Help, my niece is being taught evolution!

[rainbowpromise]

So as not to hop on the bandwagon I'm going to phrase my comment/request a bit differently...

Do you happen to remember what any of those discrepincies were? And if so, do you remember her comments about them in sufficient detail to discuss them here?

Sorry, science does not interest me enough to remember. One son has a physics interest and one daughter has a biology interest. Creation does not prevent them from understanding and being interested in these sciences. Neither continued in these sciences because their career choices led them elsewhere.

 

[JohnR7]

Are you claiming that three different versions of evolution exist at the same time? Or do you really mean that the theory of evolution has changed since it was first proposed? Well, duh, of course it has.

Darwinism is considered to be obsolete. Neo-Darwinism and Post-Darwinism tend to somewhat co-exist. Although Neo-Darwinists then not to accept Post-Darwinists. From what I can figure out about it, Neo-Darwinism takes Mendels genetics into consideration. Post-Darwinism is said to be theistic to some degree. So the answer for both are true, they coexist but also the theory has changed. Seems kind of funny that Darwin did not take Mendels work into consideration himself.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

googling post-darwinianism yields some interesting hits. include Kevin Kelly's book at:
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-b.html
this is the chapter called post-darwinianism

how, after reading the first 20 or so hits, it is obvious that it is a new term that really doesn't have a consistent meaning, with everyone adding to darwinianism their favorite ideas.

 

[NPH]

Seems kind of funny that Darwin did not take Mendels work into consideration himself.

Darwin: Developed Theory of Natural Selection in 1838. Published his work in 1859.

Mendel: Conducted tests on pea plants between 1856-1863. Mendel's paper was published in 1866 and was cited only three times over the next 35 years.

Kind of hard to consider someone else's work when it hadn't even yet been performed, read or published.

An important distinction of Mendel's work is that it's importance was not recognized until the early 20th century. Again, hard to consider someone else's work that did not seem to apply to what you were doing at the time you were alive.

Here's a bit for you taken from Wikipedia:

"Mendel had read a German translation of Darwin's Origin (as evidenced by underlined passages in the copy in his monastery), after completing his experiments but before publishing his paper. Some passages in Mendel's paper are Darwinian in character, evidence that The Origin of Species influenced Mendel's writing. Darwin did not have a copy of Mendel's paper, but he did have a book by Focke with references to it. The leading expert in heredity at this time was Darwin's half-cousin Francis Galton who had mathematical skills that Darwin lacked and may have been able to understand the paper had he seen it."

Amazing what 20 seconds at wikipedia or with Google can answer.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Do I just sit a bunch of religious options in front of my young children and offer them no guidance of opinion? Of course not.

Why not?

 

[Pats]

Do I just sit a bunch of religious options in front of my young children and offer them no guidance of opinion? Of course not.

Why not?

Because, that is not parenting. True parenting is offering your children guidance. I would no more leave them to fin for themselves in religious waters than I would achedemic.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Because, that is not parenting. True parenting is offering your children guidance. I would no more leave them to fin for themselves in religious waters than I would achedemic.

You teach them mathematics, history, literature, science, philosophy, social studies, music, and art? And everything else available on a school curriculum?

 

[JohnR7]

Mendel's paper was published in 1866 .

Darwin died in 1882, that gives him 16 years to have read mendels work and respond to it.

Amazing what 20 seconds at wikipedia or with Google can answer.

It just reflects that people have put a huge amount of research into the subject.
I would not be surprised if they knew what Darwin had for breakfast on the day his first book was published.

 

[eri]

Darwin died in 1882, that gives him 16 years to have read mendels work and respond to it.

Yes, but Mendel's work was not fully appreciated for many years after his death. Few people understood exactly how important his results were to understanding life. There is no indication that Darwin made that connection, although he had seen at least passing references to Mendel's work.

 

[random_guy]

Looks like I'm doing my part. I volunteer at elementary schools by teaching science to 6th graders. One of my lessons is about fossils, and I mention evidence for dino-bird ancestory. Take that Creationism, on behalf of the EAC! Isn't funny that I'm allowed to do this but Creationists aren't allowed to go to schools and talk about pre-Split light, vegetarian T-Rexes, and dino riding humans?

 

[LogicChristian]

To begin there is the difference between darwinism, neodarwinism and postneodarwinism. You have three different beliefs and theorys right there.

Care to tell me where you heard about postneodarwinism?

 

[JohnR7]

Care to tell me where you heard about postneodarwinism?

I made that word up. But you can use it if you want, no charge The term is actually postdarwinism which from what I understand is a theistic form of darwinism. It is fairly recent and it did come after neo-darwinism.

 

[JohnR7]

Looks like I'm doing my part.

Yeah doing your part to corrupt our kids with lies about "dino-bird ancestory".

 

[Pats]

Because, that is not parenting. True parenting is offering your children guidance. I would no more leave them to fin for themselves in religious waters than I would achedemic

You teach them mathematics, history, literature, science, philosophy, social studies, music, and art? And everything else available on a school curriculum?

To clarify my statement, I send my children to school, a school that I help choose and stay in contact with. It is the same with what church we attend.

Of course, I discuss all of those topics with my children, just as we discuss spirituality and God.

I don't expect my children to posses the ability to pick and choose what science and math they will learn, and it is the same for spirituality.

Growth and time will present them with the opportunity to go to college and choose their academics, just as they will have more choices on what churches to attend at that time.

 

[Lilandra]

if not it is coming off like you are needling him.

Yeah doing your part to corrupt our kids with lies about "dino-bird ancestory".

 

[Mocca]

I have never, ever, ever, found the definition for "Darwinism," "Neo-Darwinism," nor "Post-Neo-Darwinism."

 

[Pats]

Looks like I'm doing my part. I volunteer at elementary schools by teaching science to 6th graders. One of my lessons is about fossils, and I mention evidence for dino-bird ancestory. Take that Creationism, on behalf of the EAC! Isn't funny that I'm allowed to do this but Creationists aren't allowed to go to schools and talk about pre-Split light, vegetarian T-Rexes, and dino riding humans?

I don't see how it's "funny." I'm not complaining that my kids don't read religious materials in their literature classes. Why would I want them learning religion from their science teachers? I choose our church for that.

 

[Pats]

I have never, ever, ever, found the definition for "Darwinism," "Neo-Darwinism," nor "Post-Neo-Darwinism."

I think Neo-Darwinism is pretty well known. It anwered many of the questions Darwinism couldn't answer, and was not designed by Darwin.

Perhaps you should do a search on it.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

I don't expect my children to posses the ability to pick and choose what science and math they will learn, and it is the same for spirituality.

No, it is not the same. There are no choices for math and science. Math is math and science is science. There are many choices for religion. Will they be exposed to any of the others? Or the option of none?

Growth and time will present them with the opportunity to go to college and choose their academics, just as they will have more choices on what churches to attend at that time.

As long as they are christian? Will they be familiar with anything else?

 

[Pats]

No, it is not the same. There are no choices for math and science. Math is math and science is science. There are many choices for religion. Will they be exposed to any of the others? Or the option of none?

As long as they are christian? Will they be familiar with anything else?

I have already answered that in this thread. Your questions don't seemed to be asked in the spirit of you desire to understand my parenting style, but it seems you've judged it before we even started talking.