Yahoo

"Two Pakistani officers and a government official said Sunday that an American charged with treason for working with al-Qaida had been captured, a development that could deliver another significant blow in the U.S.-led battle against the terror network. U.S. defense, intelligence and law enforcement officials could not immediately verify the reported detention of Adam Gadahn, a 31-year-old spokesman for al-Qaida who has appeared on videos threatening the West, including one that emerged earlier Sunday."

"A bilingual 4th grader hurt in an Arizona bus accident that killed six people and injured more than a dozen others translated from an ambulance stretcher for busy rescue workers as they hurried to set up a triage center, authorities said Saturday. Oscar Rodriguez of Las Vegas, Nev., was labeled a hero by firefighters and paramedics for helping them communicate with non-English speaking passengers just after Friday's pre-dawn crash on an interstate."

Way to go, kiddo.

"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've looked at homeschool materials for the future and have had a hard time finding anything that isn't Christian.

Children seem routinely inculcated with their parents ideas - even when these seem ludicrous. I fear "evangelical Christians" among others have a lot to answer for :(

http://www.basicincome.com/bp/havingread.htm

I hate defending these publishers ((shudder)). But I have to say that these parents home-school their kids for a reason. They disagree with what's being taught to their kids in public school. Yes, disavowing science is nuts. But how parents educate their children in their own homes is their business. And I would want that right for myself if I had kids.

I suspect there are lots of reasons to homeschool but I'm not sure one of them should be to teach kids absolutely whatever you like. If parents routinely teach their children things we know - to the very best of our knowledge - to be wrong, this is presumably not something the state should stand by and allow. We protect children from physical abuse, at what point does teaching them untruths in an institutionalised homeschool context become some other form of abuse?

It's not easy Rochelle, but I'd have to think there is something out there. If you want to home-school, you could look for an online school that helps to supplement homeschooling, but that has more secular texts. http://distancelearn.about.com/od/onlinepublicschools/a/OnlinePS.htm

Is fundamentalist religion abuse?

I think the question would probably be, is it abuse to teach kids on a systematic basis something which we know to be untrue?

Again, I don't agree with fundamentalist religion. But I believe people should have a right to raise their children in their own home as they see fit. If one doesn't agree with what's being taught in schools, he or she is welcome to do it themselves (within the confines of the law, of course).

Sadly, people have been doing that for centuries and centuries, and it won't end. :( They're welcome to move to some remote area and declare secession from the Union. :P

From what I've seen on FF there is a deep divide between Europeans and Americans on this issue. It's a complex issue, but I support the social democratic approach where the state provides a minimum curriculum that every child has to go through. There are many limits to what parents can subject their children to, and I think it is right to have some limits in education as well. After all, a child cannot choose its parents.

Winckel, This statement is the crux: "If parents routinely teach their children things we know - to the very best of our knowledge - to be wrong, this is presumably not something the state should stand by and allow." of why there is an issue to begin with: "...things we know - to the very best of our knowledge - to be wrong" . To the very best of your knowledge? That is very shaky ground. I have seen people adamant on both sides about insisting on their right to indoctrinate the other and after words, dogfacedly (in the best of cases) apologize with a "well we were wrong" It is a parents right to teach their children without interference because it is their primary responsibility and not the states'. Invade this right, and you will not see it end until the state has even more control of your family and then your person. You want a society that is free...and yet you are on a path of giving up your fundamental freedoms supposedly to obtain it. You will not find freedom there but a distopia and many of those from history's...

Flying the freedom of thought kite high is no bad thing but we are talking here - in many cases - about people who believe things which are simply not true - say, that the earth was created 8,000 years ago - and who systematically teach that to their children and misrepresent the knowledge that we have, so that these children grow up with a deliberately misshapen view of their world and of their own biology. I'm not completely sure that keeping communists from the door is a sufficient justification for it (though it does depend to some degree of your relative value systems): I'm struck that religion appears to have a privileged position here which I suspect we'd do well to remove if we want healthy societies for the future.

@Winckel, have you ever considered that maybe your state-imposed education is the reason you believe in Darwinism so strongly? Children, after all, cannot choose their sovereign state. The "we" that "know" Darwinism to be true are primarily state-schooled, yes?

I don't wish to hold "darwinism" up as some shining standard. But we do know the earth isn't 8000 years old (or thereabouts) - whether we went to state schools or not.

This is very irritating.

On matters where instrumentation is used, the ground is also shaky because the instrumentation is only as accurate as the designer's understanding. Science while priding itself on its ability to be "current" doesn't stop to admit that being wrong makes you, well, wrong. And so many of those wrongs sets a track record that the healthy skeptic would be advised to consider before putting faith in the current results or beliefs as a "standard".

Maybe, but I smell sophistry in the air; a heartening endorsement of skepticism and I'm all for healthy skepticism, but I suspect this is more about a group of people who choose (allow?) faith to override their normal natural rational understanding and so ignore what is known and evidenced because it conflicts with their religious belief. They may be free to do it - it's their choice - but it's a slightly different matter to inculcate that in children who are still learning to learn and understand. I'm reminded of the Jesuit adage - give us a child by the age of seven and he's ours for life. I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing.

it must be so frustrating. And I agree, there must be an enough online resources to help fill in the gaps left out by the lack of book resources.

:(

This may be me showing ignorance about homeschooling, but would it be possible to build a curriculum around a text that the local public school is using? Is that prohibitively expensive?

Aaron, I don't know that much about homeschooling but I don't see why a parent couldn't buy the same textbooks/teacher guides that the local school is using, instead of buying a different textbook/teacher guide. I would assume the prices are generally the same. I think, at least for some families, part of the reason they may homeschool is because they do not agree with the teaching system/methods/textbooks at the local public school. If that's true for them, they probably do not want to use the local textbooks.

I'm not particularly troubled by this. I feel sorry for the children who are receiving substandard education, but it's a choice made by their parents. It's fewer children for my son to have to compete with. Once one escapes the grip of their parents, there is plenty of information to absorb to fix the damage if desired.

Aaron, I think a lot, though not all!, of parents who home school do so because they feel the Public School system is flawed. They often don't trust the curriculum, etc.

Ok, I understand that aspect of mistrust of the public school system. It is a shame that most of the materials geared toward home schooling is based on christianity, but there has to be some acceptable alternative texts for these concerned parents to use that may not be tailored to home schooling, but could be if the parent's put the leg work into it.

I'm sure there's plenty of available useful material Aaron. I know that there is a large community on the internet attempting to create excellent free educational material that would have no religious bias.

It's definitely concerning that most of the homeschooling material is religious based, but when you look at the stats, the overwhelming majority of home schoolers are fundamentalist Christians. Like, Tad mentioned, there are definitely non-religious based materials out there, it just takes work to find them.

The exact same goes for the state-run educational system. To "inculcate" children that the ordered universe has come about by chance (as opposed to design) and that, by extension, mankind is the highest moral authority seems to be the whole purpose of the system. It is not as if the state-run educational system is neutral, for they do hold to a particular worldview. It is just that the worldview they hold is directly in opposition to "mainline" religion. Therefore, they create children who think that order can rise from chaos (given a gazillion years) without design, even though the world around them says otherwise in no uncertain terms.

Didn't really intend this to become a debate on merits of intelligent design or similar. The issue is that state schools aren't (on the whole) dominated by religion, homeschooling is, and hence people who are home schooled are systematically taught things we know to be untrue (for example, that the earth is say 8000 years old or whatever). Their parents are inculcating faith. Adults can choose to believe that if they wish (I suspect it's better if they don't but that's a choice they make), but children are still learning to learn and understand the world and there must be a good deal of doubt that this is a reasonable thing to do. It seems to me it's typical of causes to try to subvert education and a fundamentalist evangelical approach is in this regard no different.

In the US, ID has been declared *not science* by the courts. Will the next legal battle argue that the Kitzmiller v. Dover case should extend into home schooling?

But winckel, children belong to their parents, not the state. The state wants to inculcate faith in the state and its worldview especially the more socialistic and communistic it becomes. When those children grow up and you want to persuade them to another worldview, then they are of an age to make their own choices in that regard.

Well said above, winckel.

certain things are true incontrovertible truth gravity 2+2 If the home schooler wishes their child to learn that these things are falso al wel and good but lets not give them the legitimacy of a state approval after REAL school I can teach my daughter the earth is flat and Bible trumps Darwin but without any seal of approval for my fanatic willful gleeful ignorance

@Mellie. Belong? Maybe, in some respects, but not to do as they please surely. The state would intervene in cases of systematic physical or emotional abuse. At what point does systematically teaching children things that are not true (that parents - because of their faith - have chosen to believe) constitute inappropriate behaviour or abuse? Wouldn't it better for kids to be able to choose when they're adults having not been taught that "evangelical christianity" is the only true religion? (or however one wants to phrase it). Perhaps this is - as Eivind says - a cultural difference between US and Europe but if there's an ill here, that wouldn't to my mind excuse it.

@winckel I didn't say to do as they please, but neither should the aberrant behavior (physical abuses) of others towards their children take away a loving parent's fundamental right to the society and education of their children. The Irish Constitution in a landmark case was challenged on this very point and it was conceded that a parent had this right in regard to their children.

There's absolutely a strong parental right. But to teach what's not true because of the parents faith? I suspect that crosses a line.

One of the major problems we're seeing here is the unfortunate outcome of state-run schooling that has individuals equate molecules-to-man evolution with gravity and stating that anyone might know "for fact" that the earth is older than 8000 years.

Some things are facts not opinion not controversy to balance but facts gravity 2+2 evolution age of earth in millions of years ;)

I recall things I was taught in science when growing up, indeed, in many areas and most of it has not stood the test of time. But here is the point: those things were taught as fact, indisputable fact. One of the reasons we have new textbooks is that these "facts" keep changing: its a high dollar business. And its one of the reasons we now have the Open Textbook Community that is reviewing a building a growing wiki base of updatable textbooks. There are no indisputable facts when it comes to science and technology. It is ever-changing.

water boils at 212, freezes at 32, to say that no facts are indeed facts is sophistry. Gravity is 2+2 is but it is necessary in all things of late to revere balance as if someones opinion that gravity was an Obama plot makes it less real ;)

See, warlord, you definition of evolution as "fact" as well as "millions of years" is where you demonstrate your ignorance (no rancor meant). By definition, they are not facts, but are theories and untestable ones at that.

at a certain point after many years theory becomes fact by repeated validation and failure to refute. To the point of course that many people find it needful that certain things are never facts but always subject to political and religious editting but really gravity evolution 2+2 the age of earth are of a piece the facts come to suit the prior politics

I very much doubt any reasonable person could stand by a claim that there are no indisputable facts when it comes to science and tech. And I'd be somewhat surprised if someone on the search for facts, was seeking to replace what we know - as a result of hard won study, research and evidence - with faith which by definition we believe rather than know. I am embarrassed for some of the comments otherwise reasonable (intelligent, educated?) people have made above.

Would you home-schooling-can-teach-anything supporters support teaching kids revisionist history? (if so, how outside the mainstream would be OK with you? Actually, come to think of it, there are people who want to change *regular* schoolbooks to downplay the evils of McCarthyism...)

Can you demonstrate that the earth is X billion years old? No. You can see the earth in its current state and work backwards by making several (often telling) assumptions, but to state it as a fact is incorrect. The same with "evolution." You see the world as it is and you can imagine how it got that way, but it is not a fact at all.

@Andrew - You're assuming that McCarthyism was, in fact, "evil." I'll argue that those that wrote the textbooks you are familiar with had a particular slant to them that might have been a revision.

By studying behavior of the current world it's possible to extrapolate what has happened in the past and how long changes take. By drilling through the ice and crust and analyzing the layers scientists can determine what has happened thousands or millions of years ago in the past (climate changes, volcanoes etc). There are many ways to look back before there was any instrumentation.

can you tell how old things are? Yes. You can date using a number of techniques (carbon dating among them). Just Google it. That someone wouldn't know this, worries me.

Ahhh, winckel and Jemm, you assume that the methods tell the truth. The fact is that the methods are not consistent (all the dating methods, from carbon dating to potassium-argon) for all "ages," and the methods, as I said, rely heavily on several assumptions (i.e. rate of decay, element seepage, amount of daughter element in original, etc) that really make it just so that the unwashed masses must take it on faith from the white-coats.

I'm gonna hit the hay, but I'd be honored if you'd take a look at some info: http://www.icr.org/article/myths-regarding-radiocarbon-dating/

Thanks for the funny reading:)

My son will most likely learn about evolution at school (we are not yet decided if he will go to a public school or a private Christian school), but we will be teaching him about Creation and why we don't believe evolution is the truth. He can decide for himself what he believes.

Is the link above is intended to demonstrate that the earth is in the region of say 8000 years old? I'm not sure but I do suggest it's beneficial to look quite widely and perhaps use less tendential sources - there is a huge amount of data out there from very reputable sources to prove beyond any reasonable doubt it seems to me that that sort of timeline isn't credible. If people choose to believe that the earth is, say, 8000 years old (or for example that communion wine and bread becomes the actual body of Jesus Christ as its ingested) then that's their own free choice and perfectly permissible, but I would personally rate that as lacking credibility because of the extent to which they have allowed their faith to override their rational and reasoning mind. I'm reminded of the old Chinese proverb that people lose their freedom when words lose their meaning and having a good basis to a school curriculum is one of the safeguards. Causes and ideologies typically try to subvert education (for the Jesuit reasoning above) and I'd...

@Reformed Goadkicker - No, the *direct accounts* of how McCarthyism (1) ruined lives and (2) was a witch hunt based on nothing aren't "revisions".

Evolution is indeed fact -- it happened and is happening. The term theory only applies to the processes of evolution.

Re McCarthyism - watch Point of Order a verite documentary it is eye opening and will make you squirm al to the good....

Let the parents teach their kids whatever they want, use whatever books they want...BUT...those kids better be able to pass the standardized tests the kids in the public schools have to pass, otherwise the parents should lose the right to home school their kids. And if it is of concern that home schooled kids will be missing all the science they should know, then it's time to add that stuff to the standardized tests, like they did with the HSPA test in NJ, which all must pass in order to receive a high school diploma, even home schooled kids. And yes, evolution is part of it. http://www.state.nj.us/education/njpep/assessment/TestSpecs/ScienceHSPA/lifesci/grade12.html

The facts are, April, that home schooled children surpass their public educated peers by a wide margin across the board. http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp

I think I'd be disappointed to see the test results issue obscure the key point here which is whether teaching faith as facts in the context of homeschooling is appropriate given its obvious conflict with established science. More reasonable (and less extremist) Christian groups (for example the mainstream Church of England in the UK) would wholly accept evolution. This issue in point here is whether fundamentalist homeschooling (for want of a better term) is damaging children by teaching them something is true simply because their parents believe (wish to believe) it is true. It's outside the scope here, but it would be interesting (and disheartening I suspect) to hear a reasoned account say of how Genesis is literally true.

Well, if they don't learn about evolution, they aren't going to get a diploma in NJ. Just picture this scenario and you'll understand the problem better: "Hi, I'd like to apply for admission to your college. No, I don't have a high school diploma. I was home schooled. When I took the state mandated test that measures whether or not I learned the minimum required to have a diploma, I flunked it. Yeah, I didn't learn all that important stuff required to pass it. My parents didn't believe in all that stuff and filled my head with bullshit instead. Would have been fine if the test from the state was on how much bullshit I know, but it wasn't...it was science. (ugh!) Can I still go to your school even though the state says I don't know enough to have a high school diploma?" (Guess what? NJ is also considering becoming the first state to shun the GED program and require anyone that wants a high school equivalency diploma to take the same test the high school kids have to take. No more proving you are as smart as a 5th grader to...

So, "reasonable" here means "agrees with my worldview?"