...Meh. I'll post a big long essay sometime later. <_<

First off, I fail to see how evolution ties in to anything here in particular, so I'll avoid trying to add any parallels.
Now that that is out of our way, I do have a few humble points to make regarding the subject of homeschooling.
I was homeschooled for my entire life, minus the last year, and I must attest to the effectiveness of the particular curriculum in which I was enrolled.
As I'm sure people have mentioned in previous homeschooling debate threads, (which, by the way, I have not bothered to read extensively) there are several ways to homeschool. We ordered the curriculum through ABEKA, which is based in Florida. The material included text books, teacher guides, (designed with non-teachers in mind) test books, etc. So in reality, the parents do not have to know a whole lot. The texts are laid out well enough and the problems are clear and concise. If, per chance, one does have issues on a given problem, there is phone support from ABEKA.

Now, I must add that not all curricula are the same, and neither are the individuals who undertake such a challenge as homeschooling. I have several homeschooled friends who would have done much better in a public school setting. Yes, I'll admit there are certainly some odd ones. On the other hand, I know even more very bright, very clever homeschooled individuals who's wit and social adeptness leave the average "public schooled" individual in the dust. In fact, this is a fact attested by many studies and surveys on the subject. Homeschooled children learn (on average) more quickly then their schooled counterparts. And, if brought up under proper parental guidance, develop far superior social skills which include comfortable interaction with individuals of all ages, as opposed to the narrow peer interaction developed by "schooled" children.
Let me restate that there are always exceptions to the rule, but what I have mentioned is based upon a general mean.

Having first hand experience in both forms of education, I feel qualified enough to say that there are certain advantages and disadvantages to each. Public school most certainly provides many excellent opportunities for non-academic events such as dramas, sports tournaments, and other such activities. The peer support and group dynamic of public school was also a unique experience which I much enjoyed.
Disadvantages to public school? Apart from the narrow field of social interaction which I previously mentioned, the subjects are often taught ineffectually. By that I mean that for one or two teachers to ensure proper education of all 30 students, (or however many) much more time must be spent with each individual student to help him thoroughly learn the subject. And, as I'm sure I don't need to say, it would be entirely impractical to ask a teacher to do this. The rising illiteracy rates, lowering grades, and increasing dropouts should be enough to cause any person some concern. I am not getting into the specifics of such problems, and I am not advocating the abolition of public schooling. That is also impractical and silly.

...*pauses, for effect*

Well I could go on, but I've got more interesting things to do at the moment, and I'm sure that not many here actually care to read this much as opposed to voicing his opinion. So yes, in summary, I will say that homeschooling and public schooling are very different and each unique in it's own way. Based upon my experiences and observations, homeschooling does seem to provide a better level of education to the average individual, given that the parents are able and willing to tackle such a challenge. I'm not against regular school, but it does have shortcomings.

Thank you all, goodbye.

Thank you, I was considering doing exactly this since LHammonds locked the other thread. While we wait for Dark0ne to ban LHammonds for that petty abuse of power in posting "this is my opinion, and I'll lock your thread if you disagree with me", we'll just move the discussion here.


I'll look over the rest of it later today, but for now, I'll explain why the evolution argument is relevant. The chain of reasoning:


1) The entire premise of homeschooling is that the parents can do a better job than a formal school. This means they actually have to do that job, and as an absolute minimum, meet the same standards as any traditional school.

2) Science education is a critical part of this minimum standard (just like many other subjects). If homeschooling parents are unable to provide an adequate science education, this is a failure of homeschooling.

3) Evolution is a critical part of modern biology. The theory's support is essentially unanimous, and backed up by evidence at the same level of confidence as the theory that bacteria cause disease. Additionally, concepts brought up in the other two threads such as "what makes an explanation a scientific theory" are even more critical to a proper understanding of science. Any "education" that lacks these concepts fails to meet the minimum standards that homeschoolers claim to be capable of.

4) Despite point #3, there are many people who claim to know better than the experts and oppose teaching evolution. If they are allowed to homeschool their children, the education those children recieve will have major gaps. This breaks the premise in #1, demonstrating that homeschooling is NOT able to be a complete substitute for a formal education. If they are unwilling and/or unable to do the entire job, homeschooling fails.


The core issue here is accountability. A teacher in a formal school that refused to teach evolution would be fired. A formal school that made a policy of refusing to teach evolution would be stripped of its accreditation. A homeschooling parent that refuses to teach evolution suffers no consequences, it is their children that have to pay the price.


Now, you might say I could use other examples, and this is true. For example, there is nothing preventing homeschooling parents from teaching that communism is a wonderful and perfectly functioning social system that produces a true worker's paradise, complete equality, and has worked perfectly in every country that has ever tried it. This would be a completely false distortion of history, and obviously unacceptable. The fact that homeschooling parents are not held accountable for teaching it is a major problem for homeschooling.

However... evolution has two factors that make it an ideal example:

1) As a scientific theory (and the issue here is science education and the ability of homeschooling parents to do it), evolution is unanimously accepted by the experts. This makes the question one of parents' qualifications to teach, not a legitimate disagreement about which content is correct to teach. While we could argue all day with no empirical evidence about whether the historical communist states were true communists, necessary conditions for successful communism, etc, the question of whether evolution is the correct thing to teach in science class has no room for debate. The only question is whether homeschoolers can/will teach it properly.

2) There is actually a significant amount of "controversy" over teaching evolution. While I could easily pick on the tinfoil hat nutcases who homeschool their children because of delusional conspiracy theories, that leaves the point open to arguments like "but who would really do something that crazy...". Unlike the tiny tinfoil hat minority, the number of potential children who will recieve a poor education is actually significant enough to worry about.

3) Unlike say, quantum mechanics (where, to quote the great Feynman, "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory"), evolution is actually important to getting a good education. You can't dismiss all of modern biology as some useless subject that's too trivial for anyone to care about.

Now, just to be clear on the "religious issue": this is a debate about secular education, NOT religion. Religion is completely irrelevant here... while I'm sure we all have opinions on the subject of teaching religion to children, they aren't relevant. Homeschooling is a replacement for the secular state education, which religion is NOT a part of. And it isn't relevant to teaching evolution either. Evolution is a scientific theory, and completely independent of religion. Many people accept the theory without compromising their religious beliefs, and there are plenty of qualified science teachers who are religious. And I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who are not qualified to teach evolution (just look at Lysenkoism for one example). So do not bring your personal religious beliefs (or lack of beliefs) into this debate, not only do they break the forum rules, but they are irrelevant to the debate.

And just to be clear, the purpose of this is NOT to silence debate, or troll people into saying something that will get them banned. The issue is purely one of science and education, two subjects that are permitted by the rules of this forum. The only reason I include this warning is because the first thread was locked after a poster insisted on preaching his personal religious beliefs as his argument, despite my requests not to. The thread was inevitably locked for religious debate. I PMed the moderator who locked it, and was given permission to re-post it, but told to make sure religion stays out of it and report the offending posts. So this is my attempt to do so. LHammonds, if you have any problem with this, whine to the moderator who told me to do it.

Ok, fair enough. I see where you are coming from.
Still, however, I won't respond to that because I have very strong opinions on the evolution/creationism subject and would undoubtedly cause the debate to spiral down into unprovable grounds (in which BOTH theories are)

However however, please don't make me go there. For the purpose of this discussion, I highly suggest we leave the topic of existence out of the equation, no matter how it may be tied in.

PLEEEEEEEEEEEASE!
Thank you.

Again, two misconceptions:

1) Evolution is as close to provable as any scientific theory. It's as solid a theory as the theory of gravity, or the theory that bacteria cause disease. This is backed up by vast amounts of evidence, both from the fossil record, and direct observation/experiment. Virtually every legitimate biologist accepts the theory as true (the few exceptions are just an inevitable product of the fact that, given any large enough group, you will find at least a couple nutcases).

2) Creationism is not a scientific theory at all. It is a religious or political belief. Since the issue is science education (a necessary part of education that homeschoolers must be capable of doing), it is not relevant.


But thank you for proving my point very nicely. You are yet another person demonstrating that the average person is either unable or unwilling to properly teach evolution and science in general. You are an excellent counter-argument to the core premise of homeschooling, that is, that any random person is just as qualified as professional teachers.

Do not take this as an insult, it is simply recognition of the obvious fact. Just like the fact that I am either unwilling or unable to teach english literature properly... anything I say on the subject would undoubtedly contain various mistakes that you would be entirely justified in pointing out. The difference here is that I do not make the claim that I am qualified to homeschool my children in the subject... I am quite happy to admit my lack of qualification, and leave the teaching to the professionals.

Let's also leave what could be taken as personal attacks out of the equation. Not that I mind per se, but it comes across as unprofessional and it makes for rapid thread locks.

Anyhow, don't let a lack of engagement fool you into calling ignorance. I do not wish to discuss evolution vs creationism right now, so I won't. Please respect that.
Another thread, another day, and I will be happy to engage in such a discussion.

One more thing, I have no personal bias in this, I simply look for truth as I'm sure you do as well. If someone challenges my findings I will carefully consider what they have to say. I don't try to defend anything except that which may stand on its own.

And that is all I will say in this thread regarding anything other than homeschooling.

It's not a personal attack. I did edit that post to add a better explanation, so maybe you just missed it. To clarify:

Your statements show you are unqualified to teach science.

Any statement I could make about english literature would show that I am unqualified to teach it.

We are no different in our lack of qualifications, we just lack them in different areas. What it does do is undermine the core premise of homeschooling, the claim that any random person is just as qualified as a professional teacher. This means being qualified in every area, all it takes is one failure to break the homeschooler's claim. I simply recognize the inevitable... we are not qualified, and I leave the teaching to the experts.



I'm not calling ignorance (your word, not mine) because of your refusal to debate the subject, the short sentence you wrote says all I need to know to make my point. You very clearly show that you do not understand evolution at the level that is necessary to be a qualified science teacher. If you did, you would know why evolution is the only legitimate theory to teach. If you understood the basic concepts of the scientific method well enough to teach them, you would understand why your comment about "evolution is not provable" makes no sense, and why refering to both evolution and creationism as scientific theories is wrong.


So postpone the debate all you want, I don't even need to have it. I have all I need to show that you, as a good example of the average person, are not a qualified science teacher, and therefore the premise of homeschooling fails.

This one area is all I need. Unlike a regular school, where you have teachers that specialize in different subjects, homeschooling parents have to be qualified to teach every subject. If the average person has even one area where they are not qualified, they can not meet the same standards as a regular school.

The premise of homeschooling isn't based upon teaching one opinion over another, but instead educating the child in ways so as to help him think for himself. By all means, present the facts which form the basis for any philosophy (I am not referring to evolution or creationism, here) and let him draw a conclusion for himself.
I have no doubt that many parents dogmatically teach their children that creationism/evolution is the only way. This is wrong either way. As any real thinker will tell you, you must carefully and dispassionately consider each side of a debate without bias before thinking about reaching a conclusion. It's not wrong to teach about an incorrect philosophy, but it is wrong to present something as fact which many people, regardless of avenue of education, believe is not. (Again, not a specific reference to evolution, but instead a general concept)

Unfortunately, one finds that not many can discuss a subject dispassionately or without some sort of bias, teachers no exception. Every teacher will assert his or her opinion to some degree, and I have met very both strong supporters of evolution and creationism, each of who I consider to be a well meaning, articulate individual.
To put a little parallel spin on it, I liken it to a vehicle. There are plenty of accidents, but one should not blame the car. Instead, you should examine the person behind the wheel and inquire the reason of the accident. Don't look at homeschooling--or anything else for that matter--and insist that because there is room for error, the method itself must be wrong. That is logically unsound.

Also, I suggest you read my topic post, as perhaps it may provide insight into the whole parent bit.

To answer the rest of your points: the key issue here is accountability.

Pretty much any form of education, homeschooling, public schools, private schools, whatever, can do the job when things go right. Yes, you have a lot of material available to help you, you can spend more time per student, and all that. The key difference:

1) With traditional schools, these things are mandatory, and teachers/administration are held accountable for them. If you refuse to use the available textbooks/curriculum/etc as a traditional teacher, you will be fired. If you try to overrule the experts and teach your personal opinions (like with evolution), you will be fired. If the administration does these things, they will be out of a job when the next election arrives. To even become a teacher in the first place, you need a college degree in education, real-world experience as a student-teacher, and a teaching license (like an engineering or medical license).

2) With homeschooling, these things are optional. If the parents refuse to use the available textbooks/curriculum/etc and are unable to replace it with their own substitute (very few people could do this), only their children suffer. If the parents overrult the experts and teach personal opinion instead, only their children suffer. To homeschool your children, there are no standards to meet, no licenses to get. All you have to do is decide you want to do it.


This lack of accountability is the problem. As you (and many other people) have demonstrated with the point about teaching evolution, very few people are actually qualified to do the job as well as a professional teacher. But there is nothing to hold them accountable for that failure. When dealing with a world in which a solid education is becoming more and more mandatory (even low-end jobs are starting to require a university degree), a failed homeschooling job is a serious liability for the children.

You completely misunderstand what I am refering to as the "premise of homeschooling". Homeschooling supporters argue that the average person (the people doing the homeschooling) is just as capable of giving a complete general education as the professional teachers in a traditional school. This claim is severly undermined by the fact (which you and plenty of other people demonstrate) that the average person is not an expert in all areas.

If you want to do the job of the traditional school, you need to be willing and capable of doing the entire job.




Again, the fact that you label it as "dogma" demonstrates that you are not a qualified science teacher. Presenting evolution as the "only way" to do biology is no different than presenting "2+2=4" as "the only way" to do math.



This may be true, once you have your general education. The simple fact is children do not have the supporting knowledge necessary to make an informed decision between evolution and creationism (or about any scientific theory, really). That's the whole point of teaching it to them!

This is the equivalent of saying that I should carefully and dispassionately consider each side of the debate over the theory of newtonian mechanics.... even though I do not understand the calculus required understand what I am deciding about. This is a hypothetical scenario of course... not only do I understand the calculus behind newtonian mechanics, I understand why they are fundamentally wrong, and why they are still useful anyway. But I made that decision after learning newtonian mechanics as taught by a professional teacher as the only acceptable answer... only after I got into advanced math and physics was I qualified to make a decision on the subject for myself.



This is entirely wrong. The only people who have an opinion that matters are the experts in the field. Just because people who don't have the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision disagree does not mean you have to teach their beliefs as well.




Again, the difference is accountability. Both homeschoolers and traditional teachers can screw up. The difference is one has a clear system of accountability to remove the mistake and prevent future ones, while one does not. If you add accountability to homeschooling, you defeat the entire purpose of it, and just end up with traditional schools with a different name.

Alright. You make good points which I have read and will give further thought to. You also make points which I strongly disagree with. This is alright, however.
One last point on evolution: until we are through a thorough debate in which both you and I hear what each other has to say, we must agree to disagree, and leave the matter to rest.

You are correct in that there is an element of risk involved in homeschooling. I am sure that not every student of homeschooling has turned out a success story, but here are a few cases personally close to me:

Sister #1 - University course in small business management, running a bakery.

Sister #2 - Soon to take psychology and child development courses to start a home for troubled youth

Brother - Computer techie running a sales and repair business

Friend 1 - Catholic priest

Friend 2 - Ski instructor

Friend 3 - Strongly involved in federal politics, has personal offers from various MP's to work in their offices

Friend 4 (Actually one of those "social disaster" cases) - Training as a pilot, eventually to fly for airlines

Myself - Fitness instructor, and enrolled as an officer in Royal Military College, (technically a university) after which will be enlisted as a fighter pilot.

So yes, there are a few examples of which I would hardly classify as failures. So you are right, there is a risk, but on a percent basis the homeschooling success rate is quite high.

Anyhow, I'm off for now.
Thank you for discussing this in a civil manner! It has been conducive to better, more clear reasoning.

No we must not agree to disagree. Since you are an expert in neither biology nor science in general, your opinion is irrelevant to this question. In the case of general science education, two things are important:

1) You teach what the experts in the field say is the correct theory (or theories). General education is not the time for exploring alternatives. Once you become an expert yourself, you are qualified to make informed decisions about alternative theories... but not before then. Evolution just happens to be the easiest test case, since it has both unanimous agreement among the experts and a significant percentage of the general population opposed to it.

2) The experts in biology say that evolution is the correct theory. There is no debate here. The only "controversy" comes from non-scientists, and the opinion of non-scientists on a question of science is about as relevant as my dog's opinion. My dog, by the way, agrees that evolution is correct... intelligent design and creationism are clearly wrong, because if there was any guiding intelligence, plants would grow proper steaks, not those gross fruit things.

Conclusion: if you wish to teach science, you teach evolution. If you wish to homeschool, you have to teach science, and by extension, biology and evolution. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, you are not qualified to teach science. And since to homeschool your children, you have to be qualified in all areas (since there is no backup teacher to cover the others), if you fail the test of science, you fail the test in general.

Conclusion: the average person is not qualified to homeschool their children, and the job should be left to the professionals who are qualified.





Ever hear of a little concept called "confirmation bias"? How about a saying in statistics: "the plural of annecdote is not data". Look these up.


Of course given your use of "Royal", I see you're not in the US. I guess things may be different in other countries, and the rate of successful and qualified homeschoolers may be higher. Over here, I can immediately rule out well over half of them based on evolution alone (this is why I use it... opposition to teaching evolution is a huge problem here), and I can safely say that most of the rest are idiots as well.

This still doesn't change the basic point about accountability though... it's still a problem. Just in your case, in your country, maybe homeschoolers as a whole are able to succeed despite that problem. I still don't approve of the idea in general, even when it works sometimes, there's nothing to stop that from changing.



By the way, good luck with the flying fighter jets thing, I wish I could do that myself. Sadly I have to settle for designing them and flying a less impressive plane. If you're lying about this though.... I will catch you at it. Just a friendly bit of advice.

Duskrider, don't be a fool - you obviously are not qualified to talk to normal, "non-scientists", as you so put it, so don't lecture us about why you think teaching should be left up to professionals. Just because you have (or may not have, IDK) a university degree in whatever, doesn't give you the right to force what I refer to as your views on others. And don't give me this "evolution vs. creationism" bullsh*t, I'm not buying it. If that's the only thing you can use to back up your statements, then there's really nothing to discuss, is there?

I believe, no, I know, that people have a right to choose their own path in life, and they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe. Your blatant ignorance of these facts proves you cannot speak to non-scientists. This isn't a discussion of "those who can't teach fully, so we must leave it up to those who can", but rather "how is the best way we can teach our children so they can lead us into a prosperous future". Your indifference to others' views only hopes to create more division.

Besides, who in hell is gonna give a rat's fat ass about evolution (and science in general), hmm? Not I. (Mind you I have no qualms about it being taught, just that you make it sound like it should be mandatory learning.) The only time science should ever be taught is if that's something someone wants to learn, not that they have to learn. I don't see what your point is about why you dislike homeschooling so much that it should be abolished. Doing so only violates the 1st Amendment. (I know that's not what you said, but I'm getting the feeling that's what you might think.)

There isn't some magical qualification required to talk to non-scientists. All you need is an understanding of the material, something I have.

But anyway, my qualifications are not the issue. I happily admit that I am not qualified to be a teacher. In fact, this is exactly my point... if even I, with my education far beyond what many people get, am not qualified for the job, very few people are. This whole idea that any random person can do the job as well as the professionals is just a myth.



Last time I checked, I'm not forcing my view on anyone.

If you are talking about this thread, no views are being forced at all. If you disagree with me, feel free to post your reasons. The only thing view I am refusing to allow is the religious argument that is against forum rules. If you feel that there is a scientific theory that should be taught instead of evolution, I would like to hear it. Because that's what the point is about, scientific theories and whether the average homeschooler is qualified to teach them.

If you are talking about my "leave it to the professionals" position, I'm not forcing my view on anyone. I'm forcing the view of virtually every legitimate biologist on people. The only people who have a right to an opinion about what is taught in science class are the scientists who actually know enough about the subject to make an informed decision. If you don't like it, too bad, that's exactly why we don't let people like you run our schools.

Though really, I don't know why I care. I almost have my nice college degree and engineering license. I'm not the one who has to be worrying... I'll quite happily move somewhere less backwards, and watch you people flush this pathetic waste of a country down the toilet. It's kind of amusing, really, how efficiently you will undo everything that has given you your nice comfortable modern life.



Have you even bothered to read my posts, or do you just plan to flame me?

The argument that the average person is qualified to teach in every area is the core premise of homeschooling. To undermine this assumption, all I need is one area where the average person fails. And, a point highlighted by pretty much every other poster in this thread, the average person is very clearly not qualified to teach biology. The conclusion: homeschooling doesn't work.

I could keep adding more possible failures of homeschooling until my keyboard wears out, but I don't need to. All I need is one area where homeschooling fails, and I win. Until you manage to disprove my argument about evolution, I don't need to provide any more.



You have a right to choose your own path in life once you are an adult and can make an informed decision. To suggest that we should let the children run their own schools is just absurd.

And you do not have a right to choose the path for your children. The issue here is parents acting as a substitute for the traditional schools, and this means living up to the same standards. Homeschooling is NOT a license to teach whatever you feel like. That's incredibly irresponsible, and any parents who do this should permanently lose custody of their children and be thrown in prison for child abuse. Failing to give your child a proper education is one of the worst things you can do to them, and deserves no respect.




Fine. You want to "lead us into a prosperous future", and don't care about learning for the sake of learning?

Get your children advanced degrees in science, math, and engineering.

Or even better, don't. That way my children won't have any competition for the jobs that will improve both themselves and society as a whole. They will be quite happy to have your children around to ask them if they want paper or plastic bags for their groceries. Seriously, if you actually pay attention to trends in the global economy, you would realize just how critical math and science are right now.




Ah, I see. You're one of those humanities types that can ask me if I want fries with my hamburger, but do it with a perfect understanding of the literary implications of my desire to eat that hamburger. It's people like you that are completely trashing our educational system right now. You are the reason the rest of the world laughs at us as they steal all of our jobs.

The purpose of school is not to be fun, or to tell you what you want to hear. The purpose of it is to give you a solid foundation for the rest of your life, and that means you just have to deal with it and learn the subjects you may not like. Mandatory learning is exactly what I expect... and if you think it stops at just evolution, you're entirely wrong. My ideal school system is one that children will hate, but once they get out in the real world, they will be thankful for it.




Well, it looks like your legal knowledge is just as lacking as your scientific knowledge. There is absolutely nothing in the first amendment that gives a right to homeschooling. Allow me to quote it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Is homeschooling a religion? No. Therefore banning it neither establishes a religion nor prohibits the free excercise of one (note that this is not an absolute right: my Church Of Killing People and Taking Their Stuff is prohibited just fine).

Is homeschooling a question of freedom of speech? No. Removing your children from mandatory schools is not an act of speech. You are, however, permitted to whine about it all you want.

Is homeschooling a question of freedom of the press? No. Last time I checked, forcing your children to go to school does not stop you from printing all of the whiny complaints you feel like.

Does banning homeschooling remove your right to assemble? No. You may assemble all you like, but you will still bring your children to the public school.

Does banning homeschooling prevent you from petitioning the government? No.

So please, tell me exactly which imaginary first amendment you are talking about that provides you with a right to homeschool your children.

Duskrider, why are governmental bodies more qualified to decide what children are taught than parents (and especially why should they be given absolute, unbreakable power over such)? What control should parents have over their kids? And what about the fact that many of these "average" creationists that you speak of are products of the public school system?

The difference is their qualifications and training. Do you actually know how hard it is to become a teacher? You need a university degree in education (and to teach at a higher level, in your specific subject as well), you need real-world experience as a student-teacher under close supervision, and then finally you need to get your teaching license (mandatory like a medical or engineering license). And even once you have all that, you can still be fired for poor performance, refusal to teach the material, etc.

Compare this to parents, where there are essentially zero laws regulating homeschooling. As long as you can pass the standardized tests (a pathetic requirement that my dog could probably meet), nothing else matters.

So yeah, I'd say the formal school is a lot more likely to do the job well.





In the case of their education, very little. They have some ability to teach things in addition to their formal education, as long as they aren't teaching deliberate falsehoods (such as creationism). If they abuse this control to teach false information, they deserve to lose their kids, permanently.



Ok, the system is a failure in many ways. Now, we have two choices:

1) Try to fix the system.

2) Scrap it entirely, and replace it with something worse.

I'll let you figure out which choice you prefer.

Shockingly, yes. It isn't classified info. Besides, my mother has taught at all levels -- grade school, high school, at university as a GTA. And, also, as a homeschooling parent. I am well aware of what the state requires to be a teacher, and I am also well aware that such qualifications do not always line up with what is required to actually be a good teacher.


Assuming there were, they would be/are based on the same standardized tests that public schools use. Now even if you come back with 'standardized tests suck' again, that doesn't answer the heart of the matter. Even if they do, they're what the institutions you're upholding currently use, and yet still, on average, homeschoolers score higher than public schoolers. By the set standards of the government, the body you claim is the most qualified to decide what children should learn, homeschooling generally does the job better.


Also, verbose answers though you may give, they didn't really answer my questions. Why are governmental bodies more qualified than individual parents to decide what children should learn?


This seems a horribly dangerous possibility to me. It actually makes me shiver a bit. You worry so much about giving parents too much control over children, but you don't have even a moment's hesitation about giving the government even more control than that over them?


Again, this doesn't answer the question. So far your fix seems to be "ban homeschooling." How does this solve for the multiple past and present public school turnouts who, despite all that fancy larnin' and those sooper trained teachers, decide that creationism is the truth? Your standard doesn't even seem to be met by your own system.

Edit: Bit of a late edit, but I just got back on the computer. I'd also point out that what you present above is a false dichotomy. Allowing homeschooling does not mean scrapping the public school system; nor does it mean that we cannot work to improve that system.

Duskrider, what is your opinion on homeschooling for the elementary school grades? I don't really recall what the curriculum was, but I don't think it had much in the way of (complex) hard science.

"Yes, I want to flame you" - what kind of reason is that? If I wanted to do that, you would know - I'm only here to point out the fallacies of your statements:

1. The reason I point out you're not qualified to talk to non-scientists is because the only language you obviously speak is university science. Just because you know more, doesn't mean you have a right to talk down to anyone who doesn't share you views (and baffle them with what you saying to them).

2. You clearly are imposing your views upon everyone else - otherwise, why start this debate in the first place? And if that's the case, why do it, and then take a backseat while you watch those you tried to convince earlier "flush this pathetic waste of a country down the toilet". Taking a stance like means that eventually, your so-called cushy life will be flushed away too.

3. What exactly are the downfalls of homeschooling, and please, share every other reason you apparently know why. Cause from what I see, the only failure you pointed out isn't as important to the average Joe as someone who is/wants to be a scientist/chemist/biologist/paleontologist/etc.

4. If we were to impose, quote "Failing to give your child a proper education is one of the worst things you can do to them...any parents who do this should permanently lose custody of their children and be thrown in prison for child abuse", this sort of sentence, we may as well throw every other teacher in prison too, because they're not fairing any better either.

5. If I recall, I never said I didn't want to learn - in fact I never said anything to of the sort. So, please don't make me say things I never said.

5. By all means, make you children become exactly what you are - as far as I can tell, they'd just be as arrogant and indifferent. And while my children are being welcomed by the community, you're children are being loathed by everyone else (as you are now)

6. Why am I suddenly the reason the world laughs at you? I'm a Canadian, you're an American, you don't need a science degree to figure out why.

7. *sigh* You still fail to see that what you're proposing is nothing short of communism; I mean, c'mon, what exactly are you trying to prove, hmm? If we were to impose mandatory learning, everyone would be of the same mindset, and it wouldn't be good for anything really, because creativeness, free-thinking, and imagination would cease to exist. As I said, we'd all be mindless robots.

8. You clearly have no idea about what is actually going on in the world - last time I checked, math and science weren't on my list of things to do before getting a job. While math is important for everyone, science is less important for the common person to learn (unless as I said they wanted to get into science-related fields at university/college). There is no critical need to learn science (math perhaps), so I don't see what all the fuss is about.

It's more acceptable than trying to do it for their entire education, but not by all that much. The main reason is just that the early grades are less critical, so there's more room for error. I left it out because it seems like most homeschoolers want to go all the way, including the important later grades. I could possibly see a compromise where the early grades are done at home, and the later, more specific grades are done in a traditional school, but that kind of defeats the whole purpose of homeschooling.



====================


And Variant, I'll get to your stuff later today. I need to look over your statistics in more detail, and that'll take a while. These other posts are just faster to reply to.

Awww.... how cute, another poster who clearly hasn't bothered to read what I actually said...



My point is that you flame me, in a sentence that makes it painfully obvious that you didn't actually bother reading my argument. You don't just accuse me in harsh words, you completely misrepresent what I was actually saying. This says to me that you have no interest in constructive debate, and just want to throw around some insults.



I'm not trying to baffle anyone. Trust me, everything I'm saying is at a very basic level, we're talking middle-school level biology here.



Am I holding a gun to your head and demanding your concession? If not, then I am not forcing any views on you.

In case you didn't notice, this is a debate thread. The whole point of a debate is to convince your opponent and the audience that your side is right. Complaining that I'm arguing with you is just so incredibly absurd that I can't really say anything else in reply.



In case you didn't notice, that comment was not entirely serious...

It is kind of true though, I'm not the one who's going to be hurt if people like you insist on trashing the educational system. I've already got my degree, and I'll have no problem finding a job in some other country.



Again, thank you for admitting you didn't bother reading my arguments before you start attacking. If you had, you would know the answer to this question... here's a hint, read the first post in this topic. But since I'm a nice guy, I'll give you the short outline so you know what to look for:

1) Homeschooling is based on the premise that the average person can do the job just as well as a professional teacher. This means being qualified to teach every area, since you don't have specialized teachers to cover each field. You're on your own, you can't have a science teacher, a math teacher, an english teacher, etc.

2) Science is a critical subject in a complete education. Biology is a critical part of science. Evolution is necessary to understanding modern biology. Therefore any education that fails to cover evolution appropriately is inadequate.

3) The average person is either unwilling (due to arrogant assumption that they know better than the experts) or unable (due to lack of understanding of the material) to teach evolution.


Conclusion: the premise is false. The average person does not have this universal qualification, therefore the average homeschooled child will have gaps in their education. Homeschooling fails to live up to the standards of traditional education, and is therefore not an acceptable alternative.



Yep, still haven't bothered to read what I've already said on the subject. I already answered this, so here's the short version: accountability.

A teacher who fails to give a proper education (such as by refusing to teach evolution) is punished for that failure. They can be fired from their job, and stripped of their license if the offense is serious enough.

All I'm saying is the parent should be held to a similar standard. In this case, you lose the equivalent of your teaching license: your "license" to raise your children. Prison would only be for the most serious offenses (such as teaching your children to be racists, etc), but it's not entirely unfair to suggest it... after all, the teacher is merely incompetent. The parent is incompetent and makes the choice to refuse to accept a better alternative.



Your own words:

last time I checked, math and science weren't on my list of things to do before getting a job. While math is important for everyone, science is less important for the common person to learn (unless as I said they wanted to get into science-related fields at university/college). There is no critical need to learn science (math perhaps), so I don't see what all the fuss is about.

I believe that speaks for itself.



See, there are two little problems with what you just said:

1) I'm not loathed by everyone else. I have plenty of friends and people who like/respect me.

2) Even if I am loathed by people like you, who cares. You're just the guy making my hamburger on my lunch break from my $100k/year job.



Notice I said "you" in the general sense. You are a representative of a group of people with incredibly harmful ideas that are trashing our educational system. Whether you specifically have any effect on the US, your ideas are one of the biggest problems we have right now.



The problems with what you just said:

1) Not only is this not at all communism (please tell me where I included any form of weath redistribution, state-controlled economy, etc in my proposal), but saying it's nothing short of communism is a meaningless statement. Just saying something is related to communism doesn't make it automatically wrong.

2) In the case of basic factual knowledge, people being of the same mindset is exactly how it should be. What you're claiming is the equivalent of saying that if we force people to learn that 2+2=4, we kill their creativity if we don't let them pick alternative methods of addition. This is obviously NOT the case, plenty of people are creative while still keeping that basic knowledge. I would be one of them... besides science and engineering, I have a strong interest in philosophy and art.

Split into two posts because of the ****ing stupid quote limit:




Ok, economics 101: take a look at the world right now. See India, China, etc? All those countries with huge amounts of un-skilled labor, and no minimum wage laws? Guess where all the manufacturing and similar jobs are going to be going (and in fact are going right now). In the near future, in countries like the US and Canada you will have three main categories of jobs:

1) Low-end service jobs. This is the kind of stuff that just can't move overseas, but doesn't require any real skills. For example, retail cashiers, cooks, bus drivers, etc. There will be plenty of these, but they don't pay very well.

2) Mid-range skilled labor that can't move. Think stuff like construction, where you need some skills, but not a university-level education. It pays better than the first class, but there's a limited need for this.

3) High-end technical jobs. Science, engineering, etc. This is where the future is. No matter how globalization goes, there will always be a demand for experts... we do the hard work, we get all the money. And in a world increasingly dependent on advanced technology, there's plenty of competition for our knowledge. The problem here is a good education is absolutely critical. All that math and science you hate? Better get used to it, or you're going to be laughed out of the admissions office when you try to go for this kind of career.


Since you and your children are clearly aiming for the first category, keep this in mind: I like small fries and a large vanilla milkshake with my hamburger.

Your responses, Dusky, are entirely theoretical, and silly to boot. Really, I expected more from someone so verbose.

Let's not get carried away with irrelevant particulars. Since your whole argument against homeschooling revolves around evolution, let's talk about it.
If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt evolution is 100% accurate, then...erm, no, your anti homeschool position still holds no water. However, let's humour you and pretend that the effectiveness of homeschooling hinges upon the origin of man. Give me your facts, point form, with as few words as possible. Please.
Take your time, I want you to provide an airtight list of indisputable proofs.

Concession accepted.

The mere fact that you are asking for "airtight, indisputable proofs" is airtight indisputable proof that you have absolutely no idea how the scientific method works. We don't even have airtight indisputable proofs for the theory of "bacteria cause disease" or even the theory of gravity!


If you are a good example of the average person's science qualifications, you prove my point beyond any doubt: the average person is NOT qualified to do the job as well as a professional teacher.

Not only am I the guy that's fixing you your lunch, I'm also the guy that fixes your car, builds your house, builds you schools, and everything else you seem to take for granted. What you said in point 2. contradicts what you said about India/China, as there is clearly a need for every kind of job in developing countries.

Besides, why would I want to go down the same path as you? I'm not science-minded as you are nor as "smart", and I'm not afraid to admit that. BTW, we don't have to build you up so you can step all over us - we don't have to fix your car, build your house, build your schools, or serve you your lunch.

Give me your facts. If I am wrong in believing that evolution is a lame excuse to discount some sort of interference, than prove it. Stop stalling, get to it.


Edited to remove religious references. Please if this is to stay open you must refrain from religion completely.

If I lock this is it done and opening a new thread will constitute a violation of the forum rules.

Buddah

Out of curiosity, Dusk, have you ever had any contact with any sort of homeschooling curriculum? Much of your objection to homeschooling seems to rest on the fact that the parents are not qualified to teach all of the subjects. However, homeschooling curriculum is designed in such a way that parents need not have a college degree in every subject to teach it...and to teach it effectively. For subjects such as higher mathematics, there are solutions manuals, help lines, different books that explain things different ways. For the sciences there are plenty of books to choose from, many that are on the level with college textbooks. (Teaching from college textbooks isn't unheard of, either). If a homeschooled student has trouble in one subject, there are nearly limitless options for helping him along until he understands it. There is absolutely no need for homeschooled parents to have specialized degrees in every subject in order to give their children an excellent education.

I would just like to point out that I am homeschooled. Because the public schools could not give me anything more complicated to do than 6th grade back when I was in 2nd/3rd grade. I was already doing algebra level math. Already in middle school level biology. Middle school language arts. All before I was even in 5th grade. The school I went to told me that they would not give me anything harder to do because they didn't have the materials to.

Also, of all the teachers in my school district. Maybe 1/8 of them have a teaching degree. But I doubt that many actually do. Its pathetic. We get people who read straight out of the book. And when you ask them a question they can't answer it. Because they don't know anything about what they are teaching.

1Prelude, I've made it quite clear that religion is not part of this debate. It's not really relevant, and it's against forum rules... all you're going to accomplish is getting the thread locked. So I will not answer your question. Feel free to ask a different one that does not involve religion.

To quote my first post in this thread:

Evolution is a scientific theory, and completely independent of religion. Many people accept the theory without compromising their religious beliefs, and there are plenty of qualified science teachers who are religious. And I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who are not qualified to teach evolution (just look at Lysenkoism for one example)

The issue of qualification to teach is completely independent of one's religion (or lack of religion).



And I'm not stalling. Your (first, not the one in the reported post) question was simply nonsense, if you actually understand how the scientific method works. It's the equivalent of you demanding proof that square circles exist.

==================================


Yes, I'm well aware that these resources exist. In fact, I conceded this fact a long time ago.

The problem is again, accountability. Use of these resources is not mandatory. While a traditional teacher can be fired and/or have their license revoked for failure to use the available resources, a parent does not have the same mandatory standards to follow.

The problem here is you're addressing an entirely separate issue. My claim is:

The average person is not qualified to homeschool their children, and there is no accountability to hold the failures responsible for their failures.

NOT

No person is qualified to do the job.

Like I said before, when things go perfectly, ANY method works, homeschooling, public schools, private schools, independent study, whatever. The issue is how to make sure it works, and hold the failures accountable.


============================================


The key difference here is that while highly-skilled technical jobs are fairly mobile (I can pretty easily work in any country I feel like, if the demand is there), the moderately-skilled labor I addressed in point #2 is NOT. Nobody is going to hire a carpenter from the US to build a house in India, they're going to do the job with local labor. Same with manufacturing and stuff.



You'd want to go down the same path as me because you want to succeed in life. You dismissed the idea of learning just for the sake of knowing the truth (IOW "evolution isn't practical knowledge"), so what we're left with is practical value. And if you want an education that actually gives you practical benefits, you go down my path of math and science.

And what are you going to do, go on strike? Here's a hint for you: you can be replaced very easily, even if you can afford to refuse to do your job. I could easily do your job with a bit of training. But you can't do mine without a university degree and professional license.

As I had pointed out earlier, if we were to actually jail parents for not teaching their children "properly" on the basis that's it's considered child abuse, we should also jail the teachers too.

Quick question Dusk, and then I'm gone. Maybe.

If the average person is not qualified to teach the subject matter, and therefore not able to appropiately educate their children, why do homeschoolers do so much better in both standardized tests and college? Your argument of "Standardized tests suck." is a cop-out, because even if they do suck, we do much better on them than public-schoolers. Unless you are going to say either A: All homeschoolers are lucky, B: All homeschoolers cheat, or C: Standardized tests are biased towards homeschoolers, I don't see how the quality of standardized tests applies.

And as I pointed out already, your argument is wrong, for two reasons:

1) There is a difference in offenses here. The teacher is merely incompetent (though a lot of this has to do with the rest of the system, there's a limit to how much any one teacher can fix in a single year). The parent is incompetent AND has made the conscious choice to refuse to allow someone better qualified to do the job.


2) Actually throwing the parents in jail would be reserved for the worst offenses. For example, if you teach your children to be racists, well, I hope you like your new prison boyfriends, because I'm not feeling one bit of guilt for you.

Why would a parent not use the resources available to them? According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only about 30% of homeschooling parents said they homeschooled for religious reasons.

Most choose to homeschool their children because they believe they can do a better job than a public school can.

So what would be the motivation for a parent not using the resources they have? I absolutely agree that there is the opportunity for parents to do this, but does it actually happen?

Freddycashmercury, I'll get to your post when I address the other guy's claims about statistics. I have to take a while to look over them and get a solid argument. These other posts are just easy and quick to answer. I promise I'll get to yours eventually though.




Read your own post: about 30% of homeschooling parents said they homeschooled for religious reasons.


30% is way too many! This is exactly my point... homeschooling is a system where 30% of the teachers can say "**** you" to the standards, factual truth, etc, and teach whatever the hell they want. And nobody holds them accountable for screwing up their childrens' educations.


And mandatory disclaimer: this would be true even if it wasn't for religious reasons. The issue is overruling the professionals for your personal ideological reasons, not any specific point of religion. I would feel the same way if it was 30% doing it to teach the proper communist worldview, the tinfoil hat crowd trying to protect children from the Evil Government Conspiracy, etc. The ONLY justifiable reason for homeschooling is if the parents can objectively do a better job.

So according to you, since my parents taught me that creationism was correct, my entire education was a complete and utter failure.

Right?


If so, what ramifications should this be having on my life?

The question, if I understand Dusk's line of argument, is more whether they chose not to teach you what the theory of evolution says, and why those whose fields it's relevant to consider it to be good enough.

(My apologies for crimes against grammar.)

Dusk, don't be a blowhard - it's clear that everyone else who posted in this thread doesn't exactly share your views or opinions or beliefs or whatever else you have to throw at us. Here's something for you to ponder - just because you figure you're smarter than everyone else, does that mean you have a right to carry on like your better than us? Or are you that conceited you have your head so far up in the clouds you can't see or hear our reasoning? I'd suggest you go plaster you opinions somewhere else, and quit cluttering up our forums with complete and utter nonsense.

Not your entire education, you may still have a good education in other areas. But in biology, yes, your "education" is a complete and utter failure. Unless you have done some serious work to make up for it and learn evolution properly, you are at the same level as my dog.

And no, I don't care about those other areas. I will not settle for an "education" that is only good in some areas, I expect a complete education.




1) You are utterly ignorant of a major aspect of our modern understanding of the world. I would say that knowledge for its own sake is a good thing... I can't understand why anyone would not want to know the answer to this kind of question.

2) If you had any plans of going into any career related to biology, or really, science in general, you are laughably unqualified. Now, this may be an acceptable loss, if you are an adult (you don't have your age listed), but you do not have the right to make that decision for your children.

==========================================



Your point? Factual debates are not a popularity contest. I don't care if you have a million fanboys worshipping every word you speak, you are still wrong.



It's not a question of who's smarter than who. The things we're talking about here are not difficult to understand. Seriously, we're talking about middle-school level biology here, there's really no excuse for not getting this.



I see your reasoning, if you can call it that. This does not make you right.

At least a couple of the other posters attempt to present some hard facts for their side and make a debate of it. You've just spammed your anti-intellectual nonsense as if you've actually found some deep philosophical insight. But you haven't. You've just discovered the proper way to ensure a nice minimum wage service job for you and your children.

Now go fetch me my hamburger. And yes, I want fries with it.

Contradictory - if you don't care about those other areas, then you won't have a complete education. And what is your definition of complete education? Does it include English? Art? Social Studies?

Someone can always upgrade their science courses if they're not sufficient enough - did you think of that?

==========================================

When did I mention the word "fanboy"? Not once, and this isn't about being popular - it's about why you claim homeschooling doesn't work.

Again contradictory - we weren't talking about middle-class biology, we're talking about college/university-level science. Read your own posts.

How is that? How have I secured a minimum wage job? I don't see why this has anything to do with the topic. FYI, while I admit I'm not anywhere near the level of education as you, I did complete my Gr. 12 (in public school).

I wouldn't serve the likes of you for being an ass of a customer.

Please at least try to understand... I don't care about those other areas in her case. My point is not that they're irrelevant in general, it's that just because you're ok in some areas, that doesn't offset problems in areas. If you have a giant missing area in biology, your education is not adequate, no matter how brilliant you are in every other area. I think that should be obvious, since I did say complete education.

So yes, English, art, social studies, all of those are important. English literature (not writing... writing is mandatory) and art, less so, because of the subjective nature that means most of it comes down to personal opinion. But at least the basics must be covered.



So you concede that the parents are a failure?

The whole point of mandatory education is that people don't have to do that on their own. Parents have a responsibility to ensure a proper education for their children, not just blow it off as "well, they can learn it themselves. I mean, how far up does this go? Maybe we should consider basic literacy optional too... after all, you can always learn to read later in life, if you really want to.

And this is true whether we're talking about traditional school, homeschooling, whatever. The only argument here is which method does this best.


I know what my own posts say. Every comment about biology and science have been written at a middle-school level. Maybe high school at best. If you think these basic concepts are from advanced university courses, that's a pretty sad comment on your education.



Congratulations. You completed the absolute minimum necessary to survive in modern society. Without that high school diploma, you'd be lucky to get even a minimum-wage job.

Like it or not, the trend is toward college degrees (or the equivalent technical training) being necessary for pretty much any half-decent job. A high school diploma doesn't get you much beyond a low-end job... I've known at least a couple people who got university degrees and still had trouble getting a job of any kind. One ended up working in a furniture store, with a university psychology degree because the market for decent jobs is so competitive.

Like I said, low-skill and unskilled labor are a dead-end option. It's bad for the current generation, and is only going to get worse for future generations. Even if you don't value knowledge for its own sake, you owe your children a proper education so they can get a decent career.


================================


But really, I can sum up your entire posting history in this thread with one simple phrase: inmates running the asylum.

Your utterly absurd argument is that children, who lack the basic knowledge to make an informed decision, should only study the things they want to study, and forget the rest (especially any difficult subjects like math or science). This would be an absolute disaster. Our current system has its problems, yes, but your proposal would turn Canada from a well-educated first-world nation into a third-world hell in a single generation.

But like I said, feel free to keep this insane opinion of yours. As long as you don't get your hands on the government to make your idea official policy, it just means less competition for my children.

I agree with his logic. I also think that it might be an improvement if homeschooling were a privilege rather than a right, although I would note that there are certain criteria which would appear to be forbidden.

I disagree with the idea that an educational system should be judged solely on its failures. A case could be made, although I'm not able to make it, that the improved effectiveness at educating those whom the traditional system serves poorly outweighs the potential harm done by those who would use homeschooling to reinforce the ideology that they are already teaching their children.

I would also note that a system that turned out a very large proportion of highly qualified, highly motivated people would have its own drawbacks, although these could probably largely be overcome by changes in immigration policy, or by investment in automation.

The main problem is to do this successfully, you pretty much have to turn homeschooling into a private school in all but name. I mean, if you have to do the equivalent of getting your teaching license (to prove you deserve that privilege), why not just get the license, form a one-person private school, and apply for accreditation? This kind of counters two major assumptions of homeschoolers:

1) Any random person can do it, not just professional teachers (which is what your privilege would produce).

2) Homeschooling provides benefits because of its independence from the restrictions of traditional schools (which you'd have to put in place to make it a privilege).


Under these circumstances, sure, I'd allow that as a compromise. The accountability factor is included, and only legitimately qualified people are able to do it, ensuring the quality of the education provided. I just doubt many homeschoolers would accept those restrictions.

I understand what you say about religion, Dusky. I feel the same way, let's leave religion out of it.
I also am speaking about science, as in using one's head to analyze a given to reach a conclusion.
And continually saying that a person doesn't know what he's talking about, when you fail to provide evidence of your own "qualifications" on the subject is blatantly hypocritical.

Over the past 5 years I have gone out of my way to thoroughly educate myself on the subject of life's origins. There are simply far too many gaping holes in the theory of evolution. Sorry, but it's not a hard fact like you would have us believe. Again, this has nothing to do with religion. Believing in divine intervention has no consequence in one's personal religious life.
So yes, please do not bring religion into the debate. Let's simply discuss the validity of the theory of evolution.

From my perspective, I'm still not sure that whether evolution is valid or not is the biggest point of this discussion. To me, the idea that the government should be playing thought police on what parents can tell their kids about evolution is much more disturbing.

The validity of the theory of evolution is what Duskrider's whole argument rests on. If we disprove that, he's got nothing.

No; he'll just come up with a different example. I'm more interested in the underlying principles here.

Thus the whole first 3 pages. He was hiding behind the whole evolution bit, making the discussion impossible without addressing the issue. Not that it makes any difference...

You know, screw this, I'm tired of these stupid pointless tangents. I'm done replying to the following people:

Rob_b:

You have contributed nothing to this debate besides your anti-intellectual "let the inmates run the asylum" nonsense. Your contempt for learning is the exact reason we don't let children decide on the content of their schools. While The Wall may be a good album, it is not a good argument. Feel free to come back when you have something constructive to add.


To everyone trying to argue about evolution:


Thank you for trying, but you fail. This little hijack of the discussion is over, feel free to make a new thread debating evolution if you wish to continue it. All that is relevant to this debate is the following:

1) Homeschooling is expected to meet the same standards of quality as traditional schools. A homeschooling parent is expected to, among other things, act as a science teacher. The job of science teachers is to teach the accepted scientific theories, including biology and evolution.


2) Evolution is a fact. Gene frequencies in gene pools change over time, producing changes in the phenotypic characteristics of the populations they produce. This is indisputable fact, backed up by vast amounts of empirical evidence from both the fossil record and direct observation and experiment.


3) The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation for the mechanism that produces these changes. It is a spectacularly successful theory, with massive explanatory power. It generates extremely accurate predictions, and those predictions have been tested experimentally with complete success. There is absoutely no counter-evidence to disprove the theory. The theory is accepted by over 99% of biologists, and is the fundamental principle of all of modern biology. The "controversy" over evolution is exactly the same as the "controversy" over the theory that bacteria cause disease.


If you wish to argue that evolution is wrong, and actually get a response, you will first provide me with a link to at least one paper you have published in a peer-reviewed journal of biology. Until then, your opinion has exactly zero value compared to the unanimous agreement of the relevant experts.


Accuse me of whatever fallacies, cowardly tactics, whatever you feel like. I am simply done arguing evolution with people who obviously lack even a middle-school level understanding of the subject.




It is not disturbing at all. If it was a case of parents refusing to teach their children to read, not only would government intervention not be disturbing, there would be massive outrage if the government did not step in and remove the children from those parents. Evolution is no different. If you wish to take on the responsibility of homeschooling your children, that includes teaching them evolution. If you don't like it, public schools are this way ---->.



My own qualifications are not relevant to this discussion. I am not the one trying to overrule the unanimous agreement of every relevant expert.

But we're not arguing with them, we're arguing with you. Do you have a published paper in a peer reviewed journal of biology? If you do, good for you! If not, then you have no right to force evolution upon us. Your evasion of the question of validity of the theory of evolution says to me that you must have doubts. Why else would you be afraid of us uneducated homeschoolers and my good friend Rob? If a person who doesn't even have a degree in biology can disprove your theory, then shouldn't it be obvious your theory is wrong? Give us a chance to prove you wrong, thereby destroying your main argument.



Sure they are! If you can force your theory upon us merely because your experts say it is true, then why can't we use our experts to disprove you? Plus, knowing your qualifications could hep your case. Or destroy it. This is not even a good way to approach new ideas. Once upon a time, no one believed in evolution, right? If they had had the same attitude as you, you wouldn't have the original basis for the theory of evolution.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.