We began our story a couple of days ago of our encounter with another homeschool blog with a decidedly evolutionary point of view. They weren’t happy that we had made a post dealing with the subject of evolution, and said as much in a post.
Our position, of course, is that Darwinian evolution is false, and that Biblical creation offers the only sound explanation for the multitude of life on earth.
The title of their post was “New Homeschooling Blog. Blech.” The author indicated that our blog “annoyed” her (hence our title). Brian replied to this post, and it began a series of exchanges that we wanted to share.
Here is an excerpt from the next reply to Brian’s comment from Day By Day Discoveries, the evolutionary blog, with the slashes (//) denoting a quote from the comment Brian had made earlier:
“I think the fact that I disagree with your viewpoint is exactly the reason I should single it out. Or rather, that viewpoint in the context of your blog. If your views on evolution had appeared on a blog with a different purpose, say, a record of your family’s homeschooling, I wouldn’t have said anything. That it appeared on a blog that seems meant to offer advice to the general audience of homeschoolers and new homeschoolers in particular is what troubled me. If you’re espousing a very particular worldview then you are in fact, not serving the general homeschooling crowd. Secular homeschoolers, homeschoolers of other religions and non-creationist christian homeschoolers will be excluded by your views. That’s not a bad thing. We all have the right to speak to a specific audience. But if that’s your intent then let the design and title of your blog reflect that. At the moment, it doesn’t.
As for sniping at each other, I don’t have a big problem with it. I’m not sure we really are, “all in this together,” all the time. Some groups in the homeschooling community for instance support the HSLDA which excludes gays and unschoolers. We do harm to each other and maybe the sniping will at least draw attention to how we do harm.
I also resent the use of “Christian Worldview” to describe things that most definitely are not a universal Christian worldview. Creationism is a belief of specific denominations of the Christian church and quite a few of us, most likely most of us in fact, don’t subscribe to that belief. I will snipe when I notice that kind of co-opting of terms going on.
//A final thought: Why is it that the vast majority of universities, which are supposed to be schools of free thought, won’t even allow DEBATE on the scientific merits of evolution? If the evidence is so overwhelmingly in their favor, they should welcome such a discussion.//
If you’re going to make a claim about the majority of universities then you need to cite a source to support that. I suspect that if what you said is indeed the case then it’s likely for the same reason that they don’t debate the veracity of Atomic theory. It’s so obvious and basic to science that there’s no need. However, it might also be for the reason I generally don’t debate the issue anymore. Before the debate can even be had there are generally a slew of mistakes and misunderstandings to clear up. Like what a scientific theory actually is. Like the fact that evolution does not explain the origins of life (”a life form creating itself,” is the concern of abiogenisis). Like the fact that both evolution and Natural Selection have clear definitions (not reflected in your comment) that need to be adhered to. Only then can the logical and mathematical stuff be gotten to. But it’s a long journey just to get to that point.
There is no need to debate anyway. There are many excellent resources out there that present the evidence in a much better way then some Anglican housewife in rural Canada. Talk Origins is the grand daddy with point-by-point refutations of creationist claims. Understanding Evolution has excellent resources for teaching evolution and great explanations of the process of natural selection. I’m sure every local library has a good selection of science texts and popular science books on the matter. The information is all out there”.
Here is Brian’s reply (see if you can spot what he did wrong):
So it’s OK for you to espouse a certain world-view in your homeschool blog, but not OK for me to do the same.
You’re implying that I should put some kind of a warning label on our blog to indicate it has a Christian/Creationist viewpoint as if it would somehow be toxic for general homeschoolers to read.
Sorry to inform you, but the evolutionary world-view is not the “neutral” or default position of the homeschooling world. There is no such thing as a “neutral” position.
I have just as much right as you to present what I believe to be the truth without wrapping it in some kind of “warning label” to avoid “offending” someone.
Our blog certainly does not deal exclusively with evolution vs. creation debates, but we certainly don’t shy away from addressing the issue.
Since when does a blog have to have a name that reflects every topic it deals with? That’s ridiculous. Your reasoning is faulty. We deal with ALL kinds of home schooling topics, one of which happens to be evolution.
Many home schoolers we know of have decided to homeschool their children mainly because they want their children to escape the public school emphasis on evolution. Many, if not most of our readers do not agree that evolution is true, so it’s a topic we cannot ignore.
It all goes back to what I said earlier–that evolutionists typically are hostile to anyone that challenges the validity of evolutionary theory.
And you conveniently omitted the main point of my previous comment:
“I think it’s only fair that evolutionists start offering some real scientific evidence to support their theory if they are so convinced they’re correct. If evolution is an entirely natural process, as is claimed, then there should be abundant amounts of observable, testable evidence that can be verified by experimentation”.
I challenge you to quit hiding behind the excuse that you don’t want to debate the issue because “the information is all out there”. If you can’t explain for yourself why you believe evolution is true, other than the fact that many claim it is, then you have no right to claim I’m teaching falsely.
Let me offer an example. Let’s say we have a population of grasshoppers, and a farmer sprays a pesticide on them. 99.8% of them are killed, and the .2% that survived did so because they had a recessive trait that allowed them to be resistant to that pesticide.
They then reproduce, and eventually the whole population of grasshoppers is resistant to the pesticide. Did this occur because they “evolved” a new gene? No, it was already present in the population as a recessive gene, but when conditions changed (the pesticide kill-off) it became the dominant trait.
This is Natural Selection. No new function that was not already seen among the insect population was created–it was already present in the gene pool of grasshoppers.
No new form was created, either. We started out with a grasshopper, and we ended up with a grasshopper. This would be considered micro-evolution, the kind of changes we see in the present.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is what evolutionists talk about when they claim a natural process is responsible for all the different species we see today.
Evolutionists claim this process happened in the past, supposedly resulting in entirely new forms or functions. In other words, they claim that NEW genetic information was created.
However, we do NOT see this occurring in the present. If macro-evolution were an entirely natural process, there is no valid reason why it would not be occurring at the present time.
No macro-evolution has ever been observed to have occurred, even under controlled laboratory conditions. Yet evolutionists claim it has happened billions of times in an UNCONTROLLED environment.
So understandably, I believe you’re confusing the two types of evolution, like many people do nowadays. I used to make this same mistake myself until I did some independent study on my own.
You don’t believe (macro)evolution is true because you can produce some of the “overwhelming” amount of evidence in its favor. You believe it because you WANT to. And that’s fine, just don’t try to say that because it has been proven, because it certainly hasn’t.
So you say you don’t have a problem with sniping at each other. How professional…
Please explain how our blog is “doing harm” to others and how sniping at each other will help. I’m confused.
Anyone is entitled to read what we post on our blog. We don’t exclude evolutionists, gays, unschoolers, or any other group. They may not agree with what we say, and if so, fine. They don’t need to continue reading
I find it puzzling that someone can claim to be a Christian, and yet believe in evolution. Please show me where in the Bible it talks about evolution.
I can cite numerous passages referring to Creation (particularly Genesis 1). Jesus himself spoke of creation, not evolution (Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:4, 6:28-30), and John 1:3 says of Jesus, “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made”.
I guess Jesus was just poorly informed and didn’t know any better…
Your comment that “most likely most of us in fact, don’t subscribe to that belief” (creationism) is probably true for your readership, but certainly not for homeschoolers in general.
Homeschoolers are certainly not homogenous in their views, but from my experience are far more in favor of Biblical creation than the average person (who has usually fallen under the influence of the public schools dogma).
If your “Christian Worldview” does not include creationism, I have to wonder what Bible you’re reading. So if anyone is “co-opting” the term Christian Worldview it is the evolutionary camp, not creationists.
As for my comment about the universities, please show me just one example of a college where evolutionary theory is not the predominant teaching, and where discussion of its scientific validity is welcomed. Just one (not a private Christian college, but unfortunately, some of those have also fallen for it).
There IS a need for debate. It’s not good enough for you to hide behind the “everyone says it’s true, so it must be true” mantra about evolution, or to split hairs on a particular definition.
I’ve already covered the difference between Natural Selection and (Macro)evolution, so I encourage you to do some unbiased research on your own to see if what I say is true.
I like what Heather said: “Not only are not all homeschoolers the same, I find that rarely any are the same. Just about the only thing that homeschoolers can claim they share is the belief that homeschooling is the best option for their family”.
How true. Let us both keep that in mind as we choose how we treat home schoolers who may happen to have a different point of view than our own.
We may not agree on controversial issues, but I still think we do the homeschooling community a disservice by sniping at each other. I’d like to think that we all have higher ideals and better manners than the average publicly-schooled families”.
This is Brian. Did you spot what I did wrong on this particular reply?
Sounded like it had a gruff tone to it, didn’t it? Condescending, maybe? Like I was upset or something. Well, OK, I have to admit I was at the time, but I should not have let it come through in my writing. 10 lashes with a wet mouse cord for me.
We told you that you would learn something about debating by reading these posts. You just learned how not to set the proper tone for a reply to criticism. While I believe I made my point on several issues, I did not do it as humbly nor as emotionally neutral as I should have.
When you reply as I did, it detracts from the factual arguments you are trying to make, and invites a negative reply from whomever you are debating. So while some of my arguments may have been valid, it was not written in a neutral tone nor framed in the proper attitude that I expect of myself as a Christian.
The idea here is to concentrate on the subject that is being debated, rather than the person you’re debating. Personal attacks, a gruff tone, sniping, or negative comments only invite the same from the other party, and pretty soon the whole thing spins out of control.
It’s best to stick to a matter-of-fact tone and keep the emotional stuff to a minimum. And don’t say “You (evolutionists, creationists, or whoever) always/never (do some negative thing/do some positive thing)”. Nobody ALWAYS or NEVER does some certain thing. So skip it and save yourself a lot of trouble. Trust me.
We’ll see what happened next after Brian’s comment when we get together again.
14 users commented in " Little Known Ways To Unknowingly Annoy Other Homeschool Blogs Part 3-Can You Spot the Error? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackPart of the conflict I see in the homeschooling world is concerning words and names. Secular homeschoolers are upset (and rightly so IMO) that conservative Christian HSers have ‘gotten all the attention’ in the past from the media, but the problem is attempting to make it a conspiracy on the part of Christian HSers. That’s going a bit too far.
Just the word ‘Christian’ means alot of different things, so I can’t use that term anymore?
Then if you name your blog or publication something general, there are folks who feel that you are trying to represent all homeschoolers with your viewpoint. So my blog should be named “Conservative Baptist Young Earth Creationist Homeschooling Wife and Mother Wearing Dresses Without a Television”? I don’t think so.
You are right in your conclusion, though, that attacking someone’s character instead of dealing with the issue is not productive. And the only thing that most HSers agree on is that HSing is a great endeavor.
I think the difference between our blogs Sunnie and Brians is that ours are personal blogs while he’s claiming to offer a service. If he’s offering a service, he should be specific about who’s he’s offering it to. The concequences of not making it clear show up in the comments of a previous post in this series where a subscriber asks Brian to unsubscribe her because she thought this site was about information and support and she felt that was not what she was getting with the posts on creationism. Or actually it may have been the posts related to me.
Dawn,
I understand what you mean- a box of corn flakes should say “Corn Flakes” and not “cocoa Pebbles”. And taking one’s audience for granted is not a good business or communications practice.
But I have read quite a few scathing comments (not addressing you specifically) about ANY conservative Christian homeschooler who doesn’t immediately identify themselves as such, and then just as many comments when a conservative Christian does identify themselves- yer derned ifn’ ya’ do and derned ifn’ ya’ don’t- KWIM?
Just as the word “Woman” in my blog title indicates ‘woman without distinction’ and not ‘women without exception’, I don’t purport to represent all women everywhere in the universe, and yet I feel free to use the word ‘woman’ in my blog title.
So when I read ‘homeschool’ in the title of a magazine, book, or blog, I understand that the authors are going to present what they believe to be the best approach, the best products and resources, and what they have learned based on their perceptions and experiences. I never take for granted that the exchange of information is going to be completely free of bias.
I don’t limit myself to the blogs of conservative Christians either. I realize that I can glean from the experiences and insights of others who are polar opposites of my own philosophical or religious beliefs. I don’t have a heart attack when I read a homeschooling blog that doesn’t have “Bi-sexual Evolutionist Vegetarian” in the title to warn me. :p
I am not ‘taking sides’ on this issue, because I can see the validity of Brian’s position and the point of Dawn’s objection. I am just pointing out what I have seen in the few months that I have been blogging, so here I am admitting that my perceptions are limited to the blogs I have read, and are not meant to represent the opinions of all homeschoolers, all women, or all Christians.
You mean you’re not just going to realize I’m absolutely right on this issue? Geez…The nerve.
I can see some merit in identifying yourself as Christian, or creationist, or evolutionist, or whatever belief system you have. But I can also see that it really shouldn’t be necessary to do so because the reader will eventually find out what the writer’s slant is over time.
While we certainly appreciate all those who visit our blog and read our material, it’s not as if this is a marriage between the writer and reader, to use a metaphor.
If the reader of any blog eventually sees something he or she disagrees with, and it becomes distressing, they can simply move on to something more to their liking. We try our best to provide useful information and be transparent about our beliefs, but we obviously can’t be all things to all homeschoolers.
A lot depends on the attitude of the reader. One may regularly visit a blog that holds an opposing viewpoint, specifically so they can make comments to counter the views they believe are incorrect.
Others only like to visit blogs that hold the same views they do, and they don’t enjoy the debate between opposing sides of an issue.
Some readers don’t mind browsing and reading blogs from any viewpoint. They may enjoy the idea of not knowing beforehand what they find, kind of like a walk through the woods.
Others may not want to read or even see anything that doesn’t dovetail perfectly with their philosophies or ideas. And most of us probably fall somewhere between these two extremes.
Obviously, there are exceptions, such as pornography, where we would definitely want to know what the content was ahead of time before we even opened up the site on our screen.
Personally, I would not be offended if I found a link to a homeschool blog, and after arriving and reading some posts, discovered that it had an evolutionary viewpoint. If I didn’t agree with what was being said, I could comment as such if I felt I had a valid argument, or I could simply leave. But that’s just me.
So in my opinion, unless there is something about the content that violates standards of common decency, or is otherwise malicious, there should not necessarily be a need to identify one’s view by a headline, URL, or other identifier, though it has its place.
On a side note, we really hadn’t intended to spend anywhere near this much time on the question of origins, even though it is an important topic. So we can understand if someone thinks that we’re hitting it heavier than they may have originally expected.
The exchange that took place between Dawn and I came along and appeared to be a good opportunity to address not only the origins question and give readers an insight into the arguments commonly used on both side of the issue, but also as a case study of sorts for debating opposing viewpoints.
We feel that it’s important for all homeschoolers, regardless of their beliefs and viewpoints, to be able to intelligently discuss an issue and logically present their arguments, whether it be on a blog, a forum, a formal debate, or just in everyday life.
Let me state up front that I’ve loved this heated discussion. We’re firmly a creationist Christian family, but in our home education we’ve endeavoured to always present the “Where Did We Come From?” argument from as many angles as we can find, in order to promote thinking skills. This discussion is perhaps the best science curriculum we could possibly have stumbled across on the subject - so thank you, on that score, to both Brian and Dawn.
The aspect of this discussion that has puzzled me from the start, is why Dawn even felt it necessary to comment on the contents of someone else’s blog. It’s Brian’s blog. Mostly it’s not particularly relevant to me (aimed at educating kids much younger than mine), but I’ve stayed subscribed for the occasional gems such as this discussion. If you read something and don’t like it, why not just move on? Why stop to spit?
Personally, I love the mix of ideas that is to be found in home education circles, but I retain my right to think my own thoughts, and expect others to do the same. Similarly, I respect the right of others to think as they choose, but I also expect that they will afford me the same respect.
My disappointment with the above post was that it was so far “off topic”. Thank you Brian for apologising for your vitriol.
In Dawn’s post, I was reminded of the lion-tamer story. You’ve doubtless heard it. Why does a lion tamer use a chair? Because the four leg posts give the lion four points to focus on, and he’s less able to focus on the tamer as being the prey. Now, I don’t know how accurate that story is, but it seems to me that’s what happened here.
Anna - Why didn’t I just walk by? I do all the time with personal blogs with similar views. In fact I regularily visit some blogs of creationist homeschoolers and enjoy them (yes of course, except for the creationist bits :)).
I actually did a couple of times. But I kept coming back to thinking about this and finally blogged about it. I really do have an issue with the general look of this blog as opposed to the specific audience it serves. I’m not going to rehash that though. I have my view, Brian has his on that.
The disadvantage Brian is at, and maybe you, is that you haven’t had the experience secular homeschoolers often had (though I can imagine comparable ones). There’s nothing more frustrating then finding a promising site that looks like something you can reccomend to others and then finding out they have a long post on dominionism or don’t sell one blessed science book that doesn’t involve creationism. I think, in fact, that my first thought when I found this blog was, whoo hoo! This looks like it might be a new secular resource I can forward to people I know. And then I realized it wasn’t what I thought. And I knew there would be others who had the same disapointment. Maybe it was that promise of a resource that really set me off.
There was also the Christian Worldview point and that is a really important one. I understand that there are denominations of Christians who are inerrant literalists but there are a great deal of us that aren’t and it simply isn’t right or honest that views that reflect only a small part of the Christian family are touted as “Christian”. I face the same challenge with curriculum and am in the absurd position of knowing most Christian curriculum is completely unsuitable for my family precisely because of MY particular Christian worldview. And I really need to speak out about that because the default assumption is becoming that because I’m a Christian homechooling her kids I believe in creation or ID or am an evangelical or am waiting for rapture.
That discussion about the co-opting of the label Christian isn’t even going on in Christian homeschooling circles and it’s about time it did.
I don’t regret the post though. The language and tone was a little strong for me, I’m generally the middle-ground type person but frankly, this time getting a littel snarky worked well. It sparked some good posts and interesting points.
Reflecting on my frustrations in the above post, maybe this is the dialogue that might start getting some things discussed in Christian circles. It might be interesting if we could reframe this and construct a dialogue Brian. No, not a debate about evolution, but around wider issues and divides between Christian…I don’t know.
I’m glad we’re getting some good discussion mileage out of this topic, and it’s interesting to see how it has expanded to an even broader perspective about how secular and creationist homeschoolers view each other.
I’m beginning to better understand Dawn’s frustrations with having a difficult time finding secular resources. I didn’t realize that the creationist viewpoint is perceived as being so dominant in the homeschooling world, at least by those who hold the evolutionary perspective.
And I’m beginning to warm up to her idea of possibly identifying ourselves as Christian or creationist; not in a big, blaring headline, but perhaps a subhead or sidebar. I hadn’t considered that not doing so could cause an issue with homeschoolers who don’t ascribe to creationism.
We do have a category named “Christian Worldview”, but apparently this is not specific enough for some who consider themselves Christians, but are evolutionists rather than creationists.
There are likely other conservative Christian homeschoolers who don’t realize the concerns and frustrations of non-creationist Christian and secular homeschoolers, so Dawn’s idea of a dialogue certainly has merit.
As a creationist, I would of course love for all evolutionists to ’see the light’ and realize creation is true, but I’m sure the evolutionists would like to see just the opposite
So we would probably have to agree to disagree on that issue and rather concentrate more on how we can help each other with the primary task of educating our children the way we feel is best. After all, that’s why we’re homeschooling in the first place, isn’t it?
The agreeing to disagree is valuable. :)I know I let myself adopt the polarized default in this when this whole episode started but wouldn’t there be more value in talking and exchanging ideas despite our differences and learning even to talk about our differences without the expectation of change or the burden of thinking the other party is a nimwitted fool?
Is it time to hold hands and sing “Kum Ba Yah”? :p
There are as many ‘definitions’ of ‘homeschool’ as there are for ‘Christian’, and even ‘Baptist’. I read a post the other day where someone said that unschoolers aren’t ‘homeschoolers’, and that was news to me. WhadoIknow?
The Bible talks about folks getting stuck on words and names in the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians, and Paul basically says “While you’re arguing about whose team you’re on, are you getting anything done?”
It isn’t my job to change people, that’s God’s job, and He really hates it when folks sit down at His desk, KWIM? I can present what I believe is the truth, but the convincing and conversion takes place in the heart where I can’t reach. I have found that when I let that idea go, I am free to talk to so many people about so many things, and yet without compromising my own beliefs.
On the issue of naming blogs etc… I think it is helpful when the title/subtitle or front page info gives a good reflection of the blog’s purpose and tone, but you can only do so much. What issues are important to one home educator, for instance- evolution/creationism, is not as important to another as finding info on Charlotte Mason or unschooling, so they’ll come to your blog looking to see if you are going to provide help for them and their interests or beliefs. It shouldn’t take them an hour to find out what service your webpage is going to provide, but they can’t expect all possible nuances to be emblazoned on the cover either.
Wow, what a lot transpires in 24 hours!
Thanks to Dawn, Brian and Sunnie for your additional insights on all of this.
The one additional comment I’d make is (gasp! ;-P didn’t expect this!)to agree with Dawn about something.
As a Christian, I’ve rarely taught using Christian curriculum. Why? It’s so cheesy, for the most part, and full of worse propaganda than wartime newsreels! I’m actually trying to teach my child to think for herself here. That means presenting her with truth and lies and helping her develop discernment. She has a very confident, articulate friend who goes to school, who is competitively able to argue what she’s been taught in school. Dig any deeper than the populist spiel though, and she’s on shaky ground.
Why does this friend believe what she believes? Because she’s told it’s what she should believe. Why does my daughter believe what she believes - even though she’s as yet less skilled at arguing it confidently? Because she’s looked at the subject from a number of angles and reached a conclusion that makes sense to her. The latter is by far the best outcome, according to our family’s philosophy of home education.
And that’s what I’ve loved about this discussion - these are real people’s opinions, expressed by articulate, thoughtful people - what does one do with that? Does it sway existing beliefs? If so, in what way?
The other thing I love - respect and admire, too - is that a place of mutual regard is being worked towards. That, too, is a great life lesson for my daughter, and I thank all participants (esp. Brian and Dawn) for that, too.
I should just point out that the aforementioned (overheard by me) discussion between my daughter and her friend had nothing to do with evolution or creation. It was about politics - another consistently hot topic!
[…] gotten some very interesting and unexpected comments on this series, especially in yesterdays installment. It’s almost funny in a way how the whole thing played […]
Leave A Reply