My knowledge of human biodiversity is a constant comfort in my family’s homeschooling efforts. I’ve seen many parents stress themselves out about academics, and the sheer plethora of materials and teaching methods are overwhelming. By necessity, women like my wife are usually the primary homeschooling parent, and one thing I’ve noticed about Christian homeschooling mothers is the deep sense of guilt and anxiety they seem to have concerning their homeschooling competence. Add to this the selection of extroverted “Perfect Mommy” (if you believe their blog) homeschool bloggers and it’s enough to make any mother feel inadequate. Unlike men, women don’t seem to be able to write off obsessive outliers as weirdos (men, for better or worse, have stronger egos typically), but rather doubt themselves and their decisions based on a blog post she read about how someone’s four year old is supposedly learning calculus with play-doh while doing copywork out of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
I try to comfort my wife with scientific reality. Among my conclusions:
1. All of these various methods of homeschooling, whether Charlotte Mason, Classical, Unit Study, whatever, NONE OF THEM have been subjected to a scientific controlled study documenting whether one or the other is better (and no study would likely show any difference between reasonably robust curriculums because of #2). All of the “evidence” presented is anecdotal and useless, or based on an elaborate system of untestable hypotheses about how learning is supposed to occur. My family chooses to do a more-or-less classical-based curriculum, but that’s based on a personal preference (specifically that my children are exposed to the heritage of their civilization and don’t become just narrow-minded Biblicists, i.e. Bible idolaters who reject the notion that all truth is God’s truth). I have no illusions that my choice of curriculum will make a difference in any child’s academic outcomes. I am also prepared to abandon our curriculum choice if it seems in the best interest of a child, the family or their mother.
2. Human Biodiversity: identical twin studies have pretty much proven that intelligence is about 70% genetically determined. Of the remaining 30%, about 70% of that is based on non-genetic developmental biology, i.e. proper maternal nutrition during pregnancy, breastfeeding, sufficient iron intake during childhood, a safe and stable home environment etc. That leaves 9% up for grabs for our homeschooling efforts, which is approximately the same maximum difference in IQ outcomes you see for identical twins (i.e. same genetics) raised in different homes. Do your best, as in all things, but there’s no need to shorten your life with anxiety over homeschooling. E. O. Wilson, the world’s foremost living biologist, put it this way, as summarized by Tom Wolfe:
Every human brain, he says, is born not as a blank tablet (a tabula rasa) waiting to be filled in by experience but as “an exposed negative waiting to be slipped into developer fluid.” You can develop the negative well or you can develop it poorly, but either way you are going to get precious little that is not already imprinted on the film. The print is the individual’s genetic history, over thousands of years of evolution, and there is not much anybody can do about it. Furthermore, says Wilson, genetics determine not only things such as temperament, role preferences, emotional responses, and levels of aggression, but also many of our most revered moral choices, which are not choices at all in any free–will sense but tendencies imprinted in the hypothalamus and limbic regions of the brain, a concept expanded upon in 1993 in a much–talked–about book, The Moral Sense, by James Q. Wilson (no kin to Edward O.).
Science is proving Calvinism, folks. There is no free will.
Don’t let the evolution word above scare you. That’s just Wilson’s worldview poking out (to the extent he is not talking about microevolution), not the nugget of his scientific work. Wilson is a brilliant Alabama native who did his research work on the world of ants. One of the results of Wilson’s work was his finding that ants exhibit extremely complex behaviors naturally, without any sort of training. This breakthrough research showed that genetics can not only determine physical characteristics of organisms, but also quite complex social behaviors, which culminated in Wilson’s theory of sociobiology.
Whether we believe it is by evolution or design, Wilson showed that genetics have a major impact on behavior. Wilson is hated by Marxists, for he destroys their social theory of the blank slate. If inequalities between people are due to inherent differences and not exploitation, then the whole Marxist theory collapses.
Interestingly, many Christians, under the influence of biology deniers like Ken Ham (who essentially denies microevolution in humans with his illogical and unbiblical assertion that we are all equal), have now adopted the Marxist theory of the mind’s development. I prefer to relax and know that God has taken care of the details in a genetic code that I and my children inherited through no effort of our own.
In short, you don’t have to “let go and let God.” You can let go because God already did. Your child’s genetic code has already been providentially decreed.
As I’ve covered elsewhere in my body of work, this reality of the overwhelming role of genetics also has implications for marriage and adoption. In short: genetics matter. Marry well and have your own children if you can. The Christians of Jane Austen’s world did not talk about “good breeding” because they were racist, atheist evolutionists. They simply noticed God’s design, in both animals and humans, before it was crimethink to recognize human differences.
3. Moral Development: This is the big area that your parenting efforts can impact. Again, this is subject to a Pareto effect. Assuming your family practices Christian morals, 80% of the benefit of homeschooling is that your children are not subject to the moral sewer of the public (and, for the most part, private) schools. 80% of what’s remaining will come from your direct instruction, discipline and your children’s observation of your moral behavior, and their genetics (see Dobson’s The Strong-Willed Child for references on how “difficult” children are hard coded that way from birth, and the distinction can only be mitigated by stronger parenting, not eliminated). When you walk out of a store with something you didn’t pay for, your child seeing you walking back in to pay for it is ten times more powerful than their memorizing the catechism questions on “Thou shalt not steal.” The Bible speaks of moral development as a casual, continuous and largely oral process of discussing God’s Law with your children just as a normal part of life. And this is yet another reason not to worry about their religious academic work. Make a reasonable choice based on your particular Christian beliefs and let go of the anxiety.
4. Political Economy and Worldview: This is an area where I feel a particular conviction. My comments above are based on an assumption of curriculum equivalence and reasonableness. Any popular homeschooling math book will probably be fine, as math is not a controversial subject. However, since so many Christians have huge gaping holes in their worldview when it comes to the Human Equality Delusion, and this delusion has such a serious impact on the structural rot of our society, I am largely on my own in developing antidotes to these delusions so my children can truly understand how the world works. I am working towards these ends. My best idea so far is to particularly avoid contemporary religious writers. When someone like John Piper writes with the authority of a minister of God, and presents ideas as true (for example, the Human Equality Delusion) which are not true and are outside the domain of his expertise, children can be influenced to believe bad ideas because they are coming from a religious source.
I would much prefer my children get their doctrine and instruction from theologians who lived before the Equality cult became predominant, or who actively fought it during their lifetimes. The best authors seem to be those from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, theologians like Warfield, Thornwell, Van Til, Dabney, Rushdoony and to some extent, even C.S. Lewis (Lewis’ epilogue to The Screwtape Letters, “Screwtape Proposes a Toast” skewers the Equality cult). While many earlier theologians were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment idea of the blank slate, these later men were exposed to a more developed theory of genetics and biology which better informed their worldviews, and had the luxury of digesting these truths of nature into a solidly Christian worldview before the current oppressive regime of political correctness took hold.
At some point I will publish a comprehensive list of recommended historical sources and textbooks for developing a proper worldview. Since my children are young (our oldest boy is eight), I do not want to recommend anything we haven’t yet used.
“Science is proving Calvinism, folks. There is no free will.”
yeah. that’s kinda funny, isn’t it?! calvinists got|get it! (^_^)
“(specifically that my children are exposed to the heritage of their civilization and don’t become just narrow-minded Biblicists, i.e. Bible idolaters who reject the notion that all truth is God’s truth).”
As opposed to what, your narrow-minded science idolatry?
All truth is God’s truth for God is himself truth. But the real question is: what is truth? Is it something that the Bible alone has a monopoly on, or can it be “discovered” through other means as well (e.g. science)?
“Science is proving Calvinism, folks. There is no free will.”
So does this mean it’s finally OK to believe what the Bible says, at least the parts that have been successfully proven by science? I’d hate to take God’s word for things without Almighty Science there to back me up…
You are quite proficient with the ad-hominuns there. See my previous comment. if you think the Bible has a “monopoly” on truth you are confused theologically. The Bible is all true but does not contain all truth, as God has also revealed Himself in nature, and the scientific method is demonstrably the best way of divining those natural truths. Intel doesn’t sit around and debate what might make their chips faster and then decide by consensus. They filter out the obvious bad ideas, and TEST, TEST, TEST the rest using the scientific method. The fact my phone is a supercomputer compared to the technology of 40 years ago shows the usefulness of the scientific method. The truths used to make an iPhone are God’s truths, and the undeniable success of science and technology in enabling man to exercise dominion over nature offers irrefutable proof in my view that this is the correct way to approach natural revelation.
That some men abuse this and take it too far and beyond the realm of science to deny God does not invalidate the legitimate accomplishments of science and technology.
“You are quite proficient with the ad-hominuns there.”
It’s ad-hominem. Specifically, what you’re accusing me of is abusive ad-hominem. And if you don’t like my name-calling of you, then perhaps you shouldn’t say ridiculous things like “Bible idolaters.” As they say, if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Also, why do you suddenly care about logic? Science makes its living on the logical fallacies of induction and asserting the consequent. Please read the link I provided in the other thread.
“if you think the Bible has a “monopoly” on truth you are confused theologically. The Bible is all true but does not contain all truth”
“ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be COMPLETE, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
On the other hand, the Apostle Paul contended that the wisdom of the world is foolishness.
The Westminster Confession correctly states that, “The WHOLE counsel of God, concerning ALL things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.”
The Word of God is all that is needed for faith and life, and nothing is it be added to this word, neither new revelations nor the scientific traditions of men.
“as God has also revealed Himself in nature, and the scientific method is demonstrably the best way of divining those natural truths.”
This is an assertion. Show it. You make quite the leap when you go from the general revelation of Romans 1 (which, by the way, we only KNOW because special revelation tells us so!) to “science is the best way of divining those natural truths.” Show it! Is this is scripture somewhere? Has this assertion been proven by testing and experimentation? How do you know that science is reliable at all, let alone the best way of divining so-called natural truths? Don’t just say it, show it!
“The fact my phone is a supercomputer compared to the technology of 40 years ago shows the usefulness of the scientific method. ”
There you go again, confusing USEFULNESS with truth. Is success the measure of truth?
“The truths used to make an iPhone are God’s truths,”
What truths? How do you know this? Has science proven this? Do you know of a passage of scripture which states unequivocally that truth is used to build iPhones and that those truths are God’s truths? How do you know any of this?
Truth is propositional. Science, at best, can only make evaluations of the material.
This is the real problem with extremist suppositional theology. It collapses upon itself into an existential circular-argument knot. What you’re actually idolizing is self, namely your own ability to interpret the Bible correctly. By shutting off any kind of natural revelation, you prevent your theological errors from ever being corrected by evidence; the same process, BTW, can shield your theological errors from any kind of reason. If the Bible is what you say it is (and people do disagree legitimately about many things in the Bible), and the Bible is always true, then nothing can ever correct your errors. For example, you have some of these presuppositional folks who reject the idea of a heliocentric solar system. Their reasoning: not a literal denial that the Earth does in fact orbit the sun, but rather a mamby-pamby existential argument about how in space there’s really no way to define motion, i.e. it’s just as valid to say the Earth is standing still and the sun is moving around it, rather than the obvious conclusion that the Earth revolves around the sun because the greater gravitational pull and mass of the sun compels the Earth to do so.
You can always retreat to an existential trench and deny people’s arguments. You want to argue over things like the definitions of words. You’re a Wordist, and I don’t take anything you say seriously, because you are not interested in serious debate. You can always argue over definitions to avoid argument.
You admit science is useful. You obviously own a computer. You just want to argue over what “truth” means. Navel-gazing is not a strategy of dominion. Getting our heads right about reality is. Winners focus on results, not rhetoric.