Radio bit on home-schooling, and more angry emails

The kerfuffle about home-schooling and evolution led to an invitation for me to do a brief segment on Overnight America with Jon Grayson.  You can find that segment here.

I continue to get angry emails from home-schooling parents. Many of them are really exercised by my statement that the Apologia and Bob Jones biology home-school units are “promulgating lies to kids.”  I can see how a parent would get upset at the accusation that he/she is lying to their kids, but what I said was that the books are promulgating lies to kids.  And they are—the publishers should know better.  But if the creationism-pushing parents have had an opportunity to know better, by learning something about the evolution they teach (or don’t teach) to their kids, then they too are guilty of promulgating lies.  It’s as simple as that, because evolution is true.

Let me add, though, that I’ve received a (very) few supportive emails from home-school parents.  It need hardly be said that these folks are home-schooling their kids for other than religious reasons.

Here’s an email that came only half an hour ago:

Professor Coyne,

“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.

Uh, no they don’t. But you do. It seems to be part of your job description.

The home schooling movement arose because people were sick of outsiders having a dominant role in what parents teach their own children. What the “experts” think is more important than what the parents think.

Maybe in a few years, when a number of smart home-schooled kids graduate (and they are smart!), they can finally have a debate with the public school kids who were taught evolution. As it stands now, a debate is impossible, as all kids are taught one thing (evolution) as an article faith. Yes, an article of FAITH. As your unscientific attitude suggests, questioning the theory is not welcomed.

Please mind your business and don’t worry yourself with public school refugees and what they choose to teach their children.

and another:

Here is a quote I read from you in an article entitled, “Top Homeschool Texts Dismiss Dawin” by 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 .

And you also said, “If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they’re being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology,” Coyne said.

I think you’re extremely ignorant of homeschoolers in general. We choose what we choose for our children because it’s our right. You, as a college professor choose what you choose for your students because it’s your right. It’s laughable that you would even state such a hyberole that Christian publishers are “promulgating lies”. They’re CHRISTIAN publishers. What else do you expect them to teach? I am not even going to address the lies and fallacies in evolution, the simplest one being that we came from animals.

I think government run schools are shortchanging children because they are being taught that we are nothing more than animals. That’s a sad state of affairs. It would depress my children to no end if they even thought they were evolved from an animal. And our children probably know a lot more about evolution than the average government run school child does anyway.

Darwinists don’t know everything. And you particularly don’t know much about Darwin either if you are teaching his “theory” as fact.

I feel sorry for you because you have no imagination or wonder in your thought or process. God created us in His image. He has a plan for us and regardless of what you or I think about the Bible and His Word it doesn’t change what He says. That’s the amazingly glorious thing about the Bible. Darwin’s theory has “evolved” over the last few hundred years but God’s Word has been the same since He said, “In the Beginning” 6,000 years ago.

One more:

“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.

I am certain you remember the quote stated above.  With all due respect, I find your comment to be insulting and dangerous.  You are a respected member of the scientific community; and for you to indicate that books teaching creation as opposed to evolution is “promulgating lies to kids” implies that you know for certain that evolution is not a theory but a law.  I am sure you know that the THEORY of evolution is not yet proven, and I will boldly state that you will never PROVE the theory.  Your statement can be used by less knowledgeable members of the society (include politicians) as a defense or justification to outlaw creation, religion, and home schooling.  Although I will never be able to PROVE creation to you, I am certain a scientific mind can see intelligent design in our universe and in life itself.  The scientific community cannot have both entropy and evolution; they are mutually exclusive.  By the way, I am sure you know the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics (not 2nd THEORY of thermodynamics).  I am not writing this to convert you to Christianity or even to have you accept creation and reject evolution (nor will anything you can quickly state in an email be able to change my mind to accept evolution).  My purpose is to ask you to keep an open mind about the subject, just because it is contrary to a theory you hold true does not make it a lie.  Realize that making bold statements that are impossible for you to prove can only hurt our society.  You have a responsibility to speak only the KNOWN truth, qualify statements of opinion or theory and to keep your agenda outside of the public realm.  To those that believe creation is the truth, your text books promulgate lies.  I believe it is important to teach both theories and allow the student to determine which they will consider as more plausible.  Educators are to teach what is known and to qualify any statement that is not known but is believed or theorized.

The common thread of many of the emails I’ve received is that evolution is not “proven”:  that it’s not a fact but a theory.  I have tried to instruct one or two of these correspondents in what a scientific theory really is, and in the  idea that the “theory” of evolution is just as much a fact as is the “germ theory” of disease.  But, as you might guess from the threads of the past few days, such instruction is futile.

I weep for the children who are home-schooled in creationist lies instead of science.

210 Comments

  1. Carl
    Posted March 10, 2010 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    I feel sorry for the children being indoctrinated into creationism instead of a good education, there should be a law for this stupidity.

  2. norwegianshooter
    Posted March 10, 2010 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Wile responds to Jerry:You might note that in the AP article, Dr. Jerry Coyne used his fervent faith in evolution to predict that my books “may steer students away from careers in biology or the study of the history of the earth.” Instead, the myriads of success stories clearly show that my books do exactly the opposite. [ed. note - no they don't] Thus, while this is not a failed prediction of the theory of evolution itself, it is a failed prediction made by an evolutionist, based on his evolutionary faith. Not only does evolution produce lots of failed predictions, it seems that evolutionists do as well. Of course, that’s not surprising. If you base your view on unscientific ideas, you will come to unscientific conclusions!”

  3. raven
    Posted March 10, 2010 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Wile:

    “Instead, the myriads of success stories clearly show that my books do exactly the opposite.”

    Acceptance of evolution runs around 99% of scientists in relevant fields in the USA. It is higher in Europe.

    Those myriads of bible spouting creatist biologists and geologists seem to exist only in Dr. Wiles imagination. Got any references for that claim besides “god told me through the voices in my head?”

    And oh yeah, fundie xians are lower in socioeconomic status than the general population. Looks like they intend to stay there but it is OK. Someone has to mow my lawn and wash the car.

  4. hugh7
    Posted March 10, 2010 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    “The scientific community cannot have both entropy and evolution; they are mutually exclusive. By the way, I am sure you know the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics (not 2nd THEORY of thermodynamics).”

    Sigh. Yes, we know the Second Law of Thermodynamics, probably better than this person.

    If the Second Law of Thermodynamics made evolution impossible (or as this person puts it if you “cannot have both entropy and evolution; they are mutually exclusive”) then it also makes LIFE impossible “you cannot have both entropy and life; they are mutually exclusive”. Evolution is just life in the long view.

    As (was it? JBS Haldane said, “But madam, you did it yourself, and it only took you nine months.”

    • Posted March 10, 2010 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

      I would point out this “freedom” people are so enamored with (parents doing what they want regarding a childs education) presents a problem. BTW I don’t know the answer to this problem, but its worth thinking about and not just sweeping under the rug. Basically, the argument is that parents get to fuck up their kids in any way possible (short of leaving permanent scars or easily observed bruises). The rights of the parents outweigh the rights of the child. This makes some superficial sense as parents are the guardians. However, what do the parents lose if that right is infringed upon? What do the children lose if that right is NOT infringed upon?

      • Darlene
        Posted March 10, 2010 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

        The only way to “correct” a situation is to remove the child from the parents. Are you a foster parent? Are you willing to take in every kid who lives with fundamentalist parents? States barely have budgets to deal with real physical abuse and neglect as it is, and plenty of kids end up beaten to death or starved or chained in a basement because social services are usually overwhelmed andunderfunded and burnt out.

        So, the child loses his home and his family. The family loses their child.

        In in abusive or neglectful situations there is always effort put into maintaining relationships between a child and his or her family. Even a screwed up parent is loved by a child. To take that away requires substantial proof of harm.

        There is almost no other way to enforce a child’s right. Yes, occasionally courts will intervene in medical issues, if brought to their attention, but the only way to really enforce even that, ultimately, is to have the state step in as the guardian. And that is a situation where there is immediate physical danger.

        It is wonderfully idealistic to think that all children should be brought up with perfect parents, but it isn’t necessary. Good enough parents are just that: good enough. Kids are very resiliant, and so many teens rebel against their parents that it is considered normal, so why do we think kids will always be just like their parents? Some will, some won’t. Some will grow up in scientific homes and find religion later and disavow evolution.

        When the rights of the parent to raise their child is infringed upon, it destroys a family and a home. Yes, there are times when it is necessary for the safety and well-being of the child. But it should only be done when necessary for the life of the child.

        That the state has a right to interfere with ideas, not actions, opens a whole slew of cans, filled with yucky worms. How do you even do it? Anyone who buys a BJU text gets a visit from social services? So buying books is a crime?

        I’ll tell you what would happen. Parents would teach their kids whatever was on the test, and they would hide their true teachings. And nothing would change, it would just be underground.

        • Craig
          Posted March 10, 2010 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

          I’m not sure that the only way to “correct” the situation is to remove the child from the parents.

          Imagine, if you will, an institution that is open five days a week, staffed by professionals with a diversity of interests, training and experience, and whose mission is to provide a common level of education and socialization for all children, regardless of the stupidity of the parents.

          Now imagine that said institution (let’s provisionally call it a “public school”) is required by law to provide the same services to all children, and that all children (with some very specific exceptions) are required to attend for, oh, around thirteen years.

          So, this marvelous institution would provide a mechanism for any child to escape from the more odious parts of their upbringing if they so choose, while still leaving the basic structure of the family intact. I suspect that we’d even find that the majority of children trained this way retain most of their parent’s core beliefs, but just maybe have a little bit of perspective that would allow them to understand that other people might just have other beliefs.

          Wow, too bad no such place exists.

          • Darlene
            Posted March 11, 2010 at 8:37 am | Permalink

            And what about parents who don’t want a public school education for their kids?

            The only way to enforce such a requirement is to, ultimately, remove children from their homes. That is what happens in Germany, which is why a homeschool family was granted asylum in the US.

            Another thing: public schools fail huge swathes of children. Gifted kids are often ignored and bored and few schools have programs for them. Many gifted kids get pulled to either private or home schools because they don’t fit.

            Special needs kids are often a bad fit, especially in older grades when the interventions stop and the abusive behavior of other kids begins. These parents would also not have a choice.

            And…most states currently do have testing requirements in maths and reading. So I am unsure what else you want? Critical thinking? Is that even taught in public schools? I somehow doubt the general population even sit in a logic class, so to suggest public school is a fix is disingenuous at best.

            This “marvelous institution” has a national dropout rate of almost 33%, and of the graduates about 50% require remedial classes before starting college or seeking a job.

            There aren’t easy answers, and mandatory attendance at a public school is certainly not one.

            As soon as a parent gets fed up with their student being groped in gym class or ignored in math class or suspended for saying no to drugs or hugging a grieving friend and wants to remove their kid, the law steps in.

            Either the parent has the right to control their kid’s education or not. If they do, they can home or private school. If they don’t, and public school isn’t working for their kid, what is their choice? To defy the law, and they only way for the state to enforce that law, ultimately, is to remove the kids.

            • Posted March 11, 2010 at 9:39 am | Permalink

              Either the parent has the right to control their kid’s education or not.

              Well that’s a question isn’t it. Based on your two posts, I don’t think you are actually in thinking about this question in more than a superficial level.

              If they do, they can home or private school. If they don’t, and public school isn’t working for their kid, what is their choice? To defy the law, and they only way for the state to enforce that law, ultimately, is to remove the kids.

              Ah, the false dichotomy. There are only two possibilities, the one you favor and armageddon. That’s one of the problems with glossing over questions superficially. Was the suggestion made to make homeschooling illegal, because your response seems to suggest it was. What about having an national or state examination in order to graduate from high school, middle school, and grade school? All students have to take it to move on regardless of where the education is taking place.

              You raise some real concerns about public education. Of course you don’t do the same about homeschooling. Why is that?

              My concern is that large swaths of homeschooled children are not getting an education about the real world. You argue about parental rights, what about a child’s right to not have to be ignorant? I would argue that parents have the responsibility and duty to attempt to educate their children. By your logic parents seem to have the right to raise their children as complete illiterates. (Yes, I know that illiteracy is a problem across the US and in the public schools, but no one is suggesting that the state has the right to raise illiterate children. Also we can fire the leaders that fail our children, parents are difficult to fire.) Since you argue that parents have the right to ignore basic biology, physics, and geology, what about reading and writing? math? do parents even have to teach their children how to speak?

            • Darlene
              Posted March 11, 2010 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

              So we have a national test to move on, like the SATs or ACTs?

              Most parents who homeschool do a pretty good job. They might be weak in science, or math, or it might be superficial in literature, but not every kid needs or wants a rigorous prep school.

              And so what if we have an exam to pass, so everyone studies to the test, what does that prove?

              I raise concerns for public schools because I think it is bogus to complain about the poor homeschoolers who can read and write and do math, albeit with a poor understanding of science, when the touted alternative is doing so badly.

              There may be some badly taught homeschoolers, and private schoolers, and public schoolers. And there will be plenty more who have an adequate education. And there will be some who are exceptional students and who excell in academics and do well when they can follow their passions and interests, regardless of the school.

              Yes, we can fire a horrible teacher. After she ruins hundreds of kids. If she doesn’t have tenure, or isn’t in a union. Show me, please, all the illiterate homeschoolers. Not having a solid grounding in science is not the same as being illiterate.

              For a parent to not teach a child to speak would require such neglect that speaking would be the least of the issues. Children are sponges, and if they can learn things without a classroom.

              As an FYI, my state requires yearly testing in reading and math, only. Is that not enough? You seem to think homeschoolers have no oversight at all, and that isn’t true. While it varies from state to state, most do have some oversight, but reading and math are most important.

              To conclude, unless homeschoolers are doing significantly worse then public or private schools, there really is nothing to complain about.

            • Posted March 12, 2010 at 6:30 am | Permalink

              I notice that you throw around a lot of most and more terms. Can you back the up with any data (and Im not saying you cant)?

              You also spend a lot of time missing the point of my argument, which may have to do with the defensive blinders you have on regarding homeschooling.

              Finally, I can complain if I want to despite your false equivalency statements. The Homeschooling Creation Science Fair is a problem and I can and should complain about it. Throwing out the “well this is also a problem so we dont have to deal with this” card is ridiculous.

        • articulett
          Posted March 11, 2010 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

          Well, if the home schooled kids grow up to reason like Darlene and some of the other homeschooling parents posting here, I’d say there is something to complain about.

          How many home-schooled kids go beyond their parents in education? My parents had very little college, and all three of their children have advanced degrees. I am thankful for the public education I received as well the public education my own child received.

  5. Posted March 10, 2010 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    It’s quite intriguing to me watching a supposedly intellectual dialogue degrade into comments like “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again … these “parents” who buy into the B.S. of creationism in whatever form and deny evolution are child abusers plain and simple, as well as being ignorant, knuckle-dragging miscreants ! It must in part be genetic … stupid is as stupid does !”

    Nothing quite smacks of a lack of solid argument as name-calling. Whether you are pro or con in any dialogue, such feeble attempts at degradation simply make one question the solidness of the intellectual foundation of the speaker.

    Having followed this thread (essentially accidentally) for the first time, I had hoped for some degree of rational discourse.

    For instance, questions such as there being no a-priori evidence that led to Einstein’s “assumption” about the speed of light, Bohr’s “assumption” about stable orbits, or Planck’s “assumption” that wonderfully quantified energy are disturbingly absent.

    I would posit that such musings by paradigm-shattering men represent FAITH at the ultimate level. Yet we don’t decry the results of those assumptions. Nor do we argue vigorously against them without having a GENUINE knowledge of the subtleties of their arguments.

    I’m also somewhat surprised at the lack of discussion about irreducible complexity or even intelligent design. Of course that lack likely arises from the same aggressive defensiveness held to by many evolutionists. Or perhaps the confidence of cliche-driven evolutionists isn’t adequate to present logical counter-arguments?

    Speaking as a teacher of both physics and chemistry (forty-six years in public school, private school and university) I’m also somewhat perplexed by the glaring lack of any “mechanism” explaining the transition from one species to another, even at the mono-cellular level. Maybe I’ve just not Googled the right places, and if any of you could direct me to such explanations, I would savor the opportunity to read those explanations.

    Even a theory as abstract yet functional as quantum theory proposes actual mechanisms in transitioning from one state to another. I often wonder why highly evangelistic evolutionists don’t attempt the same.

    I agree with some of the posts here that there are many in the creationist community who are as guilty of name-calling and “other-view” ignorance as some of the verbally violent evolutionists and atheists who post here.

    Oh, and speaking of the home schooling syndrome that seemed to have started all this… when I observe the continuing decline of critical thinking in students today and their mind-numbing dependence on EEDs (Electronic Enjoyment Devices) I have to commend those who undertake the daunting task of doing the home school thing.

    In fact, in my university teaching, several of my students have come from the home school ranks. I have yet to find one who isn’t intelligent, knowledgeable, curious, unafraid of debate… even fully socialized.

    Anyway, as my octogenarian Uncle Gord used to say, “Fight the fight, keep the faith.”

    And might I add, whichever side you are on. Listen, debate at a high level, and never be afraid to go where logic leads.

    • Posted March 11, 2010 at 5:24 am | Permalink

      Here is an idea: find one breakthrough that was either predicted or achieved by intelligent design. Or: find one research university or one non-sectarian university that teaches or researches it. As far as “irreducible complexity”: search for the Dover trial testimony or click on Professor Coyne’s article “The Great Mutator”.

    • latsot
      Posted March 11, 2010 at 5:32 am | Permalink

      “Nothing quite smacks of a lack of solid argument as name-calling.”

      Deliberately stunting a child’s intellectual development is a form of abuse every bit as serious as sexual or violent abuse. This is not name-calling, but a statement of fact. If someone doesn’t understand evolution or denies that it is a fact, they are ignorant. Another statement of fact.

      “For instance, questions such as there being no a-priori evidence that led to Einstein’s “assumption” about the speed of light, Bohr’s “assumption” about stable orbits, or Planck’s “assumption” that wonderfully quantified energy are disturbingly absent.

      I would posit that such musings by paradigm-shattering men represent FAITH at the ultimate level. ”

      What they in fact had were hypotheses, which were then tested and found to be correct. That’s where the evidence comes in. You might insist that they had faith that their hypotheses would eventually come to be supported by evidence, but this is an entirely different thing to blind faith in a bronze age book. For one thing, if the evidence failed to materialise or contrary evidence was discovered, they would have abandoned or modified their hypotheses. By contrast, the religious cling to their beliefs despite the continued total lack of evidence and god’s relentless retreat into ever smaller gaps.

      You do understand the difference, don’t you? If Einstein, say, had been proven wrong and yet continued to cling to his hypotheses, then I would call it a position of faith in the same way that religious belief is.

      “I’m also somewhat surprised at the lack of discussion about irreducible complexity or even intelligent design. Of course that lack likely arises from the same aggressive defensiveness held to by many evolutionists. Or perhaps the confidence of cliche-driven evolutionists isn’t adequate to present logical counter-arguments?”

      IC/ID has been discussed on this site many times. Nobody here is a stranger to its tedious non-arguments. You might not have noticed, but this thread is about homeschooling and it’s generally polite to stay on topic, which is one reason it hasn’t been discussed here. Have a look around the site and you’ll see plenty of arguments against ID from Jerry and others. Or better still, read his book.

      “Speaking as a teacher of both physics and chemistry (forty-six years in public school, private school and university) I’m also somewhat perplexed by the glaring lack of any “mechanism” explaining the transition from one species to another, even at the mono-cellular level. ”

      What kind of ‘mechanism’ do you expect to see? There is nothing particularly special about the ‘transition’ and no particular special moment when one species becomes another. Perhaps you could clarify what information you’re looking for so people can attempt to provide it.

      “Even a theory as abstract yet functional as quantum theory proposes actual mechanisms in transitioning from one state to another. I often wonder why highly evangelistic evolutionists don’t attempt the same.”

      Because quantum states are not the same things as species. Change in species is gradual and it’s only after the fact that we humans decide that a group of organisms should be called a new species. I’m still not sure you mean by ‘mechanism’, but I’m fairly certain that nobody has found such a mechanism because there isn’t one – or any need for one.

      “In fact, in my university teaching, several of my students have come from the home school ranks. I have yet to find one who isn’t intelligent, knowledgeable, curious, unafraid of debate… even fully socialized.”

      One would hope that everyone in a university was intelligent, knowledgeable etc… Perhaps your sample is not very representative of homeschoolers in general. Personally, I’ve no idea.

      “Anyway, as my octogenarian Uncle Gord used to say, “Fight the fight, keep the faith.””

      Ah, the typical religious sign-off. A smug implication that our belief in evolution is based on faith. You’ll be offering to pray for us next.

    • Necandum
      Posted March 11, 2010 at 5:37 am | Permalink

      1) Re the name calling. I beleive that in every debate there comes a time when one side is found to be so ridiculous and devoid of susbstance that ridicule is the only remaining response. I further beleive that point was reached in the evolution vs creation debate quite a long time ago. It is also ironic you question the intelligence of your opposition only on the basis of the name calling, rather than chanllenging any of the ideas.

      2) A mechanism for species to species change? I think that you are imagining a species to be some kind of ‘unit’ that over time changes into another ‘unit’. This is incorrect. Species do not ‘exist’ as such. They are but labels applied by humans to describe a group of animals which are more or less similar. Thus, one species does not ‘turn into’ another species any more than a mother ‘turn into’ her child. There is but a continum, sometimes broken by real gaps, sometimes by purely imaginary ones.

      3)Logic lead to many places, but God isn’t one of them, unless the premise is quite flawed indeed.

      4) Generalising anecdotes aren’t much good. Though I agree with you about the EEDs…except BF2142. That right there is quality.

      Further information about evolution:
      Talk Origins Archive

    • TheBlackCat
      Posted March 11, 2010 at 10:34 am | Permalink

      Nothing quite smacks of a lack of solid argument as name-calling. Whether you are pro or con in any dialogue, such feeble attempts at degradation simply make one question the solidness of the intellectual foundation of the speaker.

      No, there is one thing that is far more indicative of a lack of a solid argument: focusing on tone rather than content. Lots of people have provided lots of reasons for this conclusion, lots of arguments against creationist, and lots of answers to creationist questions (answers that have been ignored by those creationists). Yet rather than addressing any of their points, you focus on how mean they are. The most common reason we see for this tactic is when someone has no answer for their points, and wants to distract people from that. If you don’t want people here to conclude that about you, then perhaps you should address what they say, rather than how they say it.

      For instance, questions such as there being no a-priori evidence that led to Einstein’s “assumption” about the speed of light, Bohr’s “assumption” about stable orbits, or Planck’s “assumption” that wonderfully quantified energy are disturbingly absent.

      They provided testable hypotheses along with specific predictions of what sort of phenomena you would expect to see if they were right, and then people went out and looked for that phenomena. No one accepted these ideas just on their say-so, people accepted their ideas because they were vindicated by the evidence. And they were perfectly willing to change their ideas when the evidence indicated they were wrong. Einstein was against quantum mechanics, but ultimately accepted it on the weight of the evidence.

      That is the difference between science and faith: there are way to actually go out and test whether a scientific hypothesis is right or not.

      I am extremely disappointed that a science teacher like you doesn’t even know the basics of the scientific method. It is very disturbing.

      Speaking as a teacher of both physics and chemistry (forty-six years in public school, private school and university) I’m also somewhat perplexed by the glaring lack of any “mechanism” explaining the transition from one species to another, even at the mono-cellular level. Maybe I’ve just not Googled the right places, and if any of you could direct me to such explanations, I would savor the opportunity to read those explanations.

      What is the problem with “a large number of small changes over a large period of time” or “genetic changes and/or behavioral and/or geographic isolation that prevents interbreeding”? This seem like fairly straight-forward explanations for me.

      What are the mechanisms used in special creation, “poof”? You really consider that on par with quantum mechanics?

      Even a theory as abstract yet functional as quantum theory proposes actual mechanisms in transitioning from one state to another.

      Which is exactly why it is science not faith, despite your claims above.

      I often wonder why highly evangelistic evolutionists don’t attempt the same.

      We did, about a century ago, as I explained above.

      In fact, in my university teaching, several of my students have come from the home school ranks. I have yet to find one who isn’t intelligent, knowledgeable, curious, unafraid of debate… even fully socialized.

      That is a biased sample. By definition you were only looking at the ones who were knowledgeable enough, curious enough, intelligent enough, and social enough to desire and get admitted to university.

    • daveau
      Posted March 11, 2010 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      JohnH-

      Speaking as a teacher of both physics and chemistry (forty-six years in public school, private school and university) I’m also somewhat perplexed by the glaring lack of any “mechanism” explaining the transition from one species to another, even at the mono-cellular level. Maybe I’ve just not Googled the right places, and if any of you could direct me to such explanations, I would savor the opportunity to read those explanations.

      If you are looking for an understanding of how the process of evolution by natural selection works, I highly recommend “The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin. It is simple and straight-forward enough to be understood by any High School student.

      In order to encompass what additional understanding have gained in the intervening 150 years or so, I also recommend “Why Evolution is True”, by Jerry Coyne.

      If you still have difficulty grasping the “mechanism” after reading those books, then I feel sorry for both you and your former students.

  6. KP
    Posted March 11, 2010 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    “The common thread of many of the emails I’ve received…”

    …is also really TIRED creationist canards. The last one went for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics… ZZZZZZZZZ.

  7. mark
    Posted March 11, 2010 at 12:41 am | Permalink

    as painful as it is to read the responses, you only have to realise that every time the creation vs evolution occurs in the courts systems evolution always wins due to evidence.

    If they keep taking it to the courts and defeating it there the scientists can slowly erode the ignorance.

    • Posted March 11, 2010 at 11:57 am | Permalink

      Everytime? Maybe you should revisit the Scopes trial. It seems unwise to depend on the courts. Judges are people and capable of rendering verdicts that are wrong, biased, etc.

  8. Antonio Manetti
    Posted March 11, 2010 at 2:22 am | Permalink

    I listened to the Overnight America segment. My only criticism is that Professor Coyne seems to assume that all parents who have religious motivations necessarily want to debunk Darwinism.

    I don’t see a basis for believing that the two motivations must go hand-in-hand.

    • Flea
      Posted March 11, 2010 at 4:22 am | Permalink

      My advice: listen to that segment AGAIN and pay attention to what Coyne really says.

  9. Posted March 11, 2010 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Poe’s Law at work again.

    Advertisement:

    Are you having trouble with Poe’s Law? Then contact the Thomas Moore Law Center for useless advice. As seen at the Dover trial.

  10. Posted March 11, 2010 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    JohnH asks “I’m also somewhat surprised at the lack of discussion about irreducible complexity or even intelligent design.”

    Why? They are not scientific positions. See Dover trial.

    Unless, of course, you can tell us what the scientific theory of Intelligent Design is and how it can be tested with the scientific method.

    Perhaps you would also like to explain at the same time why the Discovery Instutute has said that Intelligent Design is not even a hypothesis let alone a theory.

    Perhaps you would also like to explain what the Wedge document is.

    While you are at it, why did the advocates of Intelligent Design lose the Dover trial (and, indeed, run away from the trial)?

    • articulett
      Posted March 11, 2010 at 8:16 am | Permalink

      *giggles remembering the stack of books piled in front of Behe*

      (Oh those silly Cdesign proponentists!)

      JohnH, you can still learn something just so long as you don’t imagine that you know more than those who might teach you!

  11. Darlene
    Posted March 11, 2010 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    For all the “teaching creationism is abuse” folks out there:

    go volunteer at a community center or women’s shelter or be a guardian ad litem or talk to a few social workers. There is real abuse happening, and watering it down to cover anything you don’t like isn’t really a help.

    I know many creationists. Many have excellent critical thinking skills about 98% of everything in their lives. Most that I personally know are professionals, several own their businesses, these are not stupid people.

    They function perfectly well, and even become scientists and teachers and senators and presidents. It is hard to consider it abusive when our last president said he believed it. Obviously it doesn’t have a negative impact on future careers. And being honest, most people aren’t all that capable of critical thinking or deep understanding of science.

    I know people who believe in evolution and have no idea what it actually is. Is that better? They are just parroting a different textbook, but neither is meaningful in their lives.

    Yes, it can be ridiculed. But abuse

    Abuse? Maybe in a perfect world this could be the most aweful thing one could do to a child, but we are not in a perfect world and there are far, far worse situations for a child to live.

    • latsot
      Posted March 11, 2010 at 9:15 am | Permalink

      Of course there are worse things that can be done to a child. I don’t imagine anyone would argue otherwise. But that doesn’t mean that hampering a child’s intellectual development is not also abuse.

      Many people indeed get over this kind of treatment and it’s not always debilitating in the long run. Again, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t abuse.

      I think the stumbling block here is that you have quite a specific idea of how the term “child abuse” should be defined. Personally, I’m going for the less formal and specific “abuse of children”. I would consider anything done to deliberately harm a child, plus some kinds of neglect, as abuse of that child.

    • raven
      Posted March 11, 2010 at 9:29 am | Permalink

      Darlene Making Stuff Up.
      “There is real abuse happening, and watering it down to cover anything you don’t like isn’t really a help.”

      I’m not going to say that fundie Xian creationist parents are all child abusing monsters. But on average the statistics say that child sexual abuse and child abuse are higher in fundie homes. The facts, you know, those things you have never heard of. Fundies also have higher rates of teen age pregnancy and abortion and any other social problem you care to name.

      One of the more charming customs of fundies is human child sacrifice. Yes, here in the 21st century, some xian sects still sacrifice their children to their god by withholding medical treatment. The numbers aren’t well known because of reporting problems but it is between 10 and 100 per year.

      Darlene speaking of lack of critical skills:
      “It is hard to consider it abusive when our last president said he believed it. Obviously it doesn’t have a negative impact on future careers. And being honest, most people aren’t all that capable of critical thinking or deep understanding of science.”

      Fallacy of argument from authority. And calling GW Bush an authority on anything except how to wreck a country is astoundingly dumb. Bush is regarded by most historians as the worst president ever.

      Fundies on average are lower in socioeconomic status than the general population. Being uneducated in a Hi Tech civilization is a disadvantage. And the average person can learn critical skills and something about science. Neither are that hard. It wouldn’t take much for the 26% of the fundie xians who believe the sun orbits the earth to look up a diagram of the solar system.

      It wouldn’t take much for you to learn the difference between fact and unproven and wrong assertion and find out what a search engine called google is for.

      • Darlene
        Posted March 11, 2010 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

        Show me where fundies have higher rates of abuse. I would love to see that study.

        And not everyone can have a high tech job. There aren’t enough to go around. You know who is doing well right now? Plumbers. Because when your toilet backs up a computer doesn’t fix it.

        You are right that Bush sucked. Enough to get reelected. He was successful in his field. Obviously all this high tech science education is not required for the position.

        And it is not an arguement from authority, please take a
        logic class before you start flinging around such terms. And argument from authority is if I said such-and-such is true and right because this authority figure said so.

        What I said was that Bush is an example of not needing to understand evolution to get a job as the leader of the powerful country in the free world. That is a fact. You can’t say that, tomorrow, it will hinder someone’s ability to get a job when we have powerful people all over the place with the same belief system.

        Withholding medical care is extreme even for fundies, and is mostly found among Christian scientists and JWs and serious offshoots. Check your “facts”.

        Facts. That word you are using, I do not think it means what you think it means…

        • raven
          Posted March 11, 2010 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

          Darlene
          “I think fighting it by insulting parents and telling them they are abusing heir kids is a real good way to send them underground.”

          They are already underground. That is one of the points of fundie xian homeschooling, keeping the kids away from 21st century civilization and the real world.

          “google capture:

          “Book: ‘Red’ State Children at Much Greater Risk Than Youths in …The political dividing lines used in the book are “red” states (those that voted … Texas also ranks #1 in both child abuse deaths and the percentage of …”

          Red states which are the fundie xian strongholds are higher in all social problems, child abuse, teen age pregnancy, abortion, STDS, you name, they have it. The theocratic state of Texas run by religious extremists is also first in child abuse deaths.

          Darlene lying:
          Withholding medical care is extreme even for fundies, and is mostly found among Christian scientists and JWs and serious offshoots. Check your “facts”.”

          I didn’t say they all sacrificed their children to their god. The numbers I gave per year are 10 to 100 sacrificed kids in the USA. It is still pathetic that that any human children are killed that way. But faith healing and anti-vax fundies are rather common, most have sense enough when things go down hill to take their kids to a real doctor. There are millions of fundie kids that don’t end up dead. Another pathetic strawmen of yours.

          Darlene seems to think if one fundie kid survives to adulthood and gets a job, that everything is OK. What is really important is the average, median or typical outcome. For every exPresident Bush, there is a Cho Seung or Jeffrey Dahmer, both raised in fundie xian households.

          Darlene doesn’t do facts and thinks it is OK to be ignorant and not know anything or be curious enough to use a search engine. As a homeschool teacher, guess what her kids would end up knowing? Very little.

          Oh well. Like I said, someone has to mow my lawn and flip burgers.

          • articulett
            Posted March 11, 2010 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

            Yep.


            But there is an upside to homeschooling. If every anti-science, book-burning parent pulled his or her kids out of public schools, the rest of us wouldn’t need to deal with them anymore. Texas’ unrestrictive standards allow homeschooling parents to teach their children that Earth is 6,000 years old, and people used to live to be 950 years old. Their kids can learn about abstinence-only education, the myth of climate change and how the founding fathers actually intended America to be a theocracy. They wouldn’t even need to worry about President Obama’s plan to ban Christmas.

            With this hindrance removed, public school educators would be free to teach empirical science, comprehensive sex education and a secular version of American history.

            http://www.dailytexanonline.com/opinion/homeschooling-for-all-1.1815576

        • articulett
          Posted March 11, 2010 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

          There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms.

          http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

        • tomh
          Posted March 12, 2010 at 11:33 am | Permalink

          Darlene wrote:
          Withholding medical care is extreme even for fundies, and is mostly found among Christian scientists and JWs and serious offshoots.

          Nonsense, there are plenty of faith healing churches other than the ones you mention. Look up the Followers of Christ Church, for instance. Their church cemetary has hundreds of children who have died over the last 30 years because anointing with olive oil and prayer didn’t work for sick children, including many babies. Until 1999, when the law was changed, Oregon was prohibited from prosecuting these parents for manslaughter even. In a just completed trial, for the first time ever, two members of this church were convicted of criminally negligent homicide for allowing their 16 year old son to die of a urinary tract infection because they prayed over him rather than have him treated with antibiotics.

          The estimate above of 10-100 deaths as a result of faith healing is very low. The actual numbers are probably at least 10 times that though accurate figures are difficult to find since it’s not exactly something churches advertise.

          Of course, we all know that these churches are not True Christians.

    • daveau
      Posted March 11, 2010 at 11:35 am | Permalink

      Way to make those straw men, Darlene. I was going for “an unjust or wrongful practice”, and not necessarily something that would meet the current legal definition of child abuse. However, just because you can’t be arrested for it doesn’t make it right.

      • Darlene
        Posted March 11, 2010 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

        If you were going for “unjust practice” then say so.

        Child abuse has some pretty specific definitions, and you can be arrested for it.

        There are plenty of other things that may not be “right”, but it isn’t always abuse.

        Say what you mean. Using a highly emotive word to make your point isn’t acceptable, and I think it weakens your point, at least for me.

        Child abuse is specific, both in law and in accepted understanding. You may want to expand the definition to cover what you don’t like, but that doesn’t mean it is right to do so.

        • articulett
          Posted March 11, 2010 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

          I think it’s abusive to tell kids there’s a hell they will go to if they don’t believe the right thing.

          It’s an abusive thing to do to children– therefore, it’s child abuse. Maybe not by the legal definition, but my standards of morality they are.

          I think YOU’RE the one who is having a little bit of a problem distinguishing fact from opinion despite your imagined expertise and scolding of others here. Perhaps you ought to let someone else teach that subject to your children. You wouldn’t want them to be the Dunning-Kruger example you are revealing yourself to be.

        • latsot
          Posted March 12, 2010 at 12:08 am | Permalink

          Darlene:

          “Child abuse is specific, both in law and in accepted understanding.”

          It might surprise you to learn that there are other countries in the world, with different legal systems; different definitions of legal terms; and different accepted understandings of common terms. For example, I’ve noticed in the past that Americans often seem to equate the term “child abuse” very strongly with the outcome of children being taken into care. Among British people, the understanding and attitude seems slightly different.

          Insisting on one narrow definition based on one interpretation of one (or any) legal system is unhelpful at best. Relying on some perceived “accepted understanding” is ignorant when there is demonstrably no such understanding.

          What else can “child abuse” be but the abuse of children? This is in no way *expanding* the definition of child abuse: insisting on a specific legal definition is *restricting* it and you seem to be the one trying to define your way out of trouble, not anyone else.

          The issue isn’t whether a child should be considered abused according to any legal definition, but whether the child *suffers*.

          Causing needless suffering is a form of abuse. It’s an abuse of trust, an abuse of responsibility and abuse of the child.

          If you want to call it something else then by all means go for it, but don’t tell other people what terms they should use.

      • blue
        Posted March 11, 2010 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

        …and she never said it was right! She just called you (and others) on your cavalier use of the word ‘abuse’, that’s not a straw man. It’s up there with calling someone a ‘Nazi’ solely because they don’t agree with you. You are diluting the word’s meaning with your hyberole.

        • articulett
          Posted March 11, 2010 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

          Indeed. Stop all this hyberole at once!

    • Chayanov
      Posted March 11, 2010 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      There’s lots of different kinds of abuse. Why would you minimize or justify one particular type? “These people may be doing something bad, but if you look over there you’ll see people doing something worse” isn’t an argument. Why can’t we try to eliminate all kinds of abuse? Are we supposed to prioritize which kinds are worse and tackle them one at a time? “Sorry you’re being abused and all, but we’re not currently working to stop that kind of abuse.”

      There are plenty of people out there who physically or emotionally abuse their spouses and children who are also professionals or own their own businesses. They function quite well, except when being abusive. So what’s your point? People who are well-adjusted 98% of the time should get some kind of pass for the bad things they do, because they don’t make a career out of it?

  12. Posted March 11, 2010 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Darlene says of creationists “They function perfectly well, and even become scientists and teachers and senators and presidents.”

    Where? The fundamentalists have been claiming for years that “many” scientists reject evolutionary theory. Yet when it comes to the crunch, all they can manage is a bogus list of about 700 worldwide, the majority of which are scientists in areas where evolutionary theory and the old age of the earth are irrelevent.

    In the whole of the UK, my organisation, the BCSE, has only been able to identify one practising scientist in the key areas of geology and evolutionary biology who is a creationist and his intellectual credentials are not exactly high. He’s an assistant manager at a roadstone quarry.

    Nearly all the alledged “creation scientists” have irrelevent qualifications. Typically they are engineers masquerading as scientists or chemists or medical scientists.

    • Darlene
      Posted March 11, 2010 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

      Where? You said it yourself: “about 700 worldwide, the majority of which are scientists in areas where evolutionary theory and the old age of the earth are irrelevent”

      Scientists. And engineers. And presidents.

      So they do apparently function very well, and are employable.

      Look, I’m saying I agree with it, but I think calling it abuse is also going to an extreme. I don’t like lots of things other parents do, that doesn’t mean I think every other kid is being abused.

      I think fighting it by insulting parents and telling them they are abusing heir kids is a real good way to send them underground.

      As I said in my very first post on this thread: if all colleges and universitys refused to accept a BJU or ACE science as a high school credit there would be a reason for parents-and textbook companies-to provide other material.

      Addresses the situation directly and simply.

      If the kid isn’t going to college and doesn’t plan on a career in the sciences, it probably wouldn’t have mattered anyway.

      • latsot
        Posted March 11, 2010 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

        “If the kid isn’t going to college and doesn’t plan on a career in the sciences, it probably wouldn’t have mattered anyway.”

        I’m not quite sure what you mean by this, but it seems a callous statement. We don’t teach our kids only so they can go to university and get jobs. We want them to understand the world and take joy from that understanding. Teaching a child to have an impoverished view of the universe is an abuse of trust and a failure of responsibility.

        Besides, how would we know whether a child is going to college or plans a career in the sciences unless we teach it enough to make those decisions?

  13. Aaron
    Posted March 11, 2010 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    I teach these homeschool kids. I got involved in some programs and I teach music to them. They are indeed smart, the parents are well-intentioned mostly, and the whole thing is a mixed bag. There are many aspects of home-schooling and even of the supportive positive environment of their religious institutions that are worthy of praise.

    But you are completely right about the awfulness of the creationist and other religious nonsense these kids learn. It stresses me out particularly because I know and care about these kids. I’m not in a position to do much about it and it makes more sense for me to have a positive influence and encourage, at least through music, some critical thinking. It is very awkward though, because I am in the closet. Students and parents don’t know that I actually am a scientifically-minded person who rejects their supernatural nonsense.

    The kids are unfortunate victims of these lies, but at the same time they are being taught well in some regards and are benefiting from some positive elements of homeschooling.

    • Posted March 11, 2010 at 11:41 am | Permalink

      I teach a lot of kids who are public schooled but being raised by evangelical Christians. (I teach writing.) They, like the homeschoolers you teach, are wonderful kids that I care about, but their thinking on certain subjects just shuts down because of the religious views they have been taught.

      One example is a 13 year old girl WHO GOES TO PUBLIC SCHOOL who, when I used the word “evolution” (I was talking about stellar evolution, not even biological evolution), she flinched and then raised her hand and asked, “Are there people in the world who actually *believe* in evolution?”

      Another time a boy said something about evolution not being true, and I said something a bit long-winded that asserted that there were mountains and mountains of evidence for evolution of living things. And this 13-year-old *public schooled* boy said, “I don’t believe in evidence.”

      • Aaron
        Posted March 12, 2010 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

        wow. Well, the homeschoolers are weirder though because they don’t even have any perspective. At least from where I see it, some don’t even realize about other views existing. It’s like they’re in the dark ages and they just don’t even know. In reality, the problem is not an issue of being taught evolution or creationism, it is a problem of teaching basic critical thinking. I had a student who had some hearing problem that wasn’t able to be diagnosed and then one day she came in and said it had healed. Then she mentioned that it healed while she was in church, so therefore it was an obvious and undeniable sign of God’s love and etc etc. I said something like, “that isn’t at all a logical conclusion, but I’m glad you’re better. Now let’s move on.” This was a high-school age student.

        If true critical thinking and logical were taught well to these kids, they’d discover the truth about evolution on their own.

  14. Posted March 11, 2010 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    If any homeschoolers out there want some resources for teaching evolution, there is a website (http://www.hsfreethinkers.com/)
    that includes looking at homeschooling materials to see if they are secular or if they promote a particular religion. There is also a set of recommended books at this spot on the website: http://www.hsfreethinkers.com/books/tables

  15. Dr JWS
    Posted March 11, 2010 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Is this a movement predominantly in America? That such loss of trust in State Education in my view is shameful. Whether fuelled by real concerns towards quality of education in comparison with the rest of the world or the defensiveness of the ignorant fundamentalists to brainwash their children because of their beliefs and keep them “pure”, this is a ridiculous state of affairs.

    I am so glad I wasn’t “home-schooled” because my parents were ignorant of almost everything (both dropped out of school to work) except farming and carpentry. I however was encouraged both by my parents and teachers to explore all knowledge (including comparative religion)and to make up MY own mind. Which is why I became at first an agnostic and later an atheist, but foremost a critically thinking neuroscientist.

    If you take away the right of the children to be presented with all the EVIDENCE (not the mythology or whatever conspiracy you believe) you are basically brain washing them to be prepared for a parochial existence in your tiny world view.
    Please don’t let this happen no matter how many votes seem to be in it. Please allow your children to think, with the best informed evidence about all of the world and not just rote learn passages from your scriptures to reject anything you believe to be wrong. All that does is make robots.

    • Aaron
      Posted March 12, 2010 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

      Not all parents are incompetent. Many of the homeschoolers I teach have dedicated and inspiring parents and they also are enrolled in special programs, where they get to learn from experts like me. There are many good aspects of the program. But, yeah, the real reason they do it (most of them) is specifically in order to brainwash the kids with their religious views. Those rare secular homeschoolers do also have legitimate concerns about the public schools which are worthy of criticism in many ways too…

  16. Posted March 11, 2010 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Darlene asks “And what about parents who don’t want a public school education for their kids?”

    Answer – send them to a private school.

    • Darlene
      Posted March 11, 2010 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

      There are two private schools near me, both fundamental christian.

      Next option?

  17. Posted March 11, 2010 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    Darlene says “Where? You said it yourself: “about 700 worldwide, the majority of which are scientists in areas where evolutionary theory and the old age of the earth are irrelevent”

    Scientists. And engineers. And presidents.

    So they do apparently function very well, and are employable.”

    I didn’t suggest otherwise. But not as evolutionary biologists or geologists.

    The creationist claim (made repeteadly) is that many scientists dissent from the theory of evolution by natural selection. My evidence is that this claim is bogus. They simply don’t. Even the Instutute for Creation Research can only list about 146 and they are virtually all non-entities.

    All of them dissent for religious rather than scientific reasons.

    The issue that science is not important in education is bizarre. It’s one of the cores of any sound education up until the age of 18. Whether people use it afterwards is irrelevent.

    Most people don’t make heavy use of the subjects they study at school. That’s no argument for limiting education to, say, maths and English.

    I’m staggered about your claim that it doesn’t matter if the Prewsident of the United States doesn’t understand science.

    Heck, it’s a life or death issue if he gets decisions involving science wrong. Whether that be science in defence procurement, medicine or agriculture.

  18. KP
    Posted March 11, 2010 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    And this 13-year-old *public schooled* boy said, “I don’t believe in evidence.”

    What was his name? If I ever commit a crime, I want him on my jury!

  19. Posted March 11, 2010 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    How can you debate this with these parents when they’re so indoctrinated into their faith they cannot reason whatsoever? Very frightening!

  20. Logan Moss
    Posted March 11, 2010 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    I fear you are only half correct when you write that the “common thread of the emails I’ve received is that evolution is not “proven”.” For it seems to me that actually, the common thread is the illiteracy of the authors of those emails, or at least the ones you have cited.

  21. Bud
    Posted March 12, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Not all Christians agree with these articles. I was educated in a Catholic High School. I was taught about Evolution and believe it to be correct, I was taught that the Earht is almost 5 Bilion years old and I was taught about the Big Band theory. Science and Christianity are not inconsistent. People do need to open their minds.

  22. TD
    Posted March 14, 2010 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    As alluded to a bit by posts upthread, the core problem is that a tremendous number of people have already decided that their entire worldview, their religion, their grip on reality itself, is under assault by science.

    Any particular thing they say at the moment to rationalize that their views cannot be challenged is just mouth flapping noise. They just parrot whatever they heard last from the “good guys”.

    Simple curiosity could lead people to learn more, to develop critical thinking ability, but human curiosity has been submerged by insecurity and fear. Unfortunately, it is the traditional westernized, and in particular Americanized religious traditions that have lead to a culture of insecurity and fear. The irony is that they believe their faith saves them from insecurity and fear – when it is in fact the very thing causing it. When “god” is always watching you for signs of deviance, when your literal immortal and eternal existence depends on believing the right things, at all times, with absolute conviction and demonstration of that convince to the world – what would YOU do? You’d act like the Christians who have left reason behind.

    But the real danger is that you cannot reason with such people. It is literally impossible. In order for a person’s mind to be changed, they have to change it themselves. A reasonable person will listen to the argument of another, but until they internalize that argument and work it through to their own satisfaction, their beliefs won’t be changed.

    Too many of the religious absolutely refuse to even work through an argument that they’ve been conditioned to see comes from “the enemy”. Only a catastrophic, life-changing experience can shake a person out of such blindness and those experiences are rare.

    Sadly, it shouldn’t shock people that a lot of kids in public schools are already regurgitating anti-intellectual, anti-reason propaganda. Their parents do everything they can to reinforce it at home and surround the kids with other adults who think the same way. The kids are being made afraid of a new set of boogymen.

    There is some hope. Religious mania and defensiveness always crests to a wave and then crashes sharply; this is often because despite the convictions and the claims of a given religion – such as predictions about the end of the world – reality has a bad habit of letting believers down. The current rise of mania in the United States is setting itself up for a terrible crash. People who are older than 40 will likely remain deluded, turning inward and defensive, becoming bitter, old, and hateful (more so than they already are) over the next ten years. Those under 40 will adjust their values out of necessity. But those who are currently teenagers will likely have a lot of anger at their parents; they’re going to wake up one day and feel as if they’ve been cheated and manipulated. (Because they have.)

  23. hugh7
    Posted March 15, 2010 at 12:45 am | Permalink

    I have always found it peculiar that people can imagine you get rewarded or punished after death for what you believe. I can’t imagine turning belief on or off like a tap – to me something has to be convincing or I CAN’T believe it. Yet to even make sense of that kind of doctrine, you HAVE to believe that metadoctrine first, that people can choose what they believe, regardless of the evidence.

    So I guess there’s just some fundamental mindset difference, that encompasses both believing things without evidence and believing in the voluntariness of belief, that people like me are just shut out from. (And so we’re all going to Hell….)

    • articulett
      Posted March 15, 2010 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

      I agree! –And that bugged me even as a kid. How did I know if I believed in god? (Aand how was I to remedy it if I didn’t?) How was I supposed to convince god I believed in him and loved him with the right fervency if he can read my mind and could tell if I was “faking it”. I couldn’t control whom I “loved” and didn’t even know if I could “love” someone who was completely invisible. I couldn’t tell if I was praying to the right invisible guy even– or calling him by the “right” name. (God? Jesus? Heavenly Father? If all gods were the same god, could I pray to Zeus? Who named god, “God”?) I couldn’t make myself love my neighbor much less a trinity I couldn’t make sense of.

      And I thought it was weird… this invisible guy wanted nothing more then for me to “believe in” him? Then why be invisible? Why would Jesus appear for doubting Thomas but not me? Why didn’t my actions count for more than what I believed. Why was a church telling what I should and shouldn’t “believe in”?

      Why weren’t scientists working on this? Wasn’t our collective eternities more important than just about everything else??

      I tried to “believe” by not thinking about it too much (because I was afraid of some dire consequences if I didn’t believe). How was I supposed to think of a god as all-loving when he was the one who was responsible for the “dire consequences” I feared (eternal damnation).

      I think religion is a very cruel thing to inflict on a bright kid. I would never do such a thing to a child.

      • hugh7
        Posted March 15, 2010 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

        It struck men when I first heard Billy Graham in 1958 (on the radio, thank Dog, I didn’t go to hear him) that you can never believe enough for these people. You’re always supposed to worry that your faith is not strong enough and you won’t be counted among the blest.

        • articulett
          Posted March 15, 2010 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

          I couldn’t figure out why my dad would make fun of “holy rollers” and such…

          If life was supposed to be a test for ETERNITY, shouldn’t we run around trying to figure out who was “in the lead”?

          Surely those who embarrassed themselves for Jesus would have to be in the front, I thought… but I couldn’t stomach that. (I lived in fear of getting a “calling” to be a nun!)It caused me much angst that my eternity might depend on me being one of those “holy rollers” that I found so embarrassing. Heck, I found all of religion embarrassing.

          I couldn’t figure out why anyone would go back to church once they didn’t HAVE to go anymore.

      • latsot
        Posted March 16, 2010 at 9:17 am | Permalink

        “I think religion is a very cruel thing to inflict on a bright kid.”

        And on the not-so-bright. My sister is the only one of us kids to have caught religion from our parents. And she got it *bad*. She has gone through the last forty years *terrified* of hell and miserable at her belief that most of the people she loves will end up there even if she herself manages to escape. Which, as a sinner, she doesn’t really expect to do.

        This is an abominably cruel thing to inflict on anybody.

  24. Andy Vargas
    Posted April 1, 2010 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    By all means, weep. But know that raising passionate, intelligent children who have unfortunately been lied to is a recipe for instant militant atheist once they discover the bullsh*t. Parents who raise their children creationist are going to get creationist children whether the public school or homeschool them, the latter, as tragic as it may be, has the added perk that it sometimes creates the very antithesis of what the parents were trying to raise. As stated above, Matt Dillahunty of ACA is an example, I am another.

  25. Abby
    Posted April 4, 2010 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Seems to me that all of these Christian parents need to get educated on the subject of evolution before they claim it is a lie. In public school you are taught the ACTUAL definition of evoluton: which is a genetic change over time. Not that man came from monkey, rather they share similar genetics.

    This is proven! Example take the flu virus. Each year this virus mutates at the genetic level and “changes over time”. Another example take a look at how humans have changed over the years. It is easy to see that humans now a days on average are a lot taller than say 200 years ago. Again that is evolution, a change over time!

    Seems to to me people need to get educated on the subject of evolution before dismissing it. THEN it is your right to choose what you believe. At least teach your children the facts, and let them choose what they what they want to believe.

  26. James
    Posted April 9, 2010 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    This is clearly an issue that our society should take steps to resolve. Parental conviction should not be an impediment to children receiving a quality education. One quote from the second writer struck me: “It would depress my children to no end if they even thought they were evolved from an animal.” It calls to mind the purported statement made by the wife of the Canon of Worcester Cathedral from around the time the theory of evolution was first announced (the citation is lost to time): “Descended from the apes? My dear, we will hope it is not true. But if it is, let us pray that it may not become generally known.” This unfortunate sentiment, which aims to undermine the diffusion knowledge for the benefit of vanity, or mistaken pride, was counterproductive then and today. If they wish to do so, as some here have mentioned, parents can instruct their children in whatever theories they wish; but using a false textbook with the appearance of authenticity is a travesty. My wish is for all these children to have an equal chance to learn about the ‘fundamental’ aspects of biology.
    Additionally, terms such as “Darwinist” only serve to further entrench positions that should never exist, and involves fracturing various forms of knowledge into mutually exclusive groups. It implies that evolution cannot be accepted into the broader realm of science because it is too closely associated with its primary discoverer’s philosophies. In the same line of thought, anyone who believes in genetics should be a “Mendellian,” at war with the ‘Einsteinian’ faction as well as Christians. The posturing quickly becomes ridiculous. As a Christian, I feel pained these parents do so while claiming biblical support for their actions. There is no statement in the Bible which affirms ignorance, and especially not to teach it to children at their most impressionable ages.


3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] Fail Jerry Coyne continues to attract creationist parents and advocates to his blog. The interesting thing is that these people see themselves as either being clever skeptics or being [...]

  2. [...] is what I mean: I’ve talked about the case in which a genetics professor caught heat because he claimed that home-school materials that taught creationism… If you read some of the e-mail messages he posted or read some of the comments, you’ll see [...]

  3. [...] Radio bit on home-schooling, and more angry emails The kerfuffle about home-schooling and evolution led to an invitation for me to do a brief segment on Overnight America [...] [...]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27,036 other followers

%d bloggers like this: