No "Real Science" = No Diploma!

Discussion in 'Homeschooling in the News' started by JenniferErix, Apr 20, 2008.

  1. P.H.

    P.H. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    The idea that different genetic combinations is similar to brand new genetic information needs to be challenged again, also. It's the old micro-to-macro debate. I'm just passing through to see if there was any more conversation about this and see that there's not, though others have previously mentioned it on this thread. I'll check the fridge to see if at least there's some cheesecake someone saved for me.

    'Didn't see any. Oh well, that's OK. I'll leave a somewhat unpolished message about "Mr. and Mrs. Orange" and be on my way to a family gathering where I'll notice that I'm the only offspring of my parents who inherited fine, straight hair. My three wonderful siblings all have beautiful, thick, very curly hair. Observing that, this morning gives rise to this story:

    Mr. and Mrs. Orange both inherited one red gene from one of their parents and one yellow gene from the other parent. The combo of red and yellow produced their orange color. They each passed only one of their color genes to each of their four children. Of course, neither, technically, passed the orange gene on, though they did have two baby oranges. The red and yellow genes became separated in the reproductive process, and only one gene--either red or yellow--was available to be passed to each child. Mrs. Orange contributed a red gene twice and a yellow gene twice. Statistically, not all families work out exactly this way, but Mr. Orange also contributed a red gene twice and a yellow gene twice. This showed up in their children like this: RR, Ry, Ry, and yy. They, not knowing the theory of genetics nor how colors combine--some dominant and some recessive--were shocked to see they had produced two offspring apparently quite different from themselves! A baby red and a baby yellow! (Along with the two baby oranges.)

    If one baby yellow grows up and marries a red, all of their children will be baby oranges! They will run the risk of someone telling them that such change is similar to the alleged change from one type of creature into another. Though it is true that if the Yellow family only marries other Yellows, they will never give rise to Reds or Oranges, it is not true that they are no longer in the Color family nor is it true that their offspring could ever change into Greens, without the addition of Blue genes through intermarriage.

    That's the basis of change on the genetic level: introducing new genetic information from new parents, but the information is already present in the new parent. Always has been. Nothing genetically new magically appeared by chance, even though a new-appearing characteristic did. The other Miss Yellow married a Mr. Blue, and they gave birth to four little Greens! Not really evolution, though it's called micro-evolution, because they had never seen green babies before. If all the Blues & Greens met disaster, eventually the family would degenerate back to yellows--hardly an increase in information. Nope. A net decrease. Call it natural selection or breeding. Happens all the time. I've never heard a creationist argue this. But I hear evolutionists use this example as a mini example of macro change on a regular basis.

    Macro evolution supposes that brand new information can arise spontaneously, giving rise to increasing complexity, when selective breeding actually breeds OUT certain genes. It's actually the opposite of the macro scenario. Various combo's are possible in reproduction--but only using genetic information that is already there.

    Well, thought I'd leave this illustration, because this is a discussion about teaching theories, and micro-to-macro doesn't hold up to very many tests, in my humble opinion. I hate to eat and run, I mean post and run, but we've got miles to drive today, and the amazing woman who bequeathed me with straight hair is waiting with hugs and kisses for us all, and I have an essay to read to her, and my older bro and I plan to play a trumpet duet. It will be a fine day. I'll be back, though. Blessings to everyone as we sort out this fascinating subject!
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2008
  2. P.H.

    P.H. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0

    Shelley, I'm trying to get back to some of these links, including your "Stand to Reason" one. There's a lot to think about in them, and it'll be a while before I thoroughly explore them; but I did get a chance to read STR today and want to quote part of it which seems to pertain to this discussion:


    "However, the exclusion of intelligent creation from the realm of science is arbitrary for two reasons. First, the fact is there is no clear line of demarcation between science and non-science. Second, even if there were such a line, it wouldn't automatically mean that well justified conclusions from other disciplines could not have a bearing on scientific thinking."


    The author developed this topic in a way I had never considered before. Thanks for the link.
     
  3. P.H.

    P.H. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Though I haven't had time to read in all the links provided here as much as I'd hoped, I have remembered this discussion. An analogy came to me the other day:

    Trying to do science (the study of creation) without taking into account the influence of The Creator might be similar to trying to study photosynthesis without allowing consideration of the sun.
     
  4. RoadRunner

    RoadRunner New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    The more I study science, the more respect I have for the Creator.

    Cosmos (order) does not come from chaos.

    I have an engineering degree, if that matters to you.

    And about the fruitflies? Guess what, they are still just fruitflies. They are not mosquitoes or anything else...
     
  5. FreeSpirit

    FreeSpirit New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow.

    All I can say is in my experience, faith is stronger than fact. Whatever you believe IS.

    You can change ANYTHING with faith. Or else there would not be miracles that defy all natural laws.

    You can strip a person of everything material. You can force the universe laws upon them. But NO ONE can take away your faith.

    If I'm placing bets, it's not on science.

    Incidently, I learned both theories, evolution and creation. I needed neither to have a successful job or survive in society. So who cares which one is taught? I think it's not the scientists but the psychologists who are concerned with religion in the schools and force evolution as fact. Psychologists believe children are like animals to be trained. In reality children are spiritual beings who deserve to not have their faith weakened.

    But spirits with little faith to lean upon ARE easier to control.
     
  6. Actressdancer

    Actressdancer New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    9,225
    Likes Received:
    0
    And that, Ladies and Gentleman, is a powerful statement.
     
  7. Emma's#1fan

    Emma's#1fan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,478
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is why psychologist Dr. James Dobson believes so strongly in homeschooling, although he is all for Christian teachers in the public system.
     
  8. P.H.

    P.H. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    This thread has so many "branches," and all of them are challenging to think about. You gals have done it again--made me "ruminate" about things and try to wrap some words around an idea. Here goes! I hope you can see I'm just trying to peel back some layers here and not really contradict anyone about these particular points:

    1. Faith is indeed powerful. There is tremendous power in our souls to make a difference in the world, and this power, activated by faith, can be used for good or for evil, because "faith" itself--in anything or in an idea--can change things. 'Doesn't even have to be based on fact.

    2. Quite a part from this phenomena is objective reality. Absolutes. God and Truth. 'Doesn't depend on what anyone thinks, believes, or has faith about. It is what is really real. Exactly what the facts are & what reality is, is not always easily discerned; and we humans have a capacity to be deceived, no matter how much faith we have. But objective Truth does exist. God IS. ("I AM" is His name!) And all other ideas either line up with that or run contrary to it.

    This Truth, revealed by creation and the science which studies it, the Word and the history which records it, and the living Christ and the lives He changes is the Truth which will last forever, and the faith which is anchored in that is the faith which I hope we are talking about here.

    Yeah! I did it! I had the nerve to post on this thread again! I look back on the thread and see that at places I felt so passionate about things that I sounded way too harsh. Ugh! In real life, I'm a meek, somewhat quiet, sweet, unoffensive-type person. *smiling* Well, most of the time...
     
  9. Emma's#1fan

    Emma's#1fan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,478
    Likes Received:
    0
    Prairie, it has been a pleasure to read your posts!
     
  10. P.H.

    P.H. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for saying that, Patty: I still feel really small whenever I think about this thread. When I made generalizations, it sounded like I just meant specific people, and it's too late to go back and change that now. But God is able to use even our carelessness and somehow bring good out of it! Amazing! It's a pleasure to read your posts, too!
     
  11. NHMom

    NHMom New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not about to debate with the author of the original article posted, but my main question to him would be "Why single out homeschoolers?" Does he not realize that there are many Catholic High Schools in this Country that also teach Science from the viewpoint of creationism? These same High Schools hand out diplomas and are legally acceptable to Colleges, Universities, and States.

    Why in his mind would it be OK for these High Schools to do so but not homeschoolers? :roll:

    I plan on teaching both and letting my children decide which they want to believe. I'm firm in the belief that "You can only lead a horse to water, you can't force it to drink".
     
  12. elc

    elc New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    I actually...

    I am actually going to slightly agree, that right now I see things are kind of gridlocked and only children are suffering. Realistically if our education system is to succeed, especially financially, at least 10-30 % of students are going to have to be home schooled. I think that the govt. should consider home schooling as a lifesaver and offer free classes and certificates, testing centers and convenient work submission facilities.
     
  13. amccleary5

    amccleary5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's 1:30 am. This post is so fascinating that I had to read it all the way through - forget the auxilliary links - I had no time for that.

    I'm new here and already feel many great connections, so I want to be careful not to step on anyones faith or science. But I feel compelled to join in (diarhea of the fingers maybe?)

    I feel the presence of God in my very existence (but I don't care if you call him mother nature, or by several names at the same time).

    For me, faith probably represents how I interpret what I know, rather than dictating the learning process for me.

    About a year ago, I read a book called "Don't Know Much About Space". I'm sure it was meant to appeal to the scientific nature of things, but for me, it validated the very idea of God.

    The book explained the vastness of what we are able to see in space, even beyond our own solar system. And in all that space - there is only one planet that is "just right"; not too hot or too cold to sustain life. I know, I'm simplifying - but I only have a very small amount of college and don't want to get in over my head.

    On the one hand, it made me think, there has to be some other planet out there that can sustain life - but on the other hand, it made the idea of a world created by a Supernatural Being more believable than anything else I had read, for or against the idea of One God.

    If we tried to make a model of our solar system that was to scale - we would have to put earth and mars in different cities!! And we can see beyond our own solar system! In all that space - there appears to be only one planet with the right conditions for life as we know and understand it. Pretty good case for Creationism maybe?

    The same author wrote a book called "Don't Know Much About the Bible". This one is more of a history book, but it challenges a lot of the things that are taught as fact about the historical figures in the Bible, including dates, times and places. For example, the date for Christmas (which I had been taught was the actual date of Christ's birth) was more likely set by the Roman Government to coincide with a Pagan Holiday as the Government was converting to Christianity and wanted to appease the Pagans.

    Another interesting suggestion: That there is evidence of a great flood - but not all over the earth at once. Rather in the area including and surrounding the Middle East (Mesopotamia and the like).

    Anyway - I'm not so much trying to take one side or the other. Like I began the post - I believe in God as someone who is in me. But these two books influenced my faith and perception and I wanted to share how they did so.

    And the only thing that was really offensive to me about the original article was the idea that I need a college education to properly teach my child at home. I just watched a PBS special yesterday on the state of education in America. One of the most glaring points made in the program is that American schools attract lower acedemia to the teaching profession (public schools, I mean). So we don't really have the brightest bulbs teaching our kids. And they have to teach a large group of students with diverse needs and learning styles, all at the same time.

    I, on the other hand, with my limited college education, can spend a whole day with one child, whose background I am intimately familiar with, whose needs I am accutely aware of and whose success is my only goal. I can find the means to teach her just about anything she needs to know - or at least lead her to the people who can, or the methods for finding the answers for herself or within herself.

    I'm reasonably bright, and come from a family of excessively bright people, including a mother with a Mensa IQ (for all the good it did her - she has not had a very happy or successful life). To be a good teacher, I don't have to know everything - I only have to know the process of learning and pass that process on to my students.

    And I have to stop now and post because my computer is about to go dead and if it does before I post - no way am I writing this again.
     
  14. elc

    elc New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    We were talking...

    My husband and I were talking the other day and we both agreed that one of the biggest downfalls of today’s economic and social issues is the need to search and hire, only based on a certain degree status. If society stopped for a moment and hired based on intellect instead of a piece of paper, I could almost guarantee you that we would not be seeing today’s financial dilemmas. For instance my husband works in a hardware store and everyday solves the crises of the well educated. So, So, So smart but yet they would have no water for there grass, if it not for my husband. The first thing they will tell you is how smart he is. Which is why of course, my daughter will be attending college.
     
  15. HOMEMOM

    HOMEMOM New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Definition of diploma: a document certifying the successful completion of a course of study.

    HUMMM!

    I can't seem to find where it states "a course of science."
    In the state of Texas, homeschools are considered private schools. A state mandated curriculum is for the "Public Schools."Meaning, private schools regulate which curriculum satisfies the requirement for a private school diploma. In fact, if you check Texas curriculum requirements for homeschools, you will see that the state doesn't list science as being one of the required subjects.

    I'm speaking on "Texas" homeschool laws. If the state actually states in its laws that science is mandatory for obtaining a private and public school diploma, then I can see why a diploma would not be issued.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2008
  16. HOMEMOM

    HOMEMOM New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0

    If you read some of Biologist's responses, you will see that the need to be in control and right is in Biologist's blood.

    My "Theory" on why Biologist keeps editing the post, is that there is a strong need to be right and not contradicted.

    I don't claim to know everything. In fact, I don't want to. Look what happend to Adam and Eve. The strong need to know everything, lead them to eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and evil.:lol:lol

    Oh! I'm sorry! Biologist doesn't believe in "creationism." Let me explain the danger of knowing too muchby giving an example that Biologist can relate to. According to the documentaryDangerous Knowledge,"Ludwig Boltzmann's struggle to prove the existence of atoms and probability eventually drove him to suicide. Kurt Gödel, the introverted confidant of Einstein, proved that there would always be problems which were outside human logic. His life ended in a sanatorium where he starved himself to death."
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2008
  17. dawninns

    dawninns New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's no need to resort to insulting people in this thread or "yelling" with large fonts. If you have points to make could you please use normal text formatting and refrain from going after people who haven't posted in ages?
     
  18. Emma's#1fan

    Emma's#1fan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,478
    Likes Received:
    0
    WOW! Time flies!LOL

    The last time Biologist posted was 05-02-2008. I thought it was only two months ago.
     
  19. Emma's#1fan

    Emma's#1fan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,478
    Likes Received:
    0

    In California we are required to cover the same subjects as the public school, science being one of them. BUT! We do not need to teach the same ideas as the public school and we can still issue a diploma.
     
  20. dawninns

    dawninns New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it the equivelant of a state diploma?
     

Share This Page

Members Online Now

Total: 68 (members: 0, guests: 64, robots: 4)