Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Leave education to the experts, not creationists


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#52 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5702 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 02:07 PM

[quote name='HydrogenBond']... The question is, why does it take twice as much resources for liberal public education? Or another way to look at it, let us assume the price of public education is the base amount required for student education. What is different about the private religious schools that allow for doubled resource efficiency? ...[QUOTE]

Private schools do not have to meet all the requirements of a public school, including: bussing,
keeping detailed statistical data and reporting it to the Federal govt,
providing "special" education & mainstreaming the severely "challenged",
staying within the constraints set by the govt for punishing children,
dealing with an educators union,
providing a gymnasium and a full curriculum of physical education for boys and girls,
(for middle and senior schools) providing for competitive football/basketball teams.

Some private schools may choose to provide some of these, or provide them to a partial extent, but they can save a LOT of money by pruning the list.

#53 Kayra

Kayra

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts

Posted 02 January 2011 - 02:00 AM

Why is evolution and education so insecure? Why is it necessary to block all opposition, even to what evolutionists describe as mythology? It makes no sense, unless it is a battle of philosophy, that can only work, if we can indoctrinate the young, by brain washing them with only one detergent. Is the evolutionary position too weak? If education does its job, we should end up with free thinking individuals capable of reasoning. Would the ability to reason still make evolution feel insecure?
....


Hey H.B.
Interesting direction, anthropomorphizing a theory :)

Evolution is fact.
Darwinism is an evolving theory that tries to fit evolution with the observed facts.
ID is an assertion that posits nothing that can be challenged, and so is not a theory at all but an opinion.

Are there any competing THEORIES to the various Darwinisms? If so, trot them out and teach those in the school.
Remember, if your looking to speak to someone about challenging various aspects of Darwinism, speak to an evolutionary biologist, they do it all the time.

We should all keep in mind that Darwinism does not disprove (nor does it try to) ID in the universe. It only posits that ID is not required for the evolutionary process.
  • CraigD likes this

#54 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 03 January 2011 - 01:15 PM

If you look at the US, back in the 1950's and 1960's, the US always scored at the top in education, world wide. Since that time, the US worked it way to near the bottom. The question becomes, what changes were made to the educational and social systems in the US, which caused a steady decline within a system that once scored much higher?

For one thing, the morality associated with the various religions, was much more a part of US schools, when scores were higher. There was prayer in school. Spare the rod and spoil the child was still in effect. There was more respect for one's elders, etc. The family was still traditional and strong. All made it easier for teachers. Their students scored much higher, with even a fraction of today's school funding.

With the main religions being conservative, this was also reflected within education, with basics stressed, more than the frills.

I remember when they introduced modern math. This started the decline in math scores. I am not sure if this was endorsed by all of science, or just social sciences. But even science is not perfect.

The focus of the modern debate tends to fixate between creationism versus evolution, but it cleverly ignores the many blunders that led to the decline. We need to add it all together.

Modern schools with religious affiliation tend to remain more conservation to the basics, tend to cost less, and score higher. The student body may also reflect less impact coming from liberal atheism, such as a strong family for support and the ethics of self reliance. The liberal atheist have been and are still in charge of the declined state of public schools.

It is useful to learn from the past, to see what occurred that created the decline, and to see who was responsible. The experts of decline may be experts in their own right, but what we really need are experts in incline.

Relative to creation and evolution, if evolution is correct, it should be able to stand on its own, in spite of any such challenge. Education should be teaching logic, reason and the ability to think. If a position is weak, one may need to restrict students.

The analogy would be like a religion forbidding one being able to read Greek mythology. If that religion was standing on shaky ground, this could be seen as a threat. If it is firmly planted on solid ground, it is not a threat and it won't be forbidden. If anything it will be called the classics. The defensive reaction by the atheist creates the impression evolution is built on shaky ground. I am not saying this is true, but one smells a wounded animal chasing away a threat.

If you firmly believe evolution is built on solid ground, and the education system teaches independent thinking and not herd indoctrination, there is no threat. But if it teaches indoctrination and not free thinking, or one has a doctrine built on shaky ground, you will need to restrict information.

#55 Kayra

Kayra

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts

Posted 03 January 2011 - 03:22 PM

Personally I relate school grades to the length of the skirt.
That perspective has as much relevance as your statements, and just as firmly supported.

The cleverness you mention might just be the fact that the debate between evolution and creationism has nothing whatsoever to do with the decline of grades.

“Education should be teaching logic, reason, and the ability to think”. This as opposed to what religion teaches?

Evolution does stand on it's own, and has done so for a a generation. Again, anthropomorphizing a theory with “Feelings” is silly. Trying to invoke the right to teach dogma beside a valid scientific theory because the theory is afraid of the dogma makes the point by itself.

Same question as before though HB, Are there any competing THEORIES to the various Darwinisms?
  • Turtle and JMJones0424 like this

#56 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 10 January 2011 - 12:47 PM

One of the unwritten, yet erroneous assumptions about evolution vs creationism, is that creationism is all there is to religion. In other words, it erroneously works under the assumption if you can't juggle you also can't read. There are a spectrum of things within religion, with creationism just the juggling aspect of religion. Based that, the unwritten assumption is all has to be wrong.

For example, the bible also has genealogies that are true. The erroneous assumption being used, would be like saying if the genealogy is true, even the juggling is done in an expert fashion. Neither this or the above are true to someone who has critical thinking skills. But if you lack such skills, either can appear true.

To me a good test/training for critical thinking skills would be to have something that is both true and false, with the students expected to infer the difference. Back in the day, this did not pose any problem, since most students were better prepared not to be drones lacking critical thinking skills. That is why the golden age of science is now the silver and bronze age.

A good example is Santa Claus. It has a positive impact on children who gain joy from the mythology. As they mature, they begin to infer and learn to separate the myth from the joy of the occasion. Even without Santa Claus being true, this does no mean the rest of the experience is negated. But the erroneous assumption is playing the all or nothing game. That requires lack of critical thinking. It may not be done intentionally. But this is actually worse, since those in charge would lack the ability to be objective, but would live in a subjective world of their own creation.

Religious schools don't forbid teaching greek or roman mythology since these are classics. It is one religion teaching a more ancient religion. If the current PC group for education were in charge of this modern religion/mythology curriculum they might be more insecure and try to censor. They might think, what if the unprepared students begin to begin to believe in Zeus and Hercules? We must censor. That would be a projection of their own lack of objectivity. They can't see how anybody is capable of learning critical thinker, since they can't. By the book is what is left.

Beyond creationism and genealogy, the bible also has wisdom for human behavior, which is more uses within religious schools. It creates self control and willpower. One can not learn critical thinking and be compulsive at the same time. The compulsion will subjectively bias you. That type of student may need bottom line dogma. Maybe less than critical thinking created a problem that requires censorship.