“There’s often a “science vs. the Bible” mentality, as well as an underlying distrust of scientists and of scientific processes”
my question is for @cstump: I hold to the young-earth creation model, have some experience AS a homeschooler and very supportive of the practice. I’m curious to see your more full review of the materials you refer to, for examples; or can you provide links to the specific instances to which you allude? Authors, dates, publishers etc? Best would be your own complete review showing examples. I agree that articles sometimes do contain errors or misinterpretations - I saw one which, in my opinion, claimed a high-level Mason as a Genesis literalist and young earth creationist. So in the interests of all-around clarity, you would benefit everyone by being more specific. (perhaps I missed something like it elsewhere on this website?) Thanks.
@chas, given that you are an open advocate of a position other than evolutionary creation, this thread doesn’t belong on the Homeschool Forum, given that its purpose is for “evolutionary creationist homeschoolers and their allies to share information and encouragement.” So I’ve moved it to the “Open Forum”, where people of all perspectives are welcome to contribute.
This is a very broad question, but yes I could, though I don’t know that it would be helpful to do so in this forum. It reminds me of the question “There’s evidence for evolution?? Could you give me a book with page number examples?” There are in fact too many examples to list in one post. I predict that most if not all of the folks on our homeschool forum could give you boat-loads as well. But I’m guessing that’s not really your point here. If I would provide an example you would mainly be interested in then trying to show how it’s not really being “ant-science”, rather it’s just being “anti-the kind of science we don’t like” which is “legitimate” etc. Maybe I’m wrong here, but just a hunch.
There are too many examples to mention, because the entire premise from which the ‘science’ is presented rejects the integrity of science.
From a typical page on AIG, which publishes homeschool curriculum:
"Can you actually “see” the age of a star? Stars do not come with labels telling you how old they are. You might be surprised how many people I meet that mistakenly think that age can be “measured” scientifically. But age is not a “substance” that can be seen or measured by scientific methods.
Sometimes astronomers will attempt to estimate (make a guess about) the age of something (a star for example). But in order to do so they must make certain assumptions (such as how stars change with time) which cannot be directly tested. Most astronomers I know reject the Bible, and instead assume the big bang. Since they have an incorrect view of history, it causes them to make mistakes when they interpret the evidence. They see the same stars I see, but they estimate the age as much too old because they have started from the incorrect assumption that God did not make the stars." https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/science-facts-or-science-fiction/
For anyone who understands the measurement processes involved, this paragraph is laughable, misleading, and clearly “anti-science,” not to mention “anti-scientist”
I am guessing that Brad tagged me into this thread b/c I often point out how YEC folks reject the general legitimacy of the so-called “historical” sciences, at least when someone in those fields concludes that a certain event or physical process took place or started long before the biblical timescale of a few thousand years.
In sciences such as geology, cosmology, and evolutionary biology, and to a lesser extent also in anthropology, most events studied took place before the biblical timescale. Those events get woven together into a single, often (not always) coherent fabric that claims to provide an accurate picture of the unwitnessed past. Certainly that picture is widely understood as scientific, even when some details are very murky. So, rejecting all of that is rejecting a lot of science. IMO it’s fair to say that creationist are opposed to large parts of science.
The creationist rejoinder, of course, is to say that those unwitnessed events cannot be studied by the real methods of science, so they aren’t really scientific after all.
Which, as Christy pointed out, is incredibly condescending and dismissive to scientific work (and the scientists involved). YECs basically say, “you’re not only wrong but obviously terrible at your job.” No wonder so many scientists aren’t big fans of evangelical Christianity.
"only post on those threads if you are an EC homeschooler, a supportive ally of them, or just asking for information "
Maybe the above sentence needs clarification? Are you talking about three distinct categories? Or can a participant “just ask for information” if he is one of the first two?
I disclosed my position so as not to be disingenous. I wrote “I hold to the position”; I’m not advocating for that position here, nor criticizing the position or any of it’s adherents, I’m asking for that information. I could have not disclosed my position; would that make my question appropriate for this venue? Would you then assume I advocated for EC? Would you rule out the question for failing to encourage; or worse, for being negative? If there are home-schooling materials that are anti-science in some way, why not be specific? And if their are home-schooling YEC materials that are not anti-science, perhaps they should receive some credit.
That was not in fact my question. And the question is no more broad than, as specified, a request for specific content of the reviews made by Cstump. You in fact have changed the question so as to broaden the subject, make my question seem absurd and my motivation suspect.
Maybe you could clarify which publisher or line of books you think may be unfairly characterized by the generalization, and then maybe we could point out what would be problematic.
I have not personally encountered any overtly YEC materials that I would feel good about using purely for their scientific content. There are publishers/curriculum providers that are unapologetically YEC whose material may have perfectly decent lessons on the life cycle of a butterfly or the parts of the flower, but they usually can’t help but stick in something about how such and such couldn’t have possibly evolved (i.e. “Don’t trust scientists who tell you otherwise.”)
Please re-read the original question: I’m asking the reviewer to specify examples in the materials the reviewer reviewed and found to express “anti-science” sentiment. I should clarify? I did not publish the opinion Ma’am!
What I asked for Ted, is specific examples from cstumps reviews of YEC materials, since she published the opinion of materials she reviewed as part of her role with BioLogos. I will read your article, thanks.But my question still stands.
Yes, AIG publishes home-school materials, but the link you put up was a reply by Jason Lisle, an astronomer, in discussion with another astronomer. It’s not home-school curriculum, and it’s not material you or cstump have reviewed.
I would imagine she is busy with other things and coming up with a bunch of examples for you would not be a good use of her time. You aren’t her target audience. If you are happy with YEC materials, carry on. She is writing for people who are dissatisfied with them, and for that audience the problems are obvious. If your point is just to say, “I don’t think her review is fair,” then, okay, duly noted. But none of her observations are breaking news to EC folks who homeschool.