Reading Politics

I love America. I believe it is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. That's why It's extremely upsetting to see a report which showed that U.S. students' scores on math and science tests were well below those of teens from around the world. U.S. twelfth-graders ranked 19th out of 21 developed nations. Math and science! Ring any bells? These are the subjects that students must master in order to fully utilize computers. The very computers which are essential to virtually every technological advance.

We USED to be great in education. Sadly, that is not the case today.

We hear the phrase, ”Johnny can’t read” a lot these days. The sad and simple truth is that Johnny can’t write either, he can’t do simple math and probably couldn’t tell you what state New York City is in.

America’s SAT scores are among the lowest in the free world and there’s just got to be a reason or reasons, why the most progressive nation the world has ever known can’t educate its children. Of course, there are reasons and for those of you who think that the total cause for the poor academic standards in this country is lack of federal funds you may as well stop reading right now. While I certainly know that there are some soft spots around the country where a little more money would help, this nation spends enough on education to give a college degree to kids in a lot of other countries.

To me the answers to our educational inadequacies can be summated in just a couple words- phonics, discipline & an end to the "psycho-babble" taught in school.

When I say phonics I mean for it to represent a myriad of common sense approaches to teaching returning to the three R's, Reading, Riting and Rithmetic..

No matter how complicated the world becomes two and two will always be four and the simplest way of arriving at that conclusion will always be to add the digits together and you will always come out with the same answer. This country needs to shake off the rotten dregs of the Dewey Decimal System and get back to basics.

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, reading is also a serious problem area. Less than half of children in grades four, eight and twelve read at a proficient level. Only 31% of all fourth-graders, and 12% of black fourth-graders read at their grade level. When you discover that the current system isnt working, don't you change it? I think the system should be "Hooked on Phonics."

But you can’t teach without discipline no matter what the method. Kids who are chronic trouble makers should be transferred to another class where they are forced to behave themselves, then the rest of the class can learn.

I know it’s not politically correct to segregate miscreants and punks but I believe it would bring amazing results.

Children should also not be promoted just because the rest of the class is. You do them no favors when you advance them. They’re not getting what they came to school for and might as well have stayed at home.

And the third problem is the self-esteem hoax in our school's. There needs to be put an end to the feel good teaching/learning done throughout the country's school's. School isn't a petting farm of happy emotions that need to be glorified every minute with spongy & bubbly teaching.

Iv'e experienced this horrid nonsense time & time again while attending the public school system all my life. Instead of teaching, we attend to the students needs with counseling and pat's on the head.

The student is never held accountable, nor is the school system. What do you mean Johnny doesnt know his times table, isnt he in 10th grade? Oh well, they say. It's not the teachers faults or his. I bet he has had some problems at home, or a too relaxed physcological issue that has affected this poor kids dementia, right?

It's all bullshit that needs to be reversed or we are going to have a country full of idiots running around not knowing how to open a can soup or use the map(already true).

Not to mention the crap learning going on in higher education that is along the same lines. Such as an article I read that basically shows how pornography is being taught to students- Pornography 102.

Plus, how bout using teachers that actually have credentials.

It’s time to stop putting federal band-aids on our educational programs and do something meaningful for a change.

I don't know. Maybe this is just more examples of why I'm becoming pro-home school and pro-vouchers everyday. Just more reinforcement for logical thinking- Dont trust the governement or the public school system- for soon or a later we will have Stupid Men Walking.

Then again, maybe thats what they want. A society who cant read, write or think for themsleves. A society that doesnt know the first thing about freedom, the Constitution or the beautiful history of our once great nation. When that day comes, goodbye freedom, rights & democracy.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

A very insightful post, Hardballkid. Furthermore, I understand exactly what you are talking about.

For example, enter my high school Health Class. We were beginning our unit on Mental health, which as I suspected would inevitably include the self-esteem and self-image issues. This was something I had been dreading because I understood and knew about the views they would be pushing.

The teacher handed out a survey. It asked a series of questions, which ultimately would provide a rough estimate of your self-esteem level. Normal was a rating of sixteen or higher. I got a six. I am therefore chronically depressed--so severly, in fact, that the survey suggested seeking special help and counseling to improve myself before disaster should strike (i.e. cutting, suicide).

I was certainly very surprised (and a bit amused) at this, since I consider myself to be extremely happy with my life and grateful that I live in the fortunate circumstances I do. What caused this rating of 'chronic depression' was the nature of the questions asked. To provide a few:

-Do you beleive that other people's views toward you are unimportant?
-Do you believe that conformity to anyone else's standards or wishes is wrong?
-Do you think people are generally good by nature?

These are only three of twenty. And for each of these, I answered 'no', thus lowering my self-esteem score. I believe that the views of others regarding me are very important, because it is common banter these days that all Christians (such as myself) are hypocritical fools. And in seeking to defy this stereotype, the views of others about me become important. Quite simply, I don't want people to see me as a hypocrite, and other people are the most efficient judges.

I said that I didn't feel conformity was wrong. This is because my whole life is one lived in conformity--to my parents will, to the criterias of my friends (criterias which I see as reasonable and approve of), and most importantly for myself--conformity to God. To be honest, I have grown so very sick of the word 'conformity'. It has become something of a swear (in its meaning) to Americans in their freethinking autonomous paradise. And so ultimately, this question assumes that if you think other people's standards are important, or if a higher authority's standards are important, you must be depressed.

Finally, I said that I do not think people are generally good by nature. What angers me so much about this question is that it is forcing the postmodern notion of human nature down our throats and assuming that if we do not happen to agree (a concept that our idea of individual autonomy seeks to protect), we are in need of 'help'. I think people are inclined toward horrific acts of evil if they do not seek guidance in protecting their hearts against it. I think all the ills of society and the world today are caused (directly and indirectly) by the flawed state of human nature. I think that with the help of A Certain Being, I have been forgiven and changed for the better...infinitely for the better. As such, I am 'chronically depressed'.

The public schools are an arena permeated by modern social norms that are ultimately destructive to a learning environment. In a place where deficiencies among pupils are regarded as matters of healthy individualized uniqueness, learning will suffer for anyone who does not work extremely hard. This need to work hard is, of course, not a bad thing. However, fewer students will feel compelled to do so anymore if they accept the absurd and idiotic notion present in our public schools that their ignorance and incapability is actually a sign of their own beautiful individual identities.

-ecthelion-

-Do you beleive that other people's views toward you are unimportant?
-Do you believe that conformity to anyone else's standards or wishes is wrong?
-Do you think people are generally good by nature?

No...
No...
No...

Right there with you ecthelion. I quess we, together, can be horribly depressed and ready to commit suicide. What nonsense they put out. What especially gets me is that last question.

-Do you think people are generally good by nature?

What angers me so much about this question is that it is forcing the postmodern notion of human nature down our throats and assuming that if we do not happen to agree (a concept that our idea of individual autonomy seeks to protect), we are in need of 'help'. I think people are inclined toward horrific acts of evil if they do not seek guidance in protecting their hearts against it. I think all the ills of society and the world today are caused (directly and indirectly) by the flawed state of human nature.

I couldnt agree with you more. You hear that repeatedly on a daily basis. I cant help to shake my head in remorse everytime I hear, "oh yea, humans are basically good." In bogs my mind to think of how lost man kind is to believe that hog-wash. It does take an outer being to incompass our heart to even come close to making us reasonably appropriate.

It's such a fallacy that is being preached to us these days on how good, kind-hearted mankind is. We are all wretched human beings who wouldnt take an instant to do evil if given the chance. It just coorilates with the high self-esteem hoax being pushed against us.

I hate to say it, but its true- Man is inherently evil by nature-nothing else.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

why the most progressive nation the world has ever known can%u2019t educate its children.

Because we're not the "most progressive nation the world has ever known." We were for much of our history, but we have not been a progressive nation (relative to the rest of the "civilized" world) for some time. We spend very little on education and we are the only G8 nation without universal health care. We spend more money than the entire rest of the world on our military, so we have the money--we just choose to spend it on empire instead of education. And why should big business or the government care if the masses are uneducated, they send their kids to elite private schools, and they can exploit an educated Third World labor market for their technical workloads anyway, for a fraction of the cost.

The one thing all these countries that beat us in education have in common is this: they spend more money on education. Period.

I know it’s not politically correct to segregate miscreants and punks but I believe it would bring amazing results.

What would bring amazing results would be a cultural re-thinking on what is of value in this country. This starts with a reevaluation of what constitutes quality and what constitutes success, and as a result, who our role models should be. This also means, more importantly, a reevaluation of how we spend our money. It's our government's abandoned moral imperative to spend to spend our money on things that better our society--military conquest doesn't qualify.

When vocational education and traditional education is underfunded in crime-ravaged (read: underfunded police) poor neighborhoods (read: decaying infrastructure), what hope is there for the youth? If single parents had help rearing their children (day care centers), and if the drug war were dismantled to help in turn dismantle gangs and organized crime in the inner city, and if education were better, we would see fewer thugs and more students. Social change takes work to accomplish, and our country has shown absolutely no commitment to social change.

Home schooling, I've noticed, turns out a lot of disconnected loons into the world who don't know how to interact with the world. I think home schooling also tells you something about a person's parents--that they are fearful and withdrawn. Perhaps that has something to do with the oddness I've noticed in so many home schooled students. I also don't think it's fair to say vouchers are the answer to public schools' failings without looking first at the causes of those failings: the cultural problems and the underfunding aforementioned.

The public school I attended was much like a public university: you could coast through there and learn absolutely nothing, or you could invest some energy and get an excellent education--it was entirely up to you and how much you wanted to put in. There was plenty of gang activity there and even a fatal stabbing--evidence of the cultural issues that must be remedied before or during an overhaul of the public school system. It was entirely too easy to fall in with a dangerous crowd--just like in real life.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Home schooling, I've noticed, turns out a lot of disconnected loons into the world who don't know how to interact with the world. I think home schooling also tells you something about a person's parents--that they are fearful and withdrawn. Perhaps that has something to do with the oddness I've noticed in so many home schooled students.

Wow. I quess you have had extensive association with a bunch of home schooled people. My bad. Because when I run into a homeschooled teen, I find that they are very bright and have the basic's of common sense that many public schooled students lack. It is also a fact that they perfrom & achieve higher standards when rated against those of public school's. They perform better in every area such as reading, language & math.

They also tend to be more decent and unlike many public school delinquents running around.

It is also the fastest growing form of education in America. It seems parents are waking up to the insanity going on in the public schools and see it fit to do homeschooling.

Homeschooling is based on an informed choice that is becoming ever more apparent because of the lack of education pertruding in America's public school's.

And about them all being "loones", well I still have yet to experience that. I, myself, have also come into contact with many and they are anything but. There intelligence is astounding and even their street smarts. And if anything, they have respect for elders/authority like no other.

Studies have shown that children who were homeschooled are as well, or better adjusted socially and emotionally than those who have gone to conventional schools. In experience, it is shown that children who are homeschooled tend to have more confidence and make decisions free of what their peers may think. Moreover, family ties tend to be much stronger.

So, before you go ripping up the homeschooled on notices, look at the facts and what is really being produced in almost every instance: a person well educated with real-world knowledge, a straight head, and morals.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

This post was edited by Hardballkid on Apr 06, 2005.

Wow. I quess you have had extensive association with a bunch of home schooled people. My bad.

I've known seven, all oddballs. Not bad people, but strange and not especially well-adjusted. One of them that I met in college wound up completely collapsing after a semester. He went from being innocent and conscientious to being an alcolholic, sex-crazed dropout. He was well-prepared in terms of academics, but had no preparation for life itself.

I've also seen plenty of home schooled students that appeared to be pretty strange on television. There's no need for you to apologize though.

It is also a fact that they perfrom & achieve higher standards when rated against those of public school's

Yes, but what home schooled students against what public school students? I'll bet they didn't compare them to students attending public school in, say Menlo Park, CA or Princeton, NJ--areas with public school systems whose average SAT acores exceed 1200. Or you could look at two of my classmates that scored over 1500 on the SAT--at a public school. I did OK too (let's just say I did better than the average public school student from Menlo Park or Princeton) and wasn't a good student by any measure. I can't imagine how well-prepared I would have been for college if I'd tried in high schoo.. I also can't imagine how unprepared for life I would have been if I hadn't attended a school.

We've already discussed the failings of the public school system. Comparing home schooling against a crippled system is not good logic. Why don't you compare homeschooled students to graduates of public schools that are properly funded?

Unless a parent is a trained educator, they are unqualified to teach their children anything other than morals, the birds and the bees, and other such material. Every advanced society in the world places the onus of education on their government. It's part of being a modern civilization. The minute we start neglecting education, the minute we start a slide back into the Dark Ages.

If homeschooling were to replace the public school system, we would have a patchwork of loosely regulated (if at all) units of education, and in the long run, the disorganization and lack of authoritative standards would diminish the body of knowledge that is needed to get along in the world. Who's to say some parents wouldn't teach their kids some nonsense like creation "science" instead of evolutionary biology? What happens when the poor kid tries to go to school to study to be a doctor? And what about parents that just don't give a damn and don't even try? By refusing to participate in the school system, you weaken the school system--and the student. That's not a good thing.

Homeschooling is based on an informed choice that is becoming ever more apparent because of the lack of education pertruding in America's public school's.

I went to a public school and I know enough to tell you that "pertruding" is not a word (perhaps you meant "pervasive?"), and that the plural of "school" is "schools." There are some people who have graduated from the same school who cannot even read. My point is, the failings of public school are due more to the failings of parents and politicians than they are to the failings of teachers or administrators (though they share some of the blame). Kids are already homeschooled inasmuch as most of what they learn with regard to language and character is learned from their parents.

For the rest, we need proper schools. Like every other country in the world that keeps whipping us in academics.

Studies have shown that children who were homeschooled are as well, or better adjusted socially and emotionally than those who have gone to conventional schools

Why don't you cite a couple of these studies you keep mentioning?

So, before you go ripping up the homeschooled on notices, look at the facts and what is really being produced in almost every instance: a person well educated with real-world knowledge, a straight head, and morals.

That's a pretty ridiculous claim. Are you intimately familiar with "almost every instance?"

"A straight head" and "morals" are up to the parents.

Reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic are up to schools, public or private.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

I've also seen plenty of home schooled students that appeared to be pretty strange on television.

Yes, televsion is a real driving force backing ideas on the ills of homeschooling. Are you talking about reality or scripted? Either way it doesnt matter. TV doesnt make or break an argument with me.

There's no need for you to apologize though.

You would like that wouldnt you. ;-)

I went to a public school and I know enough to tell you that "pertruding" is not a word (perhaps you meant "pervasive?"), and that the plural of "school" is "schools."

Thanks for the correction on grammer usage & such. Sorry- but Im being kinda lazy being on Spring Break & all. And yea, I know thats not a word, I meant protruding. So, my bad.

Who's to say some parents wouldn't teach their kids some nonsense like creation "science" instead of evolutionary biology?

Not this again, but I need to address it. To think that creation science is not science at all is just plain ignorance. It as much as a science as evolution is, if not more. There are schools, universities, churches, organizations, and scientists themsleves who take up this research and use "scientific methods" to prove themselves. Creation science isnt just about thumping the Bible around and saying look, even though thats pretty adequate enough for me.

So, what if they do teach there son/daughter creation. Evolution is as much as a relgin as creation is, but the only difference is that it is allowed in public schools. Personally, I beleieve they both should be taught or neither.

Afterall, creation science hasnt done any harm like that of the teachings of evoltuion has. Evolution has only fueled ideas such as nazism, abortion, drugs, racism, and even horrible methods and male chauvinism.

Unless a parent is a trained educator, they are unqualified to teach their children anything other than morals, the birds and the bees, and other such material.

Not true. As a matter of fact it is often said that it is easier for a mom/father who is not a certified teacher to homeschool her own children than it is for a mother who is a certified teacher. A qualified teacher runs the risk of “bringing school into the home” thereby missing opportunities to meet the unique needs of her child and failing to allow the child to pursue his or her own interests and aptitudes.

Because no one knows a child better than his/her own mother/father, they are well-suited to instruct and direct their child. It is well known that one-on-one teaching is more effective than teaching a crowd where each learner is at a different level. As well, the parents do not need to know everything but only need to help direct the child on how to find the information being looked for. This can be a very rewarding experience for both parent and child as the whole world opens up before them.

Plus, tutoring is always availible. And from what I hear, the homeschooling communtity is tigh-nit and is there if you run into problems.

Final thoughts:

Major findings: Demographics

• Home school parents have more formal education than parents in the general population; 88% continued their education beyond high school compared to 50% for the nation as a whole.

• The median income for home school families ($52,000) is significantly higher than that of all families with children ($36,000) in the United States.

• Almost all home school students (98%) are in married couple families. Most home school mothers (77%) do not participate in the labor force; almost all home school fathers (98%) do work.

• Home school students watch much less television than students nationwide; 65% of home school students watch one hour or less per day compared to 25% nationally.

• The median amount of money spent annually on educational materials is about $400 per home school student.

• The distribution of home school students by grade in grades 1-6 is consistent with that of all school children. Proportionally fewer home school students are enrolled at the high school level.

Major findings: Achievement

• Almost 25% of home school students are enrolled one or more grades above their age-level peers in public and private schools.

• Home school student achievement test scores are exceptionally high. The median scores for every subtest at every grade (typically in the 70th to 80th percentile) are well above those of public and Catholic/Private school students.

• On average, home school students in grades 1 to 4 perform one grade level above their age-level public/private school peers on achievement tests.

• The achievement test score gap between home school students and public/private school students starts to widen in grade 5.

• Students who have been home schooled their entire academic life have higher scholastic achievement test scores than students who have also attended other educational programs.

• There are no meaningful differences in achievement by gender, whether the student is enrolled in a full-service curriculum, or whether a parent holds a state issued teaching certificate.

• There are significant achievement differences among home school students when classified by amount of money spent on education, family income, parent education, and television viewing.

Heres where you can find that and more on the subject-Source

Having seen Bunk's reply- I pretty much done with the subject at hand.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

Yes, televsion is a real driving force backing ideas on the ills of homeschooling. Are you talking about reality or scripted? Either way it doesnt matter. TV doesnt make or break an argument with me.

Hey, nice bait-and-switch. What about the seven weirdos I mentioned from RL?

You would like that wouldnt you. ;-)

It didn't do anything for me, that's why I said it was unnecessary, but thanks for the gesture anyway.

To think that creation science is not science at all is just plain ignorance. It as much as a science as evolution is, if not more.

(HAH! Tell that to your biology professor!)

On the contrary, to call creation "science" a science at all is just plain ignorant. You obviously haven't been trained in the sciences--you weren't homeschooled, were you?

Creation "science" violates several tenets of the scientific method, including falsifiability, Occam's Razor, the inability to be tested empirically, and a lack of tentativeness, instead professes to be absolute truth. All science is subject to change--that's why evolution, even though we have seen it in action several times and documented it scientifically, and even though we know with almost certainty that it is true, and even though it is the only theory that explains diversity and complecity, is still just a theory. Real science has a rigor that creation "science" cannot approach. And it also has strict peer review. I've never seen a teleological, much less creation "science," paper published in a reputable scientific journal. And, as mentioned in that other thread, Creation "science" puts an assumption at the beginning and tries to justify it, whereas science at most has an hypothesis at the beginning and a conclusion at its logical place--the end.

Therefore, even if you believe creation "science" is true, it is not valid as a science. Sorry, that's just the way it is. That's why the men in white coats will always laugh you out of the room if you bring the topic up--it's not because they're Godless Heathenistic Liberal Conspirators or anything.

Afterall, creation science hasnt done any harm like that of the teachings of evoltuion has.

Ridiculous argument. The truth is the truth, irrespective of what people do with it. Just because a truth is uncomfortable or misinterpreted by some people doesn't mean that it is no longer a truth. You're showing the same crippled reasoning that handicaps creation "scientists" themselves and makes them irrational.

Since I already took this argument apart in the other thread, I'll leave it at this: people have twisted the source text for creation "science" into a tool for hatred, warfare, and subjugation for thousands of years. Two prominent examples are the Crusades and the Inquisition, not to mention more than a few burnings and other forms of torture and murder through the years.

Evolution has also been twisted by warped minds to perform similar acts of cruelty. But it has contributed to all of the life sciences in a profound way, and bettered our understanding in such crucial fields as medicine and genetics, for instance. Creation "science" can make no such claim.

Not true. As a matter of fact it is often said that it is easier for a mom/father who is not a certified teacher to homeschool her own children than it is for a mother who is a certified teacher.

"It is often said?" Are you kidding me? Is that the best you can come up with?

Whether or not it is "easier" first of all is irrelevant. What matters is that the kid gets a well-rounded education that will serve him in the real world.

A qualified teacher runs the risk of “bringing school into the home”

Wait a minute, are we talking about "home" "schooling" here? Isn't "bringing the school into the home" the idea?

thereby missing opportunities to meet the unique needs of her child and failing to allow the child to pursue his or her own interests and aptitudes.

My interests and aptitudes as a child were playing Nintendo and with my GI Joes. I suppose a homeschooling education would have allowed me to develop that skillset a bit more. What a tragedy that I missed out on the experience.

Because no one knows a child better than his/her own mother/father, they are well-suited to instruct and direct their child

Actually, parents are so fond of their children, and often conflate their desires and expectations with the child's desires and skills, that they can be the last person to really understand what their kids' skills and desires really are. Parents force their kids to do things they are uninterested or unskilled at doing all the time (in my case, it was playing the piano).

It is well known that one-on-one teaching is more effective than teaching a crowd where each learner is at a different level.

Perhaps it can be, and certainly if you had a trained teacher doing the instruction, but there is also something to be said for the competition you get only in a school setting.

Some kids bow out of this competition (like me for most of my life). And some kids excel (like I do now). Funny, it seems like the same dynamic applies at work too--that's life.

Home school parents have more formal education than parents in the general population; 88% continued their education beyond high school compared to 50% for the nation as a whole.

The median income for home school families ($52,000) is significantly higher than that of all families with children ($36,000) in the United States.

Almost all home school students (98%) are in married couple families. Most home school mothers (77%) do not participate in the labor force; almost all home school fathers (98%) do work.

Well, duh. Homeschool households by definition have to be financially stable, two-parent households. In a poor family, parents have to work. In a single-parent family, homeschooling is not an option.

This in turn explains the higher achievement scores. People from financially stable, educated families always will score higher as a group than average kids. If you took those same kids and put them in the public school system, they would still score high, in some cases higher, and in some cases lower.

It's a shame you're done with this topic, because you answered so few of my challenges, for instance, the fact that well-funded public schools have extremely high achievement, that homeschooling undermines participation and betterment of the school system, that a homeschooling educational system risks fragmentation of the body of basic knowledge, and an argument that I forgot to raise in my response to you but mentioned elsewhere: that homeschooling allows for the possibility of isolation and consequently the possibility of undetected abuse.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on Apr 06, 2005.

Hey, nice bait-and-switch. What about the seven weirdos I mentioned from RL?

Umm ok. But hey, what can I say? Your going to find weirdos no matter where you are & no matter what their background is.

(HAH! Tell that to your biology professor!)

Well, just because a person who wears a lab coat and professes a "theory" (relgion), that doesnt hold water- I dont tend to go to them & expect a whole lot.

that's why evolution, even though we have seen it in action several times and documented it scientifically, and even though we know with almost certainty that it is true, and even though it is the only theory that explains diversity and complecity, is still just a theory.

Where? Will you please explain Where/When we have seen evoltuion take place & that is documented. I mean not examples of mutations/changes. For we all know that that changes w/i a species is not evolution. Evolution never occurs today.

In any case, I admire your wishfull thinking.

Believing in creation or not (or a Supreme Being or not), I still dont see how evolution is taught in public schools and taken in by the public in large as an ultimate "truth" when one shred of good evidence has been proven.

We have seen time & time again the best examples for evoltion have proven to be all worthless. Let's go down the list with a few shall we:

The peppered moth
Isaac Asimov is the leading writer (fibber) in evolutonary science and he gives the peppered moth as the best leading evidence for evoltuion- sad really. It was noted that these moths (England, mid 1800's) were becoming darker as with the trees (from grim & smoke due to industrialization) thus making it harder for the birds to spot and make them dinner. So, the lighter moths were now being spotten and eaten. It was then noted that almost all the moths were now dark,96-98%, thus prving an evolution. however it is not, it is just a variation within species. Troughout the whle period mind you, the peppered moths continued to produce both dark & light varities. t is simply a color change back and forth within a stable species. So, there can be light & dark peppered moths- but they are still peppered moths and nothing else. Survival of the fittest-yes...evolution- No!

Darwins finches
Darwin, while in the Galapagos Islands found that the finches, while looking similiar, had developed a number of different habits, diet, and litle cross-breeding between them. So Darwin (back in England), knowing nothing of modern genetics and the boundary imposed by DNA to changes across basic types, imagined that perhaps these birds were different types-and evolution across types has indeed occured. Darwin gave many examples of variation w/i species, and tried to use them to prove evolution outside of true species. (All this was before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, the gene, the chromosome, DNA, and the DNA barrier to evolution across basic types.) So, in his ignorance, Darwin wrote down his theory- and evolutionists today cling to it, fearful to abondon it. Once again- its just variation in action.

Useless organs
First of all- You do not have any useless or unnecessary structures inherited from earlier life forms. Vestigial organs are suppose to be human body parts that are no longer needed or fulfill a purpose. However, there are no vestigial organs. No capable biologist today claims that any vestigial organs exist in human beings. In reality, the list of vestigial organs has decreased as knowledge/science has increased. One organ that was once declared useless was the Coccyx. The coccyx however has an important muscle attached to it that hold your pelvic organs in place. W/o it, one coulnt have a bowel, sit or stand upright. To date, not one dedicated evolutionist has been willing to have all his "vestigial organs" removed. But the world's waiting!

Subspecies changes
Evolutionists say that there are instances in which a species has divided into two seperate species. Not true- whatever it is becomes a subspecies such as flies that stopped breeding together. Producing a new subspecies is not evolution. Evolution would require going across the species line, not developing variations within it.

Radiodating & Radiocarbon dating
These dating methods are just out right false and are made on assumptions. Thses dating methods can only have accuracy IF certain assumptions ALWAYS apply to EACH specimen that is tested.

Species evolution never occurs by means of natural selection. Evolutionists have ransacked the plant and animal kingdoms for examples of cross- species evolution and have been unable to find them. What they have found, however, are some interesting examples of variations within species, such as the peppered moth.

Evolution teaches that all organs developed by chance, and that some eventually hapened to have a reason for existence. Later on, quantities of these useless organs tagged along when one species evolved into a new one. Thus, if evolution where true, there ought to bed large numbers of useless organs in our bodu. But scientific research discloses that there is not one.

Godless Heathenistic Liberal Conspirators or anything.

Well, maybe not conspirators as much so.

There are reasons why evolutionists are so concerned to hold on to a theory that has no evidence to support it, one which has repeatedly been disproved. These are important reasons why these men of "knowledge" cling so fanatically to a falsehood:

1. Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions.

2. A way to hide from God

3. Sexual freedom

4. It will help destroy religion

Here are some quotes from real scientists who dont take it as "fact" as the blind others.

"evolution is baselees and quite incredible." - Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement in Science.

"The theory [of evoltuion] is a scientific mistake." - Louis Agassiz [Hardvard University professor]

"To my mind, the theory doen not stand up at all." -H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evoltuion"

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the preogress of science. It is useless." - Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie [Director of Research at the National Center of science Research in France]

Evolution- A theory in Crisis...

"Professing To Be Wise, They Became Fools" - ROMANS 1:21-25

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

This post was edited by Hardballkid on Apr 08, 2005.

You, sir, are grievously misinormed. Let me help you out.

Your going to find weirdos no matter where you are & no matter what their background is.

NaO, for instance...

Well, just because a person who wears a lab coat and professes a "theory" (relgion), that doesnt hold water- I dont tend to go to them & expect a whole lot.

You, and other creation "scientists" are fond of putting the word "theory" in quotation marks, as if that lessens the truth of evolution. What you don't understand is the definition of the word "theory" in scientific jargon is different than the definition of the word outside of the sciences.

In the sciences, a "theory" is a model or a framework for understanding. It is not just a "guess" as to what happened. Evolution is a model and framework for understanding the origin of species.

How can you even try to debunk a theory when you don't even know what a theory is?

*sigh* such ignorance is truly a wonder. Oh well, onward and upward--time to explain one last time why they theory holds water and creation "science" does not.

Where? Will you please explain Where/When we have seen evoltuion take place & that is documented. I mean not examples of mutations/changes. For we all know that that changes w/i a species is not evolution. Evolution never occurs today.

There are plenty of examples. In the last decade, a breed of salmon has evolved and split into two separated species. One species is larger and goes out to sea, the other stays in lakes and is smaller. For such a change to occur, DNA must mutate. This means that genes have changed and we have observed them change--and this isn't the only such case. If genes change, and every living thing must come from another living thing, and fossil records indicate that early organisms were simple, and later ones increasingly complex (with intermediate forms inbetween), then it's pretty difficult to write off evolution. No one has managed to do so, including Ken Ham and the creation "scientists."

In any case, I admire your wishfull thinking.

I'm starting to think you should admire anyone with the capcity to think, period.

I don't want evolution to be true (with regard to the "wishfull" (sic) part). I have no reason to want it to be true. I accept it, not because I want to believe in evolution, but because it's so well-documented and universally explanatory and makes so much sense that as a rational being I have no choice but to accept it as truth.

You, OTOH, have reasons (religious fundamentalism, Biblical literalism) to want evolution not to be true. So it seems to me the burden of proof is on your shoulders--and yet you have no ammunition. Because the truth is utterly defensible in and of itself against all forms of deceit.

Isaac Asimov is the leading writer (fibber) in evolutonary science and he gives the peppered moth as the best leading evidence for evoltuion- sad really.

Aasimov might be the only writer that you understand on the topic of evolution, but he is not the "leading" one. He's not even a scientist, he's a writer.

however it is not, it is just a variation within species.

You just shot yourself down again. What do you think causes this variation? Obviously, a change in DNA. Are you claiming there's some sort of invisible line that disallows such changes over time to result in a new species entirely? If so, then again, the burden of proof is on you.

the boundary imposed by DNA to changes across basic types

Oh, so you do actually believe that. Amazing. Where's your evidence?

(All this was before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, the gene, the chromosome, DNA, and the DNA barrier to evolution across basic types.

Gregor Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin, genius. This "DNA barrier" has not been discovered, because it does not exist.

and evolutionists today cling to it, fearful to abondon it

...and why, pray tell, are they so "fearful to abandon it?" Frankly, this sounds like the raving of a madman.

Evolution would require going across the species line, not developing variations within it.

Variations within species prove variations outside of species until you can prove this mythical "line" to exist.

Useless organs

This entire line of "reasoning" is based on a misinterpretation of what denotes vestigial organs. They are not organs that lack function, they are organs that are clearly inherited from another species--for example, the nubs on a python that used to be legs. All a vestigial organ is is one that used to be a part of another structure.

As for dating things, it's not an exact science, but it's gotten pretty reliable. Carbon-14 dating is reliable to within less than a century's standard deviation up to 50,000 years. There are other isotopes for measuring older materials, but I'm unfamiliar with the specifics on them.

Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions.

A way to hide from God

Sexual freedom

It will help destroy religion

Again, why would it help destroy religion, and why would they want to do that enough to dedicate their entire lives to it? It's a ridiculous argument. What in the heck does evolution have to do with accountability, hiding from God, and sexual freedom? You can believe in evolution and be very religious. You can be an atheist and be very moral. Character is not a product of scientific knowledge or religion.

"evolution is baselees and quite incredible." - Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement in Science.

Boy, is this desparation or what? You're quoting an electrical engineer from the early part of the last century on evolution?! Gimme a break!!

"The theory [of evoltuion] is a scientific mistake." - Louis Agassiz [Hardvard University professor]

Yes, Hardvard (sic) University Professor--in the 1800s!!! Also the son of a preacher who made it his life's work to go after Darwin.

"To my mind, the theory doen not stand up at all." -H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evoltuion"

Yes, a physicist. At least you finally got someone from the past 50 years this time, but wrong discipline.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the preogress of science. It is useless." - Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie [Director of Research at the National Center of science Research in France]

Ah, yes:

Lie #315. E.T. Babinski actually contacted French authorities. They revealed that Louis Bounoure never served as Director or even a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter.

The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but adapted from Jean Rostand, a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy. Rostand also wrote that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190).

The end of Bounoure's quotation is from his book, "Determinism and Finality." It runs, "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."

In other words, Hovind's quote is complete fiction and he is too incompetent and dishonest to correct it or even check up on it.

--from
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/P.html

So, you cited one fabricated quote, two quotes from people in the wrong discipline (one from over a half-century ago), and one quote from a 19th century Christian. Good job.

In any group of people, even scientists, you're going to find delusional nutjobs. But even with this phenomena in effect, you couldn't produce a single relevant or meaningful quote against evolution. Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on Apr 09, 2005.

--time to explain one last time why they theory holds water and creation "science" does not.

Im my last post I didnt mention creation once. Im not proving creation as much as just debunking the ill-logical explanations of evolution. But I am implying an alternative.

For such a change to occur, DNA must mutate. This means that genes have changed and we have observed them change--and this isn't the only such case.

A mutational change is not a normal variation reshufling of the DNA code, but an actual change in one tiny item in the codes information. So, yeah.

Gregor Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin, genius.

Noo. Mendel was a creationist. Go back and look that one up.

This "DNA barrier" has not been discovered, because it does not exist.

Genetics scientists tell us that all variation occur4s in living things only within each type, and never from one type to another. It is the complicated DNA code within each plant and animal type that erects the great wall, which cannot be crossed. There is no evidence that any time, in all the history of the world, even one new true species has formed form another species. Yet evolutionary teachings require that such dramatic changes would have had to occur thousands upon thousands of times.

What do you think causes this variation? Obviously, a change in DNA. Are you claiming there's some sort of invisible line that disallows such changes over time to result in a new species entirely? If so, then again, the burden of proof is on you.

What I am saying is that whenever we may try to do w/i a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exisits on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it but no exit through the wall.

Carbon-14 dating is reliable to within less than a century's standard deviation up to 50,000 years.

To begin with, most carbon-14 datings are tossed out. It is anything but reliable. It was invented by William Libby. From the beginning-and constantly thereafter- he and his associates procceded on the assumption that 1) the way everything is now, so it has always been, and 20 no cpntaminating factor has ever disturbed any object testes with radiodasting techniques. The result is nica, tidy little theory that is applied to samples, w/o regard for the immense uncertanties of how the past may of affected them individually and collectively. Many ignorant assumptions are based in every testing that have never been proven that the c-14 sample goes along with Each One of the assumptions applied to it. Accuracy? No!

And Im glad you found all the quotes ammussing. I can get many more if you would like. Ones said w/i the last centruy at that. ;-)

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

This post was edited by Hardballkid on Apr 12, 2005.

Im my last post I didnt mention creation once. Im not proving creation as much as just debunking the ill-logical explanations of evolution. But I am implying an alternative.

Um, what about this?

Believing in creation or not (or a Supreme Being or not), I still dont see how evolution is taught in public schools and taken in by the public in large as an ultimate "truth" when one shred of good evidence has been proven.

Every single piece of disinformation you cited in that post is directly traceable to creation "scientist" Ken Ham and his propaganda machine called Answers in Genesis. No one else but that organization and its adherents is delusional enough to make or support such ridiculous claims.

You didn't have to specifically mention creation in light of this fact--it's clear where your information comes from.

You can call evolution illogical all you want. But to me, the arguments you have presented (such as invisible DNA barriers and a complete misunderstanding of vestigial organs and geological and astronomical time) are illogical.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

directly traceable to creation "scientist" Ken Ham and his propaganda machine called Answers in Genesis.

Ohh really. Propaganda? What do you think public schools are then? Ken Ham (who is quite interesting just for the fact that he is a creationist who resembles a monkey himself) isnt forcing it down anyones throat as the public schools are with evolution.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

The difference is evolution is fact and creation "science" is fiction. It is the job of schools to educate children in factual science, therefore, it is their job to teach them the theory of evolution.

You cannot call dissemination of the truth sans agenda propaganda. You can call the dissemination of disinformation with an agenda (creation "science") propaganda--in fact, there's no better word for it.

Christianity has a long history of forged artifacts and other forms of disinformation, and this is just the latest fad in that hallowed tradition.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Well, I must congratulate you for writing several hundred words of complete bollocks.

Aside from anything else,as Mclain pointed out, Isaac Asimov is hardly credible as a source since although he had degrees in Chemistry, he spent much of his life writing science fiction novels. Chemistry. Not a biologist, zooologist or the like.

Also as somewhat of a scientist myself, dont try and pull the crap that our own second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. It applies to closed systems only, and the Earth is not a closed system; its powered by the sun.

One of the underpinning ideas in science that you have to understand is that a theory is not so much what proves to be true, but a model that appears to fit what appears to happen.

As far as a reasonably solid proof of evolution is concerned, there is the case at hand of the mosquitoes in the london underground that have become their own totally new species, genetically seperate from any other.

Quote: "Thus, if evolution where true, there ought to bed large numbers of useless organs in our bodu. But scientific research discloses that there is not one."

Why the bloody hell would the body keep an organ that takes up valuable nutrients sitting around doing bugger all?

I also seem to recall that a bundle of cells with certain inhibitors removed from its genes (frog, i think) started to grow structures that have not been seen in reptiles for millions of years, indicative that if the structures are not present in physical form, then they are at least present in code form.

Sir Deimos, Beater of Ass.

dont try and pull the crap that our own second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.

The Scond Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy)says that the universe had to be perfect when it started, otherwise it would totally run donw today. It repudiates the possibility that either matter or lufe could evolve into greater complexity.
Albert Einstein declared that, of all the laws of physics, the two laws of thermodynamics would never be negated or replaced.

Basically, the Second Law states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces.

And your argument- Ohh- its an open system ehh.

The evolutionist argument goes this way- Energy from the sun flows to our world and makes it an open system. As long as the sun sends this energy, it will fuel evolutionary development here. In contrast, a closed system is one that neither gains nor gives up energy to its surroundings. Therefore, sunshine negates the Second Law,—in spite of what Einstein and all the other physicists say.

They argument effctively nullifies Second Law everywhere in the universe, except in the cold of outer space and on planets distant from stars. Evolution is apparently progressing even on our moon, for it is receiving as much energy from the sun as we are. In addition, there ought to be a lot of evolution going on inside stars, for they have the best "open systems" of all.

An mass entrance of heat energy into a so-called "open system" (in this case, solar heat entering our planet) would not decrease entropy. The entropy continues apace, just as the scientists said it would.

"Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."—*John Ross, Chemical Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 4 [Harvard University researcher].

"If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it [your theory] but to collapse in deepest humiliation."—*Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74

It is a striking fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics points mankind to its Creator.

As far as a reasonably solid proof of evolution is concerned, there is the case at hand of the mosquitoes in the london underground that have become their own totally new species, genetically seperate from any other.

As far as that goes...Do you have some solid evidence for that. A credible website maybe or soemthing? I would like to read/see it for myself. I tend not to base my facts on hersay.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

The Scond Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy)says that the universe had to be perfect when it started, otherwise it would totally run donw today.

Since the entropy of the universe never decreases with time, and since friction increases entropy, the universe has less entropy the farther back in time you venture. Sooner or later, you will have a universe with no entropy -- that is, total order -- and infinite temperature. Total order cannot be achieved on a large scale, so the universe must also have been extremely small at that point.

The Scond Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy)says that the universe had to be perfect when it started, otherwise it would totally run donw today. It repudiates the possibility that either matter or lufe could evolve into greater complexity.
Albert Einstein declared that, of all the laws of physics, the two laws of thermodynamics would never be negated or replaced.

Inaccurate. In the short term your view does indeed appear to be so, but in the long term it holds true.

Basically, the Second Law states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces.

And your argument- Ohh- its an open system ehh.

The evolutionist argument goes this way- Energy from the sun flows to our world and makes it an open system. As long as the sun sends this energy, it will fuel evolutionary development here. In contrast, a closed system is one that neither gains nor gives up energy to its surroundings. Therefore, sunshine negates the Second Law,—in spite of what Einstein and all the other physicists say.

They argument effctively nullifies Second Law everywhere in the universe, except in the cold of outer space and on planets distant from stars. Evolution is apparently progressing even on our moon, for it is receiving as much energy from the sun as we are. In addition, there ought to be a lot of evolution going on inside stars, for they have the best "open systems" of all.

Where did you get that evolution on the moon/sun jazz from? Dont you dare try and put words in my mouth or I'll stick my fist in yours.

Im putting to you that in a closed system there would be an exponential increase in entropy. Without an outside source such as the sun, there would be an extremely short lifespan before the energy in that system dissipated to such a degree that it is practically useless. The evolution of life on the moon/in the sun is not the issue at hand.

Hence, with energy constantly flowing downhill in the one particular system, it would not have the order to form itself into higher complex structures unless it had a source (such as the sun) that offsets that loss. Eventually, of course, the sun will cease to exist in a form that produces heat (since the sun itself is an open system, dissipating heat and energy to the rest of the universe), and will eventually form a dead body in space of particles that simply do not vibrate. Hence, the solar system will continue to trade energy between itself and the rest of the universe for the next few billion years until that too is as close as can be to absolute zero. (bearing in mind the third law, of course, since an infinitely low temperature divided across the infinity of space yields a temperrature "density" of sorts that although is as close to nothing as makes no odds, is never actually quite nothing.)

QED.

Hence, to quote, there is no windchill at absolute zero, ha ha.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Sir Deimos, Beater of Ass.

This post was edited by Deimos on Apr 12, 2005.

Basically, the Second Law states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces.

Nope. You've shown a complete misunderstanding of biology, astronomy, and geology heretofore. Time to jump into another couple of fields you know nothing about: physics and chemistry.

Again, let me help you out.

Let's look at the 2nd law from the position of chemistry first. The 2nd law doesn't dictate increasing disorder. It predicts a diffusion of energy in all processes.

Consider this: there are chemical compounds that contain less energy than the sum of their parts (such as DNA). This means that the 2nd law supports the spontaneous formation of complex compounds from atoms, not the other way around.

I remember reading of an experiment conducted at the University of Chicago (you know, the place where they first split the atom) in which they recreated the atmosphere of the primordial earth based on our best estimates of what it would have been like, and then ran an arc through it to simulate lightning. Amino acids formed as a result. Amino acids are the building blocks of all proteins, and hece life itself.

As long as the sun sends this energy, it will fuel evolutionary development her

While UV radiation does increase the rate of mutation of DNA, that is not really a good way to put it. The sun's energy is the source of almost life on the earth, aside from a few organisms that survive on geothermal energy. To call it the fuel for evolution is too narrow--it is the fuel for life itself. Evolution is simply a fact of life, so as long as life exists, so too does evolution.

Anyway, to continue tearing your pseudoscience apart:

The 2nd law says that in a closed system, the average disorder will rise with time. The 3rd law says that energy is order, and that disorder exhibits itself as a release of energy--known as heat. We are constantly being bombarded by energy from the sun. Hence, the earth, and life itself are not closed systems. Since you apparently don't understand this distinction, let me explain: a closed system does not transact energy with any other system. Since we transact gravitational and electromagnetic energy with the sun and the other planets, the earth cannot be called a closed system. Since the species of the eearth transact energy with one another, neither can life be called a closed system--there are external forces, such as the sun and natural selection.

If your interpretation of the 2nd Law were correct, procreation would be impossible--starting with two humans and winding up with three is an increase in order. It would also be impossible to freeze things, since cold is a form of order (absolute zero being the theoretical zero-entropy state). When you chill or freeze something, you are imposing order on it, which requires that heat be taken from it, and released as entropy elsewhere--a transaction that would be impossible with the creation "scientist" laughable misinterpretation of thermodynamics.

The universe is a closed system--but that doesn't mean that constituent parts of it (galaxies, solar systems, planets) are closed systems. The 2nd law says that disorder as an average is increasing in the universe. This doesn't mean that order cannot increase in the constituent open systems within the universe. It does mean that as order increases within these open systems, they must release disorder into the universe, thus fueling overall entropy in the closed system.

To summarize, nothing about the 2nd law says that the open, constituent components of a closed system cannot become more (or less) ordered over time--just that the overall average of the closed system becomes more disordered. Order arises from disorder not just in life, but in such things as crystal formations and snowflakes.

"Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."—*John Ross, Chemical Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 4 [Harvard University researcher].

All that would mean, if true, and if applicable to the 2nd law in the physical and not chemical context (a chemist and not a physicist said it, though after your last set of quotes I don't trust any of your documentation) is that the overall chaos in the open systems on earth is increasing as an average with time. Considering how we have global warming (entropy always releases heat) and increasing political chaos, it appears the 2nd law does apply to our planet--but that doesn't mean that order cannot still arise from chaos, it just means that as an average, chaos is increasing.

It is a striking fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics points mankind to its Creator.

It is a striking fact that the 2nd law does no such thing. You don't understand it, or any other scientific principle. That's why you should leave the sciences to the educated and just go back to blind faith.

As far as that goes...Do you have some solid evidence for that. A credible website maybe or soemthing? I would like to read/see it for myself. I tend not to base my facts on hersay.

Yes, you prefer outright disinformation...

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Thanks Hardballkid. I was on track towards a similar post, but from a different perspective.

I've been homeschooled my whole life (Although I don't really qualify as completely "home" schooled, since especially now most classes/activities take place elsewhere). As a result, I've met hundreds of homeschoolers, kids and parents... and I have to say, you're both right in some ways. Such a large group of people can never be classified as one way or another.

Homeschooling is based on an informed choice that is becoming ever more apparent because of the lack of education pertruding in America's public school's.

In many cases, yes it is. In fact, at the time that I began homeschooling, we were living in Georgia, where the public schools were ranked 48th out of 51 states. Needless to say, it was a factor.

However, many homeschool their kids because of the lack of religious education in schools, and the percieved "immorality" of the public environment. They tend to be strict, withdrawn, and terribly overprotective. Given that kind of closed environment, Mac's anaysis is unfortunatly often correct. I've met many. It's kind of sad, but then again the public school system doesn't exactly have a perfect track record either when it comes to preparing kids for life in the world.

Even among myself and my closest home-schooled friends, I won't deny a certain oddness. But frankly, it's the kind of oddness I like. On top of being the nicest and most creative people I know, they are undoubtably unique, all qualities which I think public education has a tendency to hammer out of people.

They perform better in every area such as reading, language & math.

If someone wants to learn something, and is given the resources to learn the way they want to, then they will naturally excel. Makes a hell of a lot more sense then cramming information into a person just to have then regurgitate it for a test and forget it five minutes later on their way to the next station. One funny thing about home-schoolers is that we tend to be good at teaching others. Not through school, but things like Taekwon-do, swimming, snowboarding, skiing, and so forth. I guess the deal is, if you want to learn teaching, don't go to a school...

In many ways, schools are no longer remaining in the domain of knowlege and ideas, but being made to raise your kids for you. Parents who send their kids away the minute they're old enough for daycare will turn around and blame the school when it's grade three and their kids are getting F's and "need Ritalin". Going to school should involve learning to live, not being instructed on how to live. But that's the new expectation. The entire structure is set up so that from day one, "The facts of life" are being not so subtly programmed in. 'Do this right or you're a failure.' 'Nice drawing, but you used the wrong color, you get an F' (true story). 'This is how things are, and if you have a problem with it there's something wrong with you.'

And as a result, not only is the enthusiasm for learning crushed pretty fast, but the social structure of the school becomes molded to the ideals of fitting with the norm, in-crowds, exclusionism and degradation.

I can't honestly say that home-schooling is a cure-all. I think public education has merit, but it is going in the wrong direction, towards more cramming of knowlege and rabid testing and less allowances for children to explore what they want to learn and the world around them without being constantly being subjected to other people's cookie cutter standards.

EDIT: (Mac posted while I was typing)

I've also seen plenty of home schooled students that appeared to be pretty strange on television

I've seen a lot of murderers on television who went to school. I guess people who go to school are mostly murderers.

Honestly, why would they be on TV if they weren't wierdos?

I also can't imagine how unprepared for life I would have been if I hadn't attended a school.

You seem to assume that the average homeschooler does nothing but sit around on his ass all day developing fanciful ideas about life beyond the fence, and is blown away by the deep dark world out there. We've got jobs, attend university, have friends, etc.
None of my friends are idiots, zealots, perverts, or drug addicts. You may have met some loons, but you can be just as fucked up going to school as not.

Unless a parent is a trained educator, they are unqualified to teach their children anything

You'd be surprised how many qualified teachers are homeschooling parents, and how often they end up saying say that anyone can teach anything to their children if they are willing to learn. Of course, once a certain level is reached, you do need help.

Look, the term "Home"schooling is in many cases decieving.

Kids are already homeschooled inasmuch as most of what they learn with regard to language and character is learned from their parents. For the rest, we need proper schools.

I don't disagree. But for some people, putting their kids through the school system the way it is now is not worth it. There are other ways to impart knowlege, including private classes, study groups, learning activities and just plain personal interest investigation. I've done em' all.

By refusing to participate in the school system, you weaken the school system--and the student.

I guess you weren't the one calling for smaller class sizes. :p

Every advanced society in the world places the onus of education on their government.

I just don't see how forcing everyone to educate their kids the same way is beneficial to society. People aren't all the same.

If a perfect public education system existed, there would be no need for homeschooling. But it doesn't.

...tired, going to bed. I've probably left a loophole or two in my logic. Feel free to expose it.

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

This post was edited by Bunk on Apr 06, 2005.

Some good points made.

I guess I'm arguing against homeschooling as a replacement for public education, not as an alternative. There are certain rural situations, and certain handicap situations, and even some situations in which the school system is SO bad, that you don't want to send your kid there. I understand that. I still think that unless there is physical danger, having your kid participate in the system is good not just for the kid, but for the system. You could supplement the education if you didn't feel it was good enough. Regardless, even though I disagree with homeschooling in these cases, I can understand it and think it should be allowed, but regulated.

One other thing to consider as an argument against homeschooling is that abuse cannot be detected if a kid never leaves the house--and this is a situation that can only happen in a homeschooling environment (not the abuse, but the isolation). Many times, abused children are only helped because a teacher notices bruises, or a child confides in a teacher.

What I have a problem with is parents who refuse to send their kids to school out of a fear, not for their physical well-being, but that their kid might wind up being their own person--not a clone of their parents. Parents who have control issues as the motivating factor for homeschooling are doing their child a tremendous disservice, as are parents who are afraid of their children learning science that is in conflict with their religious beliefs. They can force their children to attend Sunday school, after all. This is the wrong reason to homeschool a kid, and frankly I think it results in people that are not well-adjusted. I live in the Bible belt, so the homeschooled kids I've come into contact with have been of that ilk. And homeschooling based on that type of motivation is wrong.

One other point I would make is against giving tax breaks to homeschooled students. If parents want to homeschool their children, they should go ahead and pay the same taxes. The public schools are underfunded already, and the revenue they would lose from homeschooling wouldn't help. Education, infrastructure, and other public services are funded by tax money, and all private citizens must bear the burden for these things, because they make our society better--whether or not we directly use each of these services.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

One other point I would make is against giving tax breaks to homeschooled students. If parents want to homeschool their children, they should go ahead and pay the same taxes. The public schools are underfunded already, and the revenue they would lose from homeschooling wouldn't help. Education, infrastructure, and other public services are funded by tax money, and all private citizens must bear the burden for these things, because they make our society better--whether or not we directly use each of these services.

I somewhat disagree. If the funding system is setup properly, the school should receive the right amount of money for the amount of students it has. If it has one less student, it should only loose the resources that would've been necessary to support that student, so there is no net gain or loss. That this is not the case sounds more like a fault of the government and the funding process than of homeschooling.

"Nurture your mind with great thoughts, for you will never go any higher than you think."

Wow. I quess you have had extensive association with a bunch of home schooled people. My bad. Because when I run into a homeschooled teen, I find that they are very bright and have the basic's of common sense that many public schooled students lack. It is also a fact that they perfrom & achieve higher standards when rated against those of public school's. They perform better in every area such as reading, language & math.

Sorry dude, he's right on. There are probably parents out there who can raise and school their children such that they are socially well adjusted. The majority do not. Homeschooled children in my experience don't end up having enough time with peers to develop social skills.

Homeschooler advocates might try to parade their social awkwardness as "non-standard thinking" and a rebellion against "social conformity." That's horse manure. These kids really just have no idea how to interact with other people.

I was friends with a homeschooler in middle school. He had a great deal more trouble in social situations than anyone else. And it wasn't just because he was smart. Even around the other, smart, shy kids, there was still an extra degree of awkwardness.

I then dated a homeschooler. I spent a good deal of time with her and her brother. Real, unedited conversation with her brother:

(I'm sitting there playing a computer game, showing him how to pull off some trick)

Her brother: My butt is warm.

(I've gotten use to oddball comments like this from him. It's very apparent why he says them -- his parents never take him outside the house and into situations where he talks with other people or his peer group. I don't make any comments.)

... a few minutes pass....

Her brother: Oh! I know why! I forgot to wear underwear!

(He runs off, to put some on apparently)

He wasn't kidding or joking in any way. Now, guess how old he was when he said this.

...

14. Do you think this kid is in any way prepared for the real world? I don't. Luckily he's going to public school for highschool. Might not learn science and math as well, but at least he'll know how to communicate with other human beings.

"Nurture your mind with great thoughts, for you will never go any higher than you think."

I love America.

As do I, my service to her precedes me!

That's why It's extremely upsetting to see a report which showed that U.S. students' scores on math and science tests were well below those of teens from around the world.

I speak on this because I was there and I was a contributor! Yeah my 12th grade year was 1994 but it was just the same as today. I didn't give one shit about what grades I got. I didn't do much homework and if there was some type of long term project you can forget it, I wasn't doing it. Period, end of discussion!

I took algebra 1 three times I believe. I took english 9 and 10 two times and my senior year was a mix bag of 10th, 11th and 12th grade classes. Am I stupid, that's probably what you are thinking. Actually, no I'm not stupid but I didn't exactly have the role models to set me right from the beginning. My surroundings did not foster a sense of self worth. This is partly why to this day I still have a very pessimistic outlook on life. Yeah, it's hurt me big time! I say that society is partly to blame for my current demeanor, after all society shapes us from the very day we start interacting with it.

The American society as I see it is a big pile of fucking dog shit. On the home front we SUCK at raising our kids. We throw them into a society of greed, callousness and a sense that money brings happiness. It's sickening! There is no morality in the American society, it's all about *ME*, what can *I* get, what will *YOU* do for *ME*, etc...

This does nothing to foster good values in our school careers! I'm living proof that the American society is FUCKED UP!