by INFORUM
Home-schoolers adjust to classes in public schools
September 5, 2010 at 7:00 pm in INFORUM
From the lobby of West Fargo High School, Ashlee Morrow watched with near-awe the twin rivers of teens surging up and down the staircase. She was about to make her public-school debut. Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
22 
44
Children may be home schooled for many reasons. Some fundamentalist parents fear their kids having contact with the 21st century. Good luck with that one. Some believe their children can progress faster with more one-on-one. I know of a boy who is home schooled because he is very serious about and dedicated to his sport — swimming — and home schooling allows him more time in the pool. Since he now holds a bunch of national records, I’d say for him it’s the right choice. Don’t assume that all home schoolers fit into one mold.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
5
Actually, the children that I have met that have been homeschooled have been obviously well-educated, articulate and extremely mature. Not at all like Big Red Hiney was snarking about.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
26 
40
Different “cultures?” We live in America. The only culture we need to know is American culture. Knock off the P.C. B.S.
Hot debate. What do you think?
32 
39
so much for the American melting pot! where did all these other cultures disappear to?
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
17
The “melting pot” concept was replaced by “group rights” a long time ago.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
21
While we live in America, many of our young people intend to go out into the business world. Often that means just that, they will be traveling to and living in all parts of the world.
Just knowing ‘merican really doesn’t bode well for things like job placement or advancement.
Knowing only about America will probably get you a good job at McDonald’s though.
Like or Dislike:
8 
10
Actually, Katydid, English is the language spoken at business meetings worldwide. It is a quaint courtesy to know, for example, French when doing business with the French or German when visiting with German business counterparts but the real nuts and bolts are done in English. ‘merican is a damn handy little language to know. lol!
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
True but, it actually has no bearing on anything.
You specifically said “The only culture we need to know is American culture.”
And that’s what I was addressing, not language.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
Do you really believe that American culture is the only culture we need to know? That’s scary.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
I’m not sure what these “skills” are that you refer to. Having attended a small, rural public school with zero diversity, I had no problem intermingling with other cultures when I became an adult. To me, it’s all about treating others as you’d like to be treated — something parents should be teaching their children before entering kindergarten, homeschooled or not.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
4
I went to 12 years of public school in a large metro area that had county-wide re-integration via long-distance bussing. The goal was to meet family income and race based quotas in each school.
Twelve years of that environment didn’t each me anything about intermingling with “other cultures”. It taught me how not to. It taught me that public school is often state-run child prison/daycare, it taught me to repress my love of learning, it taught me that curiosity was wrong, and it taught me that people that were different than me were going to treat me like their enemies irrespective of what I did. It wasn’t until after I left public school that I became familiar with “Lord of the Flies” (so much for teaching kids “literature”, right?), and realized that a suppressed version of that story is what plays out in schools across America every day. The adults are wardens, and there aren’t enough of them to keep the inmates under control, and they don’t have enough power to do what needs to be done. I desperately wish I could make educational experiences better for all children, but I can’t, and I’m not willing to sacrifice my children on the alter of the dubious “greater good”. The people who oppose home schooling tend to have self-serving motives. Either they are part of the professional educators complex, or they see public schools as the most effective means for indoctrinating children into their preferred worldview. Finally, a habit of homeschool critics is that they tend to hold homeschooled children to a bar that publicly or privately schooled children do not meet. In this case, raymond claims that homeschoolers don’t “intermingle” well with other cultures. A cursory reading of news headlines suggests that that problem isn’t unique to homeschoolers. Homeschooled children save everyone money, since their families still pay all the same taxes as public school users, but don’t use as many services. Additionally, they score higher on tests and work better with adults. You’d think that people would be all for something that saves the public money and still produces better outcomes.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
8
“. Additionally, they score higher on tests and work better with adults. You’d think that people would be all for something that saves the public money and still produces better outcomes.”
Actually, the outcomes are entirely equivocal. Homeschooled children perform statistically the same in the university environment as their public school educated peers. They also perform statistically the same on standardized tests. Stop repeating the lies. Refs: Jones and Gloeckner, JCA, 2004. Bolle, Wessel, and Mulvihill, JCSD, 2007, doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0059. Wood, ERIC, 2003. Galloway, AERA 1995. Pardon lack of doi’s. I couldn’t find them off hand.
While there are certainly situations where homeschooling can potentially be beneficial (e.g. extremely gifted children, mentally handicapped children, children with psychological issues, etc) your average student tends to not perform any better or worse in the long run due to such a choice. It really comes down to the parents wanting something different for their children. More often than not, this is the choice of extremely religious parents who would like to shelter their children from the diversity of the real world. Really, though, this is no more different than a parent choosing to send their children to an extremely religious private school such as Park Christian. I really have no problem with parents making that choice (while I think it’s wrong and harms their kids, it is their right to make the choice!) so long as they are held to the same educational standards (e.g. science is about science, not the ignorance of subjects such as American history, evolution, astronomy, and fundamental physics). Unfortunately, it is these very subjects that provokes parents to choose home/private schooling.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
15
I appreciate you at least having the decency to offer citations after calling me a liar
. Now then, how do you reconcile the claims that “your” sources are making with claims from places like HSLDA — that show higher ACT composite scores (and ironically, higher ACT _Science_ scores) for homeschooled children?. I know it is popular to suggest that only dimwitted religious fundamentalists homeschool, and to errantly suggest that sending these kids to a private Christian schools would scratch the same itch, but that isn’t really the issue, and the two really aren’t equivalent. It is the _environment_ of fewer kids, and the customization of coursework that gives individual homeschool students an advantage. And it is the integration into ADULT life, where children are learning from adults, not from other kids who are trying to work out for themselves what the social pecking order is. Like I said: Lord of the Flies (which was about Private School Children, BTW). A common complaint from anti-homeschoolers is that homeschooled children “will not be socialized”. And to this I say: have you _seen_ the “socialization” created in public school children? Where our entire culture manufactures women with body-image hatred, and boys who never turn into men at all? Where children go to college and act like escaped convicts, instead of young adults laying the groundwork or a lifetime of learning and self-responsibility? If the public school system is “producing the right product” then I simply don’t want to buy it, and I won’t let you do that to my own children. My intent here is not to overly disparage the public school system, but to be sure that you’re using a realistic and even bar for evaluating the approaches different families take.
Incidentally, a cursory glance at some of history’s most influential homeschooled individuals will show that religious factors historically have not been relevant, even if that is oft cited today. To your credit, you at least concede that you think parents should retain the right to educate their own children (although you want editorial control over this, like most statists/technocrats). Rather than projecting your world view onto who homeschools and why, perhaps you should reflect on what the state’s interest and role in eduction is and should be? I’ll recommend a very short book, “Education: Free and Compulsory”, by Murray Rothbard. You can find it online at http://mises.org.
Like or Dislike:
16 
3
It is the revision of American History that educated people object to. The politically corrected text books are ridiculous and have nothing to do with reality. Sex “education” (actually it’s sex “indoctrination”) at increasingly early ages is disgusting and absolutely not the business of the government schools – and it is particularly dispicable and dangerous to teach children that homosexuality is “ok.” Hello…AIDS? Religion is part of it for some homeschoolers I’ve known but I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone for whom that is the ONLY reason.
A disproportionately high percentage of the homeschooled kids I’ve known have come out of that environment, gone on to College and started families exactly like the conservative ones they came from. It is a very successful situation for these kids and sets them on the correct track in life.
Like or Dislike:
12 
12
The children that I have met that were home schooled were terrified of other people and squeezed their mothers leg so they wouldn’t have to go to the “meany kids school”. Any living thing that has no interaction of with other living things of its own kind will not know how to interact.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
27
Did it ever occur to you that it was YOU they were terrified of? I’d be scared of a Big Red Hiney, too.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
15
Was that before or after you met them BRH?
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
Must have just been the sort of families that your parents hung out with. I’ve never seen these types.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
I didn’t choose to homeschool, but I admire those who can make it work.
@raymond – I attended public schools all my life, and never “intermingled with children of different cultures”. Our area of rural ND wasn’t exactly ethnically diverse.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
4
No, Germans, Norwegian’s , Swede’s up there. but you did get a chance to intermingle with children other than your siblings. And realize that these other children might have an opinion different than yours.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
15
what part of this don’t you understand?” A drawback on home schooling” – no mention that is was wrong!!
Like or Dislike:
8 
15
As far as homeschool kids not getting a chance to intermingle with children other than their own siblings – that thought process is so outdated. I was homeschooled for my entire life. As a child, I participated in several community athletic programs (basketball, gymnastics, etc. ) and also was part of a local community theater group. My neighborhood was teeming with families with kids around the ages of my siblings and I, and we all grew up together with normal, healthy childhood interactions. The only difference was that we did not see these other kids for 8 hours out of the day during the school year…..
As far as being ‘young and dumb’ when I went off to college, yes, I have to admit that I was. Are you going to tell me that all those other 18 year old kids that I entered college with weren’t just as ‘young and dumb’? I have yet to see a college freshman, homeschooled or not, enter college and be perfectly prepared for that phase of their lives and survive the gauntlet of college without a few problems along the way.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
3
I came to that realization at the dinner table. We were encouraged to discuss and often disagreed. Being encouraged to question and disagree is NOT a value taught in the schools, btw. The message there is very often “Sit down and shut up!”
Like or Dislike:
17 
7
I thought it was sit down, shut up, pay attention and learn. And believe me, I asked allot of why’s.
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
I just can’t resist
The definition of allot is “to parcel out” or “distribute.
Perhaps you mean “a lot”? It is a common mistake.
Yes, I homeschool my child. One child. She has many friends. She’s a very busy child. I realized that sending her to a traditional school interfered with her music and other skills. She was in gymnastics for 7 years, piano for 8 (and ongoing), choir, piano performance and is starting her own web business. These are not things she could pursue by attending a traditional school.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
6
Somebody gave you the wrong answers to your “whys” raymond.
Like or Dislike:
8 
13
@Barb…do you readily disagree with your boss at work? Most teachers I had allowed us to disagree and often times encouraged differing viewpoints on various topics. However, they did not allow us to disagree on certain school rules not related to the topics we were discussing. You need to have some control of the environment if you are to get done what you need to. I honestly do not remember having many, if any, teachers who’s message was similar to the one you seem to think is prevalent.
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
@Josh nailed it. Quality discussion/debate was encouraged in every course I took in school. Being in North Dakota, most of these were weighted heavily towards the conservative/evangelical Christian view point, but it was still allowed. From government to economics to American and European history to philosophy. Heck, we even set aside some time in biology to discuss the ethics of a number of practices. We laid off the evolution argument as there isn’t any scientific argument against evolution – only a religious one.
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
18
Of course there were irrefutable rules at school. There were at home, too. There were great teachers who really encouraged you to stretch and think, as well as those who just wanted to fill a desk and collect a check. There’s no “one way” schools operate, just as there’s no universal “Homeschooled kids don’t get….”.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
I’m not seeing any answers yet, not that I’m surprised.
Like or Dislike:
6 
9
HOLY crap…would you be suggesting that the govenrment BUS diverse cultures many many miles and at great expense to serve some backwards idealist mentality? Those poor kids, subjected to the cultural police, making them suffer the drives to meet some political agenda. There are metro areas that have plenty of diversity, front and center…but kids still self identitfy and separate according to their own confort levels, which may or may not cross ethnic boundaries.
I was unaware that the gauge of society is judged on the level of cultural diveristy…if so, dang, but there are ALOT of outstate schools, public private and home that by geographical demographics alone,are seriously lacking in the leftist’s idealological cultural diveristy utopia.
Interest, tolerance and integration of cultures can happen in the absence of forced diveristy. I went to a school with ONE black person in the entire highschool, and at the time no Hispanics. He never lacked for friends. Notably, the school my kids attend isn’t that diverse…but I don’t see divided cliques that suggest any cultural or ethnic boundaries. Most of the kids see other kids as kids. They may define other indentifying qualities, but RACE isn’t one of them.
Is the liberal left suggesting that the government force people to live, move or travel to areas so that some “diversity” goal is met? Who gets to define who people associate with? Seems to me that would be in violation of the First Amendment if the government ever tried to control WHO you may associate with or not.
Like or Dislike:
9 
11
I don’t see anyone suggesting bussing??
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
I’m concerned about a home-schooled child’s educational progress. The home-schooled students I’ve met usually are very well educated in fine arts (music, art) and home economics, but they have an incomplete education in advanced mathematics and sciences. Their education in economics and government are over-simplified and extreme right wing. I met one 17 year old who didn’t know who Charles Darwin was – he believed God created Adam and Eve as a scientific fact. I’m not stupid enough to believe that a few students are a representative sample of the system as a whole, but these are things that worry me. Under President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” plan, my students have to take tests every year to rate their yearly progress. The teachers are responsible for the performance of their students. Home schooled students have to take the same tests, but only their parents see the results. If mom and dad want to teach their kids, I’m all for it. However, there needs to be a qualified and licensed educator overseeing the process to make sure these kids don’t get left in the stone age.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
17
Jeff,
You’re doing what homeschool critics often do — trying to hold homeschoolers to a bar that public schools have never been able to meet. Let me put it to you this way: how do you feel about the track record of “qualified and licensed educators” (your words) as far as making sure that _publicly schooled_ children aren’t “left in the stone age”?
Like or Dislike:
13 
13
Public schools have been able to meet the standards of “No child left behind”. There are some schools that fail to meet adequate yearly progress (my school district did), and they make the changes necessary to pass the next time. If they continue to fail (and some do), those teachers and administrators will find themselves unemployed. My only concern with home schooled children are those rare cases where a parent is using social isolation to reinforce a certain ideology. It isn’t fair to the child.
Like or Dislike:
11 
9
Do you think there is no publicly schooled child in America who doesn’t know who Charles Darwin is? Is your problem with _what_ the child didn’t know, or _why_ the child didn’t know?
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
Both.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
@ Jeff- Things may have changed in the last few years, and may vary from state to state, but when I was still in school (in MN), my parents were not the only ones that saw the results of my test scores. The school district also had copies of these records, because that is who I had to go to to obtain transcripts when I applied for college. Like I said though, things may have changed. I have been out of school for a decade now…
Also, I do agree that there are the fundamentalist parents that are trying to shelter their children from the supposed evils of today. That does lead to an imbalance in their kids educations, but I have also met kids from public school background who lack more basic education skills than just knowing who Charles Darwin is.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Please don’t confuse me with a public school cheerleader. I’ve got doubts and questions of the process just like anyone else. I’m pretty sure high school is just one big social experiment. However, if a child leaves a public school without basic skills, it’s because the child did not take advantage of the system, not because the system failed the child. Developmentally disabled children aside, I’m sure teachers stay up at night because they’re graded on a few students who just don’t care.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
Rambo, I suggest you look up the scientific meaning of the world “theory.”
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
19
Rambo, this is the standard, accepted definition of “theory” which you’ll learn in just about any science class: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; …
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
You are wrong, a theory is a proposed explaination for something that is as yet conjectural or unproven. The Theory of Evolution is as yet unproven in anybody’s book.
Like or Dislike:
6 
15
Nope, buddy, you are wrong. Read the definition again: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypothesesâ€; …
Please note those words: a Well-SUBSTANTIATED explanation of some aspect of the natural world
and: an ORGANIZED SYSTEM OF KNOWLEDGE that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
If the Law of Gravity were discovered today, it would not be called a law but a theory. When did you last take a science class? Perhaps it’s time for you to brush up….
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Go ahead and believe what you want Grandma. When a theory has been totally proven it becomes a law of science or mathematics or whatever and not before. Feel free to wallow in your ignorance if it makes you happy.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
Grandma, your explaination of the law of gravity is certifiably stupid.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
Rambo, I’ve taken lots of college-level science classes and my definition of “theory” holds. I’ve also read about the history of science, and can tell you, with certainty, that if Newton had proposed his Law of Gravity today it would be called a theory. A theory must be supported by a vast array of supporting information: should even one little item falsify it, the whole thing would go out the window. With the theory of evolution, this has not happened. And remember, when you get an antibiotic, take all those pills because, like Darwin suggested, there will be a few individual nasty germs waiting to mutate into something new.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
Yea sure, as long as it makes you happy. My Phd is better than your Phd.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
Rambo- you are wrong.
A theory and a law are completely different things in science. A theory does NOT become a law. A theory is an explanation of scientific phenomena … the best explanation of which there is absolutely no scientific evidence showing it to be incorrect, often based on and backed up by observation, such as the Big Bang Theory, The Theory of Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory, Cell Theory, Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Gravity (the explanation of what causes it) etc….
A scientific law is something that shows a relationship, often mathematical, like Newton’s Laws of Motion, the Law of Gravity (that an object on Earth in a vacuum falls at an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s), Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion, etc….
So, it is a myth that a theory in science becomes a law. It is also a myth that theories are proved. Actually, in science, theories are the best explanation of phenomena, there is NO EVIDENCE, NO OBSERVATIONS, NOTHING showing them to be incorrect, but are still considered tentative since science continues to work to disprove them in order to seek the truth.
If you would like to see a source for some of this information, there is a good article on Myths of Science found here: http://science.nsta.org/enewsletter/2006-07/tst0411_58.pdf
I hope this helps clear up some of your misconceptions regarding science.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
No Child Left Behind has done more to destroy our educational system than any homeschooler who wants to teach about riding dinosaurs to the Rapture.
Like or Dislike:
15 
6
Why is it that no one ever mentions that Kennedy co-sponsored that overwhelmingly supported BI-partisan legislation? It stinks. It may have been Bush’s idea, but congress didn’t have to take it and run..unless they knew they would ultimately be able to pin the donkey’s tail on the elephant. I think that the majority of NON-school involved adults, including our legislators, had an idealist mentality, minus the reality of trying to defy the laws of human nature in children. It was supposed to be the end all to education woes…at the time.
No child left behind, saddled my kids with their under-acheiving classmate’s poor attitudes and weighed them down with grade averages that suggest that the majority of the class is dumb as a box of rocks. I’ve watched them in action, they are far from dumb…but lack the drive to acheive more success that maybe readily available to them, if they just apply themselves even a tiny bit more. MCA tests are a joke…even with dangled rewards, some kids could care less and know that it’s not THEIR individual grade that pays the ultimate price.
Like or Dislike:
7 
11
I don’t know, or care, which party proposed it. It was bad policy from day one.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
Then maybe Americans should have booted the losers who put in action, out of office? For as much huff and puff about NCLB…it didn’t seem to put a burr under enough saddles to ride the campaign trail to get rid of it. Nearly a decade later, and schools are still trying to comply to failed policy…
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
I love when something is both humorous and true! I posted a comment that consisted of scientific definitions. Facts, not opinion, and even a link to support it, and people dislike it! It is truly funny! Who would disagree with facts and scientific definitions? Gotta be a rightie! LOL! Thanks so much for the laugh. oh oh oh….and to add to it … Rambo posted a completely inaccurate WRONG definition of what a scientific fact is, actually propegating a myth … and gets 4 (so far) “Likes”! HAHAHAHA! More righties denying facts and science. PROOF! Thanks again, that will make me smile for a looooong time. Who else constantly dislikes science and factual information??? HEHEHEHEHE!
Like or Dislike:
7 
7
Maybe there are thumbs up because more people like Rambo than like you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Sorry Kerry and Grandma a theory has not been proven. Apparently Barb is right, in your case no child left behind is a failure. The theory was that the world was flat at one time, I guess you folks think it still is.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Correct. A theory has not been proven. And it won’t be in science. Theories are not proved; only disproved. Please read the link. You will gain a better understanding of it. Basically, as I stated, a theory does NOT become a law. A scientific theory is not proved … it is accepted as the best explanation and is based on and supported by every piece of evidence discovered, but if evidence is found that shows the theory to be fawed or wrong, the theory is changed or thrown out. I hope I’ve been able to help you understand it better.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
The theory was at one time that all the stars and galaxies revolved around the Earth. That was proven wrong. In practise then all theories are suspect and can’t be accepted as necessarily being fact. Another question would be then,why do we have laws of physics? Physics is a part of science.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
Good, You’re beginning to get it. Yes … theories are proved wrong. They are not accepted as fact. In science, the word “fact” isn’t used as much as “observation” or “evidence”.
Regarding scientific laws, as I did state previously, but am happy to repeat if you need, they tend to be mathematical relationships. That’s why physics has laws, like (as stated earlier), Newton’s laws of motion and many others.
So, in summary, we agree that theories are not proved, thus they do not become laws, as you erroneously stated earlier (will you admit you were wrong now?). Theories are the accepted explanation for scientific phenomena for which all the evidence and observations support and there is absolutely NO scientific evidence showing them to be false.
You are correct that the Ptolemaic theory of a geocentric universe was proved incorrect and changed to the now accepted heliocentric model of the solar system. It’s great that you are understanding how science works now. Observations were made, evidence collected, and, when it was found that the theory was wrong, it was changed. That is how science works. The current theories (Evolution, Big Bang, Nebular, etc…) are the accepted explanations and no evidence has been discovered nor observations made to show them to be incorrect.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
I think it is good you are finally coming around to what is correct Kerry but you have a way to go yet. The observations in regard to what organism may have evolved from what, is purely speculation, and may be erroneous without concrete dna evidence that, to date, is not readily available. It is possible that the initial observations on which the theory was formed are interpreted incorrectly. For example observations that a birds beak changes, with changes in the environment, does not necessarily mean that it evolved from an amphibian or reptile.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
I have developed a theoty that liberals are the lost full blooded progeny of neaderthals. I guess we’re all going to have to accept that.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
In the case of evolution scientists have shown that characteristics of organisms can change in time to a certain extent. However, they have not shown how the basic systems came into being. That is only conjecture. If organisms spontaneously crawl out of the ocean and morph into other creatures once, it should be repeatable.We should have a steady stream of new organisms. I don’t see any provable evidence of that happening.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
Rambo, you’re not old enough to have seen any evidence of the kind you mention because you’re not millions and millions and millions of years old. I suggest you read anything written by Ernst Mayr to get a better understanding not only of science, but biology in particular.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
What a cop out reply.
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
By the way Grandma, why is it that the supposed generation of life would have only occurred millions of years ago any more than now? There is no basis for that comment.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
First, if you are referring to the initiation of life on Earth, well that may have come here on a comet or other space-borne object. Or, understand the early Earth was much different than today; the primordial soup of elements in the atmosphere and early oceans was different and, in the laboratory, when these early chemical stews were replicated and subjected electricity as would have happened from lightning strikes, amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, were formed.
Regarding evolution in general, it is accepted, understood, and supported by evidence that species, including humans, on this planet have changed throughout time. Millions and millions of fossils have been uncovered to support this. The evolution of species can be seen in the fossil record as the forms of life on this planet have changed over geologic time. Humans are a relatively young species and the fossils of our ancestors are still being uncovered, from Lucy to her ancestor, Ardi, as we learn about our own evolutionary changes.
To deny evolution would be to believe that life on Earth has not changed; that species did not evolve. That is not supported by the evidence. This includes humans. There is no evidence of humans in the fossil record existing with dinosaurs. They are separated by 65 million years.
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
There is no evidence to support that the spontaneous generation of life occurred nor is there evidence to disprove it.The odds,with the complexity and diversity of life on Earth, appear incredibly small that the generation of life was a random event.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
The above post by Kerry is totally unsubstantiated speculation with no basis other than total guesswork.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
I know this is a little off topic, but do you think possibly people get “home school” mixed up with the MN online HS? And, what do people think about the MN online HS? Any exeriences? If so, what has been the outcome of the knowledge base. I know some major colleges in Duluth are openly accepting these students, and wanted to know more from experienced folks if they know of someone who has done this. My teen is very interested in doing this, and I might be a bit skeptical. She said that focusing in the classroom with disruptions can be challenging when she wants to learn and others have other interests.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
MN online classes are a viable option. Many wouldn’t call it “homeschooled” as is generally known. It is public school done at home… with a computer, printer and a teacher/monitor provided by the school district. I think it is a good option for someone who wants to avoid the distractions, etc of the classroom but that the parent would rather have them have the public school education. I have not used it – but have seen it work for others.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
What about Archaeopterix? A fossil of a crow-sized animal called Archaeopterix Lithographica discovered in Solnhofen limestone quarry (I think in Germany) showed a ‘reptilian-like’ skeleton, with claws and teeth, but feathers. There is a lot of evidence that modern birds descended from therapod dinosaurs. There’s even evidence that some dinos had feathers. Feathers are nothing more than modified scales. Dinos may have even been colored like many birds. Dinos are closer to birds than to reptiles. Most paleontologists believe that at least some dinos were warm-blooded, cared for their young, etc…
There are hundreds of great examples of transistional fossils. I received an email recently with a link to a pretty comprehensive list. I haven’t been able to locate the email but can get it again if needed.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
What if life is found on Mars? Or a moon of Jupiter? Even if it’s extremely rare, what of it? If it didn’t happen, we wouldn’t be wasting a gorgeous fall-like afternoon discussing it! The thing is, it happened. And it doesn’t require an intelligent designer to do it. The right chemicals, some electricity, and a few billion years of reactions until you get something capable of replicating itself. Religions can certainly use a supreme being to explain the wonders of the universe. Science will need to rely on evidence. That’s why religion is based on faith and science is based on evidence.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
That is your theory, I like my theory better.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
I’d like to see your definition of “theory,” and how well it’s accepted in scientific circles. The basic tenant of a scientific theory is that it’s falsifiable, but claims must pass investigation and testing and re-testing. For example, if we were all descended from middle-eastern Jews, that descent should show up in our DNA. It doesn’t. If all our fruits and vegetables originated in the Middle East, that should show up in their DNA. It doesn’t. If all animals originated in the Middle East, that should also be traceable through their DNA. It isn’t.
I think of my favorite biology professor, a truly wonderful man — a loving husband, father, and a Christian — who said that science works to explain how, while religion attempts to explain why. He saw no conflict between the two. “We need to understand how the world works,” he’d say, “not how we wish is would work.”
Like or Dislike:
8 
6
Grandma, have you been to the doctor lately. There is help out there for you.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
I don’t think anyone is ruling out that there may be life on other planets. God is, after all, the God of the universe. That is not to be confused with the liberal god Obama.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
Ha–this whole line of discussion is funny. Evolution? I thought that one was set out with the other dark ages hefty bags. There isn’t one single provable piece to that theory (and spare me the links–I never read them). Grandma–that was an interesting discussion about DNA–however you have to realize that we are limited to the scientific knowledge that we have developed only up to this date in time. Something unprovable today does not mean that it will be unprovable tomorrow (so I guess that also gives you time to think up something as to how evolution could actually be accomplished).
One of the foundational blocks of Darwin’s theory was that the cells of humans were identical to those of a frog. He was basing this on the use of his antiquated equipment. Scientists today can clearly see that the cells are in no way identical. And many of the skeletal fossils discovered a hundred years ago in scientific community’s race to find “complete†sets of remains have now been discovered to have been elaborate or just plain good old-fashioned falsified hoaxes. The one thing that remains true is that science CATCHES UP to the Bible–not the other way around. See: bacteria, sanitary containment of sewage, don’t touch a dead person then eat a sandwich, and that pesky thing about the earth being round…..and the atoms composed of sound waves thing (ha–threw that in for fun
…and Kerry, you can no more throw “the right chemicals, some electricity, and a few billion years of reactions†together and get the intricate creation that we are–anymore than you can set out the components of a watch and expect a magic fairy to assemble them for you. One rule similar to the rule of gravity–is that order CANNOT be achieved from chaos. The secret is the watchmaker/designer. If you look closely you will find the repetitive patterns in nature that will always be found in the presence of good DESIGN. To achieve design, a design-ER must be present.
SO in reference to the story–one of the main reasons perhaps (or just plain good side effects) of home schooling or attending private Christian schools, is that at least the wasted indoctrination of evolution does not have to be UN-done. So that is a perk….
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
Are you saying that one day in prehistory there were no watches and shazam, the next day everybody had them? And it’s Grandparents Day, so be nice!
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
No I am saying–that is what the EVOLUTION crowd is basically saying. One day no frogs–shazam–the frog fairy shows up and frogs magically appears out of nowhere (after first being a fish- a pre-fish–and before that a cell)….
What I am saying is that it takes way more gullibility and faith to believe in something like evolution than it does to have faith in a God who created everything we see–and ourselves. Especially when so much of the Bible has ALREADY been substantiated by archaeological evidence, scientific evidence– including geological evidence, evidence from personal witnesses to the life of Christ, and even with outside non-Christian contemporaries of those who lived during Bible times. Many events described in the Bible have been witnessed and documented by outside sources of the time. There isn’t one singe entry in the Bible that has been disproven at any time down through out history.
And I think children understand this as well–(when comparing the two possibilities of creation) you can even use the the simple analogy of a cookie or something–a cookie just doesn’t magically appear out of nowhere. Children know this. Someone had to mix all of the ingredients together, etc. But prior to that–someone had to harvest the grain, gather the eggs, etc. etc. Evolution really has no answers–because it is so illogical that it is an impossibility, and therefore impossible to explain. Believers of evolution are just wandering on blind faith alone. There is nothing rational about it. Darwin was an atheist at a time when it was very unpopular to be one, yet science was gaining respectability, and so he used that to his advantage. If someone were to appear on the scene today and make the claims he made, he would be shouted down in two seconds. And it doesn’t take a person with a faith in God to do it–modern scientific methods and researchers have already done it, but because evolutionists have nothing else to offer they cling to this outdated notion. ALL of their information is only a guess–there is nothing concrete in any of it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0