I ask because as a mother to homeschoolers I CAN NOT take the risk of hindering their education and potentially ruining their chances of attending BYU or other universities by teaching them information that will be detrimental as they (in the relatively distant future) take their ACT and SAT exams. I understand that you have an agenda with proving the flood existed, but your teachings are so outside the norm I doubt even BYU-Idaho would accept children who’ve only been taught UM and without a basic knowledge of plate tectonics or how the earth was formed (magmacore.) This is why I am so adamant about finding out if this is peer-reviewed. I trust that you have the best intent, but that isn’t enough. I need to know that other scientists not connected to your institution or with any other bias towards your results have also come to the same conclusions and that all this information has been published in a reputable journal.
The Universal Model has only been published since October of 2016 and is in the process of expanding out to the world. And as you have said, this work is outside of the norm and many discoveries found in the UM go in contrast with those of the scientific establishment. The hope is that it is only a matter of time until these new truths become part of the everyday learning for students around the world.
To answer your questions I suggest you read question 9 on the Q&A page of the website https://universalmodel.com/about/qa/. There you will understand why the UM is not published in a journal.
Rose, the UM has no other agenda other than to show the public what the scientific observable evidence actually shows and then allow them to choose for themselves which theory or model the evidence supports. The UM’s purpose is to discover new natural laws or statements of truth, not to prove the existence of the flood. You are correct, if you were to teach only UM principles and Models to your children and then send them to take the ACT or SAT tests you can most likely expect them to fail the science portions on those tests. If a child’s goal is to attend a university that requires good scores on either of these tests I would highly advise they receive education on the false theories that are being taught as fact in public schools today since questions about them will more than likely be what is on those tests.
Personally, I feel that until these false theories being taught as fact are removed from education period I would teach and show the physical scientific evidences for both the modern science theories, there aren’t many, and the UM models so that they can decide for themselves and be prepared for all that the science world has to offer right now. Being a homeschool Mom myself, my desire has been to lead my children in their discovery of truth and show them how fun and exciting learning can be. It is not fun to learn false theories but if they want to know the difference between truth and error in science or be prepared for standardized tests to attend a university that teaches these concepts, then for sure they should learn the basics of what those that support these theories believe.
It has been simple for my elementary age children when shown the evidences for let’s say a magma centered Earth verses a water centered one, which one makes more sense based on the observable scientific evidence available. It doesn’t take a college degree or even a high school degree to understand the truth in simple scientific concepts like how rocks are made, where the Earth gets its energy field, how auroras are made, how fossils are made, why the speed of light isn’t constant, why the sun is hotter in its outside corona than its surface, I could go on and on. 🙂 My point is yes, sending your kids out into a world, or into an exam, where scientific truth and error both exist before you have allowed them to see both sides, is a huge disservice to them.
For a completely different idea… I recently visited Meteor Crater in Arizona, and the gift shop handed me a free packet (fridge magnet, DVD, etc.) for filling out a line on a form giving some basic info about our home school (name, general location, grade levels taught, etc.). Many others had filled out the form before me, and under “grade levels” they had put “college”.
I attended BYU, and I loved the feeling of being there, and I loved several of the classes I took. But as my wife and I have studied and learned more and more about home schooling (especially the Thomas Jefferson Education method), I’ve become less and less enamored with university style of educating (for myself personally–but we’re all different, so for other people, I’m sure it’s exactly what they need and love). Instead, I’ve undertaken my own “love of learning” and “scholar phase” by reading voraciously everything I can get my hands on (mostly non-fiction about the Constitution, America as the Promised Land, proper role of government, LDS Church History, and linguistics, all of which is odd considering my BS and MS in Computer Science). Most of what I learned for my career could easily have been picked up through books and online, and the rest–the wisdom versus just the knowledge–could have come through one good mentor.
I know in this country in the last century or so we’ve really turned the focus away from mentors and apprenticeships and toward university degrees, but that isn’t the only (or necessarily the best) way. I’ve applied for a lot of different jobs over the decade and a half that I’ve been working as a software engineer, and almost all the job applications always indicate a college degree OR equivalent experience (Intel is the one exception–they’re really big on PhDs for some reason), and no one has ever cared or asked on the job what degrees (if any) I have–they just care that I can demonstrate my mastery of the required skills.
Anyway, just some food for though, hopefully. I know sometimes we judge others who don’t have an official diploma/degree, but it’s just a piece of paper.
No, the UM has not been peer-reviewed by actual scientists, and its concepts are not accepted. Normal scientists would typically consider the UM to be a particularly bizarre incarnation of pseudoscience. To get just a tiny sampling of what normal scientists would think is wrong with the UM, see the following forum thread:
BYU asks applicants to take the ACT, which has a science section, so your kids might really botch that if they are UM believers. I think BYU will also accept the SAT, which does not have a science section, but most students at BYU have to take classes called Physical Science 100 and Biology 100. I teach PS 100, and I can tell you unequivocally that a UMer would be at a terrible disadvantage in there.
Professor of Geological Sciences
Brigham Young University
Again, the UM has always expected this exact response from the scientific community. They will rigorously defend their beliefs, but belief will always fail when put to the test:
Q11: Are people going to really believe in the UM?
A: True science is not about opinion. It is about demonstrable fact that only comes from empirical observation.
Q9: Why is the Universal Model not written and published from within the scientific establishment?
A: Today, most new scientific theories and papers submitted through the scientific establishment undergo a rigorous review process where establishment-trained peers decide whether the content is worthy and within the confined views of their respective field. In the past, many large changes in science through new discovery have not come from within the scientific establishment, but from individuals that used an outside perspective. New theories and papers within the establishment are typically complicated, built on old theories and written to the well-schooled peer groups that continue to believe in the old theories. The Universal Model is not about complicated theories; it is about simple models that demonstrate new natural laws, which are observable in nature. This method of science is a return to the original way scientific inquiry and study was conducted centuries ago.
Q10: How big of an impact will the UM have on the scientific world and the public?
A: Scientific truth that does not come from a well respected source always takes time for many of those in science circles to accept. History has shown us that sometimes science cannot accept the truth for many years until the older scientists pass. Younger investigators have always been more open to new ideas and evidences. The public is an entirely different matter. Whereas, common sense has been ‘thrown out’ of many establishment scientists’ minds today, most alternative scientists and the public recognize error when they see it and do not accept theories that have not been proven with empirical fact. Keeping this in mind, the UM should eventually have an extremely large impact on society and the scientific establishment and cause a revolution in science. This is something that no one living has experienced and is hard for us to understand until it happens.
My experience has been that the UMers are engaging in self-fulfilling prophecy. They have “always expected” that regular scientists will reject their claims because they are closed-minded, and so when regular scientists do reject their claims, it must be due to their closed-mindedness! After all, the UMers “always expected” it, so it’s pretty much a scientific prediction that came true!
Again, please take a look at the forum discussion I linked. They can’t even take the most obvious criticisms in stride. They seem like nice people who simply aren’t very good at facing challenges to their beliefs.