Homepage Archives Email Me! RSS Feed

In his article, Homeschoolers Who Don´t Learn Science Shouldn´t Receive a Diploma, Mr. Shives opens with a telling attitude about homeschooling: "There are many, many things I find dubious about the practice of parents homeschooling their children." He then proceeds to go on to prove he knows little about homeschooling and especially about the way children learn by saying, "I wonder how a mother or father who has not been educated as a teacher, who in many cases has not even been to college her/himself, can possibly provide their child with as good an education as students receive in our much-maligned public schools. And I can´t help but think that these homeschool students, of whom there are several million in the United States, are being robbed of a crucial formative experience by not attending school with other people their age and being forced to interact with a diverse group of peers."

I have to laugh out loud with his purely simple assessment of the totality of a child's "crucial formative experience", their learning experience, to "attending school with other people their age and being forced to interact with a diverse group of peers". The guy really needs to meet some homeschoolers, maybe read a few blogs. I don't have to force my children to do much, if anything. They interact well with others their own age and below and beyond. They love to learn. They are excited about life. They have learned this by being homeschooled, because, by its very nature, it nurtures a love for family, people and learning.

The entire rest of the article does not even address this 'concern' of his, so why does he say all of this? What could be so important for him to have to give this opinion about homeschoolers? Is he worried that we need to mix homeschoolers in with the other government-schooled kids as a giant science experiment to see what happens? No. I think the word "forced" is the tell-tale word here. He believes that homeschooled children should be forced to go to a government school and learn a government-based agenda. I think the word diverse is what he wants to force on homeschoolers. As in religious diversity.

Reading further into the article, you will find that he is worried that the fundamentalist Christian homeschoolers are not learning about evolution. He makes it abundantly clear that his definition of science, which only includes an evolutionary theory as the basis, must be forced on all those Creationists. Now, his article is entitled Homeschoolers Who Don´t Learn Science Shouldn´t Receive a Diploma, but, let's call it as it is, and just say that he would like the creationists to trade in their own religious beliefs for his of evolution.

He is so concerned that the Creationist definition of the creation of the earth is being taught to homeschooled children. He has been indoctrinated into the belief in the theory of Darwinism and evolution as the only way the earth was created, and he believes it as the truth. It is quite ironic that this is a concern of creationists about the government schools, isn't it? We are concerned about the fact that the Creation as told in the Bible has been taken out of science and the schools, along with prayer, morality and other God-given admonishments of truth and replaced with humanism, evolution, political-correctness and immorality.

He states, "Instead of evolutionary biology, which has been the keystone of the life sciences for over 150 years, homeschool students are taught creationism—that the God of the Bible personally created the universe more or less as described in the Book of Genesis. There are several varieties of creationism—Young Earth, Old Earth, Omphalosian, Neo—all thoroughly discredited. Increasingly, it is dressed in the pseudoscientific trappings of intelligent design. Whatever its proponents choose to call it, regardless of the intellectual contortions it performs to make the Biblical creation account plausible, it isn´t science and it should never be taught as such."
First of all, science, Creationism, etc. have been around for a lot longer than 150 years. So, if we want to go the route of teaching what has been around for the longest time, let's go with Creationism. The story of Adam and Eve, Creation, the snake, etc., have been passed down from generation to generation for six thousand years. Just because a government legislates something as what to teach does not always make it right or truth.

Secondly, to call it "pseudoscientific trappings", is purely his own conjecture. I can absolutely say the same thing about evolution. Just because evolution-proponents choose to dismiss discoveries that prove Creationism or ignore where evolutionary science has been refuted does not make evolution true.
The definition of pseudo-science is "a pretended or mistaken science," 1844, from pseudo- (q.v.) + science.
This is definitely one we as Creationists can apply to evolutionists, just as they apply to us. To me, that makes it opinion, based on our own experiences and knowledge.
Another definition of pseudoscience is "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific."

In answer to his opinion that homeschoolers should have to learn his idea of science to receive a diploma, I say he is stepping into boundaries he does not have any knowledge of. He is making assumptions that Christian homeschoolers do not learn about evolution at all. Honestly, we teach our children about evolution. We teach our children in high school about evolution from an educational standpoint, not as truth overriding the Creator. We also watch public television, and when you do, you can't help but have to explain evolution to some degree. Matt and I sit there astonished at the absurd questions evolutionists have to things we just attribute to God as Creator, all-knowing. We wonder at God and His creation. We know to whom these wonders are attributed.

The question of college is one that I do not even need to speak to. The flood of colleges who want homeschoolers in their schools has been documented many times before. Homeschoolers are good students. They are serious students. Colleges know this. Colleges are accepting homeschooled students, period.
Let us talk about careers, though. How many high school graduates actually attend, finish and receive a degree at college, then go into the field of study they received that degree in?
Now, how many of them are scientific careers requiring a belief in evolution?
How many careers require a belief in evolution?
We need people in this world to work at fast-food restaurants, check out our groceries and pick up our trash. We need police officers and highway men and furniture salesmen. Most people are not going to become molecular biologists. I am obviously not saying that homeschoolers aren't, but if you read his article, you would believe that homeschoolers are believing fairy dust and in no wise could pass a college science course. I see no facts presented to support this theory.

I believe this article was written based on the different opinions the author has heard about homeschoolers and tied it in with the same outrage most people have about homeschooling: they can't control it. It is good. It is working, and they can't get their hands into it. I don't believe he did his research about homeschooling. He even had to add and Edit into the article to correct the demographics of homeschoolers. I think his article is more about fundamentalist Christian homeschoolers not having their children indoctrinated into evolution as their government-schooled counterparts are.

So, to sum up this ideology, if the colleges only teach evolution or sciences based on evolutionary science, which is a flawed theory, then everyone must simply go along with it, in order to survive in this world. Homeschoolers must teach evolution as science in their homes in order for their students to receive a diploma. If they are not taught evolution as fact, a Christian could not survive in college based on that alone. The one factor Mr. Shives is missing, yet again, is the God factor. We fundamentalist Creationist Christians believe that with God all things are possible. Even in a world that is fooled by the religion of evolution.

If you would like to read this same article posing the question as to whether government-schooled children should receive a diploma without learning about Creationism as science, Deb did a fantastic job of putting it all together. Tia also made the excellent point that "Believing in God does not change HOW any of those things work.  It only changes my perspective on WHY it works," in her take on it at Home Where They Belong.

blessings!

(2)Comments Leave A Comment! Permanent Link

Comments

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - Untitled Comment

Posted by Pattycake

Nice job yourself Jacque! I am just getting around to looking at things. Thanks for stopping by, and for your kind words.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - Untitled Comment

Posted by SteveWalden

Great post, Jacque! It gives me a lot to think about. We are about as Biblical creationist as you can get, yet we will also teach our kids the history and facts about evolution and why this theory is so widely accepted. We will also go into why scientists are so dogmatic about their assertions in evolution and what we can learn from their tendencies. That would be part of a science called psychology.