Homeschooling Moms

Featured Posts
SusanTheWriter
Old Earth, Young Minds: Evengelical Homeschoolers Embrace Evolution
March 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM

An article I found that talks about science education for Christians who are not proponents of a "young earth."

homeschool-top.jpg Jen Baird Seurkamp, a Kentucky evangelical who homeschools her children, avoids textbooks that discredit evolution. (Kate Mitchell Hisey)

For homeschooling parents who want to teach their children that the earth is only a few thousand years old, the theory of evolution is a lie, and dinosaurs coexisted with humans, there is no shortage of materials. Kids can start with the Answers in Genesis curriculum, which features books such as Dinosaurs of Eden, written by Creation Museum founder Ken Ham. As the publisher's description states, "This exciting book for the entire family uses the Bible as a 'time machine' to journey through the events of the past and future."

It's no secret that the majority of homeschooled children in America belong to evangelical Christian families. What's less known is that a growing number of their parents are dismayed by these textbooks.

Take Erinn Cameron Warton, an evangelical Christian who homeschools her children. Warton, a scientist, says she was horrified when she opened a homeschool science textbook and found a picture of Adam and Eve putting a saddle on a dinosaur. "I nearly choked," says the mother of three.

For the rest of the article CLICK HERE.

Replies

  • Clairwil
    April 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM
    Quoting katinahat:

    Gravity is a law, not a theory.

    If you read the original trestie in which Newton described his theory of universal gravitation, you'll see that he actually described several laws or lemmas.  A law is a part of a theory, generally encoded as a mathematical equation.  It isn't something a theory becomes once 'proven'.  It is something that is contained by a theory.


  • Clairwil
    April 20, 2013 at 6:00 PM
    Quoting rsrangel:

    Wait, I'm confused by the word evolution being thrown around

    When scientists use the word "evolution", they are generally referring to one of two things:

    " The change, over time, of the frequency with which the alleles in a population's gene pool appear in the individuals in the population. "

    This is an observation or 'fact' if you like.  Evolution does occur.  It happens every time a child is born.


    The word is also used to refer to the modern synthesis scientific theory explaining this observation and the patterns within it, whose tenets are:

    1. Populations Adapt

    In the absence of a farmer artificially selecting which horses get to breed, there are still selective pressures going on due to natural and sexual forces, and that, over time, these forces can have the same effect as artificial selection of adapting the traits in a species towards those which most fit the individual surviving to pass on their genes in a particular prevailing environment.


    2. Populations Diverge

    If you split a population into groups that live in different prevailing environments (for instance, if some members get blown to a different island by a hurricane, and one island is much drier than the other, or has different predators) then over multiple generations adaption may lead these groups on divergent paths, so that individuals from one group appear characteristically distinct from individuals from other groups.


    3. New Species Evolve

    The forces of evolution are sufficient to drive two groups so far divergent that members from the two groups are no longer capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.  They are now two separate species.


    4. Common Ancestry

    All species living on Earth share a common ancestry.  If you pick any two living organisms, then trace their family trees back far enough, you'll find they share a common ancestor.  Every species living on Earth today can be placed somewhere on a forking diagram, with species splitting and then re-splitting (the philogenetic tree).


    5. Gene and Population -centric model

    Evolution acts upon the phenotype of the individual, but the unit of selection is the frequency of alleles in an entire population.  The survival of a specific individual is less important than the survival of the individual's genes.  If an individual dies but, by doing so ensures the survival of close relatives who shares many alleles in common, that individual may be out of the race, but their alleles are not. (see: Population Genetics and Gene Selection Theory)


    6. Sufficiency

    These naturalistic forces of selection are sufficient to explain the observed patterns of Evolution.  No intervention from an external Intelligent Designer necessary.

  • Clairwil
    April 20, 2013 at 6:07 PM
    Quoting gratefulgal:

    By the way carbon dating is NOT an exact science. They STILL don't know how old the Grand Canyon is, and while it seems to be older than 8 thousand years or so, there is talk that it isn't as old as they once suspected.

    Can you cite any paper published in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal giving an age for the Grand Canyon less than 5 million years?

    That's not just 'older' than 8 thousand years.   That's the same difference between a 5 week old baby and a 70 year old granny.

  • katinahat
    April 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

    No, that's incorrect. There are three primary classes of explanations in science. Hypotheses, theories, and laws.

    A hypothesis is generally a plausible explanation for a phenomenon. A theory is a plasible explanation for a phenomenon that is supported by reproducable experiments. A law is a theory that has matured over time and has no contrary evidence. It has become as close to a "fact" as it can get.

    A hypothesis can become a theory, which can then become a law. It's a process. Say that I was Isaac Newton. I could hypothesize that if I drop my apple, it will fall to the ground. I then test that hypothesis by dropping my apple and seeing it fall to the ground. I tell my neighbor about this apple-dropping phenomenon and he drops his own apple to test it. He tells his scientist friends and so on. Now that it is reproducable, I come up with an explanation that is congruent with my observations (and any laws already in place) and it becomes a theory. After a few decades (or centuries) pass and no one has dropped their apple and had it not fall or disproved my explanation for its fall, it becomes a law. Namely, the law of gravity.

    Now, a theory can use laws to support itself. That is certainly true. For instance, the nebular theory depends largely upon the law of angular momentum acting on the spinning disk of dust and gas and organizing it in order to form the planets. Then the law of gravity allows the dust and gas to coalesce into planets and a central star.

    Also, a law is NOT just a mathematical equation. It's a concept. Same for theories-- they can be quantified (duh, it's science-- everything can be quantified and measured), but they're still based around a concept.

    Quoting Clairwil:

    Quoting katinahat:

    Gravity is a law, not a theory.

    If you read the original trestie in which Newton described his theory of universal gravitation, you'll see that he actually described several laws or lemmas.  A law is a part of a theory, generally encoded as a mathematical equation.  It isn't something a theory becomes once 'proven'.  It is something that is contained by a theory.




  • KrissyKC
    April 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM

    Deep topic.   One i feel strongly about.

    I try to read through (pretty much any science) material.  Most of it is based on evolution being a fact.   They have a piece of a shell and make up a bunch of "supposeds" about that shell.  You can't rightly divide between fact and guesses.

    For example, we went to the science center this week, and going down the hallway by the dinosaur exibit, and there is a bunch of drawings of the missing link (which still really doesn't exist)..and other missing links for how species changed over time... and all we have are drawings or fake sculptures based on bone fragments that have been added to by people that guess what the skull might have looked like based on one old bone fragment.

    So I see it from the other side of the coin.   Thank God for curriculum that can weed through all the evolutionist theories and give other ideas for all these guesses people are making.



  • Clairwil
    April 20, 2013 at 10:24 PM
    Quoting katinahat:
    Quoting Clairwil:
    Quoting katinahat:

    Gravity is a law, not a theory.

    If you read the original trestie in which Newton described his theory of universal gravitation, you'll see that he actually described several laws or lemmas.  A law is a part of a theory, generally encoded as a mathematical equation.  It isn't something a theory becomes once 'proven'.  It is something that is contained by a theory.

    No, that's incorrect.

    Don't tell me, tell America's National Academy of Science.

    Here's how they define some basic terms, as used in science:

    Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.
    Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
    Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
    Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.


    http://archive.org/stream/100878576#page/183/mode/1up

  • Clairwil
    April 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM
    Quoting KrissyKC:

    Deep topic.   One i feel strongly about.

    I try to read through (pretty much any science) material.  Most of it is based on evolution being a fact.   They have a piece of a shell and make up a bunch of "supposeds" about that shell.  You can't rightly divide between fact and guesses.

    For example, we went to the science center this week, and going down the hallway by the dinosaur exibit, and there is a bunch of drawings of the missing link (which still really doesn't exist)..and other missing links for how species changed over time... and all we have are drawings or fake sculptures based on bone fragments that have been added to by people that guess what the skull might have looked like based on one old bone fragment.

    So I see it from the other side of the coin.   Thank God for curriculum that can weed through all the evolutionist theories and give other ideas for all these guesses people are making.

    Sometimes, where all that's left of a species are partial skeletons, they do extrapolate.  (And, in the scientific papers, if not always in the textbooks aimed at children, they make clear what assumptions they have made and why.)

    On the other hand, there are plenty of species for which they've found not just one complete skeleton, but several.  Neanderthal is an example.  Here's one from America's museum of natural history, in New York:



  • katinahat
    April 20, 2013 at 11:05 PM

    ? I don't disagree with anything that they wrote. I disagree with your assertion that a theory can't become a law. That a law, by definition, is an equation that resides within a theory. This is false.

    Quoting Clairwil:

    Quoting katinahat:
    Quoting Clairwil:
    Quoting katinahat:

    Gravity is a law, not a theory.

    If you read the original trestie in which Newton described his theory of universal gravitation, you'll see that he actually described several laws or lemmas.  A law is a part of a theory, generally encoded as a mathematical equation.  It isn't something a theory becomes once 'proven'.  It is something that is contained by a theory.

    No, that's incorrect.

    Don't tell me, tell America's National Academy of Science.

    Here's how they define some basic terms, as used in science:

    Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.
    Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
    Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
    Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.


    http://archive.org/stream/100878576#page/183/mode/1up



Homeschooling Moms

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN