Homeschool Textbooks aren’t Designed for Secular Families
Giant Flashing (except I don’t know how to make it flash) Disclaimer: I am a supporter of homeschooling rights. I homeschool my kids and I want the freedom to teach them my own way. I understand the desire for parents to teach the curriculum of their choice. This is an argument for science, not against religion.
Most people who homeschool do it for religious reasons. And most of those people want their kids to have a Christian based curriculum. Thus, it’s not surprising to find most homeschooling science textbooks are weighted in favor of creationism. Unfortunately that leaves secular homeschooling families like mine, who have no interest in teaching creationism, high and dry. Yesterday MSNBC put a poll on their website asking the question “Is it ok for home school textbooks to dismiss the theory of evolution?” To which I replied “No.” For some context to the question there is this article explaining the lack of secular based science curriculum for homeschoolers. Homeschool textbook publishers cater to the desires of parents who buy their products. Since most homeschoolers are Christian, it makes sense that the books say what Christians want to hear. I say that’s not education, that’s business, and it’s wrong.
If I’m not Christian, Why do I Homeschool?
Because I think I can do it better. So far I’ve been proven right. It has nothing to do with morals or religion; it’s simply a function of my being able to get it done quicker and more accurately than a public school. Besides, I don’t like being tied down; I want to take vacation on my schedule and do activities with my kids when the mood strikes me. Fine, that might sound selfish, but the facts speak for themselves. My boys are involved in plenty of activities with other kids, and they’re definitely keeping up with the standardized expectations of our school system (as is tested and reported by Colorado law). Colorado expects my boys to get tested every few years, and I have to follow a curriculum that teaches the same core knowledge that is seen in public schools. I don’t have a problem with what public schools teach, just how they teach it. But, it’s frustrating that I can find quality instruction in every subject except science.
Not to Worry. I’ve got it Covered
Being the resourceful guy that I am I’ve decided to teach science from a variety of resources. That makes more sense to me anyway. Colorado is helpful in providing me with expected subject material. I take that list and go to the bookstore to find what I need. The irritation I have at the lack of secular homeschooling textbooks is not a matter of practical necessity; I don’t need textbooks anyway. I’m irritated because it’s pretty obvious that textbook publishers are more interested in making a buck than the quality of what’s in their books. Homeschooling textbooks are a billion dollar industry and they’re printing stuff that their audience will buy. They’re disregarding the true purpose of textbooks, which is to impart scientifically accepted theories to an audience who will be open to absorbing information that may not be convenient for them. After all, if you know it all already then you wouldn’t need a textbook in the first place.
An Argument for Standardized Education:
We aren’t drones, or at least we shouldn’t be. We also shouldn’t teach that the moon is made of cheese. There must be some middle ground. The argument for national standardized education is riddled with problems. The first is that powerful interests can always corrupt systems. North Korea is a good example of how state education can turn otherwise thinking people into babbling infants that are easily controlled by their dear leader. The question of how to balance quality education with personal freedom is a good one. You can’t take away people’s freedom to teach their children how they see fit. At the same time it’s in everyone’s interest to have a population that can pass a biology and natural history test. The solution to this problem lies in the scientific method.
The Scientific Method Solves Political Problems
All textbooks should adhere to the same standards of educational ethics, regardless of religious and customer preference. If the material being taught has not made it past the peer reviewed point of the scientific method, it should not be included in text books. That means some previously held beliefs will have to be excluded; the belief in global warming or the belief in creationism need to be held to the same standards of verification. If said hypothesis cannot progress through the scientific method, it’s not ready for prime time. I’m making no political or religious judgment here; I’m simply saying that all data should be treated equally and be subject to the same verification process. I’m also not pretending that scientists can’t have agendas. They shouldn’t, but some of them do. The global warming fiasco is case number 1. But, without science and a community of scientists, we have little hope as human beings of furthering our understanding of the universe. It’s certainly not perfect, but it’ll have to do.
Information Changes
Textbooks from 100 years ago look pretty stupid by modern standards. That’s because our understanding of how things work is improving, and our textbooks have to change along with the new information. I would be worried if I read a 100 year old biology book that said all the same things as a modern biology book. I’d wonder if scientists were asleep at the wheel or if there was some conspiracy they were perpetrating to cover up information. The truth always has a way of coming to the surface. We should be suspicious when we see a world that doesn’t change. 100 years from now our great-grandkids are going to think we were a bunch of buffoons, and that should make us all happy. When we talk about scientific understanding we aren’t saying information is set in stone; we’re saying, according to the data and the tests we’ve done, this is the best explanation we have at the moment. The “facts” will certainly change over time. That’s it, no judgment, just data.
A Place for Religion
There is a place for religion in school. It should be a class about religion, not a science class. I’m not saying there aren’t scientists who aren’t religious because there are. But, those scientists had to take the same classes as the non-religious people and learn the same thing. Perhaps what they found along the way allowed them to accommodate their religion into their understanding of science. Nevertheless, they had to learn that 2+2=4 and that the Universe is 13.5 billion years old (or something like that). Science has led mankind to that conclusion, the pursuit of knowledge wherever it takes us. Ask someone 400 years ago how old the universe is, and they’d look at you cockeyed because they wouldn’t know there was even a universe to begin with. Ask that same person about where they thought everything came from and they’d say exactly what you’d expect, a biblical explanation that would sound remarkably like what you’d hear a very religious person today say. If you already know the information then there is no point in a textbook. Why print a science textbook that says the same things that last year’s science text book said? My point is that Science and religion are different subjects and need to be taught separately.
Race and Religion. Those are two topics that are sure to get people passionate. But they are also two topics that make for great conversation (assuming there’s no hate mail involved). Race, like religion, is personal to people. Thus it’s not surprising that they illicit such passionate responses. Like I said in the beginning of this article though, I’m just calling it like I see it. When biblical accounts of natural phenomena stand up to scientific scrutiny then they can be taught in a science book. Until that time though they should not be included. It should be about education, not making a buck by telling people what they want to hear.
Related Posts
- How to Start Homeschooling
- Back to School: Where are the Pencils?
- Visual Math for Kids: A Collection of Children’s Books
- Stay at Home Dads – The Deadly – Invisible Entrepreneurs
- Reading Material for Boys: Different than for Girls
- Everything you Ever Wanted to Know about Galileo
- 12 Organic foods that are Worth the Extra Expense and 15 that Aren’t
- Rabbits are not Easter Toys
Related posts:
Popular
- Send Out Cards: You’ve Been Had! (440)
- Top Dad Blogs — 2010 (99)
- The Truth about MLM Schemes – SendOut Cards (57)
- Kid Acting Badly? Try the Total Transformation Scam (57)
- Homeschool Textbooks aren’t Designed for Secular Families (46)
Thanks for the article Keith. I completely agree with you. I’ve known so many homeschoolers over the course of my life as an Army spouse that I have a pretty good idea about what they believe and why they do it. Few of them have the same reasons you do. It almost always (like 95% of the time) is due to religious reasons. Further, most of them take a very VERY literal view of what the Bible says, going so far as to say with certainty that the earth is actually only 6,000 years old (young Earth theory). Certainly, they are entitled to their views. But it just goes to show you that a very wide majority of people who homeschool do so for reasons of religion and not a view of being able to do it better than the State.
I currently send my kids to a private Christian school here in Savannah. We are most definitely a Christian family. That said, I send my kids there because the public schools here are not safe. Most of them have metal detectors the kids walk through every day because of instances of guns and knives being brought to school. In Kansas and New York (on military instillations) my kids went to public schools. I’ve always been a firm believer that I want my kids to go to school to learn to read, count, and learn. Our moral/religious foundation comes from what I share with my kids at home and at church. To me, the two do not have to coincide. I don’t send my kids to school to learn about God. And I don’t send them to Sunday School to learn the square root of 25.
As always, great and very thought provoking article. Maybe next time I’ll use some hate mail!
I think it’s OK to teach a religious based science… even creationism… if that is what you, a free American, want to teach. However, as a Christian and even as a Christian minister myself, I do not use creationism science text books when I teach my kids. I don’t believe in creationism personally. It’s an allegorical story, NOT a scientific treatise. (Read Genesis any other way and you have misread the intent of the authors of said book.) I have used Calvert material (secular) the entire time I’ve taught, excluding this year for my high school aged son. (They stop at grade 8 for now, though they are considering doing high school curriculum in the future.) Keith, if you’d like to have my old Science books, let me know. I’ll let them go for cheap and Calvert science books are really very good… non religious, I promise!
It doesn’t leave you high and dry there are plenty of SECULAR textbooks that homeschoolers can use.
I used Amsco School Publications for Science.
If you don’t want to buy directly from the publisher you can buy books from the HomeSchool SuperCenter
They have both SECULAR and Christian based textbooks
Alasandra: The overwhelming majority of homeschool science textbooks are religiously centered. Upwards of 80% in fact.
“For those who believe – no proof is necessary; for those who do not believe – no proof is sufficient”. F.W. 1941
I’m heartened by your observations and although my wife is a veteran high-school teacher, we’ve both often wondered what the fate of the public school system ultimately will be out here in California (although it was Kansas City, Mo. that was forced to close nearly half of its schools).
Anyway, we’d like to be able to take our daughter out of standardized testing and instead do something far more educational and memorable (i.e., fun or at least interesting) than anything rote memory can provide.
I was a little concerned about your out-of-hand dismissal of global warming (I’m reading you right). Yes, some of the scientists involved with the global warming scientist community appear to have been a little corrupt — but I don’t see how their behavior in any way translates to a disproof of the theory itself. Anyway, I think that was a tempest in a teapot and the science is very solid. Nothing can be proven 100%, not even evolution or even gravity, but global warming has not been disproven and its opposition seems to originate from mostly commercial or capital interests.
Just saying. Otherwise I enjoyed the post and like your blog.
-s
… meant to say “If I’m reading you right.” I’m not positive you don’t believe in global warming.
-s
Steve: I never said I didn’t believe is global warming. I used it to say that all science needs to be held to the same standard. The second time I referenced it I used it to demonstrate that some scientist can have agendas (which I don’t think is in doubt). But, I never said I dismiss the theory out of hand because of a few ethical questions with a few scientists. In fact, I went on to say that although scientists and science itself can be flawed and information changes over time, that the scientific method is the best way to make observations about our world. That includes the global warming theory. I am not one to throw the baby out with the bath water. I’m not sure why you think I dismissed global warming out of hand because I don’t, and I didn’t say it.
Other than that slight miscommunication
though, I’m glad you like the blog and that you liked the article. Thanks for visiting and taking the time to ask me about my meaning.
(Post Publishing Edit) Sorry, Steve. I just re-read my response here. I didn’t mean to sound confrontational about it. I really do genuinely appreciate the inquiry and the time you spend reading and commenting. I just meant to clarify my position. Sometimes typing on the internet does not fully express what I want
Mom: That’s usually true. But, with the scientific method and an open mind I think all things will eventually bear themselves out. The problem comes when people on both sides are unwilling to listen. That’s why we need rules of engagement — the scientific method.
Keith,
Yeah, think I just had a half-baked knee-jerk reaction…my bad. We just took my 3-yr old daughter Simone to the Academy of Sciences in San Francisco today and wore her (and ourselves) out completely. She bonded with a 5-foot, extremely ugly but oddly friendly gar in the aquarium. Science rules.
Cheers,
Steve
http://www.veggiedadcooks.blogspot.com
Thanks you!. …Well said!!!.Can I say Hallelujah?
I rarely meet secular homeschoolers here in North Idaho. By rarely, I mean never. We kind of have to hide our educational intentions in order to get along. You should see the odd looks I get when I forget myself and mention things like plate tectonics and natural selection.
Idaho Dad´s last blog ..Life Is A Highway
Hi Keith,
Why are you frustrated that you can’t find “quality instruction” in science? If you “don’t have a problem with what public schools teach” then why not use the science textbooks your local public schools use? These should be easy enough to obtain.
Also, is it only home school textbook companies that are “printing stuff that their audience will buy”?
“Secular” textbook companies might be more guilty of this since they are a multi- billion dollar industry.
By the way, I have a bachelor of science degree in biology from the University of California, Riverside; a doctor of medicine degree from UCLA and believe that science and religion go hand in hand.
As Hawking states in “A Brief History of Time” — “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us”.
Keith,
80% of Science textbooks are not religiously centered unless you insist on buying textbooks from Fundamentalist Christian Publishers.
Saxon (secular publisher) has a website just for homeschoolers
Amsco School Publications sells directly to homeschoolers
Prentice Hall & Pearson Publish secular textbooks
If you want a Boxed Secular Curriculum there is
Calvert
K12
and Oak Meadow to name a few.
Tapestry of Homeschool Survey Report paints a far different picture of homeschoolers.
* 90% of the respondents were married, 4% were single, a little over 3% were in domestic partnerships.
* 80% were homeschooling for non-religious reasons.
The Tapestry of Homeschooling Survey Report was conducted by Learning is for Everyone.
Alasandra´s last blog ..Plenty of Textbooks for Secular Homeschoolers
Idaho Dad have you tried Spokane Homeschoolers
There Yahoo site says
SHS is a diverse group of homeschooling parents in Eastern Washington/North Idaho’s Inland Empire. We include and celebrate families across the spectrum of homeschooling styles and philosophies, and have no official political, philosophical, or religious orientation. SHS exists both as an active online resource and an IRL alternative to other local homeschool groups as a place for hsers to play, learn, and relax with each other in a context where homeschooling, not religion, is the primary common denominator. Read more here
I would have left a link but this blog doesn’t allow you too.
Alasandra´s last blog ..Plenty of Textbooks for Secular Homeschoolers
Ray: I made it pretty clear what this article is about. I do not think creationism belongs in science textbooks for the sole reason that it doesn’t stand up to the scientific method. Your degrees don’t mean much to this discussion because, like I also said, there are scientists who have found a way to accommodate their religion into what they’ve learned. I also said I wasn’t frustrated out of a personal practical necessity for the books. I’m frustrated for other reasons which I mentioned if you bothered to not just read what you wanted to read, but what I actually said. Oh, and Hawking is not espousing the validity of god in that quote, He’s saying that creationism is a reasonable hypothesis to those who do not bother with science. Again, you read what you wanted to read.
Isa: You can if you’d like
Thank you for the support and taking the time to read!
Alasandra: You seem to miss the entire point of this article, which is not surprising considering you stopped at the point where I said the fact that most science homeschool textbooks are intended for a religious audience (which happens to be, despite your protestations, absolutely correct.) The point is that there should be zero (0) science textbooks that include creationism. Listing several that are secular based doesn’t help your argument because I never said they didn’t exist, I said they were in the minority (exceptions don’t prove the rule). Also, that poll you keep citing has a few flaws which you need to ask questions about. Most people who homeschool do it for more than just one reason. Did that poll question take into account all of those reasons, or just the main reason out of many? Someone could say “I homeschool because I don’t agree with the moral direction of our schools.” They didn’t say religion, but that’s what most of them mean. You really aren’t going to convince anybody that most homeschoolers are secular because our real world interactions tell us otherwise.
The National Center for Education Statistics (Department of Education) shows an increase in the percentage of parents who say they homeschool their kids for religious or moral reason, 72% in 2003 to 83% in 2007.
The number one reason people gave for homeschooling? “A concern about the school environment” — 88%. Want the third most popular response? “Dissatisfaction with academeic instruction at other schools”. Alesandra, this means people give more than one answer to these questions. I’m sorry, but the facts are not on your side here. Here’s the link to the pdf if anybody wants it. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf
Idaho: I have only met a few families who homeschool for non religious reasons. And, I know exactly how you feel because we deal with the same thing. You tell people you homeschool and they immediately assume your doing it for religious reasons. If you tell another homeschooler then they’ll also assume you do it for the same reasons they do. I find myself constantly explaining myself to non homeschooling families because of their knee jerk assumptions, while completely avoiding other homeschoolers because I don’t want to be proselytized to (which has happened at least a dozen times).
Keith,
Did you even bother to find out who conducted the poll you cite. The study was preformed by the National Home Education Research Institute which is linked to HSLDA (Homeschool Legal Defense Association run by the Evangelical Fundies). See Milton Gaither’s post Brian D. Ray and NHERI, part 2 for more information on the link between NHERI and HSLDA
I am sorry you haven’t meet more secular or inclusive homeschoolers. Have you even tried looking for a secular or inclusive group in your area? If there isn’t one have you considered starting one? You would probably be pleasantly surprised by the number of homeschool families who would be interested in joining.
I would think that freedom of speech entitles publisher to print what they want. Doesn’t mean that anyone has to buy it.
Keith, You are also misinterpreting the data from the study you cite
Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children “religious or moral instruction.”
As one of the Atheist commentators on another blog pointed out even Atheist may have checked this answer because most parents want to provide their children with some sort of moral instruction. So it didn’t necessarily mean that 83% of homeschoolers are Christians as you assume.
As you pointed out people have many different reasons for wishing to homeschool The Tapestry of Homeschool Survey I mentioned not only broke the data down it includes many of the reasons the respondents gave in their own words.
Alasandra: I know who conducted the poll and who commissioned the study. I guess we’re just going to have to disagree about it’s validity. I tend to believe it. A) because I don’t have evidence that they took a bad sample or that their questions were flawed. B) because It reflects what I see in my daily life. Of course there are other secular famlies who homeschool and there are textbooks that aren’t fundamental evangelical. Nowhere am I claiming otherwise. I’m not just sitting here spouting off stuff that I don’t have personal experience with and that I haven’t thought out completely. You clearly have a different opinion, and that’s fine. But, my opinion is not baseless like you seem to suggest. You’d have to assume I never get out of the house or otherwise have no experience to think I’m such a nincompoop. I look up homeschooling groups all the time. I have met with a secular homeschooling group; it was very small and their idea of secular was not mine (sometimes extreme liberalism can be a religion unto itself).
You use phrases like “did you EVEN bother…” and “Have you EVEN tried…” You realize you could leave off the “even” and your sentence would be less accusatory.
1% of the population identify themselves as atheists and 87% are self proclaimed Christians. Atheists aren’t going to impact that poll considering 2.9% of school aged kids are homeschooled. You’re deluding yourself with arguments like that.
While I agree that Atheists are a small minority of the population as a whole and an even smaller segment of the homeschool population. People other then Christian checked yes to that question.
My Pagan Homeschooling friend checked yes as she is homeschooling for religious reasons. Her daughter was being persecuted for her families pagan beliefs at public school.
My Buddhist friend also checked yes as they wanted to impart their religious values to their children.
My Catholic friends who homeschool also checked yes. (I know Catholics are Christians, but they believe in Evolution)
I too checked yes
So there is no way you can say that the 83% are all Fundamentalist Christian Homeschoolers that want to teach creationism to their children. The 83% was made up of people with differing beliefs. Christians are not the only ones who wish to impart moral values to their children or pass on their religious beliefs.
Sorry if my other post came off as accusatory. I didn’t intend them that way. My experience as a facilitator for an inclusive homeschool group has obviously been very different then yours and I know a whole network of Evolved Homeschoolers. Check them out on Facebook you might like them.
Alasandra: We started talking about something here that really wasn’t the point of the article in the first place, just a minor piece of what I was saying. The real point that I wanted to get across whas not how many homeschoolers do it for religious reasons or otherwise, but that textbooks need to represent the spirit of science rather than cater to an audience (whatever that audience might be is somewhat irrelevant to the point). I used Christianity and the teaching of creationism to demonstrate that science, in at least some instances, has been hijacked by business. There’s nothing wrong with teaching it, but I don’t think it belongs alongside the theory of relativity because it hasn’t stood up to the scientific method. That was the point of the article. you and I got off on a separate point which we clearly disagree about, but doesn’t really impact the core argument. I’m sure we agree on more things than we disagree about, but we got hung up on this one issue.
Point taken Keith. Anyway, as I would like to stay home and homeschool my son, I will be keeping up with your blog.
Hi Keith,
Why do you care what other homeschoolers choose to teach their own children? I would not personally choose a textbook with a “Young Earth” Creationist POV but it’s none of my business what another family uses.
I know homeschoolers who rave about all sorts of materials I have a low opinion of- “constructivist” math, “whole language” English, revisionist history books like Howard Zinn’s, and so on. I may think these materials are awful but I’m not out there criticizing the publishers for making them available. I just pick other programs that are more to my liking.
It really isn’t that hard to find secular or neutral science programs. Aside from the big textbook publishers, there are also R.E.A.L. Science Odyssey, Singapore My Pals Are Here, PLATO, NOEO, Mr. Q., Elemental Science, Real Science 4 Kids, Ellen McHenry’s chemistry books, Bite-Sized Physics, and so on.
Crimson Wife´s last blog ..Required Reading for Toyota Owners!
Crimson Wife: I’m sorta amazed you’re asking this question. I care about what’s in science books because some things AREN’T science. Constructivist math and whole language approach all lead to the same place — understanding of math and English. They’re just different ways of teaching the same thing that some people like and others don’t. Creationism is not science. Thus it does not belong in a science text book. That’s why I care. Incidentally, revisionist history isn’t a term anybody uses to describe their own interpretation of history, it’s a term others use to disparage a view of history that they don’t like. That example does not belong with your others.
Would you care if home schoolers were being taught that the moon was made of cheese or that the holocaust never happened? One is not history and the other is not science. If you’re going to teach science then science should be in the material. Once creationism can pass through the scientific method then I’m perfectly fine with including it in a text book. Heck, once it passes that stage, I’ll teach it to my kids. It hasn’t happened yet though.
Keith
Why are you just criticizing homeschool textbooks, you must be aware of the situation in Texas.
At its March 25-27, 2009, meeting, the Texas state board of education voted to adopt a flawed set of state science standards, which will dictate what is taught in science classes in elementary and secondary schools, as well as provide the material for state tests and textbooks, for the next decade. Although creationists on the board were unsuccessful in inserting the controversial “strengths and weaknesses” language from the old set of standards, they proposed a flurry of synonyms — such as “sufficiency or insufficiency” and “supportive and not supportive” — and eventually prevailed with a requirement that students examine “all sides of scientific evidence.” Additionally, the board voted to add or amend various standards in a way that encourages the presentation of creationist claims about the complexity of the cell, the completeness of the fossil record, and the age of the universe.
According to a 2008 study ["Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National Portrait" from PLoS Biology 2008; 6 (5)], 16% of US science teachers believe humans were created by God in the last 10,000 years.”
Shouldn’t public school textbooks deserve the same scrutiny?
I agree with Crimson Wife. Publishers should be able to publish whatever they wish (freedom of speech) and parents should be free to teach their children using the textbooks they feel best serve their families needs.
Alasandra: Because that’s what the subject of this article is. I could have picked anything to talk about, but I chose to write about homeschool textbooks. Can’t include everything in a blog post. Also, I’m talking specifically about the problem of teaching creationism in a science class. Homeschool textbooks have a particular problem with teaching creationism in a subject where it does not belong. I’m sorry the article was not complete enough for you and didn’t talk about the subject that would make Alasandra happy.
Although you’re bringing up the texas situation is valid (because they’re perpetrating the same sort of thing), it’s not the subject of this article because public schools do not typically have the same flaws with science teaching. I’m going to say the same thing to you that I said to the previous commenter. I suppose you’d be fine with parents teaching their kids the holocaust didn’t happen? You’d be fine with parents teaching their kids that WWII happened because of Aliens from Neptune? How about that electricity was discovered by Miss Piggy? You’d be fine with that because it’s a matter of personal choice? Creationism doesn’t belong in a science text book because it isn’t science, for the same reason you wouldn’t put a cookie making recipe into the operation manual of an F-16.
Freedom of speech sounds really great to say doesn’t it? But, in a twisted way you’re actually right. If people really want to be a bunch of ignoramuses then I suppose that’s their business. I happen to think though that if people had a little ethical responsibility then there’d be no need to have this discussion because nobody would try to re-classify creationism as science, which it clearly is not.
Furthermore, Alasandra: You recently wrote a post about the toyota recalls. I could ask you why you didn’t also include the recalls from GM and all the other car companies who frequently have recalls. Is it because, perhaps, that toyota has been in the news recently and because your mother has a prius that it struck close to home for you? It was something personal that you chose to talk about, right? Well, I’m not sure why you don’t see the hypocrisy there. I choose topics to talk about that I know something about and that interest me on a personal level exactly like every other blogger in the world does.
Oh, my bad. That might not have been your blog. Nevertheless, the point still stands. You write about things you care about, and that are your opinion based on what you know. That’s just what bloggers do. We don’t write whole books, we just write snippets of what we think is most important at the moment.
Keith, I think you got me confused with Crimson Wife as I haven’t written about any Toyota recalls.
I agree that Creationism isn’t Science. And I would actually like Creationism to go the way of the dinosaurs. But I don’t think trampling others peoples rights is the way to accomplish it.
It’s funny that you brought up WWII because a lot of textbooks fail to mention that it wasn’t just Jews in concentration camps. The Nazis also sent homosexuals, gypsies and a host of others they deemed undesirable to the camps.
The reason I asked about the public school textbooks was because of the rash of articles in mainstream papers condemning homeschool textbooks while failing to mention that the Conservatives in Texas are playing fast and lose with science standards and history in the public schools. Sorry if I hit a nerve.
Yeah, Alasandra. I did get you confused. Sorry. Textbooks are notorious for playing politics instead of actually teaching what needs teaching. I don’t dispute that at all, and I agree that public school textbooks aren’t by any means immune from criticism. I guess you and I just have a fundamental disagreement about the frequency of the problem with homeschoolers and their textbooks. It’s my belief that most homeschoolers, while superior in most subjects to their public school counterparts, fail when it comes to the teaching of creationism. Not for a lack of discipline but for a lack of ever being taught the meaning of science and what qualifies as science. On the other hand, you feel I’m overstating that flaw in the homeschooling system. That’s a fair argument. I accept that disagreement. You lost me though when when you said I wasn’t being inclusive enough in my argument. The fact is, that if I was writing a whole big long huge book on the subject, there’s probably a bunch more citicisms I could come up with for public schools. That just wasn’t what I wanted to talk about though. On a personal note, Homeschooling is near and dear to me because I think it’s usually a better way of teaching. I just want to see it be everything it can be, and I think booting creationism from science textbooks is the way to make it better. I see it as a social and ethical responsibility to teach only what qualifies as real science.
I am on Spring Break this week which means I just can’t think as hard as I need to, so that I might respond to this intelligently. I did spend some time on a forum last week bantering back and forth with several people about this topic though.
Since I am a creationist and I homeschool partly for religious reasons and have had an incredibly difficult time finding RESOURCES for Science which don’t contain what I consider evolutionary lies throughout the past 15 years of homeschooling… well I am sure you will understand when I respectfully agree to disagree on this one my friend.
Joan: Of course.
It’s a subject which can be debated endlessly, but which also isn’t going to be resolved anytime soon. My beliefe is that all science material should stand up to the same standards. Alesandra is right in that public schools have their own issues with textbooks that could constitute a whole different article. But, like Janice (my mom) said, I’m not going to convince you and you probably won’t convince me. We’re still friends though. We’ll just disagree. Have a good one, Joan!
LOL Keith… we agree most of the time. This is just one of those rare occasions when we don’t and that’s ok.. the world would be a boring place if we did not have different opinions to discuss with one another. You need to move to OK so you can continue your affiliate work though…. OU football games await your presence! Season tickets… I am trying to woo you guys… LOL
Hi Keith,
Thank you for the article. If I understood your main point, that creationism should be booted from homeschooling science textbooks to help make homeschooling all it could be, then I got it. I appreciate your article because you are in defense of homeschooling and what appears to be a desire for truth, and I applaud you and am grateful for your efforts.
I am a homeschooling creationist (but honest, I haven’t written in any textbooks!). This coming Wednesday I am going to be teaching the first of a two part series on biology within the six major worldviews. Briefly they are: Christian (super-naturalism), Secular Humanism (naturalism), Cosmic Humanism (non-naturalism), Marxist/Leninism (dialectic materialism), Islam, and Postmodernism. I would argue that each of these worldviews have a theological stance that affects their beliefs about biological origins. You would be a secular humanist, correct? Hence the desire to have textbooks that express your worldview.
Now about those nasty home school science textbooks that teach biological origin theories without using the scientific method, can any of us use the scientific method to teach origins? Were you there, I sure wasn’t? How can we observe in a controlled environment what has been without extrapolating beyond reason? Evolution is a theory of origin just like Creationism. We observe “micro-evolution” (adaptations – have seen) and extrapolate to theorize there is such thing as “macro-evolution” (change of species – have not seen).
There are fallacies within the secular humanism textbooks about biology that are perpetuated like a myth. Just one of several for example, “the embryo chart” is 18th century and a fraud. I agree with you about staying up to date on current science, but please, let’s boot out all bad science.
And again, thank you very much for your post. Is there anything you’d like me to express from a secular humanist standpoint Wednesday?
Keith,
Way to go! You tell it! I agree with you as a secular new home schooler I am having a hard time finding books that DON’T teach religion. I also agree some of these people just don’t get it. Not all public schools will let you use their textbooks because they don’t have enough to “lend” out. THANK YOU GOVERNMENT & YOUR BUDGET CUTS!! I believe creationism went out with prayer in public schools, so don’t force secular homeschoolers to teach it if the public schools don’t. It should be solely up to the parent and child if they want to learn about it or not.
Shelly: Thanks for reading! I’m in complete agreement. If parents want to teach their kids creationism then that’s their business. But, it doesn’t have a place in the classroom unless it’s real science or taught in a class that isn’t a science class.
Hi!
Recently, my friends and I read your article and we thought it very well written. We are glad you have chosen to homeschool your children. We are homeschooled ourselves!
We agree information should be updated regularly as new information comes to light. And that things that are proven wrong should be taken out of the text books. That is very important! And also we think Creation and Evolution should be held to that standard!
We were just wondering why they still keep things in the textbooks like the peppered moths (which are a example of micro evolution, adaptions within a kind. Not macro evolution.) Haeckel’s embryo drawings (which have been known to be a fraud for a long time but are still in the textbooks as fact. It would be fine if they were there for history purposes, but they shouldn’t be used as proof for evolution.)
We also agree that evolution should be included in the text books. Since it has been a formative theory in our culture, we should all be aware of it’s premises.
The scientific method is very useful in figuring out how this world works! However, we don’t think it will solve all these sort of problems, because all of us look at the world through a “world view” (a set of beliefs, ideas, convictions etc.that answer the big questions in life. Such as: How did I get here? What is the purpose of life? Is there a God? Who is He? What happens when you die? Is there right and wrong? etc.) Therefore each one of us is influenced by our beliefs. They affect every area of life. So we can’t really separate science and religion.
When we talk about how life began, neither of us can scientifically prove, without a doubt, that God created the world or that life came from non-living chemical reactions, because we were not there and we cannot repeat either in a controlled environment.
We definitely don’t know everything, but these are some things we’ve learned and wanted to pass them on to you.
Anyway, we hope this at least gave you something to think about. Hope you have a great day!
Hannah,
for Jonathan, Miss Carol, Brianna, Brandon, Josiah, Mr Tom, Nathan, Matt, Carissa and others!
The scientific method does not work, because their was no one there to observe evolution happening. Also, there are gaps in the fossil record, and no one was their to see it, evolution, happen.
Joe: Of course the scientific method works. We observe evolution in simple organisms every day. Silly.
I’m late to this party, but enjoyed your post. Someone asked why you should care what others teach their children about Science. The answer is simple: knowledge is power, and Science helps teach critical thinking. We risk losing future scientists and cheat our children by denying them a science education.
I found this most cogent analysis on understanding Science and Evolution recently:
http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfb100/evolution.php
The article sums up thusly:
“Science does not lead to atheism or immorality.
Many scientists are theists.
Theologians of all major faiths support modern science.
Even though humans may share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, we still have value.
Even though humans may share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, there can still be a God.
Even though humans may share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, there can still be morality.
Even though humans may share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, people can still love and be loved.”
Hi Keith,
I believe that education means having an open mind and studying all sides of every subject. No science book should ignore evolution or creationism – they should all teach both so that the person who is learning can draw their own conclusions.
Atmaja´s last blog ..Creationism or Evolution Was Darwin WRONG