the controversy" would be truly appropriate in school is economic theories. My (boring!) high school economics class, once it got into macro, taught a very watered down version of Keynsian macroeconomics. This would have been a fascinating place to present Keynes vs. Hayek. (I really hope modern economics teachers are leveraging these cool videos.)

What I don't get is that, given the choice between creationism/"intelligent design" and evolution, I'd be far more impressed with the "intelligence" of a creator who "designed" for evolution and natural selection in the first place. That seems like a smarter system.

I suppose, but even with the compelling examples like the bombardier beetle, someone comes up with a theory of how it could have evolved (took me moments to find a couple on google). No matter how improbable the theory is, throw in a few million years and suddenly it seems plausible, nay believable, if you want to believe enough.

Truly, the theory of evolution can not be falsified because no one was there to observe it. If you start with the premise that evolution is true, no one can convince you otherwise. That's why it's more or less useless to band about supposed proofs in these sort of arguments, because each person interprets the data differently based on their starting premise (worldview).

I appreciate the acknowledgement of a compelling example. At least you haven't discarded objectivity. Some otherwise very intelligent people simply react with vituperation at the mere suggestion that there are compelling evidences of design in nature. I suppose both sides are just as bad in that sense. It's obviously a touchy issue with huge ramifications.

No, there is a ton of factual evidence for evolution out there, and more being accumulated daily as viruses mutate and livestock / grains get bred for one attribute or another. That's evolution in action.

Dig around at fossils and one can piece together evidence of past evolution, and so on.

There is absolutely zero evidence out there of any truth whatsoever in "creationism". That makes it a "belief system", not a science.

Totally different things.

Back to the question of who and why.. Religion is Big Business in the US of A, with numerous multi-millionare (billionare?) TV "preachers" and the like, and huge big-budget bricks and mortar style churches.

All of this depends upon people continuing to wear the blinders and "believe" in something for which there is zero scientific proof.

So I suppose perhaps this "force kids to believe (religion) rather than question (science)" thing is a way to try and keep the money flowing in the longer term.

Shame really, cuz crap like that probably turns way more people off religion than being more open and honest would. Not a lot of people like being labelled nutcases by association, so .. Just Stay Away from it all.

-ml

Mark,

Should I attempt to reply to these broad accusations and conspiracy theories?

Would it matter if I did?

I'm willing to, but debating if it's worth the time. I'm certainly not the most knowledgeable person on all these matters, but could give you honest perspective from the "other side."

Sorry I'm going to have to break my rule on commenting on religious threads where Americans post, and say WHAT !!!!

It's quite scary to me that you truly believe that.

Incompatibility No.1 - "God created everything, full stop" vs "We are not 100% sure yet but here is what we think at the moment...and why...but we could be wrong which is why we still have people looking into it"

As for taking time out of the argument for evolution, what about taking the Bible out of the argument for Christianity, what have you got left then ???

I think France have the right idea, ban all religious teaching in schools and let the kids make their own minds up. The results could be an enlightened generation with a healthy out look on life not obsessed with I'm right and your wrong so lets have a massive war about it!

Cheers

Cris

I'd say it would be worth your time if you could do it without using reference to (the) God, The Bible or anything your haven't experienced first hand or weren't able to provide hard concrete evidence for.

Edit - Oh and without using any story that begins with "Well explain this..."

Cheers

Cris.

How are they going to make up their minds about it if they aren't going to be told about it.

Ok here is goes....

I completely agree with Bruno.

Wow, I never thought the day would come

Cheers

Cris

If they go to a school that mainly/only teaches Christianity how are they going make up their minds about all the other options out there ???

If people are taught to find their own solutions to questions they have, surly the world will be a better place ???

There is no such thing as a (insert religion here) child, just (insert religion here) parents/schooling.

Cheers

Cris.

I think it's worth pointing people to that article, as it was a good refresher for myself. It does fill in some of the information towards Mark's question of why, along with summarizing the reasons people oppose creationist based science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Science