Undeception

All right, here’s a rant for you.

There’s a news story circulating about the well-known fact that homeschooling texts are ignoring or even (the audacity!) criticizing mainstream science in favor of creationism. The usual suspects have emerged to show their disgust of the benighted institution of homeschooling. There’s a poll up at MSNBC asking the question, “Is it OK for home-school textbooks to dismiss the theory of evolution?” Wait, what does “OK” mean here? Are they asking, “Do you think it’s good that home-school textbooks do this?” or “Is it healthy for society that they do this?” The ambiguity in the question itself implies that what they really want to know is, “Should the authorities allow parents to teach their kids this stuff?” The mantra among most secularists that I’ve heard on this issue is that homeschooling should be, preferably, illegal or, at very least, strictly regulated for content by the state. Thus, the following rant.

You’ll not find a stauncher advocate of teaching mainstream science in homeschool curricula than me, nor anyone who is more disturbed that homeschooling is usually used as a shelter from science education. But parents indubitably have more of a right to teach their children creationism than the state has to teach its belief systems. And don’t try to tell me that public education is not teaching belief systems: no one has the absolute truth, so whether it’s parent-approved, community-approved, or state-approved, there are beliefs and value judgments about what the truth is, some of them surely quite accurate, that are being taught. Claiming a monopoly on truth enforceable against other people’s children is nothing short of intellectual fascism, the rule of the thought police instituted by those who think better than the ignorant masses. But until the state assumes the role of deciding whether or not people can produce their own offspring and raise them from birth and as long as no ideologies are being taught that directly advocate violence or other tangible abuse, education must also be left in the hands of the parents. At least homeschoolers aren’t using taxpayer dollars to teach their agendas.

Homeschool critics often compare teaching creationism to teaching 2+2=5; I happen to think they’re not so far off. But this doesn’t mean the state has a right to stick its Cyrano de Bergerac into things. Most of the homeschooled, like me, will eventually learn better (and more’s the pity for them if their faith is tied to creationism), but even if they don’t, life will somehow go on. It really will.

Maybe one day everyone will accept mainstream science and reject creationism. No doubt by that time some subgroup or other will reject some other commonly accepted truth for some reason; it’s only human to do so (so evolution tells us). But I refuse to accept that our ruling intelligentsia should manage society like some intellectual Gestapo by the bully force of the government. Maybe we should just do our best for those over whom we have influence. Maybe we should trust that the truly better ideas will win the day. And maybe, in the meantime, we should learn to exercise a little patience with those who don’t understand as much as we think we do now.

Nah…that sounds a little too Christian.

Early last year I had the pleasure of reading a book entitled Beyond the Firmament. The author’s site is on my blogroll, so you may have noticed it. Here’s my review on Amazon:

The whole conflict between faith and science has been trumped up. Does this surprise you? This book will convince you.

This book is divided up into four sections. “What do we know and how do we know it?” is a preliminary, basic overview of what is called “epistemology” in fancy terms, making distinctions between natural and special revelation that carry the next two sections. “What can the Bible tell us about nature?” is a look at the special revelation in the Bible and discusses the boundaries of what it can tell us and why we can’t just assume over-literalized interpretations when interpreting it. In the next section, “What can nature tell us about itself?”, Glover describes what science can tell us about the beginning of the universe and the origin our our solar sytem, and then describes why radiometric dating methodology is reliable. The last section, “What about evolution?” is a summary of evolutionary theory.

Glover’s strong points are his knack for analogy and his conversational style. His humility and honesty about the limitations of science make bearable the experience of shattering the “godless atheist” facade so many evangelicals have constructed in front of mainstream science. He explains some heady concepts (including a bit of mathematics and physics) very simply, and just in case it starts seeming too dense, he doesn’t linger there long; for more advanced readers, he provides references to more technical works.

This book was not meant to grapple with theological issues associated with Adam or the Fall; it does try to provide a case for not simply dismissing any data that might make us take a second look at our first guess on those topics.

This book is accessible but not condescending, enjoyable and humorous at times but not a slick car-sales job, earnest but not overbearing.

For anyone who might be interested in looking into the issue of evolutionary creationism (Glover’s term of choice in lieu of “theistic evolution”), Beyond the Firmament is the place to start.

The reason I mention it now is that I am pleased to report that one of Sonlight’s owners, mentioned in this previous post as having maintained an anti-evolution stance, has now “come out” as a fan of this book; please note that this is not to say whether he has entirely embraced the book’s conclusions. He also was impressed with the Haarsmas’ book, Origins: a Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution, so much that he expressed a desire for Sonlight to begin offering the book!

Releasing Christian educators from the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) plantation by getting them to at least dialogue on the issue of origins is something essential to the viability of our faith for present and coming generations increasingly aware of the usefulness and reliability of modern science.

As if all this hasn’t communicated the value of this book, let me again highly recommend Beyond the Firmament. You locals can borrow my copy, and I’ll even buy a couple copies for those interested but not sufficiently funded (it’s less than $15 at Amazon).

There is no bigger proponent of home education than yours truly. I myself was homeschooled from the fifth grade through graduation. Although a somewhat shy, awkward kid, I somehow turned out completely “socialized” (whatever the crap that means), was accepted to both an undergraduate and multiple graduate programs, and am well on my way to a PhD in an obscure academic field. Most reasons homeschooling is criticized are, in my opinion, absolutely groundless.

One particular critique is generally unfounded and misleading: Christians are sheltering their children from the real world, to the effect that those children will be swept away once they get out from under their parents’ protection. One should ask, “Isn’t sheltering (a.k.a protecting) my child part of my role as a loving parent?” Indeed. I want to shelter my child from playing in the street — doesn’t make me a bad parent. In fact, quite the opposite: it makes me a good parent. Where I would be letting my children down is if I were afraid to tell them the reason I wouldn’t let them play in the road, choosing only to scare them out of any desire to play in the street by saying things like, “The road is evil!” or “The cars are out to get you!” To be sure, for children of younger ages, warnings unaccompanied by a cogent rationale will be sufficient; but when they get older, it will be behoove them on many levels to know exactly why the road is a dangerous place to play, if for no other reason than such lessons might be adapted anywhere and result in children’s ability to plan for their own safety in analogous situations. The right kind of “sheltering” explains to the child what s/he is being sheltered from, why, and what to do about it once the protection is lifted. I am grateful that this is how my parents instructed me. My parents taught me to learn, think, analyze, and evaluate new information on my own. This is the kind of homeschooling I can get behind.

This sort of homeschool methodology is quite popular, but there is either one particular glaring failure to consistently carry it out, or it is not being done properly at least. I have in mind one particular field of study: I know firsthand that one of the primary reasons Christians have for homeschooling their kids is a concern over mainstream science. In other words, parents are afraid that their children will be taught something other than young earth creationism. Now granted, not all homeschoolers are even Christians, so this is not the case across the board. But among Christians who homeschool, this concern is reflected in all the major Christian homeschool curricula. When my wife and I were researching curricula for our children, I only came across one provider whose materials allowed for the possibility of an old earth. The exception was the Sonlight Curriculum, a curriculum development and supply company that counsels parents to look at both young earth and old earth creationist material. From what we saw, all of the material was still thoroughly “creationist” (what is often termed “special creationism”) and therefore critical of evolutionary theory and approving of Intelligent Design, except where incidental mention is made in secular books they offer (such as the excellent Usborne series).

Inasmuch as the “teach to learn” approach is not the case in home and all other types of education, we have an interest in promoting its return. Unfortunately, the abundance of Christians who are homeschooling in order to promote creationism at the expense of mainstream science plays into the critique of homeschooling as “sheltering” children to those children’s detriment. Kids are being taught to live in denial of science as practiced by actual scientists in their fields of study doing actual research. This selective ignorance happens often enough, but as a case in point, I wanted to point out the following recent incident, which is illustrative of an endemic problem within the homeschooling movement.

The Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC) just last year prohibited Sonlight from displaying their materials at a homeschool convention. When he pressed CHEC for an answer why, Sunlight’s co-owner John Holzmann was informed that it was because his company was negligent in protecting families from non-YEC origins positions. Unfortunately, the relative fair-mindedness Sonlight displays on this aspect of the origins question cannot go unpunished among certain groups within the homeschooling community. I like Holzmann’s response:

CHEC, apparently, can’t trust Christian homeschoolers in Colorado to do their own research, read what “the other side” is saying, and/or come to their own conclusions in these matters. CHEC feels the need to protect homeschool families from themselves . . . and from companies like Sonlight that don’t teach origins in quite the way CHEC prefers.

What really bothers me: CHEC’s behavior, in essence, answers my paper–Young-Earth and Old-Earth Creationists: Can We Even Talk to One Another?–in the negative: “No. We can’t. And, to the extent it is up to us, we won’t.”

The moral of the story, implies Holzmann, is that key leadership within the homeschooling movement is in many places too agenda-driven to serve the needs of parents who feel it their prerogative and even responsibility to determine which aspects of important issues their children should be aware of. He issues this warning:

If you’re involved in homeschooling, especially Christian homeschooling, I wonder if your state convention sponsors may be keeping you from hearing the “other side” in debates that concern you?

HT: SpunkyHomeschool