Los libros de texto para educadores en el hogar no están diseñados para familias seculares
By: Keith
Enorme denuncia destellante (excepto que no se cómo hacerla destellar): Yo apoyo los derechos de los educadores en el hogar. Yo educo a mis hijos en el hogar y quiero la libertad de poder enseñarles a mi manera. Yo entiendo el deseo de los padres de enseñar el currículo de su preferencia. Este es un argumento en favor de la ciencia, no contra la religión.
La mayoría de las personas que educan en el hogar lo hacen por motivos religiosos. Y la mayoría de estas personas quieren que sus hijos tengan un currículum basando en cristianismo. Por lo tanto, no es de sorprender el encontrar que la mayoría de los libros de texto de ciencia presentan favoritismo en favor del creacionismo. Desafortunadamente eso deja a las familias seculares que educan en el hogar como la mía, quienes no tienen la intención de enseñar creacionismo, sin nada. Ayer MSNBC puso una encuesta en su página de Internet con la siguiente pregunta “¿Está bien que los libros de texto para los educadores en el hogar no incluyan la teoría de la evolución?” A lo cual yo respondí “No”. Para tener un poco de contexto a esta pregunta aquí está este artículo explicando la falta de un currículo científico secular para los educadores en el hogar. Ya que la mayoría de los educadores en el hogar son cristianos, tiene sentido que los libros digan lo que los cristianos quieren oír. Yo digo que eso no es educación, eso es un negocio, y eso es incorrecto.
Si yo no soy cristiano, ¿por qué educo en el hogar?
Porque yo creo que yo puedo hacerlo mejor. Hasta ahora he sido probado correcto. No tiene nada que ver con moral o religión; es simplemente la función de que yo soy capaz de poder hacerlo de manera más rápida y eficaz que una escuela pública. Además, no me gusta estar atado; yo quiero poder tomar vacaciones en mi propio horario y tener actividades con mis hijos cuando se me antoja. Bien, tal vez esto suene un poco egoísta, pero los hechos hablan por sí mismos. Mis hijos están envueltos en suficientes actividades con otros niños, y ellos definitivamente llevan el paso de las expectaciones estandarizadas del nuestro sistema escolar (como es examinado y reportado por la ley en Colorado). Colorado espera que mis hijos sean examinados cada unos cuantos años, y yo tengo que seguir el currículo que les enseña el mismo conocimiento general que ellos verían en una escuela pública. Yo no tengo ningún problema con lo que las escuelas públicas enseñan, solo con la manera en la que lo enseñan. Pero es frustrante el que yo pueda encontrar instrucción de calidad en cualquier materia excepto en ciencias.
No hay por qué preocuparse. Lo tengo bajo control
Al ser el tipo con recursos que yo soy he decidido enseñarles ciencia con la ayuda de una diversidad de recursos. Eso tiene más sentido para mí de todas maneras. Colorado es útil al proveerme con una lista de materiales en el tema. Yo tomo mi lista y me voy a la librería a conseguir lo que necesito; yo no necesito libros de texto de todas maneras. Estoy molesto porque es bastante obvio que los publicistas de los libros de texto están más interesados en hacer dinero que en la calidad de lo que contienen sus libros. Los libros de textos para educadores en el hogar son una industria que hace billones de dólares y ellos están imprimiendo lo que la audiencia quiere comprar. Ellos están ignorando el verdadero propósito de los libros de texto, el cual es impartir teorías aceptadas científicamente a una audiencia quien estará abierta a absorber esa información que tal vez no sea conveniente para ellos. Después de todo, si es algo que tú ya sabes entonces no necesitas un libro de texto para aprenderlo.
Un argumento en favor de la educación estandarizada:
Nosotros no somos robots, o al menos no deberíamos serlo. Tampoco deberíamos enseñar que la luna está hecha de queso. Debe haber un punto medio. El argumento en favor de una educación estándar a nivel nacional está acribillado con problemas. El primero es que poderosos intereses siempre pueden corromper el sistema. Corea del Norte es un buen ejemplo de cómo una educación controlada por el Estado puede transformar personas que de otra manera serían pensantes en un montón de infantes que son fácilmente controlados por su líder. La pregunta de cómo balancear una educación de calidad con la libertad personal es una buena pregunta. Tú no puedes quitarle a una persona su libertad de enseñarles a sus hijos lo que ellos quieran. Al mismo tiempo es para el beneficio de todos el tener una población que pueda pasar exámenes de biología e historia natural. La solución a este problema se encuentra en el método científico.
El método científico resuelve problemas políticos
Todos los libros de texto deberían adherirse a los mismos estándares de éticas educativas, sin importar las preferencias de costumbres o religión. Si el material a ser enseñado no ha podido pasar el mismo punto de revista del método científico, entonces no debería ser incluido en los libros de texto. Esto significa que algunas creencias que habían sido sostenidas anteriormente deben ser excluidas; la creencia en el calentamiento global o la creencia en creacionismo necesitan ser sometidas al mismo estándar de verificación. Si dicha hipótesis no puede progresar a través del método científico; no está lista para salir al escenario. Aquí no estoy haciendo juicios ni políticos ni religiosos; simplemente estoy diciendo que toda la información debe ser tratada de la misma manera y debe ser sujeta al mismo proceso de verificación. Tampoco estoy pretendiendo que los científicos no pueden tener sus propias agendas. Ellos no deberían, pero algunos las tienen. El fiasco del calentamiento global es el caso número uno. Pero, sin ciencia y una comunidad de científicos, tenemos muy pocas esperanzas como seres humanos de incrementar nuestro entendimiento del universo. Ciertamente no es perfecto, pero tiene que servir para algo.
La información cambia
Los libros de texto de hace 100 años se ven bien estúpidos comparados con los estándares modernos. Esto es porque nuestra comprensión de cómo funcionan las cosas ha mejorado, y nuestros libros de texto tienen que cambiar de acuerdo con la nueva información que descubrimos. Yo estaría preocupado si leyera un viejo libro de biología de hace 100 años y este dijera las mismas cosas que un libro moderno de biología. Yo me preguntaría si los científicos se quedaron dormidos o si existiera una conspiración entre ellos para cubrir cierta información. La verdad siempre ha tenido una manera de salir a la luz. Nosotros deberíamos sospechar cuando vemos un mundo que no cambia. Dentro de 100 años nuestros bisnietos van a pensar que nosotros éramos un montón de bufones, y eso debe hacernos felices. Cuando hablamos del entendimiento científico no estamos diciendo que la información se encuentra escrita sobre piedra; estamos diciendo, de acuerdo con la información y la experimentación que hemos hecho, que esta es la mejor explicación que tenemos al momento. Los “hechos” ciertamente cambiarán con el tiempo. Esto no es un juicio, es simplemente información.
Un lugar para la religión
Existe un lugar para la religión en la escuela. Debería haber una clase sobre religión, pero no una clase de ciencias. No estoy diciendo que no hay científicos quienes no son religiosos porque sí los hay. Pero, estos científicos tuvieron que tomar las mismas clases que las personas que no son religiosas y aprendieron las mismas cosas. Tal vez ellos encontraron algo que les permitió acomodar su religión dentro de su comprensión por la ciencia. De todas maneras tuvieron que aprender que 2+2=4 y que el universo tienen 13.5 billones de años (o una cantidad como esa). La ciencia ha llevado al hombre esa conclusión, a la persecución del conocimiento a dónde sea que este nos lleve. Pregúntale a alguien que vivió hace 400 años qué edad tiene el universo, y esta persona te va a ver raro porque ni siquiera sabe que existe un universo. Pregúntale a la misma persona de dónde cree él que venimos y te va a contestar exactamente lo que esperas, te dará una explicación bíblica que sonará casi igual que la que te daría una persona religiosa. Si tú ya tienes la información entonces no hay necesidad de tener un libro de texto. ¿Por qué imprimir un libro de texto científico que dice lo mismo que el libro de texto del año pasado? Mi punto es que la ciencia y la religión son materias diferentes y necesitas ser enseñadas por separado.
Raza y Religión. Estos son dos temas que por seguro van a hacer que la gente se apasione. Pero también son dos temas que provocan una muy buena conversación (asumiendo que no existe correo odioso involucrado). La raza al igual que la religión, son algo muy personal. Por lo tanto no es de sorprender que provoquen respuestas tan apasionadas. Como lo dije al principio de este artículo, simplemente estoy diciéndolo como yo lo veo. Cuando las explicaciones bíblicas de acontecimientos naturales sean sometidos al escrutinio científico entonces van a poder ser enseñados en los libros de ciencia. Pero antes de ese momento no deberían ser incluidos. Debería tratarse de educación, no de hacer dinero diciéndoles a las personas lo que ellas quieren oír.
Related posts:
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
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.
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
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
… meant to say “If I’m reading you right.” I’m not positive you don’t believe in global warming.
-s
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?
Isa: You can if you’d like
Thank you for the support and taking the time to read!
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 =-.
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).
Hey guys, we have a thriving secular (amid a wildly-diverse-in-perspectives) homeschooling scene here in CA (at least in Santa Cruz county, but I’m fairly sure in much of Central,Northern Ca). Just so you know…you are not alone! (just, you know, far away..)
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”.
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.
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 =-.
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 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 =-.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hello! I know I am super-duper late to this discussion. However, as I work for an online curriculum company, I had to throw in my two cents. You are right that a majority of the homeschool curriculum out there is not designed for secular families. This is changing, though, as people are becoming disillusioned with the school system and more people are homeschooling for non-religious reasons.
My company, Thinkwell, produces online curriculum in math and science that are completely secular. Instead our focus is getting the best teachers we can to teach our courses. I think this is what should be the focus. Our math teacher is nationally recognized and whenever I read over the comments on our math videos on YouTube, the most common one is “I wish he could be my teacher!” And we want to hear that because teachers are important and when it comes to these more difficult subjects, they can be the difference between a child succeeding and failing.
Keith,
Late to the party here but I agree 100% with everything you have said. We too have struggled to find curriculum that is religiously neutral. HIstory curriculum as well as science is tough, as there is a slant in Christian teachings of US history too that are actually false and less than honest as they try to portray our founding fathers as pious, the US’s actions as always virtuous, and our nation as sheer perfection. I love America, but I am not blind to our faults or our history of failure in certain areas.
Finding content is very tough, and sometimes a lot of work to piece together. I do think it will improve over time, as secular homeschoolers are growing in numbers and looking for something non-Christian, and non-public ed oriented. But it will definitely take time.