Are home schooled Christians dangerous?

[OccamsRazor]

In a recent New Scientist article about the rise of home schooling by creationist Christians in the US I noticed the following:

Science Order and Reality published by A Beka Book: "Because most environmental scientists see the universe and even life itself as mere products of chance, it is easy for them to visualise potentially catastrophic changes occurring on the Earth. As Christians we must remember that God provided certain 'checks and balances' in creation to prevent many of the global upsets that have been predicted by environmentalists." For those who still worry about global warming, another A Beka book, Science of the Physical Creation, flatly denies it is happening: "All of the scientific evidence gathered indicates that there is no danger of a global warming disaster."

Should children be taught such things as 'science'? This suggests that these children will grow up without any sense of personal responsibility, rather with the overriding belief that 'God will sort it out'.

Surely such children should be provided with the evidence so that they may make their own decision. Such beliefs that these people do not have to work toward averting ecological disaster is surely a hinderance to the rest of us.

The questions here are therefore:
1. Should children be taught such unscientific 'facts' as if they were scientifically justified?
2. Is such Christianity detrimental to humanity?
3. If so (with regard to 2) then is this the fault of Christianity or religion or is it rather the fault of extremism?

(Edited: Clarified the wording of question #1)

[McCulloch]

1. Should children be taught such unscientific 'facts' as if they were scientifically justified?

Short answer: No.
While it is necessary to teach specific facts while teaching science, just as it is necessary to teach the multiplication tables while teaching mathematics, I believe that the goal of education should be to develop critical thinking skills in the students. If they learn, not only the facts, but how the facts were arrived at, then superstitious nonsense would not be tolerated by the students.

2. Is such Christianity detrimental to humanity?

I see no reason to single out Christianity. Any supernaturalist idea that promotes the reliance on alleged revelation as an information source superior to the evidence based, tested and rational approach to science is detrimental to humanity.

3. If so (with regard to 2) then is this the fault of Christianity or religion or is it rather the fault of extremism?

This is a difficult question. There are Christians who have found a way to subordinate their supernaturalism to rationality. God reveals that he created the universe in six days, evidence says otherwise. They then re-interpret what God says as being not literal but a metaphor but remain believers. But, I think, that as long as the religion remains, there will continue to be a risk that someone will revert to literalism.

[otseng]

In the question "Are Christians likely to cause a global catastrophe?", I assume you're referring to global warming.

For one thing, it's erroneous to stereotype Christians as those who cause global warming. Or even to say that only Christians do not believe there is a global warming problem. There are Christians who believe it is a problem. And there are Christians who do not believe it's a problem. Additionally, there are non-Christians who do not believe it's a problem. So, one cannot make the generalization that "Christians are likely to cause a global catastrophe".

For the question "Are home schooled Christians dangerous?", I might as well also ask "Are public schooled children dangerous?" The question doesn't make any sense and makes too much of a sweeping generalization.

1. Should children be taught such unscientific 'facts' as if they were scientifically justified?

It depends. For example, in regards to global warming, I would disagree that it's necessarily a problem. And even in the scientific community, there is not a consensus that there is a problem.

2. Is such Christianity detrimental to humanity?

What kind of Christianity are you referring to? Those that homeshool? Those that use the A Beka curriculum?

3. If so (with regard to 2) then is this the fault of Christianity or religion or is it rather the fault of extremism?

Also unsure here what you are asking since it's referring to question 2.

[OccamsRazor]

Otseng, I admit that the topic title and description are indeed sweeping generalisations (and, to a certain extent, were by design rather than by accident). The opening post was meant to clarify the point to a specific minority within Christianity.

It depends. For example, in regards to global warming, I would disagree that it's necessarily a problem. And even in the scientific community, there is not a consensus that there is a problem.

Here I do not refer specifically to global warming, rather the notion that God has placed 'checks-and-balances' being taught as a scientific fact.

What kind of Christianity are you referring to? Those that homeshool? Those that use the A Beka curriculum?

I am referring to those on the A Beka curriculum and those taught similar ideas.
The issue with homeschooling is directly related:

The idea [of homeschooling] was taken up in the 1970s by evangelical Christians, and today anywhere from 1.9 to 2.4 million children are home-schooled, up from just 300,000 in 1990. According to the US government's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 72 per cent of home-schooling parents interviewed said that they were motivated by the desire to provide religious and moral instruction.

For these parents, religious instruction and science are often intertwined. This bothers Brian Alters of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, who studies the changing face of science education in the US. He is appalled by some home-schooling textbooks, especially those on biology that claim they have scientific reasons for rejecting evolution. "They have gross scientific inaccuracies in them," he says. "They would not be allowed in any public school in the US, and yet these are the books primarily featured in home-schooling bookstores."

Regarding your final point:

3. If so (with regard to 2) then is this the fault of Christianity or religion or is it rather the fault of extremism?

Also unsure here what you are asking since it's referring to question 2.

Here I am making a connection here between the beliefs of the homeschooled (A Beka) variety of Christians and the beliefs of Christianity as a whole. If one were to believe that the minority of Christians that I refer to above are actually a hinderance to the values of society (such as environmentalism) then is this actually the fault of the belief system as a whole? Could we argue the Christianity itself is morally unjustified or is it the fault of extremism regardless of the ideology?

[otseng]

Otseng, I admit that the topic title and description are indeed sweeping generalisations (and, to a certain extent, were by design rather than by accident).

I think I would've preferred if it was by accident than by design. The title and description I would consider too much of a blanket statement and a bit inflammatory. And it would be easier to pass over it if it was not intentionally presented that way.

Also, I homeschool my kids. So, I would include myself in the target of the generalization.

Here I do not refer specifically to global warming, rather the notion that God has placed 'checks-and-balances' being taught as a scientific fact.

You'll have to clarify this for me too. What do you mean by "checks-and-balances"?

2. Is such Christianity detrimental to humanity?

What kind of Christianity are you referring to? Those that homeschool? Those that use the A Beka curriculum?

I am referring to those on the A Beka curriculum and those taught similar ideas.

I have never used the A Beka curriculum, so I'm not able to say too much about it. But, I have heard a lot about it. And I know of several private Christian schools who use it. So, based on my limited knowledge of it, I would say such Christianity is not detrimental to humanity.

This bothers Brian Alters of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, who studies the changing face of science education in the US. He is appalled by some home-schooling textbooks, especially those on biology that claim they have scientific reasons for rejecting evolution. "They have gross scientific inaccuracies in them," he says. "They would not be allowed in any public school in the US, and yet these are the books primarily featured in home-schooling bookstores."

Well, it bothers me that people should tell me how I should homeschool my kids. And if Christians are not to have any say in allowing non-evolutionary teachings in public schools, then this is one reason why Christians have decided to pull their children out of public school.

And why should not parents be allowed to exercise complete freedom over the upbringing of their own children (as long as it's within the limits of the law)?

Further, I do see many inaccuracies in evolutionary theory. And they are not just because of religious reasons either. So, though evolutionists would rather for nobody to question evolution, including homeschoolers, it should be fully permitted in peoples' own homes.

Here I am making a connection here between the beliefs of the homeschooled (A Beka) variety of Christians and the beliefs of Christianity as a whole. If one were to believe that the minority of Christians that I refer to above are actually a hinderance to the values of society (such as environmentalism) then is this actually the fault of the belief system as a whole? Could we argue the Christianity itself is morally unjustified or is it the fault of extremism regardless of the ideology?

I would not make any correlation between A Beka homeschoolers and the beliefs of Christianity as a whole. I would also not make much of a correlation between those that use the A Beka curriculum and environmentalism. Primarily because I doubt that curriculum would make a big deal out of environmentalism. And even if it did, it would comprise an extremely small proportion of the curriculum.

Of the homeschoolers I've encountered, none go lock-step with any one curriculum. Not all prescribe to everything taught in a single curriculum. And many also use more than one curriculum. So, I believe it is erroneous to take one small facet of a single homeschool curriculum and extrapolate it out to any group, including Christianity as a whole or even to a subset of it.

[Confused]

I personally think home schooling is a great thing for parents who have the ability to do so. I know that in the US there is a curriculum that all children who are home schooled must be taught and they are tested upon it independently of the parents (testing centers, etc..). I would have to believe that a person home schooled would be taught similar science as that of someone in school.

In regards to unscientific facts as scientific facts: I guess it depends on what facts we are referring to. In regards to Global warming, no one can agree on it. However, I do believe in checks and balances. I think that nature has a way of balancing out what man has done. We may not like the balance, but I beleive it happens regardless.

I dont know that I would say that Chrsitians in general would negate person responsibility. I think extremists would and I hate to say it, but they are gaining in popularity from what the Christians I know hear say (this may or may not be true, but there is a growing sense of extremist influence in the panhandle of Florida based on what many Christians I work with and associate with say). In this sense, yes it is dangerous because if they take Matthew 6:25-34Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life...............Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself....... seriously in the exact form, then what they do today will be balanced by tomorrow. This extremist view is dangerous when it isn't taught in the right context.

[upallnite]

1. Should children be taught such unscientific 'facts' as if they were scientifically justified?
No. My "better half" (Jenny) has 3 cousins who are home schooled. Their parents taught them that men have one less rib. They are only 10 and 11(twins). One of them wants to be a doctor when she grows up. Sad that her parents are working to destroy this little girls dream.

2. Is such Christianity detrimental to humanity?
No. I think it is detrimental to Christianity. Jenny was raised the same as her cousins and began learning what her parents taught her was not going to get her into collage. She studied on her own and is now in a good school.
Jenny is now an "angry" atheist.
I was raised in a rather liberal Christian family and mostly consider myself a "weak" atheist. Although sometimes she gets me spun up into an "angry" atheist mode also.

The above two examples are why I think it serves to destroy it's self.

[/quote]

[micatala]

I will state up front that we have homeschooled all four of our children for most of their education to date. We have even used Abeka for some subjects (e.g. math, grammar), but as otseng says, we like many homeschoolers use a whole plethora of materials. For ninth grade science, for example, we used rather a hodge podge, including the Cartoon Guide to Physics, a handbook of physical science experiments, and readings out of the book Science Matters. My wife and I have somewhat different views on certain things, and so they have also experienced some 'creationist influenced' curricula, although I don't think we ever used Abeka for science, at least after the very earliest grades.

1. Should children be taught such unscientific 'facts' as if they were scientifically justified?

The short answer is no, and yes many 'conservative Christian' curricula do exactly this. Almost worse than the scientific inaccuracies are the distortions of history. Some books I have seen, for example, claim evolution was developed in order to deny God.

2. Is such Christianity detrimental to humanity?

Possibly. But again, these aspects are only a small part of many religious and non-religious attitudes that are potentially detrimental. Red-neckism (is that a new word?), anti-intellectualism in general, apathy, basic selfishness, intellectual inertia, etc. Corporate greed is arguably a bigger factor in preventing adequate action with respect to global warming than the religious factors raised in this thread.

[Saros]

Question 1:
I do not believe children should be taught science from books with an overtly religious agenda. Have you ever seen the movie Jesus Camp? In it there is a scene which shows an evangelical mother homeschooling her children. The child is maybe 8-9 yet he is already being "taught" about such things as global warming (its all an evil conspiracy of the evolutionists.) These things are rote learned and when he is asked questions about material he just spouts back almost word for word the creationist propaganda contained therin.
This sort of teaching seems actively designed to discourage critical thinking which IMO is the most important thing a child can learn.

2:
Short answer, Yes. Its not like we need more people with closed minds in the world.

3:
I would say religion in general discourages critical thought but in this case it is definitely the fault of this extremist group.

[Vladd44]

Should children be taught such unscientific 'facts' as if they were scientifically justified?

No, but it would be unfair to imply that this is a christian exclusive problem.

Is such Christianity detrimental to humanity?

If the christianity of "love your neighbor as yourself" was practiced more it would be a good thing, but regarding the current model of materialistic christians with superiority complexes (because I am saved, and you heathens are not) serves no one.

is this the fault of Christianity or religion or is it rather the fault of extremism?

I would lay the blame on peoples fear of change. Those in power fear change because it could mean loss of control, the masses fear it, bc someone told them to.