MMM and Home Schooling

[iwasjustwondering]

Your examples are absurd.  Einstein was classically educated at the best schools in Europe.  He attended Luitpold Gymnasium, and then studied at ETH Zurich.  He completed his PhD under the tutelage of Alfred Kleiner at University of zurich.  He became a professor in Berlin and Prague, and lectured all over the U.S..  All his life, he lectured and taught at the university level.

I guess you are definitely one of those that cannot learn anything new without the need for a "teacher."  So I'll be the "teacher" in this case.  I did not say that Einstein or Newton did not have teachers.  But with regard to your comment:

"No, you can't just go learn it.  That's why I said that you don't know what you don't know.  People have blind spots in their knowledge.  If you go to a library and pick out a book, you are selecting that book.  You're still choosing what knowledge you need to acquire.  To truly expand your knowledge, you have to meet other people who know more than you.  Other people can point out gaps in your knowledge.  These people are called teachers."

You are stating that for someone to expand their knowledge you need to meet other people who have more knowledge.  In Einstein's particular case how did he develop the theory of relativity?  No one else knew more about it that he did as not one had discovered it yet?  So by your statement there is no way he could have learned it.  My question is how did he gain that knowledge if no one else had more knowledge about it than he did? 

What I am trying to point out is that new knowledge is gained through self reflection and discovery, even if it is built on top of existing knowledge.  Einstein did not have anyone teach to him the theory of relativity, because it was not developed yet.  So if Einstein did not have a "teacher" that had more knowledge than him with regard to the theory of relativity, then he must have developed and gained it through self-study.

Please find a "teacher" if you need further help understanding.

I never said that all new knowledge came from teachers, and teachers only.  I said that Einstein was an absurd example of your point, because he spent all his life either being taught, teaching, or being a residential scholar (at Princeton).  He obviously valued the educational environment, and he is also someone who, even in the worldview of the more limited among us, was knowledgeable about these sorts of things. 

One of the important things about participating in the world beyond your own welcome mat is that the people you end up encountering can challenge you.  They point out your flaws and weaknesses.  They can rock your world.  It's something worth trying every so often.

[AllChoptUp]

Perfect timing - Wired has an article out on secular, educated families turning to homeschooling:

"The Techies Who Are Hacking Education by Homeschooling Their Kids"

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/silicon-valley-home-schooling/

[mxt0133]

I never said that all new knowledge came from teachers, and teachers only.  I said that Einstein was an absurd example of your point, because he spent all his life either being taught, teaching, or being a residential scholar (at Princeton).  He obviously valued the educational environment, and he is also someone who, even in the worldview of the more limited among us, was knowledgeable about these sorts of things. 

One of the important things about participating in the world beyond your own welcome mat is that the people you end up encountering can challenge you.  They point out your flaws and weaknesses.  They can rock your world.  It's something worth trying every so often.

I agree with everything you are saying now. 

When you said:

 "To truly expand your knowledge, you have to meet other people who know more than you.  Other people can point out gaps in your knowledge.  These people are called teachers." 

I took it as the only way to learn is to meet someone who knows more than you in a particular subject.

I wholeheartedly agree that meeting new people that will inspire and motivate you to challenge yourself is a great way to expand your knowledge.  But I also think that through self-inspection and curiosity we can all learn a lot about ourselves and our environment.

[LennStar]

without further comment:
In this graph of belief in evolution vs. GDP, one country stands out
https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/563306053396221952/photo/1

[workathomedad]

Why would you think a low-paid stranger would do a better job educating someone than their own parents? The parents tend to actually love the child, and will put the child's interests ahead of their own. Especially when the parents are high-IQ and well educated. Of course they'd do a much better job educating their own kids, depending on their time availability, than the children being herded into a classroom with a bunch of strangers and salaried strangers.

[MDM]

without further comment:
In this graph of belief in evolution vs. GDP, one country stands out
https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/563306053396221952/photo/1

It's a well done piece of propaganda.  As the wiki article explains, that doesn't mean it is incorrect.  Just that the poster had a particular agenda and chose to present the information in a certain way.  E.g., the y-axis scaling, the choice of curve, and the choice to exclude the US from the curve fit.

Some quotes from the referenced graph page:

...US excluded from [the curve] fit.

A very weak model, if you remove two outliers: Turkey and the USA.

Turkey is on the line, how is it an outlier?

On the line for one of the zillion models that could have been used.

[zoltani]

I will read this and get back to you this weekend.

Here are 2 wee
bsites regarding Creation Science: https://answersingenesis.org/

You cannot be serious. Did take your "pupils" to the creation museum as a field trip?

Earth is only 6,000 years old? So now it's not just biology that you can't teach because of your beliefs, but it is geology and other earth sciences as well.

Good job trying to take us back to the dark ages.

[LiveLean]

But you didn't mention the socialization aspect. Public school socializes you well to fit in and respect status (of popular kids, teachers, etc.). If you want that, then public school makes sense. If you don't, then it doesn't.

There it is, the "socialization" argument. I never understand this. Just like parents who hold their sons back a year because of "socialization." Whatever that means.

I was sent to an all-boys Catholic high school, 45-minute commute, tough-as-hell academically. I went entire weeks - even the occasional month - in high school talking to literally no other females other than my mom, sisters, and the few female faculty we had. Somehow I survived with this lack of socialization.

My kingdom for homeschooling. I'd do it for my kids in a minute.

[Annamal]

Why would you think a low-paid stranger would do a better job educating someone than their own parents? The parents tend to actually love the child, and will put the child's interests ahead of their own. Especially when the parents are high-IQ and well educated. Of course they'd do a much better job educating their own kids, depending on their time availability, than the children being herded into a classroom with a bunch of strangers and salaried strangers.

I think some (and only some) high IQ people can be among the worst teachers unless they put a great deal of work into learning techniques for building a body of knowledge in others.

People who are naturally gifted in particular areas can be quite bad at explaining concepts to people who don't have an intuitive grasp of a subject.

[UnleashHell]

Why would you think a low-paid stranger would do a better job educating someone than their own parents? The parents tend to actually love the child, and will put the child's interests ahead of their own. Especially when the parents are high-IQ and well educated. Of course they'd do a much better job educating their own kids, depending on their time availability, than the children being herded into a classroom with a bunch of strangers and salaried strangers.

I think some (and only some) high IQ people can be among the worst teachers unless they put a great deal of work into learning techniques for building a body of knowledge in others.

People who are naturally gifted in particular areas can be quite bad at explaining concepts to people who don't have an intuitive grasp of a subject.

so that's specialized teachers covered...

[BeginninginWisedom]

He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.

Actually, this needs to be written in quotes."He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.” Because it is a quote by Sir Isaac Newton.

I have given a bit of thought and prayer to what is the best way to engage this conversation on this forum.

I have read up on micro-evolution and macro-evolution. How to translate the Hebrew word "Kind" from Genesis in the Bible to a proper term in English. I have prayed for wisdom. The result is: I am going to speak about what I know. I know God exists.

I know God exists through the wonders of Creation: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20.

I know God exists through the Written Word, The Bible:"Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21

I know God exists through the Resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ: "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? " Luke 24:1-3

But for our discussion here, this day, I will limit myself to talking about how creation speaks to us about God.
 Again, here is a quote from Sir Isaac Newton, “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”

To Isaac Newton, the thumb alone spoke to him about the existence of God.

So, I ask you to look at your thumb, your eye, your heart, your foot. If you ever saw anything close to these and as complex as they are in any other realm, other than creation, would you conclude that it randomly evolved by chance. You're thinking people, work through this in your mind. Is it really conceivable that this planet, this universe,  just happened?

Next, I will ask you to give me the proof that exists that man evolved from the "soup" of life. The progression we are able to see in the fossil record from "soup" to man.

Here I will give you the Biblical account of man and the animals origins: Genesis 2:7 "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Genesis 2:19a "Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed6 every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens"

I am very excited, and not a little fearful, to be a part of this discussion, and I will be parying that it will be profitable for all of us.

I will leave you with a few more quotes from renown scientsts who believe in God:
“Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”
“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls.”
–Max Planck, the Nobel Prize winning physicist considered to be the founder of quantum theory, and one of the most important physicists of the 20th century, indeed of all time.
Religion and Natural Science (Lecture Given 1937) Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp. 184

“It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.”
–Physicist Paul Davies, the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (amongst other awards), as cited in his book God and the New Physics.

“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”
–Albert Einstein

[Dimitri]

“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”
–Albert Einstein

“Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.”
W.C. Fields

[BeginninginWisedom]

I forgot to write that I do believe in micro-evolution, evolution and mutations in a creature of its own kind.

[Zikoris]

I forgot to write that I do believe in micro-evolution, evolution and mutations in a creature of its own kind.

So what do you call it when micro-evolution happens over and over over a long period of time?

[BeginninginWisedom]

I hope this helps to answer your question!

Microevolution is the occurrence of small inherited changes in a population.  The classic example is Darwin’s finches, which show variations in size and shape over successive generations depending on the nature of their food supply.  Many other similar examples could be readily cited, like the breeding of dogs or types of wheat.  In Darwin’s day, the true nature of genes and heredity wasn’t known, so it was easy for him to suppose that little inherited changes could add up to big ones (like reptile to bird).  However, the discovery of genes and how they work has shown that this is not so.  Genes can impart great variety by combining in different ways, but genetic change cannot be pushed beyond a certain point.  From generic dogs, we can breed big dogs or little ones, but we can’t turn a dog into an alligator.  The important thing to remember about microevolution is that it always involves recombination or loss of existing genes.  It never creates totally new genes from scratch.  Microevolution makes variations within already existing kinds of creatures, not wholly new kinds.  Creationists have no problem with microevolution. 
                 
Macroevolution, on the other hand, would require really big structural (phenotypic) changes in organisms.  Genetically, it would require the creation of massive new arrays of information-packed genes from nothing but molecular gibberish.  For example, the alleged evolution of the first cell calls for emergence of at least 300 highly complex, working genes from nothing but random, simple chemicals like methane and ammonia.  Not even a small sequence of genetic code has ever been produced in this way, let alone 300 complex, interwoven genes working precisely together.  Similarly, the theorized transitions from microbes to invertebrates, fish, reptiles, etc., call for added vast amounts of totally new genetic information at each stage.  No process of genetic creation like this has ever been observed.  Natural selection is powerless to create completely new genes from random chemicals.

http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/Macroevolutionvs.Microevolution.htm

[Zikoris]

I hope this helps to answer your question!

Microevolution is the occurrence of small inherited changes in a population.  The classic example is Darwin’s finches, which show variations in size and shape over successive generations depending on the nature of their food supply.  Many other similar examples could be readily cited, like the breeding of dogs or types of wheat.  In Darwin’s day, the true nature of genes and heredity wasn’t known, so it was easy for him to suppose that little inherited changes could add up to big ones (like reptile to bird).  However, the discovery of genes and how they work has shown that this is not so.  Genes can impart great variety by combining in different ways, but genetic change cannot be pushed beyond a certain point.  From generic dogs, we can breed big dogs or little ones, but we can’t turn a dog into an alligator.  The important thing to remember about microevolution is that it always involves recombination or loss of existing genes.  It never creates totally new genes from scratch.  Microevolution makes variations within already existing kinds of creatures, not wholly new kinds.  Creationists have no problem with microevolution.
                 
Macroevolution, on the other hand, would require really big structural (phenotypic) changes in organisms.  Genetically, it would require the creation of massive new arrays of information-packed genes from nothing but molecular gibberish.  For example, the alleged evolution of the first cell calls for emergence of at least 300 highly complex, working genes from nothing but random, simple chemicals like methane and ammonia.  Not even a small sequence of genetic code has ever been produced in this way, let alone 300 complex, interwoven genes working precisely together.  Similarly, the theorized transitions from microbes to invertebrates, fish, reptiles, etc., call for added vast amounts of totally new genetic information at each stage.  No process of genetic creation like this has ever been observed.  Natural selection is powerless to create completely new genes from random chemicals.

http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/Macroevolutionvs.Microevolution.htm

So you agree with evolution but not abiogenesis, but just don't know the difference between the two?

[Zikoris]

Also, how do you feel about the fossil record, given that it indicates "macro-evolution"? Is it made up? Planted by scientists?

[BeginninginWisedom]

So you agree with evolution but not abiogenesis, but just don't know the difference between the two?
[/quote]

Given the definitions I have found online for evolution and abiogenesis, I will need to answer the first 2 questions no, and the next yes I know the difference.

Here are the definitions:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
evolution.berkeley.edu
   •   Word Origin
noun
1.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
2.
the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonliving matter.
Compare


Your next post assumes there is a fossil record showing the evolution of man from soup to complex human being with random chance as his creator. If this is true, please show us that progression with its empirical evidence.

[zoltani]

http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/Macroevolutionvs.Microevolution.htm

Did you know the earth is flat?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

It is on a website, it must be true!

[zoltani]

To Isaac Newton, the thumb alone spoke to him about the existence of God.

So, I ask you to look at your thumb, your eye, your heart, your foot. If you ever saw anything close to these and as complex as they are in any other realm, other than creation, would you conclude that it randomly evolved by chance. You're thinking people, work through this in your mind. Is it really conceivable that this planet, this universe,  just happened?

IDK, is it conceivable that there is a magical being in the sky that just collects some dust and creates these complex creatures?

Can god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?

[Scandium]

That said, even when looking at HS with very generous lenses, I cant imagine that 2 parents can do everything that is needed. You needed to be an Leonardo da Vinci like multi talent. I do believe in an very well rounded education.

If you look it up Leonardo did not attend public school, because there were none, he was raised and taught by his father.  The irony that you would use a person that was not "schooled" as the ideal educator. 

The idea that the parents have to teach everything is just ridiculous, it's like asking one single teacher to teach a child his entire life.  Those are the ignorant comments that most people use about homeschooling.  The world is full of teachers and mentors that the home schooled child now has access to without being cooped-up in a classroom being taught by a person they didn't even choose.

I find it disturbing that you defend public school even after you list all that is wrong with it, think about that for a moment.

I choose Leonardo because he was a multi-genius, possible the greatest that ever lived. he would not have needed classroom or home school ;) I also didnt say he would be an ideal 8or even good) educator, I think he would be one of the worst, but that is not the point.
The point is that it is hard to teach and even harder to know everything a child should learn. In classroom school you have perhaps a dozen different teachers over time, all with their speciality and training.

If you think "The idea that the parents have to teach everything" is just ridiculous, it's like asking one single teacher to teach a child" - thats excactly what I am talking about. Homeschooling is 2 teachers, who not have learned to teach in most cases.

The problem with homeschooling is: Are the parents able and willing to do a good education with lots of social contacts and without e.g. religous indoctrination?
In classroom it is at least what they aim for, but you dont know it for the parents. In fact (in germany) most of the people who want to homeschool do it because they especially dont want this - dont want their kids to have contacts to other religion, other color etc.

I do not talk about MMM here (because the consens already is that his homeschooling is nothing to bother about regarding his blog), I talk about the german position, so that you can learn something and I can learn something.

As a fellow european I agree with this. Homeschooling is nuts, and I don't understand how it's legal. I assume it's only due to the lobbying power of religious sects. Two parents with no qualification in teaching is supposed to give a child a rounded education? No way. In elementary school maybe you only have a few teachers (but they are at least educated in the art of teaching), but by middle school (age 13) there were more than that, and different ones to teach math, history, science, music etc. Unless the parent's are multi-geniuses how the heck are they supposed to adequately teach the kid all these things?

I know some math and science, but I have no idea how best to convey this to a 12 year old. I can't play music for the life of me. And as evidenced here I can barely construct sentences, but I should teach my child literature? We don't live in a tribal society, we have a public, standardized education for a reason. There are certain things adults need to know to function in society and letting parents opt out borders on child abuse in my opinion. We already have  problem of very few people understanding math and science, and now these same people are supposed to teach this to their kids? Cannot end well.

[BeginninginWisedom]

http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/Macroevolutionvs.Microevolution.htm

Did you know the earth is flat?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

It is on a website, it must be true!

Zoltani, do look up the definitions for yourself. I think what is tripping you up is the word "debunked" let's eliminate it from the definition if that is the problem.

But, I don't see anyone tackling this issue with evidence that man is a random chance from "soup".

[UnleashHell]

That said, even when looking at HS with very generous lenses, I cant imagine that 2 parents can do everything that is needed. You needed to be an Leonardo da Vinci like multi talent. I do believe in an very well rounded education.

If you look it up Leonardo did not attend public school, because there were none, he was raised and taught by his father.  The irony that you would use a person that was not "schooled" as the ideal educator. 

The idea that the parents have to teach everything is just ridiculous, it's like asking one single teacher to teach a child his entire life.  Those are the ignorant comments that most people use about homeschooling.  The world is full of teachers and mentors that the home schooled child now has access to without being cooped-up in a classroom being taught by a person they didn't even choose.

I find it disturbing that you defend public school even after you list all that is wrong with it, think about that for a moment.

I choose Leonardo because he was a multi-genius, possible the greatest that ever lived. he would not have needed classroom or home school ;) I also didnt say he would be an ideal 8or even good) educator, I think he would be one of the worst, but that is not the point.
The point is that it is hard to teach and even harder to know everything a child should learn. In classroom school you have perhaps a dozen different teachers over time, all with their speciality and training.

If you think "The idea that the parents have to teach everything" is just ridiculous, it's like asking one single teacher to teach a child" - thats excactly what I am talking about. Homeschooling is 2 teachers, who not have learned to teach in most cases.

The problem with homeschooling is: Are the parents able and willing to do a good education with lots of social contacts and without e.g. religous indoctrination?
In classroom it is at least what they aim for, but you dont know it for the parents. In fact (in germany) most of the people who want to homeschool do it because they especially dont want this - dont want their kids to have contacts to other religion, other color etc.

I do not talk about MMM here (because the consens already is that his homeschooling is nothing to bother about regarding his blog), I talk about the german position, so that you can learn something and I can learn something.

As a fellow european I agree with this. Homeschooling is nuts, and I don't understand how it's legal. I assume it's only due to the lobbying power of religious sects. Two parents with no qualification in teaching is supposed to give a child a rounded education? No way. In elementary school maybe you only have a few teachers (but they are at least educated in the art of teaching), but by middle school (age 13) there were more than that, and different ones to teach math, history, science, music etc. Unless the parent's are multi-geniuses how the heck are they supposed to adequately teach the kid all these things?

I know some math and science, but I have no idea how best to convey this to a 12 year old. I can't play music for the life of me. And as evidenced here I can barely construct sentences, but I should teach my child literature? We don't live in a tribal society, we have a public, standardized education for a reason. There are certain things adults need to know to function in society and letting parents opt out borders on child abuse in my opinion. We already have  problem of very few people understanding math and science, and now these same people are supposed to teach this to their kids? Cannot end well.

I'm also a fellow European. I agree that you are in no way qualified to teach children anything just based on your post.

[Tabaxus]

Also, how do you feel about the fossil record, given that it indicates "macro-evolution"? Is it made up? Planted by scientists?

Planted by the devil to lead the faithful astray!!

[UnleashHell]

http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/Macroevolutionvs.Microevolution.htm

Did you know the earth is flat?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

It is on a website, it must be true!

Zoltani, do look up the definitions for yourself. I think what is tripping you up is the word "debunked" let's eliminate it from the definition if that is the problem.

But, I don't see anyone tackling this issue with evidence that man is a random chance from "soup".

aren't we lucky that god managed to make us speak English so that we could all understand the words that he wrote.

I mean its not like the language has evolved or anything.

obviously how we got here is the magical will of a being that nobody can prove exists and is magnificent and benevolent, even while letting kids die and suffer (I'm sure there's a very good unprovable reason for that too).

[zoltani]

http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/Macroevolutionvs.Microevolution.htm

Did you know the earth is flat?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

It is on a website, it must be true!

Zoltani, do look up the definitions for yourself. I think what is tripping you up is the word "debunked" let's eliminate it from the definition if that is the problem.

But, I don't see anyone tackling this issue with evidence that man is a random chance from "soup".

No, I am tripping out on you quoting creationist websites as references.

[BeginninginWisedom]

That said, even when looking at HS with very generous lenses, I cant imagine that 2 parents can do everything that is needed. You needed to be an Leonardo da Vinci like multi talent. I do believe in an very well rounded education.

If you look it up Leonardo did not attend public school, because there were none, he was raised and taught by his father.  The irony that you would use a person that was not "schooled" as the ideal educator. 

The idea that the parents have to teach everything is just ridiculous, it's like asking one single teacher to teach a child his entire life.  Those are the ignorant comments that most people use about homeschooling.  The world is full of teachers and mentors that the home schooled child now has access to without being cooped-up in a classroom being taught by a person they didn't even choose.

I find it disturbing that you defend public school even after you list all that is wrong with it, think about that for a moment.

I choose Leonardo because he was a multi-genius, possible the greatest that ever lived. he would not have needed classroom or home school ;) I also didnt say he would be an ideal 8or even good) educator, I think he would be one of the worst, but that is not the point.
The point is that it is hard to teach and even harder to know everything a child should learn. In classroom school you have perhaps a dozen different teachers over time, all with their speciality and training.

If you think "The idea that the parents have to teach everything" is just ridiculous, it's like asking one single teacher to teach a child" - thats excactly what I am talking about. Homeschooling is 2 teachers, who not have learned to teach in most cases.

The problem with homeschooling is: Are the parents able and willing to do a good education with lots of social contacts and without e.g. religous indoctrination?
In classroom it is at least what they aim for, but you dont know it for the parents. In fact (in germany) most of the people who want to homeschool do it because they especially dont want this - dont want their kids to have contacts to other religion, other color etc.

I do not talk about MMM here (because the consens already is that his homeschooling is nothing to bother about regarding his blog), I talk about the german position, so that you can learn something and I can learn something.

As a fellow european I agree with this. Homeschooling is nuts, and I don't understand how it's legal. I assume it's only due to the lobbying power of religious sects. Two parents with no qualification in teaching is supposed to give a child a rounded education? No way. In elementary school maybe you only have a few teachers (but they are at least educated in the art of teaching), but by middle school (age 13) there were more than that, and different ones to teach math, history, science, music etc. Unless the parent's are multi-geniuses how the heck are they supposed to adequately teach the kid all these things?

I know some math and science, but I have no idea how best to convey this to a 12 year old. I can't play music for the life of me. And as evidenced here I can barely construct sentences, but I should teach my child literature? We don't live in a tribal society, we have a public, standardized education for a reason. There are certain things adults need to know to function in society and letting parents opt out borders on child abuse in my opinion. We already have  problem of very few people understanding math and science, and now these same people are supposed to teach this to their kids? Cannot end well.

FYI A lot of kids go to community college for high school, have online tutors, have people who are experts in a subject to teach classes to help homeschoolers. The limits in homeschooling are those you put on yourself because there is a lot a parent has as resources.
Talking how do you finance this might be a good topic. We are not rich, but somewhat resourceful.

[Zikoris]

So you agree with evolution but not abiogenesis, but just don't know the difference between the two?

Given the definitions I have found online for evolution and abiogenesis, I will need to answer the first 2 questions no, and the next yes I know the difference.

Here are the definitions:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
evolution.berkeley.edu
   •   Word Origin
noun
1.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
2.
the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonliving matter.
Compare


Your next post assumes there is a fossil record showing the evolution of man from soup to complex human being with random chance as his creator. If this is true, please show us that progression with its empirical evidence.
[/quote]

There are certainly gaps in the fossil record, given that organic tissue unfortunately likes to decompose and needs very specific conditions met in order to fossilize. There certainly is both a fossil and DNA record linking humans and apes to a common ancestor. I'm genuinely curious what your explanation is for the fossil record, given that it demonstrates what you call "macro-evolution". Does that not directly contradict your belief? How about the modern DNA technology that demonstrates how closely related various species are, and shows at what point they broke off and evolved separately?

[zoltani]

Fossils are there because there was a great flood that killed everything on earth and buried them in sediment, creating the fossils. If you want evidence of this just look at the grand canyon, i mean how could a little tiny river cause that? Hint: it can't. it was the great flood as written in the BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!

* I learned this through self study of various creationism websites. Who needs teachers! Bah!

[UnleashHell]

as written in the BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!

in English. conveniently.

[Zikoris]

Fossils are there because there was a great flood that killed everything on earth and buried them in sediment, creating the fossils. If you want evidence of this just look at the grand canyon, i mean how could a little tiny river cause that? Hint: it can't. it was the great flood as written in the BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!

* I learned this through self study of various creationism websites. Who needs teachers! Bah!

Are people really stupid enough to believe this? I guess I don't know enough religious people.

[Scandium]

I'm also a fellow European. I agree that you are in no way qualified to teach children anything just based on your post.

But despite that, you still think I should be allowed to be my child's only source of education?

[Tabaxus]

I have no problem with watchmaker god theories.  Believing that a god set the big bang in motion isn't that much more irrational than believing that it spontaneously occurred.  The chaos theory/quantum mechanics explanations for the big bang could also support the creation of some kind of being that sets it all in motion.  I choose Occam's razor, here, and jump straight to the big bang, but I acknowledge that science can't explain it (yet) and there is room for a god in this set of circumstances.  Awfully presumptuous to believe that we have the kind of god "right," but whatever.

There is no room for rational people to believe in the common brand of science-denying creationism, though.

[zoltani]

I have no problem with watchmaker god theories.  Believing that a god set the big bang in motion isn't that much more irrational than believing that it spontaneously occurred.  The chaos theory/quantum mechanics explanations for the big bang could also support the creation of some kind of being that sets it all in motion.  I choose Occam's razor, here, and jump straight to the big bang, but I acknowledge that science can't explain it (yet) and there is room for a god in this set of circumstances.  Awfully presumptuous to believe that we have the kind of god "right," but whatever.

There is no room for rational people to believe in the common brand of science-denying creationism, though.

God created us so that he could constantly test us and our love for him. If he does not feel our love for him then he punishes us with the burning fires of hell. Or perhaps he has us stoned to death, or a fiery comet rains down on us.

If this god does exist then I surely would not like to meet him, he sounds like an ass.   

[UnleashHell]

I'm also a fellow European. I agree that you are in no way qualified to teach children anything just based on your post.

But despite that, you still think I should be allowed to be my child's only source of education?

I believe you should have the right to use a lot of the resources and methods already covered in this thread to educate your children if you believe that it will be better that the public school that's available to you. If its not better then you should leave them in school. Given that your comments indicate that theres no way homeschooling can be successful then I suggest you leave them in school and let those parents who put a bit more effort into researching the homeschooling options be allowed to carry on doing what works for them.

[UnleashHell]

I have no problem with watchmaker god theories.  Believing that a god set the big bang in motion isn't that much more irrational than believing that it spontaneously occurred.  The chaos theory/quantum mechanics explanations for the big bang could also support the creation of some kind of being that sets it all in motion.  I choose Occam's razor, here, and jump straight to the big bang, but I acknowledge that science can't explain it (yet) and there is room for a god in this set of circumstances.  Awfully presumptuous to believe that we have the kind of god "right," but whatever.

There is no room for rational people to believe in the common brand of science-denying creationism, though.

reading the bible is very interesting. Satan is the bad guy but its god who does most of the killing. He has some damn fine pr people.
God created us so that he could constantly test us and our love for him. If he does not feel our love for him then he punishes us with the burning fires of hell. Or perhaps he has us stoned to death, or a fiery comet rains down on us.

If this god does exist then I surely would not like to meet him, he sounds like an ass.

[Scandium]

I'm also a fellow European. I agree that you are in no way qualified to teach children anything just based on your post.

But despite that, you still think I should be allowed to be my child's only source of education?

I believe you should have the right to use a lot of the resources and methods already covered in this thread to educate your children if you believe that it will be better that the public school that's available to you. If its not better then you should leave them in school. Given that your comments indicate that theres no way homeschooling can be successful then I suggest you leave them in school and let those parents who put a bit more effort into researching the homeschooling options be allowed to carry on doing what works for them.

That's not the point though. Anyone can homeschool. You say I shouldn't, but nothing is stopping me from doing it. And I have the self-awareness to admit I can't teach my child Shakespeare, but many equally unqualified won't admit that and think they can.

You keep assuming these parents will seek out resources, educate themselves etc, but that is not guarantied. People keep saying there are tons of resources, but so what if parent's don't use them? We'll end up with a pile of people even more undereducated than we're already struggling with.

Even in the best cases the education will be filtered through the parent's preferences, rather than a education standards developed by a huge group of scientist do determine what's the essential things a function member of society should know.

I don't have a problem of people opting out of society in principle, it's only a problem since we'll all suffer for it in the end. And in this case there are also the problem of brainwashing/denying knowledge to innocent children who deserve better.

The fact that any lunatic can deny their children basic knowledge is individualism taken to an crazy extreme (And I'm borderline libertarian on most issues!)

[zoltani]

I'm also a fellow European. I agree that you are in no way qualified to teach children anything just based on your post.

But despite that, you still think I should be allowed to be my child's only source of education?

I believe you should have the right to use a lot of the resources and methods already covered in this thread to educate your children if you believe that it will be better that the public school that's available to you. If its not better then you should leave them in school. Given that your comments indicate that theres no way homeschooling can be successful then I suggest you leave them in school and let those parents who put a bit more effort into researching the homeschooling options be allowed to carry on doing what works for them.

That's not the point though. Anyone can homeschool. You say I shouldn't, but nothing is stopping me from doing it. And I have the self-awareness to admit I can't teach my child Shakespeare, but many equally unqualified won't admit that and think they can.

You keep assuming these parents will seek out resources, educate themselves etc, but that is not guarantied. People keep saying there are tons of resources, but so what if parent's don't use them? We'll end up with a pile of people even more undereducated than we're already struggling with.

Even in the best cases the education will be filtered through the parent's preferences, rather than a education standards developed by a huge group of scientist do determine what's the essential things a function member of society should know.

I don't have a problem of people opting out of society in principle, it's only a problem since we'll all suffer for it in the end. And in this case there are also the problem of brainwashing/denying knowledge to innocent children who deserve better.

I point you to a source for a variety of excellent texts to help you teach your children chemistry, geology, astronomy, and physics. And for fun we can read about what life was like during the great ice age!

https://answersingenesis.org/education/study-guides/

Here is a great example of the excellent scientific value you can find in such texts:

"The motion of the earth’s crust is accepted by uniformitarian and creationist scientists alike. The difference lies in the time frame over which the movement has happened. Current seafloor spreading, magnetic reversals recorded in the seafloor crust, similar rocks and fossils across ocean basins, and the puzzle-like fit of continents are evidences that appear to be explainable in slow-and-uniform terms over billions of years. However, these evidences can be better explained by the rapid and catastrophic movement of the plates during the Flood. Computer modeling has shown that the continents could have separated in a matter of weeks—millions of years are not required. The key is the runaway catastrophic rate of sinking of the pre-Flood ocean floor crust after it broke up. Additionally, the catastrophic plate tectonics model provides a mechanism for the rainfall during the Flood and the presence of fossilized marine creatures atop mountains and rock layers spread across the continents."


Oh an here ya go, i mean, you can't make this stuff up! It is in the BIBLE!

"The biblical explanation for how the Canyon formed is actually quite simple. The “basement” layers, consisting of granites and metamorphic rocks, were formed by Day 3 of Creation Week. Some sedimentary layers were deposited on these rocks late in the Creation Week and during the pre-Flood period. The horizontal sedimentary layers were then deposited over all other rocks by the waters of the global Flood as described in Genesis 7-8. These unhindered, swirling currents picked up, transported and eventually deposited tons of sedimentary layers. These strata were then in places tilted and went through great tectonic activity as the Colorado Plateau was uplifted during the final stages of the Flood. The sedimentary layers which make up the nine distinct layers of the third major division of the Canyon walls show that they were soft and unconsolidated when they bent, unlike the basement rocks which fractured. The sand grains in these sedimentary layers show no evidence that the material was brittle and rock-hard, and neither has the mineral cementing the grains been broken. Instead, the evidence points to the whole 4,000-feet (1.220 m) thickness of horizontal strata being still “plastic” when it was uplifted and bent. Once the floodwaters receded, the recently placed layers of sediment continued to harden into rock. As the floodwaters receded, the uplifted plateau acted like a dam wall, trapping the waters behind it. In a subsequent catastrophic event, this earthen dam ruptured, releasing a barrage of water that carved the Canyon itself.."

These are all part of the wonderful texts you can buy for your homeschooling journey. Buy them individually or as a set!

[Scandium]

Great resources, thanks!!

I will move to a farm in Montana and homeschool my kid! I plan on him becoming a congressman leading the science committee one day!

[Annamal]

BeginningWisdom, I don't think posting single quotations from scientists is a good way to summarise their religious beliefs (especially if they have said very different things elsewhere)

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)"


"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press"

[UnleashHell]

Great resources, thanks!!

I will move to a farm in Montana and homeschool my kid! I plan on him becoming a congressman leading the science committee one day!

LOL!!


but were libertarians created or did they evolve????

[zoltani]

Great resources, thanks!!

I will move to a farm in Montana and homeschool my kid! I plan on him becoming a congressman leading the science committee one day!

Friend, I admire your decision and hope that we have opened your eyes to the opportunities homeschooling can offer you and your kid. Remember, indoctrination must start at an early age!

[Gin1984]

Fossils are there because there was a great flood that killed everything on earth and buried them in sediment, creating the fossils. If you want evidence of this just look at the grand canyon, i mean how could a little tiny river cause that? Hint: it can't. it was the great flood as written in the BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!

* I learned this through self study of various creationism websites. Who needs teachers! Bah!

Are people really stupid enough to believe this? I guess I don't know enough religious people.

Yes they are.

[caliq]

Can someone explain to me why creationists think of the personal opinions of famous scientists as some sort of "weapon" against their evidence-backed scientific discoveries?

My sFIL tried to prove evolution false by saying that Darwin denounced his theory at the end of his life. 

Well, he sort of did, but only because his highly religious wife had become estranged from him and his work had torn their family apart.  He felt bad, and he was old, and dying.  Sorry, but I don't give a shit how he felt about his wife, it has zero impact on his scientific work.

What on earth do a scientist's personal religious beliefs or non-beliefs have to do with their research?  Especially considering the fact that a lot of the guys you quoted lived in a time period when denying the existence of God was a good way to get yourself killed or lose funding, AND the fact that several of them were deists, I really don't see what relevance those quotes have. 

[zoltani]

Fossils are there because there was a great flood that killed everything on earth and buried them in sediment, creating the fossils. If you want evidence of this just look at the grand canyon, i mean how could a little tiny river cause that? Hint: it can't. it was the great flood as written in the BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!

* I learned this through self study of various creationism websites. Who needs teachers! Bah!

Are people really stupid enough to believe this? I guess I don't know enough religious people.

Yes they are.

The point here, to me at least, is how dangerous "self study" can be.

Also, not only can parents (homeschool teachers?) indoctrinate their kids with their own beliefs, but they can point to "resources" such as these (as BeginningWisdom is doing) as some sort of proof of those beliefs.

A related story:
A coworker of mine told me that he told his kid that if a forest is growing here in the US then there is an identical forest in china on the other side! I guess he liked to mess with his kid. Problem was the kid came home from school very angry one day when she learned this was not correct!

[BeginninginWisedom]

BeginningWisdom, I don't think posting single quotations from scientists is a good way to summarise their religious beliefs (especially if they have said very different things elsewhere)

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)"


"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press"

 
Annamal, let me give you a few more quotes by Einstein.

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." Albert Einstein

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Albert Einstein

"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." Albert Einstein

 I don't believe Einstein believed in God of the Bible, I deduce from his quotes he believed in a creator, which a study of the universe should lead one to conclude. In your quote Einstein seems to be denying  a belief in a personal God and the God of the Bible. He does not deny in any of these quotes a creator, a supreme being.

Creation is called the natural revelation of God. " For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, nhave been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,7 in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him," Romans 1:20-21a


Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of God.He is the One the scriptures point to, the Messiah. He is God incarnate, God in the flesh, God with us. I do not believe Einstein believed in Christ as I do, but I do believe his studies brought him to conclude that there must be a God who made it all.


Also, UnLeashHell, the Bible was originally written in 3 languages , Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The entire Bible has been translated into 531 languages, 1 of which is English. Parts of the Bible have been translated into 2883 languages as of November 2014.

[zoltani]

BeginningWisdom, I don't think posting single quotations from scientists is a good way to summarise their religious beliefs (especially if they have said very different things elsewhere)

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)"


"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press"

 
Annamal, let me give you a few more quotes by Einstein.

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." Albert Einstein

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Albert Einstein

"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." Albert Einstein

 I don't believe Einstein believed in God of the Bible, I deduce from his quotes he believed in a creator, which a study of the universe should lead one to conclude. In your quote Einstein seems to be denying  a belief in a personal God and the God of the Bible. He does not deny in any of these quotes a creator, a supreme being.

Creation is called the natural revelation of God. " For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, nhave been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,7 in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him," Romans 1:20-21a


Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of God.He is the One the scriptures point to, the Messiah. He is God incarnate, God in the flesh, God with us. I do not believe Einstein believed in Christ as I do, but I do believe his studies brought him to conclude that there must be a God who made it all.


Also, UnLeashHell, the Bible was originally written in 3 languages , Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The entire Bible has been translated into 531 languages, 1 of which is English. Parts of the Bible have been translated into 2883 languages as of November 2014.

When exactly was the bible "written"? Was it during Jesus' life? After?

[Annamal]

BeginningWisdom, I don't think posting single quotations from scientists is a good way to summarise their religious beliefs (especially if they have said very different things elsewhere)

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)"


"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press"

 
Annamal, let me give you a few more quotes by Einstein.

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." Albert Einstein

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Albert Einstein

"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." Albert Einstein

 I don't believe Einstein believed in God of the Bible, I deduce from his quotes he believed in a creator, which a study of the universe should lead one to conclude. In your quote Einstein seems to be denying  a belief in a personal God and the God of the Bible. He does not deny in any of these quotes a creator, a supreme being.

The creator described by Einstein is indistinguishable from the big bang as currently understood by science.

It is not in good faith to attempt to use Einstein quotes to support creationism (which is pretty much the embodiment of an interventionist personal god).

His opinions on biology would not hold any weight given his area of science (nor do I think he ever expressed any opinions) but it is still verging on dishonest to drag him into the debate.

[UnleashHell]

religions can't even agree what books should be included. To use a document that can't even be agree on by those who claim its holy is at best foolish. To claim that its historically accurate or even a reliable guide to morality is a major failing on behalf of religions and religious people. Anyone using one version of the bible as the only accurate version of history and only book to refer to are failing their children horribly.

[HP]

• For people who do read this forum, my first concern is that homeschooling can hinder emotional development. I'll touch on it next, but interacting with lots of different kinds of other children and adults is, to me, a critical part of emotional development. Being able to handle interpersonal situations such as bullying (which, of course, I oppose), feeling like someone's being unfair, not understanding what the teacher is trying to tell you and having to get clarification; these are important and transferable to anything that you do in life. I'm concerned that if a child is raised and schooled like they're the center of the world (which to their parents, they are- and rightfully so!), they'll grow up thinking that they're the center of the world and that everything's hunky-dory, not realizing that many people struggle with many things. Not experiencing some degree of struggle on their own would seem to me like hindering their emotional development.
• Second is socialization. I (seriously) could be wrong here, but going to public school with black kids, brown kids, Muslim kids, Christian kids, and Jewish kids exposed me to a wide array of different cultures that you simply cannot get in a homeschool environment. Sure you can join sports teams or interest clubs, and those are great and I fully support them. But I think it's important to grow up around a lot of different kinds of people to get an appreciation that life is different depending on your point of view. Also, I think it's important for kids to interact with adults who aren't their parents and learn that adults can be wrong too.
• Third is expertise, especially at older levels. Elementary school I could definitely see, since (where I grew up) elementary classes were taught by 1 teacher who covered all the major subjects. Given the pretty high education level on these forums, most posters would probably be covered for that. But are you an expert in biology, chemistry, physics, comparative politics, history, economics, literature, music, and art? Because as the child gets older, he/she will need at least a fundamental base of knowledge in each of these subjects, and while you may be an awesome engineer, you owe it to your child to teach him/her about classic literature and world history too.

TL:DR- my issues with homeschooling are emotional development, socialization, and subject matter expertise. Please clarify/confirm my thoughts, as they are not meant to be inflammatory.

So, I was homeschooled pre-K through 12th.

1. Bullying, feeling like someone's being unfair, needing clarification on instructions-- these things all happened in my homeschool experience, too. The bullying didn't come from classmates but one of my parents (which is probably actually worse), kids always think their parents are being unfair at some point or another, and textbooks can be confusing. ;)

Re. the child being treated as the center of the universe-- You mentioned that you think of homeschooling as a conservative religious activity. This is often true. However, don't forget that conservative religious people ALSO often go out of their way to prove to their children that they are *not* the center of the universe. Infants get ignored while crying because their cries are considered manipulation. Young children get spanked for irritating their parents. My experience and observation has been that conservatively homeschooled children get the idea that they are not special and are indeed sinful and selfish and nothing without God beaten into them from a young age. Personally I feel this is even more damaging than growing up thinking the world revolves around you and then learning otherwise as an adult. But that's my bias, I freely grant.

2. Still on the conservative religious vein (which is not reflective of all homeschoolers, mind), you DO learn that there are people that are different than you, even if you only are allowed to socialize with those that are the same. You learn that through the process of deciding who is the same and who must be avoided. It's the wrong answer (avoid vs. celebrate differences), but the same lesson (people have different backgrounds and beliefs and cultures). Fortunately, when you grow up from this and go to college and start being taught to learn from differences instead of shun them, most children evolve to this kinder position (to the chagrin of their parents, and sparking "studies" about how often Christians "fall away" by going to college and books about how to not lose your faith in college, etc. lol). Some children don't change as they grow up, remaining extremists, but if the family culture at home is so strong as to hold against college and post-adolescent attempts to discover one's "true self", then I'd theorize that public school wouldn't have been a strong enough counter balance either.

Personally, as someone who plans on homeschooling her own children, my socialization concerns are less about creating diversity as they are about getting out of the house and doing real life stuff. Academics are hugely important to me, but so is being out and doing stuff alongside adults (not just kid's clubs and co-ops and whatnot). Unfortunately I was stuck at a desk in a dark room for most of my highschool years and the few social outlets I had (which were occasionally taken away as punishment for taking too long to do bookwork) were not the sort that prepared me for adult life. I experienced diversity when I was in college, but not until recently (five years after college) have I finally sort of felt like I can actually interact with others as an adult living an adult life.

3. This varies HUGELY from family to family. There are a lot of options these days, moreso than there have been in the past, with free classes/tutelage and higher education opportunities specifically targeted to homeschoolers. And then there are the families who think that higher education isn't important at best, and dangerous at worst. My own highschool education was spotty in some areas, but more due to my complete lack of interest than any possible academic lacksadaisical-ness from my parents. My mom was strong in the humanities and my dad was strong in the math and sciences, so their collective expertise was relatively well-rounded and they wanted us to go to college and prepared us for that (academically, we were better prepared than most other freshmen, I noticed, despite my spottiness in some subjects). My brother was interested and did extra math and science courses for fun. I, however, stopped doing science after 10th grade biology and barely squeaked through Algebra 2 by the time I graduated. (This was all that was required by the school district/state.) It wasn't that they were hard, I just thought they were boring, couldn't focus (I have ADD in all likelihood, but was never tested) and therefore got bad grades. Fast forward to college, and I still avoided science like the plague, grudgingly took the one math course I had to for my AAS (two year technical degree), but I didn't want to publicly fail, so I got decent to excellent grades depending on how much I liked the subject. Now, as an adult, I'm more interested in science and even read those textbooks for fun and may even go back to school in pursuit of a science degree. In some ways I feel like my homeschool experience was too regimented, too much mimicking of public school, and that didn't suit my learning style. For all those who get pulled out of public school because they're losing their curiosity and love of learning, for me, that happened at home anyway.

I am in favour of homeschooling being regulated more consistently state to state as I have witnessed some really egregious failure to educate amongst my childhood homeschool community even in a state that has decent regulations already. But there needs to be space for children whose learning style calls for looser structure, and more hands-on experiences, or whatever it is they need that the district can't or won't provide. I want to homeschool my own children partly because it's what I'm familiar with and know how to do, and partly because of lifestyle (we travel frequently). I am not afraid of jumping through hoops and regulations to make it happen, knowing that they're protecting other children's right to learn that would otherwise be at risk. Having seen the dark side of homeschooling myself, I have my own informed concerns, but feel like I know how to make a plan to account for and avoid the common pitfalls.