Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

A year later, Ive had the opportunity to review three textbooks that are exclusively dialed in for use by "Homeschooled kids". Biology texts and ntural science. I can see natural science avoiding evolution cause its a lower grade text and the program is mostly about what and , to some degree, how.
However a senior high text in biology has avoided ALL te meat about evolution nd naturl selection to a point that its really AN EMBARRASSMENT TO ANY KID WHO WISHES TO GO INTO SOME FIELD IN BIO.(Medicine is now heavily invested in developmental anatomy nd species comparisons)
IN THE HOMSCHOOL BIO TEXT-THINGS LIKE GENETICS IS TOTALLY WHITEWASHED (AT A SENIor HIGH LEVEL, A REALLY GOOD TEXT WILL GO FAIRLY DEEPLY INTO THE GENOME AND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SPECIES AN DEVELOPMENTAL GENOMICS)

Then things like Hardy Weinberg and mayr, Haldane and Erhlich and topics like islnd biogeography nd "genes turned on and off" are just ignored.
Homeschool bio texts in P re lmost s much a racket as they are in Texas. (the homeschool association speaks in "code" tht they wish their texts to be comprehensive and "not favoring any belief system that is in scientific dispute'

WOOW!.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/america-dumbs-down-145554450.html

It's a very odd trend isn't it.

Have you noticed that the "idiot" ads for ID and "debunking Darwin" hve gotten thick as stew and have gotten really really slick?

I think they've taken to the net as their prinicipal school incursion. Why teach when , with a slick presentation, the kids cant tell a truthful "resource" from some religious crap.

What about the slick presentations in ads directed at adults?

Your particular concern is nothing but a lame excuse to garner attention and to stick your schtick about idiots and crap in our faces.

There is a great deal more to be questioned about these matters not least how a thicko like you got your nose in the door of "education".

Schools are for child minding and a bit of brain programming. Any real truth appearing in them and they would be shut down overnight.

And, to answer your question, no, I have not noticed that the "idiot" ads for ID and "debunking Darwin" hve gotten thick as stew and have gotten really really slick?

"Stew" and "slick" don't sit easily together.

If that is how educators in Pa. express themselves one can only feel very sorry for their imprisoned charges.

your lack of comprehension skills show through mahvelously spendi.
Is it a slow day in East Trollingham?

or are you just hung over?

OK you are the man of science that tells of everything we need to know.

Describe a quasar, and what it is and how could such a thing even exist? Imagination even fails to reason how such a thing in your very complete science can be explained. Our science teaches us that something of this nature can't exist-yet it does. Too be so bright yet so far away accelerating faster than light itself because what we are seeing died out billions of years ago- before the universe was even created-but we can still see it?
Can't wait for this.

As a Christian, I think any religious teaching or bible ID should be taught outside of any public school cirriculum. I think this problem in the US is motivated by politics(votes) and Christian fundamentalism. The separation between church and state is a critical stance which prevents religious fundamentalism controlling the freedom of thought by rational decent people. Even though I am a Christian I don't believe in the idea of a Christian State because I know there are too many Christian fundamentalists who are corrupt and don't make any realistic sense. Religious and Scientific studies are two different topics. Religious studies are about moral and spiritual matters. Science is about physics and physical matters.

Why they want to combine these two is beyond me...

That also ignores the fact that there must be a separation of church and state.

That is what I said. As a Christian I believe people should have the freedom of choice, not be bullied into any religion. I don't deny there is a lot of Christian fundamentalism, corruption and irrationale. The State and Religion should be separate.
Maybe I'm a conservative Christian. I love science and evolution theory, not to mention science fiction as well. But like Galilleo he also didn't like religion and science being contradicted. The bible to him was just a book of poetry, morality and metaphores, not a scientific account of our physical universe...

Why? We have a state religion, and as a result we've got the least religious population in the World.

You have separation of church and state and a bunch of religious fundamentalists who exert a disproportionate amount of influence.

Look at abortion, look at how much of a political football it is due to the pernicious influence of religion. You have abortion clinics closing down, women being forced to travel hundreds of miles for termination, and politicians talking about restricting terminations so only rape and incest victims can qualify.

Over here it's the woman's right to choose, regardless of circumstance and it's free on the NHS.

Maybe you just have a smarter electorate than the US. In any case, the religious stance of your nation or the US may not be directly linked to abortion views.

The claim that the UK has a state religion is illusory. They have a state-supported priesthood, but no one is actually obliged to practice the religion, and no one is debarred from public office for failing to do so. There are plenty of religious nutters over there, too. Despite the wild claims of those who love to hate the U.S., abortion is legal and teaching religion in public schools is not.

I find it rather funny when people say that American voters are stupid. They're no worse than anyone else's voters. They routinely give the White House to one party, and the Congress to the other. They often split the Congress, too.

Man, i'll be those grapes were sour anyway.

Perhaps they are but today we are told that Hubble has found a galaxy that is 13.5 billion light years away-that is billion not million. A flashlight beam can cover a mile in one tenth of a second. A light year is 53 trillion miles-give or take who you are reading some say as little as 6 trillion.
Those distances simply can not be explained, or understood, by humans and they never will. Here is where religion come in for me.
The Koran is comforting in a wonderful way for me. I enjoy reading about the Prophet and his struggles.
The Bible is comforting in a different way. It seems to predict things and warn us about things that might come our way.
I don't give much credence to the old testament as much as I do the gospel. We know Jesus was a real person as was the Prophet.
They both help me explain things I don't understand about science, and or, the cosmos.
I was at a lecture by Professor Carl Sagan in the mid eighty's in his not so comforting 'nuclear winter' tour. It was at Vanderbilt's Langford auditorium.
He talked about the 'God theory' and was somewhat condescending towards religion in general. After the discussion he went down to West End and hung out with the kids and drink suds with them. He was an incredibly funny man and all of his condescending attitude towards religion dispersed completely.
He said he went to his son grave sometimes and he allowed religion to comfort him in his sadness.
So, what can we take from this-every man can choose the things that comfort him or he can deal with any other way he chooses-it is a personal decision.

We have bishops sitting in the House of Lords, our second legislative chamber. That puts us on a par with Iran. We've got a state religion all right, perhaps the penalties placed on non Anglicans are not as restrictive as they once were, Disraeli famously had to covert in order to take up a seat in the House of Commons, and the monarch has only been allowed to marry a Catholic since February 2013, but it's a state religion nonetheless.

It may not agree with your own personal definition of what state religion means, but I think we can live with that.

Disraeli was the mid to late 1800s, during that time it was illegal to attend a synagogue in some states here. You're basically arguing about a separation of church and state that the Supreme Court ruled is in force over here, and an official state religion that has grown weaker and weaker over time to where it is now mostly symbolic, much like your Monarchy.

I'm not arguing about anything. I'm stating what the situation is over here. Nobody is concerned about separation of the church's remaining powers. We're the least religious country in the World, might that be the result of a state religion?

Nominally we're all Anglicans, the vicar has a duty of pastoral care for all his parishioners, not just the Anglican ones. As the state has taken over religion we don't have to bother with going to church and can spend our Sundays doing other things.

I'm not saying it's the only reason, we've always prized irreverence, but it might be a contributory factor. As Anglicanism had to take a broad spectrum of opinion from Puritan to Catholic it's become quite watered down and not as fervent as a result.

Quote izzy:

The key word being the first one, nominally. Like nominally, the Queen is the head of the government.
Back in the 1800s some form of strict Christianity was in charge, both here and in the UK. The US gradually enforced the First Amendment more and more, to make the wall of separation between church and state more meaningful. The UK kept the official church, but gradually watered down their powers. The end result in both cases is freedom to choose your own religion or no religion as you see fit.

So yes, a wall of separation between church and state need not be written down, a country can elect to just lessen the real power over their citizens' lives by an established church over the course of time to where real religious freedom exists. But I agree with cicerone imposter, over here that wall of separation of church and state is necessary to prevent religion from leaking over into public policy.

Strange that you had to enforce something that was already on the statute book. We had no first amendment, we became less religious without enforcing anything. I don't think America is a lot less religious now than it was back in the day. Seeing as how many of you hate government, making the church part of government might normalise the godsquad. They won't want to go to church then.

When I was at school the only compulsory subject was RE. In practice we all studied Maths, English, Humanities and Science with one "RE" lesson once a week. "RE" included sex education and the dangers of drugs smoking and alcohol, it was quite loose.

RE is still a compulsory subject in early years, and some can opt to take it for GCSE, but it's RE in its truest form. It's not indoctrination, kids are required to study a range of religions, (opt outs are available, but only the really intense go for that,) which helps when you're living in a multicultural World and may have to work/live alongside people of other/no beliefs.

Like I said, once the Church of England really did enforce itself as the primary religion, (Oliver Cromwell), but it gradually slackened until now it is mostly symbolic. But don't forget, Britain had shooting wars over religion not too much before the Declaration of Independence in America, so we wanted to make sure that religion would not be involved in running the government. The fact that Britain managed to voluntarily and incrementally lessen the authority of this state religion until it is now just at symbolic status is not necessarily because it was made the state religion in the first place. It merely followed the trend of the rest of British society. There are plenty of other countries with state religions which did not follow the British model.