Many top homeschool textbooks dismiss evolution theory

[Obamessiah]

Anymore then a mathmatical equation so astronomical that it has been compared to winning the big lottery several times over is anymore realistic either.  

When you make statements like this, Warship, you're making it obvious that you don't understand evolution.

[John Galt?]

Scientific theory is based of quantifiable evidence and/or observable phenomenon. Therefore the idea that a higher being with the wave of the hand created all that you see out of absolutely nothing cannot possibly qualify as a scientific theory.

Anymore then a mathmatical equation so astronomical that it has been compared to winning the big lottery several times over is anymore realistic either.  The point is that what your thread is making it is that you break the notion of creationism to being only something from christian religion.  

Not sure what you are talking about but there is nothing "astronomical" about Evolution. It has been seen, observed, and recorded. Evolution merely explains how the "seen, observed, and recorded" is occurring.

I've researched for myself many times over both creationism and evolution, and find certain things about both "theories" to have a certain element of whack job principles in them.  You could argue the questioning of who would be the greater being in the instance of creationism, and that then ofcourse has to drudge up someone's desire to make it about religion.  Then comes evolution where supposedly we all come from one common ancestor, well how then are things to mutate from that common ancestor?  Until more comes out about that then I'd be more willing to take the line that both are simply that, theories that have to be explored into especially considering the complexity of life on this earth.  

You might want to revisit your "research" into evolution. Seems like you have it confused with some hypothesis (NOT THEORIES) like abiogenesis. The "THEORY OF EVOLUTION" explains diversification of species NOT the origins of all life.

Oh and Galt, creationism as a theory has been around just as long as evolution too.  Some of you choose to make it about religion.

Again Creationism is not a "theory" it is an idea, maybe a hypothesis. A theory must have evidence.

And the length of time an idea has been around is irrelevant. People thought the Sun revolved around the Earth far, far, far, far longer than Einstein's Theory of Gravity has been around. Since my GPS works, I'm going to go with Einstein over the 15th century Vatican.

To me, Religion and Evolution are not even related. They are completely different things and are not mutually exclusive.

[GhostRider]

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

This kind of crap should be illegal.  In fact, all private religious schools that don't teach the facts should be stripped of accreditation.  Simply put, if a parent chooses to have their kid learn this garbage, the kids diploma should be deemed as worthless as the course material. 

But that's the problem. These textbooks dismiss evolution entirely and completely dismiss the evidence of observable phenomenon.

We can see evolution in action with bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics. It proves that genetics of a biological being changes with relation to the environment.

And no one said evolution is the origin of life. Notice that Darwin called his theory the "Origin of Species" not the "Origin of Life."

I get that microevolution can be proven within certain types of bacteria, within that scale, but macroevolution is a little tougher to prove at this point, unfortunately some of the text books that I have to read from tie evolution being explained partially due to the big bang theory, and that being the mathematical equation that supposedly supports the origin of life and all the way down to origin of species.  

Adaptation within subspecies points to a microevolution being proveable when considering subspecies that come from a common ancestor. Felines and canines are excellent examples of that, and even to a degree primates are examples too, but the macro level is where there are holes involved.  Or when primoridial sludge is considered, with random mutations that have to be tied to as mathematical equations in order for it to happen.  

Anymore then a mathmatical equation so astronomical that it has been compared to winning the big lottery several times over is anymore realistic either.  

When you make statements like this, Warship, you're making it obvious that you don't understand evolution.

It was in regards to some textbooks tying the big bang theory to evolution and trying to apply Darwin's original theory to the origin of life.

Not sure what you are talking about but there is nothing "astronomical" about Evolution. It has been seen, observed, and recorded. Evolution merely explains how the "seen, observed, and recorded" is occurring.

Please see my above post, regarding how scientists have tried to tie big bang theory and primoridial sludge to the origin of life.

You might want to revisit your "research" into evolution. Seems like you have it confused with some hypothesis (NOT THEORIES) like abiogenesis. The "THEORY OF EVOLUTION" explains diversification of species NOT the origins of all life.

But people are still trying to tie it together with the origins of life coming from one specific type of species, and that everything all come from one single compound of enzymes or bacteria to evolve and branch off from there.  That is the gaps that concern me, and still doesn't answer the origin of life comments.

Oh and Galt, creationism as a theory has been around just as long as evolution too.  Some of you choose to make it about religion.

Again Creationism is not a "theory" it is an idea, maybe a hypothesis. A theory must have evidence.

And the length of time an idea has been around is irrelevant. People thought the Sun revolved around the Earth far, far, far, far longer than Einstein's Theory of Gravity has been around. Since my GPS works, I'm going to go with Einstein over the 15th century Vatican.

To me, Religion and Evolution are not even related. They are completely different things and are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps more hypothesis then theory sure, but it hasn't been stated as scientific law, what I wonder about is why you and others that have posted in this thread continue to tie creationism to being that of religious, does it change if someone calls it intelligent design, or can we not talk about that without having to refer to it as purely religious.  

Something to consider science and religion can be considered and coexist in trying to perhaps explain things they have done so in the past.  In some instances science can be thankful for religion.

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

[Obamessiah]

But people are still trying to tie it together with the origins of life

Those people are creationists, trying to set up a strawman. If they can falsely tie the theory of evolution in with the unproven hypothesis of abiogenesis, then they can attack abiogenesis to disprove evolution. It won't work but it will make another tool to sway the feeble minded.

some of the text books that I have to read from tie evolution being explained partially due to the big bang theory, and that being the mathematical equation that supposedly supports the origin of life and all the way down to origin of species. 

What mathematical equation are you talking about? I've never heard of it.

[Biggs3535]

In fact, all private religious schools that don't teach the facts should be stripped of accreditation.  Simply put, if a parent chooses to have their kid learn this garbage, the kids diploma should be deemed as worthless as the course material. 

You're right, worthy diplomas come from the public school system since we all know how great that system is.

On the subject at hand, it's stupid.  Students should be taught evolution.

Those people are creationists, trying to set up a strawman. If they can falsely tie the theory of evolution in with the unproven hypothesis of abiogenesis, then they can attack abiogenesis to disprove evolution. It won't work but it will make another tool to sway the feeble minded.

Those are the textbook writers that tied Darwin's theory to the big bang theory that did that, in a science text book not once, but several different science textbooks.  It has also been tied to other science based material as well.  

some of the text books that I have to read from tie evolution being explained partially due to the big bang theory, and that being the mathematical equation that supposedly supports the origin of life and all the way down to origin of species.

What mathematical equation are you talking about? I've never heard of it.

Again it was in reference to an equation that was found within some of these textbooks that were science based.  If I find it I'll post it here.

[GhostRider]

In fact, all private religious schools that don't teach the facts should be stripped of accreditation. Simply put, if a parent chooses to have their kid learn this garbage, the kids diploma should be deemed as worthless as the course material.

You're right, worthy diplomas come from the public school system since we all know how great that system is.

On the subject at hand, it's stupid. Students should be taught evolution.

Is the current public school system great?  Not by a longshot.  But it's a helluva lot more credible academically then this garbage.  Besides, if one is that concerned with the value of education that their kid is getting, they are free to send their kid to a private school, magnet school or even a free charter school and get better results.  Most parents just don't care enough to research options, opting instead to just rail against the public school system and blame the teacher for the fact that Lil Johnny doesn't learn anything.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  learning starts in the home. 

[GhostRider]

Evolution is the bedrock that supports an atheistic scientific faith - this faith requires adherence to principles that cannot be be proven. It's used to disqualify or marginalize the concept of God and replace him with...man.

There is far more proof of evolution than of any god...Educate yourself on the subject before making such leaps of logic...

[acacius]

But that's the problem. These textbooks dismiss evolution entirely and completely dismiss the evidence of observable phenomenon.

We can see evolution in action with bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics. It proves that genetics of a biological being changes with relation to the environment.

And no one said evolution is the origin of life. Notice that Darwin called his theory the "Origin of Species" not the "Origin of Life."

I get that microevolution can be proven within certain types of bacteria, within that scale, but macroevolution is a little tougher to prove at this point, unfortunately some of the text books that I have to read from tie evolution being explained partially due to the big bang theory, and that being the mathematical equation that supposedly supports the origin of life and all the way down to origin of species. 

Adaptation within subspecies points to a microevolution being proveable when considering subspecies that come from a common ancestor. Felines and canines are excellent examples of that, and even to a degree primates are examples too, but the macro level is where there are holes involved.  Or when primoridial sludge is considered, with random mutations that have to be tied to as mathematical equations in order for it to happen.

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?

Perhaps more hypothesis then theory sure, but it hasn't been stated as scientific law, what I wonder about is why you and others that have posted in this thread continue to tie creationism to being that of religious, does it change if someone calls it intelligent design, or can we not talk about that without having to refer to it as purely religious.

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.

Something to consider science and religion can be considered and coexist in trying to perhaps explain things they have done so in the past.  In some instances science can be thankful for religion.

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.

"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.

[GhostRider]

But that's the problem. These textbooks dismiss evolution entirely and completely dismiss the evidence of observable phenomenon.

We can see evolution in action with bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics. It proves that genetics of a biological being changes with relation to the environment.

And no one said evolution is the origin of life. Notice that Darwin called his theory the "Origin of Species" not the "Origin of Life."

I get that microevolution can be proven within certain types of bacteria, within that scale, but macroevolution is a little tougher to prove at this point, unfortunately some of the text books that I have to read from tie evolution being explained partially due to the big bang theory, and that being the mathematical equation that supposedly supports the origin of life and all the way down to origin of species. 

Adaptation within subspecies points to a microevolution being proveable when considering subspecies that come from a common ancestor. Felines and canines are excellent examples of that, and even to a degree primates are examples too, but the macro level is where there are holes involved.  Or when primoridial sludge is considered, with random mutations that have to be tied to as mathematical equations in order for it to happen.

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?

Perhaps more hypothesis then theory sure, but it hasn't been stated as scientific law, what I wonder about is why you and others that have posted in this thread continue to tie creationism to being that of religious, does it change if someone calls it intelligent design, or can we not talk about that without having to refer to it as purely religious.

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.

Something to consider science and religion can be considered and coexist in trying to perhaps explain things they have done so in the past.  In some instances science can be thankful for religion.

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.

"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.

You're wasting your time.  To quote their own book: "Cast not your pearls before swine" because "there are none so blind as those who will not see".

[Obamessiah]

This teaching is responsible for more deaths inflicted by men who derived that if their is no higher being then anyone that could acquire power over men could use it anyway he saw fit - hence, a misapplied scientific explanation of adaptation - eliminates God. Then man is free to acquire power to eliminate men who don't believe like him.

Thank God that religion would never do something like that!

[spartan]

Is the current public school system great?  Not by a longshot.  But it's a helluva lot more credible academically then this garbage.  Besides, if one is that concerned with the value of education that their kid is getting, they are free to send their kid to a private school, magnet school or even a free charter school and get better results.  Most parents just don't care enough to research options, opting instead to just rail against the public school system and blame the teacher for the fact that Lil Johnny doesn't learn anything.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  learning starts in the home. 

Mojo, I agree that some of the statements quoted from that book are dumb, but, do you get all your information from a single source? I would hazard a guess and say not. There could just well be a fountain of information in that book that is not only viable, but invaluable.

A good example is my eldest daughter did a bit about the Civil War in her social studies class. To briefly summarize it was all about slavery. I asked her about States Rights and she didn't have a clue what I was talking about. I explained to her that although slavery was a large part of the whole environment leading up to the war, there were other issues. We got some of my books out, looked on the web etc and she wrote a report. She just won a prize for being the best at Social Studies in her year.

[The White Tiger]

Here's the deal - these kids are being taught by parents who are not JUST paying for what they want their children to learn through private education - they also continue to pay for public school education they don't agree with. They have simply chosen to ensure their children won't be indoctrinated into a teaching that has yet to prove cross-speciation.

Evolution is the bedrock that supports an atheistic scientific faith - this faith requires adherence to principles that cannot be be proven. It's used to disqualify or marginalize the concept of God and replace him with...man.

This teaching is responsible for more deaths inflicted by men who derived that if their is no higher being then anyone that could acquire power over men could use it anyway he saw fit - hence, a misapplied scientific explanation of adaptation - eliminates God. Then man is free to acquire power to eliminate men who don't believe like him.

You devout evolutionaries missed something: new evo's have about the same disdain for Charles Darwin as the article alleges this "curriculum" has for his principles.

From what I have seen from the curriculum, they're fine with teaching adaptation - it's the cross-speciation they refuse to pass along.

It's private, no one is looking for hand-outs to teach your children what we don't believe - why should you care? Especially since home-school graduates perform equally to private/christian/religious schools - in that they are more likely to excel in college and graduate than the kids from a public school.

Yet another private sector answer that doesn't cost public schools anything and produces better performance.

counter-revolutionary, don't you think...?

[JoshJohnson11]

Evolution is the bedrock that supports an atheistic scientific faith - this faith requires adherence to principles that cannot be be proven. It's used to disqualify or marginalize the concept of God and replace him with...man.

There is far more proof of evolution than of any god...Educate yourself on the subject before making such leaps of logic...

I think it's very clear that there is more proof of Evolution then of any God. I mean seriously "One almighty spirit or soul creating our planet"? And I'm not hating on christians or catholics or anything like that but I can't believe in that.  I think it's clear that Evolution holds more facts but lets not hate on religion.