Many top homeschool textbooks dismiss evolution theory

[Booker]

Well evolution theorists will tell you that the reason driving evolution are a series of small changes which will in some way benefit the organism. Even they will admit a dog isn't going to grow an extra tail because it makes no sense to do so and would benefit them in no way. So when you look at individual parts that have no purpose whatsoever on their own, than yes it does disprove the theory unless you can actually discover they do have a purpose individually or you want to start changing the whole basis of how these evolutions came about. Those supporting evolution that are well educated can't even tell you with a straight face that several parts just happened to form at exactly the same time. It goes against their own theory.

Oh and I'm glad the finch example came up. It was one of the most widely used examples to support evolution. It has actually been shown that finches beaks will grow longer when exposed to a moist rain forest type setting. However when you take them out and put them in a dryer climate the beaks will actually revert back to where they were originally. It is only a temporary condition based on where they happen to be. So while they are adapting it's not a permanent genetic change, therefore not evolution.

Edit: Should actually be vice versa. Longer beaks after a drought, but returned to normal after rain returned. No net evolution.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
Check out page 6 second last paragraph.

Vestigial organs are proof of evolution. Things evolve to not use these organs. Like the wings on an Ostrich, they are not used for flight because of the size of it and it now uses them for another reason, like mating, balance, and threatening predators.

Cats and dog evolving from a common ancestor is pretty darned macro.  They're separated at the family level.  Not that "macroevolution" versus "microevolution" are particularly scientific terms, but where exactly are you drawing the line?

And really, evolution has nothing to say on the origins of life.  Faulting it for not having anything to say about it is like faulting it for having nothing to say about gravitation.  This equation that you keep referencing sounds pretty dodgy.  That does not, of course, mean that you weren't taught it.  Isn't the subject of this entire thread about how there are some terrible textbooks out there?

What I meant, the direction of the different subspecies that are formed from canine and feline.  I agree with the notion that cats and dogs have either been bred to adapt or had to adapt for various different circumstances, or mutations which is evolution where they would have cause to do so.  Now the whole of say fish to a land based animal is what was taught, whether right or wrong, that I have yet to see.  Not that it hasn't happened new scientific explorations are made and have led to new findings along the way.  But there are holes yet in that portion  to be filled, just as there are obvious holes in creationism, or religion as a lot of you wish to refer to it, since it seems inconceivable that creationism not happen without christianity, muslim, or other religion.

You seem to be a bit confused about terminology.  Princess Bride quotes aside, that's not your fault.  Terms like "theory" and "law" have very specific defintions within this context.  There is NOT a hierarchical relationship between scientific theories and scientific laws.  Laws are concise statements that describe very specific phenomena.  They don't even have to be true under all circumstances.  Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is the obvious example.  We know perfectly well that there are circumstances where it breaks down (see: relativity), but it remains a law.  Scientific theories explain larger phenomena based on extensive data.  It takes a LOT of evidence for something to be declared a scientific theory.  But no amount of data could "upgrade" a scientific theory to a scientific law; they're two entirely different things.

Right because scientific law is in itself explanatory to what it proves, much like the Law of Gravity, Ohms Law, etc. 

I have no problem with that idea.  But any coexisting needs to be done with reason.  "Truth cannot contradict truth".  You've got to take the natural world for what it is.

QFT.  Would agree with that, would say that it is more that people have taken things out of context when trying to explain either evolution or creationism, more often then not.  It also doesn't end there it also is in the way history is portrayed whether it be U.S. history or world history, a lot of times things are left out that should not have been or are mistaken when either it is written in the text books or in the teaching itself.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." �Albert Einstein

Verb sap: don't get into an Einstein quote battle on the side of religion.  You'll lose.

My intention wasn't to get into a quote battle about religion, as I have stated several times, people have been trying to bring religion into it, I am simply looking at the content of creationism without all the polity involved with those who look at it as the only way, fair enough?  For whatever reason people think that because I mention creationism or intelligent design it is to support a specific religion, which is not my venture, but to say that I looked at both and have my opinions on both creationism and evolution.

[cyberdude557]

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn't taken a friend's advice and tried a textbook from a popular Christian publisher for her 10-year-old's biology lessons.

Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed Charles Darwin's theory.

"I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's like, 'This is not true!'"

Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth's creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious or moral instruction."

"The majority of home-schoolers self-identify as evangelical Christians," said Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association. "Most home-schoolers will definitely have a sort of creationist component to their home-school program."

Those who don't, however, often feel isolated and frustrated from trying to find a textbook that fits their beliefs.

Two of the best-selling biology textbooks stack the deck against evolution, said some science educators who reviewed sections of the books at the request of The Associated Press.

"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.

The textbook publishers defend their books as well-rounded lessons on evolution and its shortcomings. One of the books doesn't attempt to mask disdain for Darwin and evolutionary science.

"Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling," says the introduction to "Biology: Third Edition" from Bob Jones University Press. "This book was not written for them."

The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its "History of Life" chapter that a "Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is."

When the AP asked about that passage, university spokesman Brian Scoles said the sentence made it into the book because of an editing error and will be removed from future editions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_home_school_evolution

[BucsGuru]

"A religious ultimatum"  Doesn't Evolution deliver the same?  Give me a break.

[cyberdude557]

"A religious ultimatum" Doesn't Evolution deliver the same? Give me a break.

Not really...

Evolutionism just says you are nuts if you dismiss evolution.

Creationism says you will burn in hell for eternity if you dismiss god.

Pretty big difference...

[Obamessiah]

Looks like an excellent opportunity to teach home schooled children to think for themselves as opposed to just accepting everything they are told or read.

[John Galt?]

"A religious ultimatum"  Doesn't Evolution deliver the same?  Give me a break.

There is no ultimatum in evolution. Might want to look up the definition of an ultimatum. Scientific theories and laws don't have ultimatums except for the Theory of Gravity, which states if you don't follow the Law of Gravity, you will fall down.

[Fitz66]

"A religious ultimatum"  Doesn't Evolution deliver the same?  Give me a break.

There is no ultimatum in evolution. Might want to look up the definition of an ultimatum. Scientific theories and laws don't have ultimatums except for the Theory of Gravity, which states if you don't follow the Law of Gravity, you will fall down.

Kind of my thought - evolution isn't a "theory" anymore. 

[BucNative]

I don't see why this is so suprising.  I was homeschooled for two years in 7th and 8th grade and used Bob Jones University curicullum.  I mean its a Christian University so obviously they're going to have a Christian curricullum.


****BREAKING NEWS****

It was learned today through an exhaustive investigation into religious private schools, that nearly 100% of these schools are teaching their students a religious view of the origins of the earth and human beings!!!!


We have to do something about this!  Its a travesty I tell you!

"A religious ultimatum" Doesn't Evolution deliver the same? Give me a break.

Not really...

Evolutionism just says you are nuts if you dismiss evolution.

Creationism says you will burn in hell for eternity if you dismiss god.

Pretty big difference...

Usually I'm more in agreement with some of your articles that you post on this board, Cyber, but this article is really a non-issue and is more centered at taking jabs at homeschooling in general.  Many times homeschool families can choose more curriculum then just christian based stuff.  A lot of states allow for homeschool families to use text books from the public system without question.  Definitely true for the state of South Dakota. 

This article is whining a whole lot about nothing, IMO,  especially since in other areas there isn't a lot in the way of teaching more then one theory either.  Reality is in most cases critical thinking is not taught as often as it should be anymore.  Thanks to educators in general.

"A religious ultimatum" Doesn't Evolution deliver the same? Give me a break.

There is no ultimatum in evolution. Might want to look up the definition of an ultimatum. Scientific theories and laws don't have ultimatums except for the Theory of Gravity, which states if you don't follow the Law of Gravity, you will fall down.

How about passing grades as an ultimatum?  Kind of need those classes to get the highschool diploma don't you think?  Sure maybe not the same as burn in hell, but then again what effects that kid here and now?  Reality is both theories should be taught, creationism theory and evolution, and as educated and civilized people be allowed to decide between the two theories what we would think is more fitting. 

[Booker]

Both are taught. One is taught in an education based setting and the other is taught in a religious based setting.

Both are taught. One is taught in an education based setting and the other is taught in a religious based setting.

To this degree, I agree, but not everyone is religious either.  The point of my post is to say that whether one agrees with evolution or creationism, both theories should be allowed to be taught so that kids can question them and see which theory that they believe.  I would rather teach my kids to do their OWN research, and FORMULATE their opinion based on what they believe, this is especially true for these theories alone.  That is how education should work, and not be stiffled by ultimatums based on a passing grade.  For that alone, both the public and private school textbook writers have failed. 

[Booker]

Evolution is based on science so it is taught in science class. Religion is based on belief so it is taught in church.

Evolution is based on science so it is taught in science class. Religion is based on belief so it is taught in church.

creationism is a theory as well, whether you agree with it or not it still is a theory, much like evolution, especially considering the origin of life.