Ken Ham is ... EXPELLED

I think they can perform just as well as anyone, first because the ToE is usually a small portion of the biology class even in public schools, and second because a kid can learn the mechanism of RM+NS without necessarily believing that it can amount to anything. (of course, this last one depends on if the parents don't think evolution is the devil, which it isn't)And, if you ever remember your biology classes, you don't really need to believe in evolution to know how a cell works, or how dna is being transcripted, etc.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

No, I'm saying that from a theoretical point of view, I see no reason to think homeschooled christian children have no reason to score less in biology then anybody else.This is quite independant of any surveys of what happens in reality, which doesn't care of any theorisation we can have. You think that learning the mechanism of evolution, without accepting that this can produce the diversity in life we see is ''faking it'' ? So learning about something, without believing it, is faking it ?And when I study my physics classes at university (which is science), am I ''faking it'' because I think the ToE is false ?What sort of logic are you using ?Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

You are misrepresenting what is happening here. They are learning the evidence, but openly reject the explanation of the evidence, ie the theory.This is perfectly legitimate, in that a theory isn't an absolute truth; it is a human construct to try and explain the data, and if someone feels it does not adequatly do so he is free to think something else. I think so too, but it was only to highlight how equivocating ''the theory of evolution'' and ''Science'' was poor logic. But, if we take me for example, I am not rejecting ''science'', I am not rejecting the scientific method, or even methodological naturalism. I am simply rejecting a scientific theory.And guess what ? It's perfectly normal. In my own field, if I ever go on and actually become a physicist, it will be expected of me that I accept and reject certain theories. I will still be expected to understand string theory, for example, but understanding it and still rejecting it (I'm not saying I do) does not equate to ''secretly rejecting the evidence'', ''faking'' or ''rejecting science'' ...

Yes and I think this can be seen when high-school biology teachers get confronted by over-zealous creationists teenagers in their class. They tell them ''I don't expect you to accept or believe it, but I do expect you to understand it'' See previous reply to Ringo which deals with this. I see nothing 'unscientific' about someone not adhering to a theory. Of course, this person must also have valid reasons and evidence to back-up his disbelief, which I think I have.

Is this really what happens ? Do parents really present evolution as ''the boogey man'' ? Do you have any evidence to back this up, or is it just your personnal feeling about this ?Because from my point of view, at least from my own personnal experience this is not the approach taken at all, and in fact christians have no problem studying in biology related subjects. My brother is in med school, and I have another friend who just finished her PhD in neurobiology and is now doing her post-doc partially at Harvard. Both christians and YEC ... And yet, when someone saying he doesn't believe in the ToE is equated to him being ''against science'' or other such outlandish claims, does it make it seem like the ToE has itself become a sacred cow, albeit a scientific one, that no one can question ?When you publicly declare of a theory that anyone who disbelieves it is either ignorant, fool or wicked, does it not become an attempt to put this theory beyond questioning, is this not an attempt to discourage doubts about it ? You could write a paper about it, but my guess would be it wouldn't pass peer-review.