4 ms·

> My main issue with homeschooling is mostly around the fact that it's generally done so parents can control and limit children's access to well accepted facts

> My main issue with homeschooling is mostly around the fact that it's generally done so parents can control and limit children's access to well accepted facts (such as evolution, age of the earth, or dinosaurs). What is the problem with that? I am not aware of anything in the daily life that is dependent on the existence of macroevolution, the age of earth, or the history of dinosaurs. So, I really deeply from my heart have a stance of "live and let live" concerning these topics. I might love science, but I am not a missionary or even an inquisitor for the "scientific truth".

jquery 3y ago
I'd be a lot more worried about the lack of sex education. That's often when a child first realizes they are being sexually abused.
- everybodyknows 3y ago
  That makes sense! Has implications for the age at which some, limited, sex ed should be introduced. Wondering why I haven't seen this consideration raised before, in mainstream press. Nor read of any specific cases of abuse being exposed that way. Would be interested in references.
  - jquery 3y ago
    Here's some references I dug up. I've also read anecdotal reports about little girls and boys as young as 5 pointing at a sex education book (one that was banned in Florida) saying "my dad does this to me", here's one I was able to find: https://bookriot.com/sex-ed-books-protect-kids/ https://bookriot.com/sex-ed-books-protect-kids/ (ctrl-f This is me) https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/apr/16/sexual-abuse-education-helps-children-report-offenders https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/apr/16/sexual-abu... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6283686/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6283686/ https://info.primarycare.hms.harvard.edu/review/sexual-education-violence-prevention https://info.primarycare.hms.harvard.edu/review/sexual-educa... Even China started pushing comprehensive sex education nationwide due to high rates of rural child sex abuse: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9406756/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9406756/
patmcc 3y ago
I think there's an argument that not knowing anything about, say, dinosaurs, is probably fine. But "knowing" very wrong things about the age of the earth or evolution being real can lead to people making decisions that are terrible for everyone. Think antibiotic resistant bacteria as a simple example. And there's a real cost to society if there's some fraction of society that don't believe climate change could possible be real.
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago
  > Think antibiotic resistant bacteria as a simple example. That is why I explicitly wrote "macroevolution" and not "evolution". The emergence antibiotic-resilient bacteria is a phenomenon of microevolution, whose existence is, as far as I am aware, much less controversial in evangelical Christian circles. To my understanding, the offending topic in these evangelical Christian circles rather seems to be whether macroevolution and the formation of species can be suitably explained via undirected small microevolution over an insanely long time.
  - kiba 3y ago
    The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution sounds like nonsense. There's too much evidence for me to believe that evolution doesn't happen, at any scale. Evolution is clearly observable and foundational to biology. Whereas Christian creation stories always felt like mythology, sounds human centric and made up. I read stuff like the Epic of Gilgamesh and realized that some stories in the bibles are based on older iterations written by ancient people.
    - 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
      > The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution sounds like nonsense. It is nonsense through the lens of biology, but it's nonsense that's very ideologically convenient to certain demographics, which (perhaps paradoxically) means that terms to talk about the distinction become useful in some sociopolitical or anthropological contexts. For what it's worth, the very particular term for the religiously-motivated typology that accepts microevolution while rejecting macroevolution is baraminology.
cogman10 3y ago
I just have a problem with parents closing doors for their kids. A lot of early education is about kids finding their interests and passions. It's also about making for a well rounded society. I don't care so much of a kid is like "I hate this dinosaur garbage" or whatever, but I feel awful for the kid that could have been a great paleontologist or biologist only to have that opportunity snuffed. Sort of the same reason I'd hate for the kids to never be able to read. Sure, maybe there are jobs and people that live full lives never really needing to read anything. However, so much of the world is completely closed off to an illiterate person. It's not that I'm trying to be a missionary per say, but rather that I believe that sparking knowledge in people is pretty much always a good thing.
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - cogman10 3y ago
    > Interestingly, many people who argue this way are very hesitant to apply this argument to sparking knowledge about evangelical Christian theology. I'm absolutely not hesitant for kids to be taught about evangelical christian theology. I don't think kids should be proselytized to by the state. That is, I'm more than fine if kids study the bible as part of class. I'm less fine if kids are taught "The bible is the word of god and if you don't believe it you are going to hell". To put it in another context, I'm perfectly fine if there was a class teaching about Hinduism in high school. I'm far less fine (and I'd think most people would be) if that class involved calling Christians heathens and requiring participation in Satsang.
    - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
      > That is, I'm more than fine if kids study the bible as part of class. I'm less fine if kids are taught "The bible is the word of god and if you don't believe it you are going to hell". > To put it in another context, I'm perfectly fine if there was a class teaching about Hinduism in high school. I'm far less fine (and I'd think most people would be) if that class involved calling Christians heathens and requiring participation in Satsang. To play the devil's advocate: what you described in the last paragraph is exactly how I imagine that classes about evolutionary biology or earth history feel to evangelical Christians. :-)
logical_ferry 3y ago
I am just wishing for a day when someone will say to me "Earth is 6000 years old" with a straight face. I'll cherish that day forever in my mind.
andrepd 3y ago
As a human person you have a right to education, regardless of whatever your parents might happen to think. School is there, in part, to ensure kids are exposed to thoughts, experiences, people, even those that parents might find objectionable. A daughter of fundamentalist Muslim parents has the right to have an education, even if they think girls should not be educated. A girl whose parents are "anti woke liberal gender ideology" still nonetheless has the right to learn how her own body works, how to protect herself, among a thousand other things. Etc etc.
- aa1234556 3y ago
  [dead]

jquery 3y ago

I'd be a lot more worried about the lack of sex education. That's often when a child first realizes they are being sexually abused.

everybodyknows 3y ago
That makes sense! Has implications for the age at which some, limited, sex ed should be introduced. Wondering why I haven't seen this consideration raised before, in mainstream press. Nor read of any specific cases of abuse being exposed that way. Would be interested in references.
- jquery 3y ago
  Here's some references I dug up. I've also read anecdotal reports about little girls and boys as young as 5 pointing at a sex education book (one that was banned in Florida) saying "my dad does this to me", here's one I was able to find: https://bookriot.com/sex-ed-books-protect-kids/ https://bookriot.com/sex-ed-books-protect-kids/ (ctrl-f This is me) https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/apr/16/sexual-abuse-education-helps-children-report-offenders https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/apr/16/sexual-abu... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6283686/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6283686/ https://info.primarycare.hms.harvard.edu/review/sexual-education-violence-prevention https://info.primarycare.hms.harvard.edu/review/sexual-educa... Even China started pushing comprehensive sex education nationwide due to high rates of rural child sex abuse: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9406756/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9406756/

patmcc 3y ago

I think there's an argument that not knowing anything about, say, dinosaurs, is probably fine. But "knowing" very wrong things about the age of the earth or evolution being real can lead to people making decisions that are terrible for everyone. Think antibiotic resistant bacteria as a simple example. And there's a real cost to society if there's some fraction of society that don't believe climate change could possible be real.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> Think antibiotic resistant bacteria as a simple example. That is why I explicitly wrote "macroevolution" and not "evolution". The emergence antibiotic-resilient bacteria is a phenomenon of microevolution, whose existence is, as far as I am aware, much less controversial in evangelical Christian circles. To my understanding, the offending topic in these evangelical Christian circles rather seems to be whether macroevolution and the formation of species can be suitably explained via undirected small microevolution over an insanely long time.
- kiba 3y ago
  The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution sounds like nonsense. There's too much evidence for me to believe that evolution doesn't happen, at any scale. Evolution is clearly observable and foundational to biology. Whereas Christian creation stories always felt like mythology, sounds human centric and made up. I read stuff like the Epic of Gilgamesh and realized that some stories in the bibles are based on older iterations written by ancient people.
  - 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
    > The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution sounds like nonsense. It is nonsense through the lens of biology, but it's nonsense that's very ideologically convenient to certain demographics, which (perhaps paradoxically) means that terms to talk about the distinction become useful in some sociopolitical or anthropological contexts. For what it's worth, the very particular term for the religiously-motivated typology that accepts microevolution while rejecting macroevolution is baraminology.

cogman10 3y ago

I just have a problem with parents closing doors for their kids. A lot of early education is about kids finding their interests and passions. It's also about making for a well rounded society. I don't care so much of a kid is like "I hate this dinosaur garbage" or whatever, but I feel awful for the kid that could have been a great paleontologist or biologist only to have that opportunity snuffed. Sort of the same reason I'd hate for the kids to never be able to read. Sure, maybe there are jobs and people that live full lives never really needing to read anything. However, so much of the world is completely closed off to an illiterate person. It's not that I'm trying to be a missionary per say, but rather that I believe that sparking knowledge in people is pretty much always a good thing.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago
[flagged]
- cogman10 3y ago
  > Interestingly, many people who argue this way are very hesitant to apply this argument to sparking knowledge about evangelical Christian theology. I'm absolutely not hesitant for kids to be taught about evangelical christian theology. I don't think kids should be proselytized to by the state. That is, I'm more than fine if kids study the bible as part of class. I'm less fine if kids are taught "The bible is the word of god and if you don't believe it you are going to hell". To put it in another context, I'm perfectly fine if there was a class teaching about Hinduism in high school. I'm far less fine (and I'd think most people would be) if that class involved calling Christians heathens and requiring participation in Satsang.
  - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
    > That is, I'm more than fine if kids study the bible as part of class. I'm less fine if kids are taught "The bible is the word of god and if you don't believe it you are going to hell". > To put it in another context, I'm perfectly fine if there was a class teaching about Hinduism in high school. I'm far less fine (and I'd think most people would be) if that class involved calling Christians heathens and requiring participation in Satsang. To play the devil's advocate: what you described in the last paragraph is exactly how I imagine that classes about evolutionary biology or earth history feel to evangelical Christians. :-)

logical_ferry 3y ago

I am just wishing for a day when someone will say to me "Earth is 6000 years old" with a straight face. I'll cherish that day forever in my mind.

andrepd 3y ago

As a human person you have a right to education, regardless of whatever your parents might happen to think. School is there, in part, to ensure kids are exposed to thoughts, experiences, people, even those that parents might find objectionable. A daughter of fundamentalist Muslim parents has the right to have an education, even if they think girls should not be educated. A girl whose parents are "anti woke liberal gender ideology" still nonetheless has the right to learn how her own body works, how to protect herself, among a thousand other things. Etc etc.

aa1234556 3y ago
[dead]