Pine Log

Good article, Jonathan.

One comment. You say: "Intelligent design may still be a theory". In the scientific sense of the word "theory", Intelligent Design is NOT a "scientific theory", it is only a hypothesis. To be a theory, ID must be observable, must be falsifiable, must offer a mechanism and must make predictions. ID fails on all these dimensions. We've never seen ID happen, there is no way to falsify ID, ID offers no mechanism (other than divine magic) and it makes no predictions. So ID is most definitely not a "theory" in the scientific sense.

Great article! I am a homeschool parent who does not buy into the intelligent design or creationism garbage. Trying to find high quality high school science texts without ID is extremely difficult.

Christian based materials do not dominate the growing home-school market contrary to what is stated at The Raw Storey. Many homeschoolers choose to buy textbooks from mainstream publishers. The same publishers that furnish textbooks to public schools. Also while 83% of homeschoolers my want to give their children "religious or moral instruction" the 83% are not necessarily Christians; Muslims, Pagans, Buddhist and those of other religions also homeschool and wish to pass their "beliefs" on to their children. Also MANY Christians Homeschoolers do believe in evolution and teach evolution to their children.

Another survey Tapestry of Homeschool Survey Report paints a far different picture of homeschoolers.

* 90% of the respondents were married, 4% were single, a little over 3% were in domestic partnerships.
* 80% were homeschooling for non-religious reasons.

The Tapestry of Homeschooling Survey Report was conducted by Learning is for Everyone. Because these statistics don't jibe with the anti-homeschoolers misconceptions some of them were loath to accept the survey.

Christian based materials do not dominate the growing home-school market contrary to what is stated at The Raw Storey. Many homeschoolers choose to buy textbooks from mainstream publishers. The same publishers that furnish textbooks to public schools. Also while 83% of homeschoolers my want to give their children "religious or moral instruction" the 83% are not necessarily Christians; Muslims, Pagans, Buddhist and those of other religions also homeschool and wish to pass their "beliefs" on to their children. Also MANY Christians Homeschoolers do believe in evolution and teach evolution to their children.

Another survey Tapestry of Homeschool Survey Report paints a far different picture of homeschoolers.

* 90% of the respondents were married, 4% were single, a little over 3% were in domestic partnerships.
* 80% were homeschooling for non-religious reasons.

The Tapestry of Homeschooling Survey Report was conducted by Learning is for Everyone.

Jonathan,

I thought this was an excellent article. Direct, concise, and accurate on all the important parts. The only addition I would make is to note that the word "theory" can also mean (and does mean, in science) an overarching framework into which the observable data fit. Thus, "gravitational theory" and "germ theory" are, like evolutionary theory, large explanatory frameworks. This meaning of theory is often lost (or willfully ignored) in the evolution/creationism-ID "debates." (Your definition of theory is also correct, but it is a separate use of the term, more in line with "theory" as used in common parlance as opposed to "theory" as used in science).

A book coming out in the spring, by J. W. Martin, sheds some light on this and might be of interest, especially as it was written for high school and college age students:

"The Prism and the Rainbow: A Christian Explains Why Evolution Is Not a Threat" (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010).

Looks like it can be pre-ordered from the web site advertising the book (I'll paste that in). Keep up the good work.

There are some homeschoolers who use texts like this, but they are not representative of the majority of homeschoolers in the country.

The organization quoted, HSLDA, is an organization that attracts Christian homeschoolers, so of course figures based on surveys of their membership are going to show a much higher percentage of homeschoolers that claim religion is a major factor in their educational decision, and of course those families are going to be more likely than secular homeschoolers to use religious based texts. Surveying HSLDA members on creationism and attributing the results to ALL homeschoolers is equivalent to surveying the US Olympic team on the hours of physical exercise they put in and assuming all Americans do the same.

I suppose you could argue that even a small percentage of children being taught creationism and not evolution is dangerous, but if that is the argument, then let's also look at the children enrolled in private schools across the country that teach science in this way. That figure has got to be way higher than the number of homeschoolers.

Wrong wrong wrong. Macro evolution is based on faith. None of you Darwinists has explained where the first life came from. Would any of you "scientists" like to explain it to me? No? Read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer and you can throw away your copy of the "Origin of Species".

Rick, the theory of evolution from common ancestry is not testable, is not observable, and is not falsifiable. It offers a hypothetical mechanism loosely based on natural selection.

My undergraduate degree is in Biology, I worked in genetic research for 5 years, and I'm now a graduate student studying the history and philosophy of science. I am ALSO a mother homeschooling my children--yes, using science materials that promote intelligent design. Do I understand the theory of evolution? Absolutely, I do. I've spent the past 10 years studying the literature. I've read Darwin's work cover-to-cover along with thousands of pages of commentary. My children will be taught all about the theory. They will ALSO be taught about the dire weaknesses of the theory. One thing that needs to be said here is that many SUPPORTERS of evolution don't understand evolution. They haven't read the recent research, the rebuttals, and the rebuttals OF the rebuttals. They don't know what the "case" for evolution has been grounded on. It also needs to be made quite clear that Intelligent Design advocates understand and recognize the observable phenomena of natural selection and adaptation. Those should not be considered synonymous with evolution from common ancestry. Your statement that, "Morphologically and genetically, organisms that are alive today are far different from the ones that were alive in the past. Genetic and fossilized evidence very clearly demonstrates this idea, and the mechanism has been observed to occur. This idea that a species have changed over time can be thus regarded as the fact of evolution" contains several over-generalizations. Sure, the fossil record contains a plethora of extinct species. It also contains an abundance of "living fossils"--organisms that haven't significantly changed over millions and millions of years, and have not yet become extinct. What the fossil record does not contain is evidence of common descent, unless you do some seriously creative story-telling. With all of that said, I believe what bothers me the most is the assumption that a person's beliefs about the origin and diversity of life has any bearing on how successful they can or could be in a science profession, or any other profession, for that matter. It certainly wouldn't affect how one does heart surgery, engineers a prosthetic limb, builds a rocket, or teaches their children about the intricacy and wonder of the natural world. It would, however, greatly influence their attitudes about humanity, compassion, and morality.

The problem with evolution is the same credibility issue with AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). Both involve scientists "massaging" data to fit with their preconceived ideology, or doctrine.

For example, 16 years ago scientists had to cut a large dinosaur bone apart to get it out of the ravine it was found in. They don't typically cut bones as the value of true dinosaur bones are very high, and they knew that since they were 70,000,000 years old, they would be stone.

But, the bone wasn't stone, they found soft tissue inside. (Ignoring the age issue) They did a DNA test. The results of that test, did NOT match up with the current doctrine of evolution, as the sample was not similar to modern birds, or crocodiles, as evolution teaches.

So, just as AGW when busted "faking" data, they start the spin cycle. "Oh, the evidence (though tested many times by different labs and people) must have been contaminated with human DNA..."

Except it didn't match human DNA either.

"These sequences differ from all other cytochrome b sequences investigated, including those in the GenBank and European Molecular Biology Laboratory databases."...

According to the Creation theory, they would be different as they were Created different.

According to evolution they should be similar to something that exists today, according to DNA shift, and mutations.

But, 16 years later, and no other DNA testing of these or other dinosaur materials...

And the scientists who posted the original findings were ostracized by science.

The discussion is not a "debate" it is exactly what this article presents. Namecalling and demeaning of anyone who would dare use science to question the doctrine of evolution.


source:

DNA sequence from Cretaceous period bone fragments
Woodward SR, NJ Weyand, and M Bunnell 1994.

This commentary is loaded with inaccuracies, false statements and is extremely disingenuous. You provide zero evidence for any of your assertions. If you are going to make these claims then you need to support them with evidence. I could almost go line by line in detailing the problems but only have time for a few comments.

Evolution is almost always used today to refer to the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis – all of life descended from a common ancestor via natural selection acting on random mutation. No one disputes that species change over time. That is a non-issue. The dispute is over the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis. There are major holes in this theory. You admit this. See below for a couple quick examples.

"What Darwin Got Wrong"
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/02/22/what_darwin_got_wrong_jerry_fodor

"Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Theory-Crisis-Michael-Denton/dp/091756152X

A couple quick things:
- The bottom line is that parents are in charge of their children and should be able to teach them what they want.
- It is ridiculous to try and tie some parents teaching their children creationism with the US falling behind other countries in Science and Math. You provide zero evidence for this correlation and for the US even falling behind in these areas. Further, evolution (Neo-Darwinian Synthesis) has been taught in public schools and universities for a very long time now so if you are looking to place blame....
- Your comments regarding the definition of evolution, creationism and ID show that you don't understand these things. For example, there is certainly evidence for ID and ID certainly does make predictions. See below.

http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/faq.php

- Apologia Ministries textbooks do cover evolution and they are written by a Phd in Nuclear Chemistry from Rochester University.
- Christianity is a "big tent" with Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, etc. There is a lot of diversity.

I could go on and on...you are wrong in many, many areas and I hope you are willing to admit that and that you will do your homework before writing future commentaries.

Jonathan,

Nice article. You've covered all of the pertinent points accurately and concisely, and you're absolutely correct that this is a topic of concern. The only thing that I would add to your summary is to also note that the word theory, in addition to its use in everyday parlance, which you have correctly outlined as something testable such as the actual mechanisms by which evolution has occurred and continues to occur, can also be used, and indeed is used, in science to mean an overarching and well accepted framework into which the observations and data fit, as in gravitational theory, germ theory, and evolutionary theory.

A book coming out later this spring addresses some of these topics and might be of further interest to you and your readers:

The Prism and the Rainbow: A Christian Explains Why Evolution Is Not a Threat (Johns Hopkins University Press).

Among other points made in the book is the fact that, even in the U.S., most Christians are fine with the compatibility of their faith with modern science (including evolution). It is only the relatively few, and mostly poorly educated theologically, who fail to understand that faith and science do not negate one another.

Looks like the book can be pre-ordered from Amazon or Barnes & Noble.

Keep up the good work.

Creationists believe biology challenges their faith so they have an actual moral imperative to not accept it.. which directly leads to their ignorance about the subject.

Simply sad.

There are many secular homeschoolers who DO TEACH evolution to their children. Please do not lump all homeschoolers together, homeschoolers are a diverse bunch with differing beliefs and educational philosophies.