Monday, March 8, 2010

Homechools "promulgating lies" about Evolution? REALLY?

HERE is an article that says HOMESCHOOLING BOOKS don't include Darwin's Theory. Think what you will about either homeschooling OR Darwin's Theory, but the following two quotes in the article caught my eye and deserve consideration, don't you think?:

"I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids," said Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the University of Chicago.

"Lies?". Who says? Wait, Darwin is absolutely true but Creationism is simply....a LIE? REALLY? Could that be WHY more and more parents are homeschooling...maybe to get differing viewpoints, Mr. Coyne? Because, look at this, which the article also includes:

"Those who don't (have a creationist viewpoint), however, often feel isolated and frustrated from trying to find a textbook that fits their (evolution) beliefs."

Um...why not teach both sides, folks? If you can't find a homeschooling textbook that includes Darwin, TELL YOUR KID, don't complain!? Or write a new textbook. Just sayin'................

Wouldn't you think homeschooling parents might want to augment what they see in textbooks? And wouldn't you think both sides should always be taught, in home schools OR public schools? On every subject?

Do public schools teach Creationism? NO. Should homeschooling textbooks teach Evolution? Why NOT teach both very valid viewpoints? Is this not at least teaching both viewpoints in public schools just another way that God's being pushed out of America while even Leftist trolls at this blog deny it? How can this not be perfect proof that faith is being pushed out?

z

81 comments:

The Born Again American said...

Z,
Of course they are trying to insure faith is drummed out of our schools... Well unless you want to teach "Obama-ism"... They are having kids pledge allegiance to "The Earth"... The progressives don't want faith and God getting in the way of their agenda...

Faith said...

That article is just a way to discredit homeschooling by bringing up what they've taught for years already. Found someone who's really into evolution for their protagonist so they can quote evo spokesman Jerry Coyne about how it's all lies. The evolutionists have been getting more aggressive and nasty lately it seems to me.

=========
By the way, I think you meant to say "creationism" where you say "evolution" in this sentence:


"Lies?". Who says? Wait, Darwin is absolutely true but Evolution is simply....a LIE? REALLY?

Anonymous said...

Quick research says the average homeschool student performs in the top 75th to 80th percentile. Not sure they're the ones we should be worrying about.

tio

Z said...

BAA...glad you agree.

Faith, thanks for the correction! In the article, they seemed to be using evolutionism and Darwinism as two different things, too! I fixed my post, thanks.

tio....pretty good stats.

Anonymous said...

As logical as evolutionists pretend that Darwin was they don't present any better argument for the origins of life on Earth than do the Creationists. To the evolutionists life began when an overheated mud puddle came to life, so to speak, and the evolutionary a world was off to the races. To ridicule Creationism from that base of explaining the origins of life is ridiculous.

Waylon

beamish said...

I like to confuse evolutionists by claiming to believe humanity is a hybrid of humans created by God and humans descended from apes interbred with humans genetically altered by UFOs.

Ducky's here said...

Why NOT teach both very valid viewpoints?

--------------

What does that have to do with the religious dogma of Creationism?

Ducky's here said...

Beamish, talking to a Creationist about science is like talking to a headbanger about the history of Western music.

beamish said...

Ducky,

I think you're trying to be insulting of creationists and their knowledge of science in your analogy, but the analogy to headbangers and the knowledge of the history Western music isn't insulting because most metal musicians ARE classically trained. If you weren't artistically illiterate, you'd know that.

If you're really trying to insult creationists, liken them to leftists attempting to utter a rational thought. It wouldn't be a good analogy, but everyone would know you're trying to be insulting, and you can maintain a veil of modesty over your imbecility for at least a few more posts.

Anonymous said...

My point... if they don't like the home school text books, send your kid to the public indoctrination centers (public goobermint schools) and SHUT THE H#LL UP!!! Quit stomping on the rights of parents in a "free country" to choose to educate "THEIR CHILDREN" to be critical, thinking people instead of SHEEPLE!

and YES... if I had little ones in this age of Agendas over Knowledge, I would home school them!

HAM

Anonymous said...

Why NOT teach both very valid viewpoints?
--------------

What does that have to do with the religious dogma of Creationism?

Ducky, what does this comment have to do with "presenting all sides of the argument" and then allowing an individual to decide what they believe????

In debate, you don't discount something because you perceive it to be "religious dogma"!!! Darwin's theory is just that... a THEORY! It is not proven science. One unproven theory is as good as another. So if there is scientific, proof positive that the religion of Darwinism is absolute fact... please provide it with "peer review data" to support it. All you are giving us is your obviously biased and flawed anti-religious reasoning.

Ducky's here said...

Agendas over knowledge?

Excellent description of the creationist agenda over the science of evolutionary biology.

A reminder, HAM, the FACT that science and the historic record does not support the recounting in the Old Testament is YOUR PROBLEM. It is up to you to work out of Luther's dogmatic contention that the Old Testament is literal truth.

Anonymous said...

Seems you have difficulty with understanding the difference between faith and science Ducky. Just like you have difficulty in being open minded enough to accept the fact that whether or not one accepts faith or unproven science, it is their right to determine that for themselves. I choose having that freedom to choose in this case.

You should learn to respect the right to choose in this circumstance, just as you would in the case of one choosing to end the life of their own offspring if you are a true liberal. I always thought that is what liberal folks promoted. The idea that they are just more open minded than other folks!

Ducky's here said...

No, I have a very good understanding.

Creationism is the dogma of faith and belongs in a religion class, not in a science class.

Promoting its teaching in public schools constitutes an establishment of religion and is illegal.

Simple.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

HELLOOOO??!!?

That's likely the fundamental REASON that people are home-schooling their kids -- because parents get to choose NOT to have Socialist, PC, sexist drivel smacked into the brains of their children. They are brave by STOPPING the indoctrination of public schools.

BZ

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Ducky: perfect point, thank you kindly. Home schooling is not public schooling and, as such, its adherents get to teach creationism if they so deign.

BZ

Z-man said...

It's a debate that never ends but to clarify something -- evolution is still only a theory right? When did it become scientific fact? Hell they even took Pluto's status as the 9th planet back and you find Science backtracking on a couple of other items too. Even Freud is so yesterday. I think it's like you said, to get rid of faith.

Z said...

THE TWO ANONYMOUS comments are from HAM, she asked me to add that here....well done, HAM..good comments.

Hi ,Z-MAN..good to see you. And yes, I think it's exactly that.
Isn't it fascinating that people think they can prove God DOESN'T EXIST? I'd love to see them try it..I really really would.

BZ....the left's eager to shut down the brains of anybody who doesn't agree with them, let's face it.

beamish said...

Why not kill two birds with one stone? Dump the Department of Education and get government out of the schooling business entirely and you don't have to worry if it's legal to pray in school or learn creationism over evolution or any of the other issues that come up.

Joe said...

Ducky said: "Promoting its teaching in public schools constitutes an establishment of religion and is illegal."

The Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or preventing the free exercise thereof."

If congress cannot make a law about it, how did it become illegal?

It's a total failure to recognize of the difference between "the establishment" (the act of forming or establishing something) and "an establishment" (a place or situation in which something is conducted, such as business, worshp, etc.).

Faith said...

I agree with beamish. I came to believe some time ago that the problem is public education, since it can't help but try to homogenize and conform us all to a state definition of everything, and when you get the state behind anything, eventually you get enforcement of its opinion against all dissenters. Not a good idea.

Anonymous said...

If we teach our children history, rather than social engineering, then I think there is a place to offer two objective points of view about creation. It is perhaps best presented in the social sciences to middle school students.

Recognize that social science offered to elementary, middle and high schools are no more than survey classes. What most states are testing regular (non-accelerated) students focuses almost exclusively on general knowledge, conceptual skills, writing ability. In the former, state tests are written for morons and the parents of morons; so that these parents believe their children really are bright.

Here’s an example of the dumbed down questions that appear on tests in Texas: Which of the following men served as President of the United States during the civil war? (a) George Washington, (b) James Madison, (c) Abraham Lincoln, (d) Ronald Reagan.

Conceptual questions entail reading a paragraph and answering questions about that paragraph. Not difficult because the answer is within the paragraph; well, unless of course you happen to be an American student who is 3 to 5 grade-levels behind in reading comprehension skills. Essay questions are among the least challenging because if a student makes any kind of mark on the answer form with his or her pencil, they are scored “1” out of “5.” We mustn’t harm their self-esteem, you know.

No, the children aren’t learning anything, but they think they are —their parents think they are, and that’s what is most important.

Should we test children on their understanding of creationism? No.

My two cents

Mustang sends

Anonymous said...

In the first place, if you're homeschooling, you can teach pretty much what you choose, along with an accredited curriculum. After all, they are your children, and, as of yet, do not belong to the State. Notice I said as of yet.

Education it seems, is fickle. The institutions of learning have no problem with teaching global warming, as if it's settled science, when we all know it is not, and in fact it is unlikely it even exists, given the scandal it now enjoys.

Ducky, what do they teach in Parochial schools? Don't they approach this subject with their own set of beliefs?

If you read a treatise on Intelligent Design, which I have, you'll find it was arrived at through years of scientific study, and concludes that the existence of life is so complex, requiring millions of biological elements to combine and result in life, as to belie an accidental occurence.

Yet, the scientific community disdains it, and refuses to even entertain the possibility it is legitimate.

There is no reason other than bigotry and antiquated thinking, that would excuse the science community from accepting at least the possibility this is worth accepting as a worthwhile undertaking, and deserves recognition and presentation in the halls of education.

They dismissed it out of hand, and are rooted in what they're used to, and what they wish to believe, study or not, which frankly, is in itself not an honest scientific approach to a scientific study.

I believe the miracle of life, is created by God. I can accept that evolution also, could be part of God's plan.

It's a matter of faith, and anything that is studied and presented which supports that belief, is a good thing IMO, and should not be dismissed because some do not want it to be so.

As for homeschooling, this effort at discrediting it, is no doubt the beginning of a wider fight against it, with the agenda of disallowing it completely. The left never rests. Never.

Pris

Anonymous said...

//Promoting its teaching in public schools constitutes an establishment of religion and is illegal.

Simple.//


Yes Ducky, you are simple, but I don't see what that has to do with teaching ABOUT creation.

Offering both points of view is hardly teaching religion or science. It doesn't advocate one or the other. It simply presents information about what people believe.

Another cent

Mustang sends

Ducky's here said...

It doesn't advocate one or the other. It simply presents information about what people believe.

----------------------

Because creationism does not meet the definition of a scientific theory and should not be taught as science.

There is no obligation to insert dogma into a science class and there is every reason not to.

Genesis is dogma. It is not science.

beamish said...

Exactly Joe. The original intent of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment of an official national religion by Congress.

I don't see federal government regulation of education mentioned in the Constitution at all, but I'm one of those onery libertarian types that believe the Constitution should be the final word on what government can and can't do.

Ducky's here said...

Joe, just go back and read the Supreme Court rulings on the Dover Pa. case.

You have consistently lost in court and that's the name of that tune.

Creationism is not science and the rulings against its teaching are quite clear.

Ducky's here said...

Actually Joe, you're correct. The ruling specified that Creationism is NOT science and that was the primary basis of the removal.

It wasn't an establishment clause ruling, point taken.

Ducky's here said...

And wouldn't you think both sides should always be taught, in home schools OR public schools? On every subject?

-------------------

Heck yes, Literature classes should employ Lukacs' "Theory of the Novel".

History classes should use "The Economic Interpretation of the Constitution".

Sociology classes should use Harrington's "The Other America" or Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickle and Dimed"

There are all kinds of examples of "both sides" not being taught.

Z said...

Ducky, and you call yourself a Catholic, isn't that right? And the ONLY thing that informs Christianity is the Bible.
But, you don't believe..And you go to church, from what I've gathered.
And, weren't you the one who found praying a 'racket', was that the word you used?

I'd hate to be inside your head, Ducky..For not being so, I am so thankful.

Then, when you're ready, prove that Creationism is wrong, okay? And that there is no God.
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

"Because creationism does not meet the definition of a scientific theory and should not be taught as science."

Ducky, helloooo! You're ignoring Intelligent Design. Why is that? .

How does it not qualify as a scientific study? Because you don't want it to?

Pris

beamish said...

::resisting urge to chide Z for confusing Catholicism with Christianity::

Z,

Ducky is a Catholic. Adherence to the Bible never entered the equation.

Ducky's here said...

And the ONLY thing that informs Christianity is the Bible.

--------------------

A literal belief in Genesis DOES NOT inform all Christianity.

Once again, you will not be allowed to force acceptance of your particular dogma.

Any way, if Creationism is going to be taught then in order to present "both sides" you would have to teach that a teleological argument CANNOT demonstrate monotheism. Polytheisnm is just as logical a premise, so you might want to rethink your concern that all sides aren't being taught.

Ducky's here said...

How does it not qualify as a scientific study? Because you don't want it to?

------------------------

Once again, Pris I refer to the court case against York PA. There are any number of films and books on the case.

I also refer you to the post above. The teleological argument cannot refute polytheism.

American Yankee said...

Z said...

Ditto...oh, except you haven't come by mine :-)

Well I'm here now... and I love your blog..:-)

beamish said...

The teleological argument cannot refute polytheism.

Except for that nagging issue of all polytheistic religions having a single creator deity at the top of their pantheons and hierarchies.

You're not very good at logical argumentation, Ducky.

Stick to the baby food.

Anonymous said...

"Once again, Pris I refer to the court case against York PA. There are any number of films and books on the case."

Perhaps then Ducky, you'll agree that the fact that global warming is being taught in science classes, is simply a choice based on political ideology and agenda, and has nothing to do with science.

In other words, meaningless claptrap that serves a leftist political agenda, and the scientific study I speak of does not.

Do I have that about right?

Pris

Z said...

Hi, American Yankee...I hope you didn't take that as a nag; I tried to express it NOT that way because I wasn't chiding you....I promise!

SO glad you like the blog and I sure do like yours, too.

Everyone..American Yank's a new blog, take a look, you'll like it. (then come back HERE, of course :-)
heh

Anonymous said...

It's very simple -- though no one wants to believe it: The public schools have absolutely NO right either to espouse OR suppress any point of view.

In my personal opinion, however, any form of expression that mocks, scorns, defames or otherwise deliberately attempts to undermine the constitutional principles on which we were founded should be taken out of public education.

In other words WE CANNOT TOLERATE INTOLERANCE.

The central problem we face today is this:

The LEFT has supplanted old forms of intolerance and bigotry with new ones that serve THEIR particular purposes -- all of which are destructive to the America most of us believe we know and love.

Jefferson said, "I am unalterably opposed to every form of tyranny over the mind of Man."

Our truest enemy is TOTALITARIANISM no matter what banner it parades under. Christian theocratic tyranny would be every bit as dangerous as Marxian or fascistic tyranny.

Does this mean I am an enemy of the Bible? I don't think so, but I fear those who take that point of view as greatly as I fear Michael Moore, Richard Dawkins, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, The Nation, the literature, social science, political science and history faculties of most "major" universities, The Southern Poverty Law Center, and those who support the KKK.

~ FreeThinke

Leticia said...

The thing is AOW is that the government and the liberals do not want to give credit to God. They want God out of the picture completely.

My boys have already been taught about Darwinism and they both were surprised that people think that we come from monkeys.

They disagreed and told me about it. I may not homeschool but I am doing my darndest to teach my boys about the Lord.

Anonymous said...

PS: As a person of faith, who also accepts and is most grateful for the discoveries and advances of science, archaeology and anthropology, I find Intelligent Design to be the most tenable point of view on this unnecessarily volatile subject.

Darwin, himself, had no intention of destroying religion. This is the onus that career mischief makers and their prey (i.e. those who love to get all riled up at the drop of a hat) have thrust on him.

It doesn't bother me in the least to imagine that "Adam and Eve" may very well have been two bits of God-created protoplasm that developed over aeons into the complex beings we are today.

The truth is that NO ONE really KNOWS ANYTHING about our origins. ALL the points of view both religious and scientific are based on FAITH. -- not certain knowledge.

I'm merely stating my opinion. Please take it for whatever you think it may be worth, but I don't want to argue about it. I just wanted to put it on record.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Ducky,
Re your comment about heavy metal guys and Western music, are you ignoring all the work of Ritchie Blackmore? I'm not huge on his interpretation of Beethoven's Ninth, but his variation on Bach's Prelude in C is one of the most serene pieces of music I've heard. But if you prefer intense music, his take on Grieg is excellent.

tio

Z said...

FT...you said "This is the onus that career mischief makers and their prey (i.e. those who love to get all riled up at the drop of a hat) have thrust on him" and that does, A BIT, sound more like an opinion but I sure do respect yours.

Also, as you can see from all the comments above, nobody'd EVER consider taking Evolution OUT of the science mix in public school..NO WAY.

It's ALL WAYS we want taught, and I see you want that, too....that used to be the American way.

By the way, folks...had a VERY hip and cool (and hunky..oops) electrician here most of the day. Suddenly he pops up with how he's a member of the NRA ..... I toookk a gulp "Are you conservative?"

YUP.

Oh, man, not only do the living room cans in the ceiling look great but I am SO HAPPY to hear young guys who GET IT :-) YIPPEE! We could actually TALK in the open...oooo, no libs to CONDEMN us for 'A DIFFERENT OPINION'....:-)

Anonymous said...

It is interesting how people starting with different fundamental assumptions about the universe can look at the same facts and arrive and very different conclusions.

If you believe in an all-powerful God who is personally involved in the universe, you have no reason to doubt that he created man and woman. You may have doubts and questions, but the idea doesn't contradict your weltanschauung (am I saying that right, Z?).

If you believe there is no God--that nothing transcends the laws of nature--divine creation would present a conflict with your belief. I think a bit of circular reasoning takes places here: If there is nothing that transcends the laws of nature, how did man come to be? Well, he could be the result of gradual, random mutations. But is this explanation based on random mutations true? It must be; it's the only explanation based on the laws of nature. In other words, man must be the result of natural processes because that is the only explanation based on natural processes.

This issue is absolutely vital to atheists--even more so than to Christians and other theists. Would you be shocked if you heard of a Christian who believes in evolution? Probably not. Would you be shocked if you heard of an athiest who believed in creation? I would.

My contention is that evolution is based more on assumptions a priori than on evidence post priori. As such, I think that evolution is very much an article of religion rather than of science.

This issue, particularly the Scopes trial, is often used to portray Christians as antithetical to science. Keep in mind, it was not illegal in the district where the incident took place (I don't know if the law was a state law or a local law) to teach the theory of evolution. The issue was over teaching that man was descended from apes. Beliefs in where man comes from--hard to get very far on that topic without teaching some kind of religion.

On the subject of "separation of church and state" it is interesting how one-sided the application of this phrase is. It's almost always an excuse to get religion to retreat. Would that the phrase were used to restrict the reach of the state.

tio

Anonymous said...

Random Thoughts About the Process of Leaning and Knowing

For me the most intriguing aspect of human learning, is not the product of specific instruction, how much we remember, or even what it all comes to mean after decades of being buffeted about. It is, instead, the phenomenon "geniuses" and people of lesser intelligence too experience when they come to know and understand things no one ever told them about.

I've had a sneaking suspicion for a very long time that all seminal knowledge -- revolutionary, life-changing concepts, significant works of art, music, literature and probably mathematics, science and technology -- arise and develop from intuition.

Civilization is the product of an endless series of discoveries after much trial and lots and lots of error. 

Everything we've learned and produced was always there in nascent form. We don't really invent anything -- we merely put two and two together and occasionally understand that we now have four. The exceptionally smart among us make discoveries, bring them to life, then the rest of us learn about them either through instruction or by osmosis -- mostly the latter, I think.

Remembering everything to which we've been exposed in minute and stupefying detail is of little value in itself -- rather like being able to count the exact number of molecules in our bodies and giving each of them a pet name. For instance, what good would the New York Public Library be, if no one ever read -- or was in any way influenced -- by all those books?

Not as silly a question as it may sound at first. A mind stuffed with facts -- even all the facts, if that were possible -- would be useless without the ability to interpret and then manifest what it knows.

What distinguishes human intellect from animal instinct and mere data processing machinery is our uncanny ability -- which varies greatly from individual to individual -- to look at things, ask questions, then draw reasonable -- or at least plausible -- conclusions.

We seem to be the only form of life that has the capacity to sort the good from the evil, the true from the false, the significant from the petty, the vital from the merely intriguing, the worthy from the meretricious, etc. and to align it all in a self-conceived system that derives moral and spiritual values from all the data that in turn guide us to a more satisfying, congenial, meaning-filled existence.

So learning to appreciate where knowledge might originate -- and then deciding responsibly what to do with it -- are far more important than simply acquiring facts and figures, compiling statistics and then struggling to find ways to keep on "remembering" it all.

There's an awful lot of stuff we've learned that's no more important than the dust we've allowed to collect behind the furniture in our rooms.

As we get older, we think about "downsizing" -- shedding the trappings of a more youthful, acquisitive, forward-looking time, and paring down to stuff we've grown to regard as essential.

It's probably a good idea to do the same thing with our minds.

~ FreeThinke

Layla said...

Hi Z,

I homeschool our Autistic son and that book would never get past my threshold. At this point I am pleased knowone here is touting the accolade of that book filled with so many lies. That is terrible.

Chris Denning said...

Anonymous finally hit on what evolution is, a faith. Science is defined as observable, repeatable, provable phenomena and evolution does not fit. No one was there except God, so only He can tell us what happened, which He does very clearly in Genesis. As a proud mother of two home schooled children K-12, I can say I certainly did not leave out evolution, but taught all the fraudulent "science" that has been disproven but still appears in textbooks, as well as what the current theory teaches. Creation science is just as scientific as evolution is. They are both based on phenomenal faith but evolution has to explain away much evidence that creation assumptions predict. Honest scientists want to explore discrepancies and evidence that just doesn't fit, but evolutionists hide and even throw out evidence that casts doubt on their precious religion, exemplified by the recent example of global warming worshipers.

Anonymous said...

Z,
Mind if I stir the pot a little bit?

You advocated teaching both sides. Since we're talking about homeschooling, this is about what parents should teach their children. Isn't it important for parents to take sides? You wouldn't tell your kids "This is Christianity; this is Budhism. Go decide which one is right." I claimed that creation v. evolution is not so much religion v. science as it is religion v. religion. With that in mind, what are you advocating about teaching both?

tio

WomanHonorThyself said...

yup more indocrination Z!

Z said...

tio...I'm advocating an open mind. But, you make a good point. I think it depends on the age of the child...if they're very young, you might only teach the religious version...when a bit older, give them the other teachings...Explain how others see it but why we believe as WE do.
I'm not arguing with you, really...I totally see your point and wonder if you think my idea above is valid?

Chris, welcome to geeeeZ and thanks for your input. and for homeschooling your children. God bless you. You make excellent points..

FT...World View:? I think you're close if not perfect on that :-)

Layla, thanks...and I need to try to figure out how to log into your new blog and encourage everyone to go there and see it...good stuff, as usual!

Anonymous said...

FT,
Your thoughts may be random but also thought-provoking. You talked about being able to name every molecule of the body. It makes me think of how much of education is learning names rather than ideas.

Your observations about knowledge and age are also interesting. I'm amazed at how young many scientists were when they made their key contributions. I think Newton created calculus, defined laws of motion, and maybe did some work on gravity in one year in his early 20s.

For leaders, such as CEOs, presidents, etc. the peak age seems to be maybe 60.

No real point here. Just continuing with the randomness.

tio

Anonymous said...

Z,
I agree that there is value in understanding other people's world views. I wasn't sure if you were saying teach both as fact, teach both as theory, teach one as fact and one as theory...

An open mind can be a good thing, but..

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do, you've simply abdicated the responsibility to think." --William F Buckley

tio

Z said...

tio..good point "I wasn't sure if you were saying teach both as fact, teach both as theory, teach one as fact and one as theory..."
I'm actually not sure...I guess I'd stress my own viewpoint but at least discuss the other?

I like the Wm Buckley quote...I'll add that anything can fall into too open a mind :-)

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed Buckley a great deal, Tio, but have suspected for a very long time that much of his output was largely tongue-in-cheek.

I believe all knowledge emanates from the tiny glimpses of Immortal Truth (God) that a few extraordinarily sensitive and perceptive individuals have been able to grasp and hold here and there throughout the ages.

So in my view all knowledge come from God and is part of a long long process of DISCOVERY. There is no other Creator, but no person has ever seen His face and known Him fully.

If this were not so, why would rare individuals like Mozart be BORN knowing virtually everything about their field from the first moment of consciousness? Mozart did not LEARN, he simply KNEW.

Music historians claim Mozart's father taught him. Nonsense! His father was an absolute dullard in comparison. I've heard enough of his work as a composer to know that his talent was vastly inferior.

I'm sure this element of extreme precocity was true of those who first conceived and executed the classic Greek temples. It was true of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Phidias, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, Galileo, Newton and all the other supreme geniuses that laid the foundation for Civilization and gave us much of its grandest and most glorious achievements.

Genius may be 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, as they say, but without that vital ONE PERCENT (a glimpse of some small part of the true nature of God), all that effort would be in vain.

None of us have the power to make something out of nothing. Those who try always fail, and invariably they act as charlatans of one kind or another, even when they believe in themselves.

If the day ever comes when someone has succeeded at generating a new element out of thin air, I MIGHT be tempted to become agnostic, but I doubt if that will ever happen. When any man tries to act like a god, it always ends in disaster.

I think it immodest for anyone to imagine he knows and understands God. As I see it, we are barely beginning that process, but trying to know God is what life is really all about -- whether one consciously believes it or not.

~ FreeThinke

Faith said...

When God Himself HAS TOLD us about Himself -- which He most mercifully DID, by inspiring men to write down His revelations to them -- the immodesty, the downright arrogance, is to ignore Him and accuse those who believe what He said of "immodesty" and prefer to make up your own version of God.

Anonymous said...

And Z, you're right about too open a mind -- as in having no convictions and no understanding or appreciation of Principle, but remember please that a closed mind is impervious to new and possibly enlightening knowledge.

Always a delicate balance ...

I guess you could say I'm a SPIRIT man as opposed to a LETTER man. I hope that makes at least a little sense?

~ FT

Anonymous said...

Good night, all. WOW! It's WAAAAAAY past my bedtime.

You lucky westerners have so much extra time.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Good night, all. WOW! It's WAAAAAAY past my bedtime.

You lucky westerners have so much extra time.

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

FT..sorry if I gave you the impression I'd think any differently than you do about the dangers of having a closed mind. ???!
I don't know about a spirit v letter man....If you mean the letters written in SCripture, I'd say that's Spirit-breathed and what we need to cling to...don't you? but, I'm not sure that's what you mean?

Z said...

Goodnight, FT! Sleep tight!

MK said...

Personally i don't give a damn about teaching the leftist point of view, for years now they've pushed and shoved Christianity without any fairness what so ever. I love the way they whine about both sides when all they've ever taught is their own half-baked tripe.

Besides no one in today's world needs to be specially taught the leftist views, they can get it from a variety of sources.

So leftists can take their fairness whining and go to hell for all i care.

Always On Watch said...

Wouldn't you think homeschooling parents might want to augment what they see in textbooks?

Yes.

And that's why some groups of homeschoolers hire professional educators. I'm one, and we have a science teacher too. She brings in the theory of evolution.

I do fail to understand why it's so important to believe the theory of evolution. I guess that I just trust that I'm living in this world and that God was and is the Force behind that design.

The above said, science is not my field.

Ducky's here said...

but his variation on Bach's Prelude in C is one of the most serene pieces of music I've heard. But if you prefer intense music, his take on Grieg is excellent.

-------------------------

It may be worthwhile though I doubt it's up to the level of someone like Christopher Parkening.

I think "metal" musicians bring metal with them to classical a lot more frequently than they bring classical to metal simply because they're rooted in headbanging and it's bombast.

Anonymous said...

Home schooling may be a reaction to the broader ideological war that has been conducted against Western Civilization and its founding ideas based upon Christianity. Undermining western values is evident of education today and it's an ongoing issue in all countries in the western world. Strangely enough it is the godlessness of the secular socialist that has embraced the ecology movement more as it has moved toward the fear inducing global warming/climate change ideology. Now it is becoming evident that this movement is itself based upon a "new religion".

This new religion is based upon a more primitive and pagan interpretation of life on Earth. I base this statement on a recent interview conducted on an extremely leftist radio station (CBC), with an aboriginal leader who was comparing the God of Mother Earth or Gaia with the God he learned about in "residential school" — a compulsory school system in which young aboriginal children were removed from their family to be raised and educated by the Catholic Church. Plenty of abuse has been documented and exposed.

The most telling point of this man's story were his clear understanding of the God presented in his early religious education — God created heaven and Earth and created man to have dominion over the Earth and its lesser creatures. On the other hand Gaia is the God of nature and man is only a temporary visitor who must treat the Earth with respect and worship its life giving bounty making no claim on the Earth.

There is a fundamental conflict occurring between these interpretations of life and the future of Western Civilization based on those values which are opposed. I've always been one who recognized the value of human life and recognized the beauty of nature, the planet and the wonders of the symmetry of the universe — so of course, the idea of placing human life on a lower value than nature is alien to my thinking.

But this movement of eco-freaks is moving onward and is well funded and its intent is to establish an elitist rule of the wealthy and powerful who rule over those who are using the Earth's resources at their pleasure — meaning all human life would be subject to their rule. At least that's my interpretation of their intent.

Waylon

Z said...

MK, I could be wrong, so pardon me, but I wonder if some of us would be THIS ANGRY if EVERYTHING wasn't so stacked against us today in Western Society...how big a deal would this really be if God wasn't being kicked out everywhere, if churches weren't even leaning so left as to be unrecognizable? ...if our president didn't use words like FOR PROFIT as if it's a sin, or encouraged socialist health care, or culturally we weren't so in the toilet, etc etc...

Always, I think you're a gift to homeschooled kids. They'd all do better with someone like you coming by.

Z said...

WAYLON...!! I didn't see your comment until after I'd posted MINE! You said pretty much the same thing only far more eloquently.
Thanks! :-)

Miss T.C. Shore said...

Read the article carefully. "TOP homeschooling textbooks" do not "push" evolution because they come from a creationist viewpoint. That doesn't mean that there aren't any homeschooling texts that teach evolution, nor does it mean that you can't find a text book or other book in the library or some other source to use if you Home School your children.

OF COURSE! top homeschooling texts will have a creationist/christian slant. HOMESCHOOLING WAS POPULARIZED BY EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS WHO WERE FRUSTRATED WITH THE PUSHING OF EVOLUTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Is this REALLY news?

Z said...

TC..the hypocrisy needs to be exposed. xxx

Steve said...

Being a conservative, and feeling as frustrated as others of my political persuasion about MSM bias, I tend to agree wholely or largely with Z on most matters.

But not on this one.

Z asks, "Why NOT teach both very valid viewpoints?"

Well, the other side to a science issue is other science, like two scientists debating whether AGW is a valid theory. When science has another explanation for the beginning and development of life, it and evolution would be the debating partners. Or, given the complexity of evolution theory, different schools of thought within the school may debate together.

But faith and science can only debate if one believes it invalidates the other. For example, if evolutionists believe evolution disproves faith (it doesn't, of course), they and those of faith can debate this proposition. Or if those of faith believe their views invalidate science (they don't, of course), they and those of science can debate this proposition.

Otherwise, there is no debate between faith and science. Since Creationism is faith (masquerading as science), to call for teaching Creationism as the opposing theory of evolution is a false choice. (Conservatives: forgive me for - have I sinned? - using a favourite Obama distraction word).

Z said...

Steve, I've read your comment a few times and don't really get it...
I'm not sure I agree..?
But I like that you usually DO agree with me!
(do I know you?) :-)

Anonymous said...

Evolution of an earlier statement:

t doesn't bother me in the least to imagine that "Adam and Eve" may very well have been two bits of God-created protoplasm that developed over aeons into the complex beings we are today.

The truth is that NO ONE really KNOWS ANYTHING about our origins. ALL the points of view both religious and scientific are based on INTUITION, which develops after a time into FAITH. -- not certain knowledge.

Yes certain knowledge exists. We know that water is not stone and wood is not flesh for instance, or cherries are not grapes, and that kittens will not grow up to become dogs, etc. but what we MAKE of our knowledge, how we USE it, and how deeply we probe into the essence and beyond the surface of things visible to the naked eye is where it gets interesting -- and often mysterious.

The more we discover about the nature of reality and its highly complex underlying superstructure, the more we should realize how very very little we truly know.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Evolution of an earlier statement:

t doesn't bother me in the least to imagine that "Adam and Eve" may very well have been two bits of God-created protoplasm that developed over aeons into the complex beings we are today.

The truth is that NO ONE really KNOWS ANYTHING about our origins. ALL the points of view both religious and scientific are based on INTUITION, which develops after a time into FAITH. -- not certain knowledge.

Yes certain knowledge exists. We know that water is not stone and wood is not flesh for instance, or cherries are not grapes, and that kittens will not grow up to become dogs, etc. but what we MAKE of our knowledge, how we USE it, and how deeply we probe into the essence and beyond the surface of things visible to the naked eye is where it gets interesting -- and often mysterious.

The more we discover about the nature of reality and its highly complex underlying superstructure, the more we should realize how very very little we truly know.

~ FreeThinke

Steve said...

Well, a scientific hypothesis begins, perhaps, as intuition. But after subjected to testing and more testing and more testing, definable, factually based knowledge grows. That makes science different than faith. That's why science could put us on the moon and faith could not.

I appreciate your sensibility of faith and G-d's p,ans for life through what we may call science. I've never seen any contradiction between the two. Those who insist that the Hebrew bible's story of creation is literally true are today's Flat Earrth Society. But as even the RC would eventually reconcile its theology with the smallness of Earth and man in the universe, so will others when, as will happen before all too long, evolution is proven to be indisputably true.

Steve

Steve said...

Z, you do know me, as does Free Thinke and i believe some others here - I'm Canadian Steve.

Z said...

Steve, I had a feeling.
Welcome to GeeeeeZ :-)

Anonymous said...

"Z, you do know me, as does Free Thinke and i believe some others here - I'm Canadian Steve."

My gosh Steve, it's so good to see you here. I guess you know about Mike by now, that he passed away last November. Just thought I'd mention it in case you didn't know.

Pris

Steve said...

Hi Pris:

Nice to see you here.

I did know of Mike's passing. Still hard to believe, and upsetting everytime I think of it. Remarkable guy, of a kind of which there are far too few.

Since quite a few friends have ended up here - which speaks to Z's quality blog and character - guess I should check in regularly.

Z said...

Steve, thank you, and I'd like that.

Faith said...

Steve knows me too, and even by the name Faith which I used on an evolution-creation debate forum he also posted on from time to time. He'll recognize me in any case as soon as I say that evolution isn't based on science, much as it claims to be. I realize it would take a book to prove that -- and I'm actually thinking of writing one -- or at least writing that much on the subject I'm so sick of them getting away with those claims.

Faith said...

Oh, I should have said, Hi! and Welcome, Steve.

Steve said...

Hi Faith. Gee, seems all the old gang is here. How lovely. It's nice being back amongst friends.