More on home schooling materials and evolution

"When studying topics such as Creation and evolution, human cloning, abortion, and stem cell research, students are pointed to Scripture as the ultimate authority and are encouraged to develop a biblical perspective about these topics."

Name one way in which the topic of evolution is similar to the topic of human cloning. (HINT: do not use the word controversial).

Name one way in which the topic of evolution is similar to the topic of abortion. (HINT: do not use the word controversial).

Name one way in which the topic of evolution is similar to the topic of human stem cell research. (HINT: do not use the word controversial).

Name one other actual field of science where scripture is the ultimate authority. (HINT: it isn't geocentrism, or germ theory, or the theory of gravity, or the Law of Segregation, or geometry, or calculus, or plate tectonics).

Man these guys just can't open their mouths without sticking their foot and their bible in.

Fat chance indeed. The terms "biblical perspective" and "biblical worldview" have always been code words for the selectively literal YEC interpretation of Genesis.

We teach both kinds of origins of life: Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism... with respect to the Blues Brothers.

I wondered what were the "scriptures" that I use. Finally I realized it was one we can all agree on: John 8:32.

If one wants to nuke the growing, and well done, home schooling movement then why not just make better schools?
Homeschooling is probably for the upper middle class(smarter) people who want to bypass the slowness of public schools. Including Evangelicals in this class of just middle class people who believe schools are propaganda machines for wrong and bad ideas.
Anyone I ever knew who were homeschooled, in evangelical circles, were smarter people who had the confidence their kids would do better this way They did.
Why not just allow a school system that teaches all sides to issues of great contention?!
Saying these people need evolution stuff seems odd coming from those who censor all the other kids getting creationist point of views.
Evolutionists always seem to me to be the guys in the movies who are on the side that can't take a fair hearing on matters.
Creationists desire more attention and are confident in doing well or a wee bit better then that.

Robert, were you homeschooled? Who published the textbooks and other materials you used? Did you learn science at home? Did your mom teach you your writing skills?

And there you have it folks, the best argument against home schooling you could ever want. Robert is his own worst enemy.

Robert Byers said: Why not just allow a school system that teaches all sides to issues of great contention?!

Time for Oswald Spengler?

And I expect the schools to teach the controversy about sports, whether the higher score wins, or the lower score wins. After all, there is no proof that the higher score wins - it is just an arbitrary decision. Let the kids be exposed to Calvin Ball and other alternatives, and let them decide.

I'm sure that such proposals will gather more attention from the parents, taxpayers and legislatures than the controversies over non-Euclidean geometry and musical theory.

Byers' comment suggests that education, including science education, is little more than being exposed to legal or political arguments. The successful argument in science is based on evidence, not rhetoric, Gish-galloping, or wishful thinking.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM said: Byers' comment suggests that education, including science education, is little more than being exposed to legal or political arguments. The successful argument in science is based on evidence, not rhetoric, Gish-galloping, or wishful thinking.

I agree. That’s why I’ve been pushing my public school to include the sides of astrology, alchemy, natural history according to Scientology, Crystal Therapy, and phrenology in their science and health curricula. I feel that I’m almost on the verge of acceptance there! As to history lessons, they stubbornly refuse to entertain my suggestions of British Israelism, the history of North American according to Mormonism, and according to Native American oral tradition where each tribe was the first of the human race and appeared in-situ. What closed-mindedness! Why can’t we let the (by definition) uninformed and malleable students decide which is correct for them?

DS said: "When studying topics such as Creation and evolution, human cloning, abortion, and stem cell research, students are pointed to Scripture as the ultimate authority and are encouraged to develop a biblical perspective about these topics." Name one way in which the topic of evolution is similar to the topic of human cloning. (HINT: do not use the word controversial). Man these guys just can't open their mouths without sticking their foot and their bible in.

DS said: But then again, he didn't even learn the capital of North Dakota.

There is a strong statistical correlation between the amount of time kids spend with adults and how well they do on IQ and other basic cognitive tests. The psychologist Zajonc famously conjectured that this simple effect is the main reasons for the observed higher intelligence of first-born children. It's probably also the reason why home schooling has some advantages even if parents are teaching their offspring a load of nonsense about science or history. At least the kids have a bigger vocabulary, and a bigger vocabulary is known to have lasting effects on academic performance.

If any of you would like to see an example of how very exxxtreme Byers' denial of reality is, you can check out the following thread at Jeff Shallit's recursivity in which Byers demonstrates that no mountain of evidence can affect, or even alter, his endlessly repeated beliefs. He does not even change his wording or phrases in response to mountains of evidence disproving his point.

The topic of the Recursivity thread was creationist Doug Groothuis (a William Lane Craig wannabe, which is scary to think about) presenting a WLC-style logical "proof" that evolution is false, because evolution is racist, and being racist, it logically must be untrue.

I respond by presenting the counter-argument that at all points in history, major creationists were always MORE racist than evolutionists. Essentially all major creationists up to and including the 1980's had bizarre, freaky racist ideas, such as some of them believing that blacks AND APES resulted from humans [whites] mating with animals.

Byers denies flatly, talking about how "YEC" (which he describes as if it were a person) was never racist and "YEC" (as a person) could not be racist. He presents no evidence.

I back up my point with specific racist quotations from George M. Price, Frank L. Marsh, Harold W. Clark, Henry Morris, etc. Again: I back it up with racist quotes from their books and letters.

Byers simply repeats: "YEC" was never racist and "YEC" (as a person) could not be racist. Again, no evidence. He says that all the people I named, since they had bizarre ideas, must not be real creationists!

I point out, of course, that Flood Geology was FOUNDED by George M. Price, that "variation within a kind" was FOUNDED by Frank L. Marsh etc. etc. etc. and that the people I quoted were the FOUNDERS of Young Earth creationism.

Byers simply repeats his repeated repeat: "YEC" was never racist and "YEC" (as a person) could not be racist. No evidence. He does add that YEC did not exist until Henry Morris, Henry Morris founded YEC, and so by definition, anyone pre-Morris could not be a creationist.

As you might expect, I respond that Morris himself promoted YEC racism.

Byers simply repeats his repeated repeat: "YEC" was never racist and "YEC" (as a person) could not be racist.

To Byers, "YEC" is a person and he knows "YEC" well. "YEC" is not made up of human beings, much less sinners! "YEC" is morally perfect; "YEC" never lies, is never racist, never fascist, never supported Hitler in the 1930's. "YEC" never lies. Byers knows "YEC" so he don't need no stinkin' evidence to prove is claims about the mind of "YEC."

In the end, Byers just exhausted me. It's like boxing with a 50-gallon bag of water.

Henry J said:

DS said: But then again, he didn't even learn the capital of North Dakota.

Which one? :p

I’m sure that covers other perspectives from an objective, evidence-based stance. Right? Right? Buehler?

If you consider claims that dinosaurs were fire-breathing dragons is objective, evidence-based coverage of biology/evolution:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/how-american-fundamentalist-schools-are-using-nessie-to-disprove-evolution.17918511

Even Casey Lumpkin called them "wacky textbooks":

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/no_true_scotsma061401.html

Robert Byers said: Why not just allow a school system that teaches all sides to issues of great contention?!

Evolutionists always seem to me to be the guys in the movies who are on the side that can't take a fair hearing on matters.

Evolutionists always seem to me to be the guys in the movies who are on the side that can't take a fair hearing on matters.

DS said:

Evolutionists always seem to me to be the guys in the movies who are on the side that can't take a fair hearing on matters.

Really? I guess you missed the documentary on the Dover trial where the creationists lied and committed perjury under oath, got caught, pissed the judge off, lost and almost went to jail. You know, the trial where expert after expert presented real evidence that the creationists had no answer for. Remember, the creationist guys who hadn't even read the relevant literature. You know, those lying creationist charlatans who couldn't convince an impartial judge, even though they claimed the deck was stacked in their favor. Movies like that?

diogeneslamp0 said:

DS said:

Evolutionists always seem to me to be the guys in the movies who are on the side that can't take a fair hearing on matters.

Really? I guess you missed the documentary on the Dover trial where the creationists lied and committed perjury under oath, got caught, pissed the judge off, lost and almost went to jail. You know, the trial where expert after expert presented real evidence that the creationists had no answer for. Remember, the creationist guys who hadn't even read the relevant literature. You know, those lying creationist charlatans who couldn't convince an impartial judge, even though they claimed the deck was stacked in their favor. Movies like that?

Which documentary was that?

DS said:

Henry J said:

DS said: But then again, he didn't even learn the capital of North Dakota.

Which one? :p

That's why it's a trick question!

DS said:

Evolutionists always seem to me to be the guys in the movies who are on the side that can't take a fair hearing on matters.

Really? I guess you missed the documentary on the Dover trial where the creationists lied and committed perjury under oath, got caught, pissed the judge off, lost and almost went to jail. You know, the trial where expert after expert presented real evidence that the creationists had no answer for. Remember, the creationist guys who hadn't even read the relevant literature. You know, those lying creationist charlatans who couldn't convince an impartial judge, even though they claimed the deck was stacked in their favor. Movies like that?

Just Bob said: Robert, were you homeschooled? Who published the textbooks and other materials you used? Did you learn science at home? Did your mom teach you your writing skills?

ksplawn said:

Robert Byers said: Why not just allow a school system that teaches all sides to issues of great contention?!

I agree. That's why I've been pushing my public school to include the sides of astrology, alchemy, natural history according to Scientology, Crystal Therapy, and phrenology in their science and health curricula. I feel that I'm almost on the verge of acceptance there! As to history lessons, they stubbornly refuse to entertain my suggestions of British Israelism, the history of North American according to Mormonism, and according to Native American oral tradition where each tribe was the first of the human race and appeared in-situ. What closed-mindedness! Why can't we let the (by definition) uninformed and malleable students decide which is correct for them?

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: Robert, were you homeschooled? Who published the textbooks and other materials you used? Did you learn science at home? Did your mom teach you your writing skills?

No. I'm a product of Canadian public schools. Why did you ask??

Robert Byers said:

ksplawn said:

Robert Byers said: Why not just allow a school system that teaches all sides to issues of great contention?!

I agree. That's why I've been pushing my public school to include the sides of astrology, alchemy, natural history according to Scientology, Crystal Therapy, and phrenology in their science and health curricula. I feel that I'm almost on the verge of acceptance there! As to history lessons, they stubbornly refuse to entertain my suggestions of British Israelism, the history of North American according to Mormonism, and according to Native American oral tradition where each tribe was the first of the human race and appeared in-situ. What closed-mindedness! Why can't we let the (by definition) uninformed and malleable students decide which is correct for them?

GREAT CONTENTION is the operative phrase. Creationism being taught is acceptable by some 70% I understand in the states. This including those you are not creationists or close. Its reasonable, its morally and legally demanding. Censorship has not stopped creationism whatsoever. Censoring the truth, a ancient common belief, and present common opion is just pathetic for any confident establishment or philosophy/theory in present vogue inn the establishment.

Jim said: There is a strong statistical correlation between the amount of time kids spend with adults and how well they do on IQ and other basic cognitive tests. The psychologist Zajonc famously conjectured that this simple effect is the main reasons for the observed higher intelligence of first-born children. It's probably also the reason why home schooling has some advantages even if parents are teaching their offspring a load of nonsense about science or history. At least the kids have a bigger vocabulary, and a bigger vocabulary is known to have lasting effects on academic performance.

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: Robert, were you homeschooled? Who published the textbooks and other materials you used? Did you learn science at home? Did your mom teach you your writing skills?

No. I'm a product of Canadian public schools. Why did you ask??

Kids are home schooled for a variety of reasons.

My wife actually taught for a time at a charter school that was meant to support home schooled students. The intent was to support the parents to help teach their children, providing resources, guidance, state tests, and (in some cases) instruction that the parent couldn't provide, like lab classes.

Some kids were being home schooled for religious reasons. While these parents were misguided in some subjects, they were at least motivated and engaged with their kids.

The larger majority of kids were being home schooled because the kids were simply not doing well in traditional schools. For a small minority, the schools were actually going too slowly. The student needed the individual attention to learn faster, and the parent(s) could provide that guidance. For these families, modestly religious texts weren't a barrier. They could just ignore the "broken" parts. And there are enough "real" texts out there that there is enough to make a viable and challenging curriculum.

For some, the schools really were failing to teach the students. But for the vast majority of the students who were *not* pulled for religious reasons, the problem was more that the kids were failing the schools, not the other way around. And once at home, the parents didn't have the slightest idea what to do with the kids. In the upper grades, the parents often knew less than what the kids were trying to learn. In several cases, the parents would choose to pull the kids, rather than "stigmatize" them with a label of "special needs", or whatever the current euphemism is that would trigger "special education", which is what they really needed. It was really quite sad. With almost non-existent expectations, very little discipline, and well intentioned but ultimately ineffective parents, these kids were just being left further and further behind; many years behind in many cases. For these kids, the choice of home schooling material simply didn't matter. If the book was never cracked open (as was often the case), it really didn't matter what was inside.

Each state differs on its rules for homeschooling as well. Some are quite strict and detailed, others are completely hands off. I know of one family that homeschooled WAY out in the country to shield their kids from the "evils" in public school; parents barely had a high school education. The kids turned out to be a mess; the older ones completely out of control when they were allowed to re-connect with peers, the younger 3-4 years behind when finally back in public school. They are probably the exception (I know many more that did a great job) but it is a risk, especially in states that let you do it with no oversight.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: Robert, were you homeschooled? Who published the textbooks and other materials you used? Did you learn science at home? Did your mom teach you your writing skills?

No. I'm a product of Canadian public schools. Why did you ask??

So he asks; with a complete lack of irony and total absence of self awareness.

Robert Byers said: GREAT CONTENTION is the operative phrase.

scienceavenger said:

Robert Byers said: GREAT CONTENTION is the operative phrase.

Again, I ask why? We all agree (I hope) that popular vote does not dictate truth or merit. So why restrict your open classroom policy to only those subjects with "great" contention (subjectively determined by you, how quaint)? Why does not ANY contention qualify?

Robert Byers said: Creationism is solid opinion in history and today.

Actually, Mr. Byers, creationism was mostly abandoned and recently has resurfaced.

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm

Robert Byers said:

scienceavenger said:

Robert Byers said: GREAT CONTENTION is the operative phrase.

Again, I ask why? We all agree (I hope) that popular vote does not dictate truth or merit. So why restrict your open classroom policy to only those subjects with "great" contention (subjectively determined by you, how quaint)? Why does not ANY contention qualify?

Its up to the people. Otherwise its up to a few people and a few people to decide who are the few. Creationism is solid opinion in history and today. Creationists are putting up with evolutionism. Picking obscure other things can't frustrate the great moral and intellectual right of a nation to allow contentions to be taught their kids. Censorship will disappear in time on origin matters. Its still very off broadway for even creationists. However its gaining more attention.

Robert Byers said:

scienceavenger said:

Robert Byers said: GREAT CONTENTION is the operative phrase.

Again, I ask why? We all agree (I hope) that popular vote does not dictate truth or merit. So why restrict your open classroom policy to only those subjects with "great" contention (subjectively determined by you, how quaint)? Why does not ANY contention qualify?

Its up to the people. Otherwise its up to a few people and a few people to decide who are the few. Creationism is solid opinion in history and today. Creationists are putting up with evolutionism. Picking obscure other things can't frustrate the great moral and intellectual right of a nation to allow contentions to be taught their kids. Censorship will disappear in time on origin matters. Its still very off broadway for even creationists. However its gaining more attention.

Robert Byers said: Its up to the people.

Science is Robert Byers's friend: it's (not its) based on either evidence or popular vote depending on the point he is attempting to argue.

lkeithlu said: Actually, Mr. Byers, creationism was mostly abandoned and recently has resurfaced. http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: Its up to the people.

Just like here in the past, Byers again shows he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Which Byers do we believe? Is it popular vote, or not (link here)? Of course, science is not a democracy but more like a meritocracy. But for the sake of debate, let's assume for the moment that science is akin to popular vote. Hmm, very interesting how the people of Ohio voted for a pro-evolution/pro-science candidate to replace an anti-evolutionist Ohio school board member (click here). Also, the people of Kansas not once but twice voted out enough anti-evolutionist state school board members so that evolution was returned to being a central theme in Kansas school science curriculum. Let's not forget that after the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial became such a boondoggle for ID-type creationism (and ID became an albatross around the neck of Dover Pennsylvania), the people of Dover kicked out all eight of the pro-ID candidates that were running for re-election to the Dover school board. Indeed, Dover board member and YEC Alan Bonsell received the second fewest votes of any candidate. As we recall (as apparently did the Dover voters), Bonsell angered Kitzmiller judge John Jones when it was revealed that Bonsell lied under oath during his deposition and Bonsell came under the threat of perjury charges.

Byers demonstrates that creationism is not Christian teaching: Creationism is simply conclusions about God and/or Genesis being the creator of some, much, great deal of the universe.

Robert Byers said:

lkeithlu said: Actually, Mr. Byers, creationism was mostly abandoned and recently has resurfaced. http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm

Creationism is simply conclusions about God and/or Genesis being the creator of some, much, great deal of the universe. Therefore opinion on this has been whatever its been with the people. I don't stats but am sure it was high agreement with a idea of a God and/or genesis being true at this point and a later point until a point where it was quite lower then the previous points. With the people of the English speaking world its always been excellent to good to fair consent with YEC creationism. in the tiny circles of those who study origin subjects creationism went down from a already low number in the last two centuries. However in evangelical circles its remained the same stats since the reformation or very close.

lkeithlu said:

Robert Byers said:

lkeithlu said: Actually, Mr. Byers, creationism was mostly abandoned and recently has resurfaced. http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm

Creationism is simply conclusions about God and/or Genesis being the creator of some, much, great deal of the universe. Therefore opinion on this has been whatever its been with the people. I don't stats but am sure it was high agreement with a idea of a God and/or genesis being true at this point and a later point until a point where it was quite lower then the previous points. With the people of the English speaking world its always been excellent to good to fair consent with YEC creationism. in the tiny circles of those who study origin subjects creationism went down from a already low number in the last two centuries. However in evangelical circles its remained the same stats since the reformation or very close.

I can't tell from this incoherent reply whether you even read the article.

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: Its up to the people.

Just like here in the past, Byers again shows he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Which Byers do we believe? Is it popular vote, or not (link here)? Of course, science is not a democracy but more like a meritocracy. But for the sake of debate, let's assume for the moment that science is akin to popular vote. Hmm, very interesting how the people of Ohio voted for a pro-evolution/pro-science candidate to replace an anti-evolutionist Ohio school board member (click here). Also, the people of Kansas not once but twice voted out enough anti-evolutionist state school board members so that evolution was returned to being a central theme in Kansas school science curriculum. Let's not forget that after the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial became such a boondoggle for ID-type creationism (and ID became an albatross around the neck of Dover Pennsylvania), the people of Dover kicked out all eight of the pro-ID candidates that were running for re-election to the Dover school board. Indeed, Dover board member and YEC Alan Bonsell received the second fewest votes of any candidate. As we recall (as apparently did the Dover voters), Bonsell angered Kitzmiller judge John Jones when it was revealed that Bonsell lied under oath during his deposition and Bonsell came under the threat of perjury charges.

Are you agreeing with the people deciding or NOT?! Or just if its goes your way you agree with the people deciding? Thats the a belief in the peoples right to decide. It should be up to the people completely and thats the moral and intellectual right to do. I'm sure creationism will do fine and move forward to do better. Why censor using the state and deny public control if your confident in victory or enough victory?

Robert Byers said: Are you agreeing with the people deciding or NOT?!

"Of course, science is not a democracy but more like a meritocracy"

... he [Byres] also simply ignores his own earlier vox populi arguments. Faced with the undeniable fact that the opposition to evolution among actual scientists is vanishingly negligible, he tells us that it doesn’t matter. But Byers has spent years here pushing the idea that creationism must be true, because a lot of Americans believe it. He only introduces this counterargument now because it is convenient to him (link here for full post)

Robert Byers said: Or just if its goes your way you agree with the people deciding? Thats [sic] the a belief in the peoples right to decide.

"But for the sake of debate, let’s assume for the moment that science is akin to popular vote"

Robert Byers said: I’m sure creationism will do fine and move forward to do better.

Sandefur OUT.

Harold IN.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: Its up to the people.

Just like here in the past, Byers again shows he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Which Byers do we believe? Is it popular vote, or not (link here)? Of course, science is not a democracy but more like a meritocracy. But for the sake of debate, let's assume for the moment that science is akin to popular vote. Hmm, very interesting how the people of Ohio voted for a pro-evolution/pro-science candidate to replace an anti-evolutionist Ohio school board member (click here). Also, the people of Kansas not once but twice voted out enough anti-evolutionist state school board members so that evolution was returned to being a central theme in Kansas school science curriculum. Let's not forget that after the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial became such a boondoggle for ID-type creationism (and ID became an albatross around the neck of Dover Pennsylvania), the people of Dover kicked out all eight of the pro-ID candidates that were running for re-election to the Dover school board. Indeed, Dover board member and YEC Alan Bonsell received the second fewest votes of any candidate. As we recall (as apparently did the Dover voters), Bonsell angered Kitzmiller judge John Jones when it was revealed that Bonsell lied under oath during his deposition and Bonsell came under the threat of perjury charges.

Are you agreeing with the people deciding or NOT?! Or just if its goes your way you agree with the people deciding? Thats the a belief in the peoples right to decide. It should be up to the people completely and thats the moral and intellectual right to do. I'm sure creationism will do fine and move forward to do better. Why censor using the state and deny public control if your confident in victory or enough victory?

We recognize that you are too thick-headed, too bigoted and too lacking in reading comprehension skills. Therefore...

Robert Byers said: Are you agreeing with the people deciding or NOT?!

Go back and read what I said (with much better reading comprehension if that's possible for you). I stated:

"Of course, science is not a democracy but more like a meritocracy"

While it's a bit dismaying that you disregarded my mention that science is not a democracy, it's quite unsurprising that you ignored where it was pointed out that you, Byers, were playing both sides of "the people" issue. You said last February it's "not a vote" (click link here for your full post) yet now you return to saying let the people decide. You are a hypocrite, Byers. A two-faced, playing both sides of the fence hypocrite. We're on to your clumsy games. As Luckett said:

... he [Byres] also simply ignores his own earlier vox populi arguments. Faced with the undeniable fact that the opposition to evolution among actual scientists is vanishingly negligible, he tells us that it doesn’t matter. But Byers has spent years here pushing the idea that creationism must be true, because a lot of Americans believe it. He only introduces this counterargument now because it is convenient to him (link here for full post)

FYI Byers, vox populi is a Latin phrase that literally means voice of the people.

Robert Byers said: Or just if its goes your way you agree with the people deciding? Thats [sic] the a belief in the peoples right to decide.

Go back and read what I said (with much better reading comprehension if that's possible for you). I stated:

"But for the sake of debate, let’s assume for the moment that science is akin to popular vote"

I basically said let's temporarily assume that science is akin to popular vote, and only for the sake of debate. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Indeed, the pro-ID Dover school board was a sad example of elected officials that were inexperienced in science, an ignorant understanding of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and even having flawed understanding of ID (click link here, Byers). Yet the Dover board still tried to short-circuit both the science peer-review process and the US Constitution. While it's great for the people deciding more general political issues of basic expertise, any idea of vox populi that violates the Constitution of the USA (such as sneaking creationism or any other religion into public school science classrooms) needs to be unequivocally rejected.

Robert Byers said: I’m sure creationism will do fine and move forward to do better.

With creationists like Alan Bonsell, creationism will do just dandy ;) - - - - - - - Byers, you had ignored so many other topics. But here's for starters: When are you going to get around to discussing SINE insertion data? Here's a link to the relevant post: http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-300136 What about this Christian link concerning Christian scientists that accept and routinely use radiometric dating? You have repeatedly looked away and run from this (Byers, click here to see). Are you ever going to give us a review of Sean B Carroll’s evo-devo book Endless Forms Most Beautiful (click here)? Remember, it's a popular level book for the public.

Robert Byers said: I never contradict myself on weighty issues in origin subjects. You misunderstood me. I'm not saying the people decider whether this ot that is right in science. I'm saying that because its a contention and presently one side is censoring the other THEN it should be up tro the people to decide whats taught or rather to decide IF both sides are taught. Otherwise who decides?

Robert Byers said:

ksplawn said: I agree. That's why I've been pushing my public school to include the sides of astrology, alchemy, natural history according to Scientology, Crystal Therapy, and phrenology in their science and health curricula. I feel that I'm almost on the verge of acceptance there! As to history lessons, they stubbornly refuse to entertain my suggestions of British Israelism, the history of North American according to Mormonism, and according to Native American oral tradition where each tribe was the first of the human race and appeared in-situ. What closed-mindedness! Why can't we let the (by definition) uninformed and malleable students decide which is correct for them?

GREAT CONTENTION is the operative phrase.

ksplawn said:

Robert Byers said:

ksplawn said: I agree. That's why I've been pushing my public school to include the sides of astrology, alchemy, natural history according to Scientology, Crystal Therapy, and phrenology in their science and health curricula. I feel that I'm almost on the verge of acceptance there! As to history lessons, they stubbornly refuse to entertain my suggestions of British Israelism, the history of North American according to Mormonism, and according to Native American oral tradition where each tribe was the first of the human race and appeared in-situ. What closed-mindedness! Why can't we let the (by definition) uninformed and malleable students decide which is correct for them?

GREAT CONTENTION is the operative phrase.

Why? Does popular belief dictate the truth value of these propositions so that if there is greater public division of opinion, there is less chance of the expert view being accurate? Just because a lot of people think that the Sun goes around the Earth (about a fifth of Americans), does that mean we should let the public decide to teach students that the solar system could be either heliocentric or geocentric, and we're not sure which? What if the mistaken belief was held by 30% of the people? 50%? 70%? Do the bare facts about nature play any role in your proposition, or does it all come down to how popular an idea is regardless of its accuracy?

Now you got it Bobby boy. Submit to the right answer! Admit to it! YOu are not reasonable and you do not accept contentious claims. The bare facts are not in contention, admit it! You are the only one that is fearful!

Robert Byers said:

ksplawn said:

Robert Byers said:

ksplawn said: I agree. That's why I've been pushing my public school to include the sides of astrology, alchemy, natural history according to Scientology, Crystal Therapy, and phrenology in their science and health curricula. I feel that I'm almost on the verge of acceptance there! As to history lessons, they stubbornly refuse to entertain my suggestions of British Israelism, the history of North American according to Mormonism, and according to Native American oral tradition where each tribe was the first of the human race and appeared in-situ. What closed-mindedness! Why can't we let the (by definition) uninformed and malleable students decide which is correct for them?

GREAT CONTENTION is the operative phrase.

Why? Does popular belief dictate the truth value of these propositions so that if there is greater public division of opinion, there is less chance of the expert view being accurate? Just because a lot of people think that the Sun goes around the Earth (about a fifth of Americans), does that mean we should let the public decide to teach students that the solar system could be either heliocentric or geocentric, and we're not sure which? What if the mistaken belief was held by 30% of the people? 50%? 70%? Do the bare facts about nature play any role in your proposition, or does it all come down to how popular an idea is regardless of its accuracy?

The analogy is not good. The sun thing is not a contention . All people would submit to the right answer. They just got the fact wrong and would admit to it. They are not defending conclusions as is done in origin contentions.

The analogy is fine, Byers. The Sun orbiting the Earth obviously is a contention – for 20% of Americans. What the hell is wrong with you, Booby (rhetorical question)? Clearly, all people do not submit to the right answer. That is why 20% of Americans believe the Sun orbits the Earth, as difficult as that is for anyone who qualifies for kindergarten to fathom. They did not “just get the fact wrong” – no one could get that fact wrong in this age. They have the fact and reject it, clearly and invariably on fundamentalist religious grounds!

Creationists think we are right but agree to evolution being taught because of its support in the public or becaause of the researchers, paid, who assert it. We are reasonable and accepting contentions claims.

You may think you are, but on the basis of objective empirical evidence the science community knows (without doubt) that you are absolutely wrong. And you do not “agree to evolution being taught because of its support in the public or becaause [sic] of the researchers, paid, who assert it” – you tolerate it because you have no choice but to tolerate. You lose (rightfully) every challenge that is brought to court. And you are anything but reasonable and accepting. That is an outrageous lie.

In this historic and great contention how can one side be censored? Its unreasonable, immoral, and illegal surely in a free nation . The bare facys are in contention about ideas of past and gone events. If the "experts" are confident and have persuasive facts then whats their fear of presenting them and criticism of them and alternatives.??

There is no contention, Booby. There is absolutely no contention of the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis with the scientific community – and the is the one and the only place that counts. Your thoroughly untrained, unqualified opinions are worthless and have no bearing on the science. No one is censoring your crackpot “contentions.” You present your nonsense in a variety of venues without fear of any censorship – and you do. Right here is a fine example. Who has censored you here? What you refuse to let pass through your tinfoil hat is that the public classroom is not obligated to be one of those venues. It is not unreasonable. You must think that classrooms are structure around a concept of unlimited time. Not so – most class instruction is limited to hour or less. It should not have to waste time with crackpot notions that were refuted by empirical evidence, sometimes centuries ago. The immoral thing would be subjecting students to known nonsense. And it is hardly illegal, as all of “contentions” are firmly rooted in fundamentalist religion. The public school is an instrument of the state. To teach a specific religious dogma (in this case yours) is clearly unconstitutional, i.e., illegal! The experts are not afraid to present facts and evidence – that is exactly what they do. Your “criticisms,” and “alternatives,” however, are unpersuasive and generally refuted. They do not have a picogram of credibility, so no one is obligated to present them in a publicly financed science class. I expect that you will totally ignore all of that your next time around and present the same ignorant “arguments” again – and again, and again, and again. That’s what you do, Booby. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Keelyn said: The analogy is fine, Byers. The Sun orbiting the Earth obviously is a contention – for 20% of Americans. What the hell is wrong with you, Booby (rhetorical question)? Clearly, all people do not submit to the right answer. That is why 20% of Americans believe the Sun orbits the Earth, as difficult as that is for anyone who qualifies for kindergarten to fathom. They did not “just get the fact wrong” – no one could get that fact wrong in this age. They have the fact and reject it, clearly and invariably on fundamentalist religious grounds!

"If we can not take God at His word when He writes of the 'rising of the sun' then how can we believe when He writes of the 'rising of the Son'?" http://www.geocentricity.com/

Keelyn said: You lose (rightfully) every challenge that is brought to court.

Keelyn said: There is no contention, Booby. There is absolutely no contention of the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis with the scientific community – and the is the one and the only place that counts.

Keelyn said: The public school is an instrument of the state. To teach a specific religious dogma (in this case yours) is clearly unconstitutional, i.e., illegal!

When are you going to get around to discussing SINE insertions? Here's a link to the relevant post: http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-300136 What about this Christian link concerning Christian scientists that accept and routinely use radiometric dating? You repeatedly look away and run from this (Byers, click here to see). Are you ever going to give us a review of Sean B Carroll’s evo-devo book Endless Forms Most Beautiful (click here)? Remember, it's a popular level book for the public.

Tenncrain said:

Keelyn said: The analogy is fine, Byers. The Sun orbiting the Earth obviously is a contention – for 20% of Americans. What the hell is wrong with you, Booby (rhetorical question)? Clearly, all people do not submit to the right answer. That is why 20% of Americans believe the Sun orbits the Earth, as difficult as that is for anyone who qualifies for kindergarten to fathom. They did not “just get the fact wrong” – no one could get that fact wrong in this age. They have the fact and reject it, clearly and invariably on fundamentalist religious grounds!

On fundamentalist religious grounds indeed. The same YEC oriented Creation Research Society of today had geocentric-friendly articles. Even today, groups like the Association of Biblical Astronomy are alive and well. ABA members staunchly reject the idea of the earth going around the sun as bad theology - contrary to the Scriptures - and invalid science (click video link here). A modern quote from ABA:

"If we can not take God at His word when He writes of the 'rising of the sun' then how can we believe when He writes of the 'rising of the Son'?" http://www.geocentricity.com/

Look at astrology as well. One poll says 31% in the US believe in astrology, with other polls suggesting as high as 43%. Good luck trying to convince astrologers that their beliefs are invalid, they often won't give up their views without a big fight. So astrology is in contention with at least 31% of the people if not higher. Thus using Byer's analogy, astrology deserves to be included in schools to counter astronomy.

Keelyn said: You lose (rightfully) every challenge that is brought to court.

Anti-evolutionists have had every opportunity to present their best case, yet they are their own worst enemy. At Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005, Michael Behe admitted neither he nor anyone else has performed any science experiments directly related to ID. At the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas trial, the creationism claims of having performed science came up empty there as well; indeed, even one of the expert witnesses for the defense (the creationist side) said under oath that no rational scientist accepts a young earth and a world flood!

Keelyn said: There is no contention, Booby. There is absolutely no contention of the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis with the scientific community – and the is the one and the only place that counts.

Byers is free to to search science peer-review journals such as Evolution (link here) and show us - using specific examples from the journals - where biological evolution is in question.

Keelyn said: The public school is an instrument of the state. To teach a specific religious dogma (in this case yours) is clearly unconstitutional, i.e., illegal!

And the judges that rendered the decisions that creationism and ID are religion and not science were often judges that were themselves religious (Judge John Jones at Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge William Overton at McLean v. Arkansas).

Keelyn said: What you refuse to let pass through your tinfoil hat is that the public classroom is not obligated to be one of those venues. It is not unreasonable. You must think that classrooms are structure around a concept of unlimited time. Not so – most class instruction is limited to hour or less. It should not have to waste time with crackpot notions that were refuted by empirical evidence, sometimes centuries ago. The immoral thing would be subjecting students to known nonsense. And it is hardly illegal, as all of “contentions” are firmly rooted in fundamentalist religion. The public school is an instrument of the state. To teach a specific religious dogma (in this case yours) is clearly unconstitutional, i.e., illegal! The experts are not afraid to present facts and evidence – that is exactly what they do. Your “criticisms,” and “alternatives,” however, are unpersuasive and generally refuted. They do not have a picogram of credibility, so no one is obligated to present them in a publicly financed science class.

DS said: "When studying topics such as Creation and evolution, human cloning, abortion, and stem cell research, students are pointed to Scripture as the ultimate authority and are encouraged to develop a biblical perspective about these topics." Name one way in which the topic of evolution is similar to the topic of human cloning. (HINT: do not use the word controversial).

Name one way in which the topic of evolution is similar to the topic of abortion. (HINT: do not use the word controversial).

Name one way in which the topic of evolution is similar to the topic of human stem cell research. (HINT: do not use the word controversial).

Name one other actual field of science where scripture is the ultimate authority. (HINT: it isn't geocentrism, or germ theory, or the theory of gravity, or the Law of Segregation, or geometry, or calculus, or plate tectonics). Man these guys just can't open their mouths without sticking their foot and their bible in.

Werewolf Dongle said:

DS said: "When studying topics such as Creation and evolution, human cloning, abortion, and stem cell research, students are pointed to Scripture as the ultimate authority and are encouraged to develop a biblical perspective about these topics." Name one way in which the topic of evolution is similar to the topic of human cloning. (HINT: do not use the word controversial).

It is a question of theory and practice. Human cloning is something evolutionists want to do since they don't have children and also because they believe it will prove people don't have souls.

Name one way in which the topic of evolution is similar to the topic of abortion. (HINT: do not use the word controversial).

Again, its about theory and practice. Abortion is a sacrament of the religion of evolutionism. Evolutionists must engage in ritualized baby-killing because it makes them feel humans have no souls.

Name one way in which the topic of evolution is similar to the topic of human stem cell research. (HINT: do not use the word controversial).

See above under the heading of abortion.

Name one other actual field of science where scripture is the ultimate authority. (HINT: it isn't geocentrism, or germ theory, or the theory of gravity, or the Law of Segregation, or geometry, or calculus, or plate tectonics). Man these guys just can't open their mouths without sticking their foot and their bible in.

I think it's satire.

If it's (not its) satire, a smiley would have helped ;-)

Malcolm said:

Keelyn said: What you refuse to let pass through your tinfoil hat is that the public classroom is not obligated to be one of those venues. It is not unreasonable. You must think that classrooms are structure around a concept of unlimited time. Not so – most class instruction is limited to hour or less. It should not have to waste time with crackpot notions that were refuted by empirical evidence, sometimes centuries ago. The immoral thing would be subjecting students to known nonsense. And it is hardly illegal, as all of “contentions” are firmly rooted in fundamentalist religion. The public school is an instrument of the state. To teach a specific religious dogma (in this case yours) is clearly unconstitutional, i.e., illegal! The experts are not afraid to present facts and evidence – that is exactly what they do. Your “criticisms,” and “alternatives,” however, are unpersuasive and generally refuted. They do not have a picogram of credibility, so no one is obligated to present them in a publicly financed science class.

Byers doesn't believe that education is of any value.

AIG doesn't like home-schooling creationists using non-creationist materials. The Sensuous Curmudgeon has commentary.

Richard B. Hoppe said: AIG doesn't like home-schooling creationists using non-creationist materials. The Sensuous Curmudgeon has commentary.

Richard B. Hoppe said: AIG doesn't like home-schooling creationists using non-creationist materials. The Sensuous Curmudgeon has commentary.

Notice that Ham doesn't even acknowledge the actual point of the Christianity Today article. He constantly phrases it in terms of whether homeschooling parents should teach their children to "accept" evolution (and the other things YECs don't like). But that's explicitly not the issue; the point being discussed is to expose them to these ideas and have the children understand the concepts of mainstream biology, even if they're not "supposed" to agree with them. That's what the homeschooling parents in the CT article are doing. They're trying to present a more accurate summary of the "opposition" along with their own sectarian beliefs, the latter of which the children are supposed to adopt.

It is, in no uncertain terms, exactly the kind of "Critical Analysis" Creationists want to drive into public schools. It is indeed hypocritical to say that this has a place in public schools but is wrong for private and homeschooling. But the real big red flag is not that AIG rejects this when applied to their own indoctrination methods, it's that they don't even see it. Merely exposing children to mainstream science is, apparently, teaching them to "accept" it, and automatically reject the YEC position so that the kids' religious beliefs must be adjusted to fit around evolution.

It's not just simple hypocrisy, it's utter stupidity. They not only misunderstand the position they argue against, they can't even recognize their own. I'm amazed that such a basic and simple position can be so deeply and thoroughly misunderstood. But I really shouldn't be, since Ham has proven to be perpetually (indeed, professionally) invulnerable to any understanding of things that aren't his own.

Scott F said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: AIG doesn't like home-schooling creationists using non-creationist materials. The Sensuous Curmudgeon has commentary.

Riiiight. So, having creationist teachers teach evolution to children is a bad thing, but having secularist teachers teach theology to children is a good thing. If SCOTUS were to make religious teaching legal, one wonders what Creationists would think if secular teachers were to directly ridicule the Bible. Methinks that they would be the first to call for firing the teacher, or bringing legal action against the school. So much for "Teach the Controversy(tm)".