The Anti-education movement

[Drakolan]

America seems to be on this huge Anti- kick right now.

Anti-Muslim, Anti-Bush, Anti-Intellectual...

The last one is the one that scares me the most.

We actually have some radical right wingers out there that are screaming to not send kids to college or even public school, but instead to teach them the Bible and only the theories and ideas you want them to learn. The scary and sad part is, this movement is really starting to gain some vocal ground. We're heading for a theocracy which is just.. not the best way to run a country this size, to say the least.

Having set through a few biology classes in my time, the whole evolution thing is full of holes, anyone can see that. A lot of it just sounds like lame excuse after lame excuse. This isn't necessarily because it isn't true, we just can't observe speciation because it takes so long. But, we can't pretend that the idea of evolution isn't out there because we disagree with it. Its the osterich syndrome: if you hide your head in the sand, the problem still won't go away. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. And theories can be modified as new information arises, we sure as in hell know that species that are better adapted to a climate or situation survive and reproduce. The rest is just a guess to where millions of years of that could head.

The next area of concern we have is the cut in funding to arts and physical education programs. Our school systems are becoming filled with a bunch of fat kids that have no appreciation for what is beautiful or unique. And any teacher worth his/her salt will tell you that education in the arts and running your chunky butt around the block a few times is important to maintaining a well-balanced education. Go look up some of the studies sometime. Of course, this is what happens whenever people who aren't teachers make decisions on what should be taught. Now the Democrats want them to also make decisions on what operation you should have. Yikes.

Sorry to rant for awhile, but in my opinion this is one of the largest issues that's out there right now, and its the one that is going most unacknowledged. Of course that could also just be a personal bias because I'm going into the education field, and I have to deal with ignorant children. Joy.

[Dragon Knight]

One, the people who support that teach only the bible are ignorant and obviously don't have a clue to how the real world works.
Two, PE needs more funding, so it can become more than running and the most common sports (football, soccer, baseball, derivatives of said sports).
Three, being a teacher is hard work, I am not one but my mother is and let's just say quite a few kids are very aggravating, but there are some good ones, usually very few, though it varies by
I may also be biased, and this may not be the best or most eloquent way of saying what i mean, but I am not very good at elaborating.

[The Tortured one]

there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root ~ Henry David Thoreau

Our education system is in shambles. Our teachers are unqualified and underpaid, books are 30 years old, and most importantly there is no incentive for the students to succeed at all. Politicians all make the same mistake; they try to make the government work for them, when the government does not do the job nearly as well as private industries

Private schools are fundamentally better than public schools. The reason is the governments forced death grip on our education. In public schools, there is no reason for a school to excel, only to meet the ever lowering standard.

True there are teachers who are working their hardest to turn this around, but they have turned into the Atlas's of education, bearing the weight of the burden on their shoulders, any fault with the children is their fault.

However, in a free market there is no standard to be met. The only standard is excellence, for them to excel means for more demand for that school, meaning more profit for the owners of the school, meaning the school has more money to hire better teachers, employ better technology, and accept more students.

the ultimate goal would be the complete privatization of the education system, and the elimination of the beaurocratic mess called the department of education

however, In our mixed economy, I can not forsee this happening in the immediate future. With the government taking as much as they do, many people would not be able to afford such a system. Thats why my immediate solution would be school Vouchers and an option for parents to take out a tax credit. If the parent does not wish to send their child to the government school, they have the option to keep that money for their own child, where they are free to spend it to send their children to public school.

This would help lower middle class families afford superior private schools for their children, and it would aleviate the overcrowded conditions of public schools, helping public schools to allocate their funds to helping those children who really are needy to succeed.

that way, if you didn't like the fact that the bible is taught in the school, you have the option to change schools. However, the people should have the option to, if they see fit, to send their child to a school where religion is the focal point of their education.

[Papacha]

There are many problems with the Public school system, I agree. Hell, I would know, since I'm still in it right now. The main problem that I see, however, is that teaching simply isn't a worthwhile job. It is thankless, and pays little. I mean, who wants to work in high schools today? Mine has 5 police officers working around the clock, and over 20 security guards, just to keep us from killing each other. Its madness! I've had a few teachers who were really outstanding, and who obviously loved their job. However, I've had many more bad teachers than good. I remember learning more from other students and my text book what my teacher was under qualified to teaching. It’s a shame, it turns off so many kids from learning.

I also feel that it is pointless to make schooling mandatory. I would say about half of my school is failing at least 1 class, and would leave in a heartbeat. It just isn't productive to be schooling people who don't want to be there. In order to learn, you have to actually try, or care. You can't just learn through osmosis...it simply doesn't work. If we got rid of the students who, not only are bound to fail, but are already failing, it would leave more funding for the promising students. Not everyone can grow up to be doctors and lawyers, and this is America. We have the right to determine our own future.

I disagree with you on the issue of PE, though. Well, more specifically, on sports. I'm of the opinion that extra-curricular sports, like Football, Basketball, etc., have no real place in a school setting. If even a fraction of the cost that went into equipment and maintaining the fields, went into our computer department, we would be able to have some decent programs to work with, maybe even decent computers. Sorry, but QBasic isn't a language worth learning. Not only that, but most of our sports players are failing. Our football teams average GPA is 1.2...thats a tad bit better than a D average. Playing sports in High School has no bearing on your future, unless you get extremely lucky and become a professional. But what are the odds of that?

Now, this is exactly why I hate organized religion. Religion, IMO, relies on ignorance. I mean, it’s faith-based, therefore logic has no place in it. Super-Christians, generally, become very uncomfortable when asked to explain anything in the Bible. Just how would one go about telling us how we all descended from two perfect beings (that in itself is impossible, or we would be perfect ourselves. Which we aren't, as is evident by the fact that we die), or that the world was created in 7 days? You can't. I can just envision America, full of red-neck hicks run through the Bible Belt. Thats what will happen eventually if we stop educating ourselves. Not a very bright future, is it?

[Martyr]

People forget the purpose of school as opposed to college.
In school, we learn the core basics of education and what we need to know.
2 + 2 = 4
2 + X - 4 = 48 (X = 50) *I Think*

For this reason, it is imperative for arts and physical education (And the like) to be taught. The students must understand fitness as well as basic stuff.
The education that forwards our lives is specialized in college. Because, in our age, college education is as mandatory as high school. In fact, high school is truly nothing more than a social playground. Kids learn maturity there and precious little else. That's been my situation anyway. And the same for everybody else I know (Except for the college drop-out bums who never actually matured)

Me = Christian.
Despite that, you're absolutely right about teaching religion in schools in place of something like evolution.
My stand is that, even though we say that evolution is a theory, we shouldn't put quite so much emphasis on it. It should only be referred to as an idea for a solution when the scientific impossibilities arrive. I do believe very much in science and that there are many questions that science can answer.
I do encourage teaching theology as a counter measure. And not simply making it half a chapter in a history book.

On a side note, Christian fanatics who want only the Bible to be taught in schools are simply over-zealous. I can't say they're wrong, but I can't join them in their efforts. I can only request that you try to refuse their demands with as much kindness as possible. They have this secret information that they're dying to get out, and it's hard for some people to sit and watch the world play out wrongly, even if the logic is correct. [/self conscious religion defense rant]

As far as actual education goes... The level of effort we require of students and such... I think the bar needs to be raised. Unfortunately, I don't know if the kids can handle it. We live in a very liberal society, and the free-idiot Gen Xers totally screwed up the American perception of what are morals and ethics, what is life all about, how should we be spending our time...
I hate to admit it, but I don't think that our children are raised with the capacity for knowing anything before they're 18. Life is too easy for them to care. It sure was too easy for me to give a crap. It took me 3 years to get my GPA up and get into a decent university because I couldn't get it. And I'm smart as a whip (If I do say so myself). I think I (we) are far too spoiled. We're total imbeciles. We're not intelligent, we're intellectual. Everything we know is ficticious crap until college, and college is only for people who are unsatisfied with the nothing that they learned in school. And sometimes college just makes people dumber!

I don't know the solution. I know that I had a grade A high school, and I know that we incorporated students from a lower class area, and the school dropped to a D. More people became uneducated. I guess the plan backfired.

I can only rant. I can't solve anything here. Leave me. I'm miserable. I'll just go do what I think is right. At least I can do what I think is best. I'll get my degree and become a writer. I'll try to change the world. But my logic is just another POV that nobody else can understand without the help of drastic sarcasm.

Edit:
Papacha! HAHAHA!!! Ask me any question you want! (But over PM, por favor. For such theological discussion is not allowed here.) I felt the need to post this because so many brash talkers like you never get challenged to a question and answer session. There's way too much weakling/false Christianity in this country.

[Papacha]

sure thing, Martyr. Give me you SN, and I'll have this conversation with you. Preferably not in the near future, since I have finals tomorrow and the day after

[Squishy Cheeks]

Vouchers are a shit idea and I'll explain why.

The Public schools are already underfunded. So taking money away from them to cyphon it to private schools will only worsen the situation in public schools. If parents want their kids to go to private schools there are scholarships.

[Luna Santin]

Vouchers are a shit idea and I'll explain why.

The Public schools are already underfunded. So taking money away from them to cyphon it to private schools will only worsen the situation in public schools. If parents want their kids to go to private schools there are scholarships.

That's only a problem in certain versions of the vouchers concept where people are still going to public schools. In a full-scale voucher system, the modern concept of public schools is replaced by semi-private institutions -- the public schools don't exactly have their funding cut, but rather they essentially become private schools.

My fix-it ideas? I don't expect them to be perfect. Higher salaries and changed social perception of teachers would attract more qualified applicants; do we want the saying, "Those who can't, teach," to govern the education of our children? More training for teachers would help for reasons which I hope are obvious. Earlier tracking of curriculum would allow for students to learn more of those things which interest them, which are relevant to them, and which they are capable of learning, and would also allow teachers to be better trained to meet the specific needs of the students they deal with -- if nothing else, it seems to me that it would help to sort out the children by their speed of learning. Smaller class sizes would allow for more individual attention to students. More local control allows for accountability to those most directly interested in education: students and parents themselves.

[The Tortured one]

Vouchers are a shit idea and I'll explain why.

The Public schools are already underfunded. So taking money away from them to cyphon it to private schools will only worsen the situation in public schools. If parents want their kids to go to private schools there are scholarships.
I already explained this
This would help lower middle class families afford superior private schools for their children, and it would aleviate the overcrowded conditions of public schools, helping public schools to allocate their funds to helping those children who really are needy to succeed.

they aren't siphoning funds into private schools, they are giving back to the people who do not wish to use these services anyway (but are still forced to pay for them)

[Royalspork]

Vouchers are a shit idea and I'll explain why.

The Public schools are already underfunded. So taking money away from them to cyphon it to private schools will only worsen the situation in public schools. If parents want their kids to go to private schools there are scholarships.
wow my school system gets 20 cents on the doller.

[Zero]

We actually have some radical right wingers out there that are screaming to not send kids to college or even public school, but instead to teach them the Bible and only the theories and ideas you want them to learn. The scary and sad part is, this movement is really starting to gain some vocal ground. We're heading for a theocracy which is just.. not the best way to run a country this size, to say the least.

There is always a problem in any group or sect, as with the Christians who want to only teach the Bible. Thats scary that people who belong to my religion would actually do that. Then they have no idea how to answer questions thrown at them, and thus not defend themselves. Plus, they would be screwed when they got out of that school. And about the Anti-Muslim thing, according to Fox News, during Reagan's funeral they said it was the fastest growing religion.

The next area of concern we have is the cut in funding to arts and physical education programs. Our school systems are becoming filled with a bunch of fat kids that have no appreciation for what is beautiful or unique. And any teacher worth his/her salt will tell you that education in the arts and running your chunky butt around the block a few times is important to maintaining a well-balanced education. Go look up some of the studies sometime. Of course, this is what happens whenever people who aren't teachers make decisions on what should be taught. Now the Democrats want them to also make decisions on what operation you should have. Yikes.

Both of my parents are teachers (Mom - 1st grade teacher, Dad - High School Weightlifting Coach). They are both tired as hell now. My mom has to stay up late at night doing paperwork that our County makes us do (most schools don't do it, but alas she has a very scary Vice Principal). My Dad is on the verge of not caring, and gets home annoyed because of alas the students who do not attend his class and expect, "A"s. Or the occasional kid that tries to pick a fight with him. They're starting to lose insentive, and instead of having fun teaching they're just going every day because it is , alas, they're jobs. Most of the paperwork and restrictions, along with what they have to teach and do, are because of the County not wanting to be sued. It's convinced me to never be a teacher, and to tell friends not to be.

Other than that, I guess I'll have to pretty much agree with Martyr.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

In other words: America's education system is no longer down the toilet. Its clogged the tube and is now a rotten lump of crud.

What 0zero0 said reminded me of that commercial where a saxaphone player is plying his trade in a public park and some snotty little twit of a kid with his mom walks past and says, "get a job." I've always appreciated that commercial 'cause it is indeed showing how kids are becoming nowadays. I've tried explaining Ansil Adams, an amazing landscape photographer, to my younger cousins and basically anything related to Art they say is a waste of time.

its quite sad really.

[Atma]

If American schools are so shitty, what makes Japan's school so much better? Or French? Or whatever?

In all honesty, the school system does suck, but there's really nothing we can do about it. My generation is a bunch of ignorent slackers who would give anything to get out of schools. Making the schools harder or raising the bar is not the answer. We'll only have more dropouts. I don't know how to improve the schools so that it would work out for everybody, but I'm working on it.

[Squishy Cheeks]

Simple, Get rid of standardized tests. They really don't work, and they prove next to nothing.

[Royalspork]

I could say the great things about MY school system but I am lazy so I will just re post this
wow my school system gets 20 cents on the doller.

[Omega]

the quality of a school system is based on two thing
Teachers and social system
i my opinion teachers make the school if they are invigerated and acctually qualifyed then as long as the bad student dont drag them down it is actually a good place to learn however all in all your attitude towards school makes the place ... and i am rambling

another thing! is it just me or is the only reason people dispise school is because it becomes part of the daily grind by highschool standerds this is why i think grades 6-8 should be eliminated and given to people as 3 year off so when high school DOES start they will not feel run down beaten and half-dead

[Jagos]

If I tried to explain how all of how I felt it would take too long for people to read.

So to keep this short, this leave no child behind thing along with only christianity being used in the school is for the birds. Giving people the knowledge to learn about other religions (I have friends that are Wicca and even one that practices VooDoo despite the bad association it has in movies and such) or the right to make their own choices of schools among other things is something I am really going to advocate in the upcoming years. As soon as I find the right venues...

If you want to learn more of how I feel, I'm a PM away on this topic.

[Lockeownzj00]

Having set through a few biology classes in my time, the whole evolution thing is full of holes, anyone can see that. A lot of it just sounds like lame excuse after lame excuse. This isn't necessarily because it isn't true, we just can't observe speciation because it takes so long. But, we can't pretend that the idea of evolution isn't out there because we disagree with it. Its the osterich syndrome: if you hide your head in the sand, the problem still won't go away. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. And theories can be modified as new information arises, we sure as in hell know that species that are better adapted to a climate or situation survive and reproduce. The rest is just a guess to where millions of years of that could head.

And the bible isn't a series of lame excuses? And the koran isn't a series of lame excuses? And the talmud isn't a series of lame excuses.

I want to learn the Bible, and I want to learn the koran, and the talmud. I want to know about religions so when I disagree with them I can do it even more informed than I am right now. No, I will not be converted. I'm set. I'm an atheist. But the bible should not be a mandatory or automatic class, it should be an elective for both christians and non-christians.

Oh wait, let me just add the little tag that automatically makes me a religion-basher with no foundation in his arguments:

[Darkblade]

"You learn what we want you to learn. Screw the truth. "

Welcome to america home of the easily persuaded morons. A land where people will beleive whatever you tell them.

Welcome to a land where pain and suffering are only images on the tv. Welcome to an uncaring and cruel world. Welcome to the wonderfull and free and "happy" world of america. Enjoy your stay cannon fodder.

[The Tortured one]

Darkblade, pessimistic aren't we? Keeping an attitude like that is gonna give you an ulcer, son. I've noticed that people who keep a pessimistic attitude tend to die old and alone, maybe they have a cat or two, or twenty, to keep them company. Just some friendly advice.

It really is unfair to compare Japanese kids to American kids, because the Japs have their share of problems as well. Teen suicide is a big problem in their society, which stresses good grades in tough subjects to no end. I would think some of you would be pretty depressed if you were a social outcast because you got a D in your advanced Calculus class.

The problem in America that I see is that kid's have no incentive or go to school or succeed. Why go to school and college and get a job when you could get a very well paying job selling drugs immediatly? I think that high school should be voluntary. If these losers want to screw up their lives, that's their business, but nowadays they are forced into school where they bring down the standards and make it an enviroment not condusive to learning, well that makes it other people's business. Get them out of the school, let them throw their lives away, it doesn't bother me any. Besides, there is still demand for manual labor and jobs like that which don't require an education, if that's all they aspire to be, hey, they can come work for me when I own my own company.

I am also in support of a scholarship program set up by the government for private schools. let students who want to better themselves but do not have the access to the money have a chance to do better, and with scholarships, if you fall below the standard, you are cut off, so it is in the student's best interest that they have the best grades possible.

these are merely short term goals, however. I feel that the best system would be a fully privatized education system, where schools compete amongst themselves to attract new students, and the students fully understand that the reason they are in school is for their own betterment, not because the state mandates it.

the whole religious thing really doesn't bother me, and i think some people here are overreacting. Seriously if some evangelist in Bible belt U.S.A sends his kid to a school named "school of Jesus Christ, our overlord and enslaver" it really isn't going to affect my life very much. People are perfectly capable of leading happy and productive lives with a religion based education, and if they are I see no problem with them doing what they're doing. Separation of church and state works both ways; the church doesn't meddle in the affairs of the state, and the state doesn't dictate religion (assuming that religion isn't physically hurting anyone of course)

[Muffin Mage]

"God is dead" -Freidrich Nieztche

Honestly, I think that the best way to improve the education system is to raise the education standards. Standardized tests should be shot, because they do nothing but test how well you can take tests and test how well your teachers prepare you to take the test. Practical exams would be better; i.e. if you're taking Physics, you'd need to predict where a cannonball would hit, then fire it and be graded on your accuracy.

I don't think that a privatized education system would work. We'd get anti-business nuts complaining that the companies are trying to brainwash our innocent minds into armies of dooom to kill all that is good, kind and caring, such as those doing the complaining.

As for religion in schools, do you really trust a people who didn't understand the mechanics of rainfall to explain the mysteries of the universe?

[Darkblade]

Darkblade, pessimistic aren't we? Keeping an attitude like that is gonna give you an ulcer, son. I've noticed that people who keep a pessimistic attitude tend to die old and alone, maybe they have a cat or two, or twenty, to keep them company. Just some friendly advice.


Son? I'm not that young buddy.

I only say what i see. And hell teen suicide is as much a problem here as it is in japan. And why go to school and try to make yourself sucessfull when most parents now dont even bother to try to encourage when you do good or berate when you go wrong. Its a simple loss of motivation from the people that could do the most good.

All the scholarship programs in the world arent gonna make any kid smarter or want to learn. That part has to come from what their parents teach them.

Edit: My first comment on america came after seeing stuff about the lies we were told about iraq and stuff like that. Kinda off the wall i know but relevant still.

[Illuminatus]

Note: Please stop hating on God. He likes you. :D

I agree with whats been said. Education starts at home and in the hearts of the students. Until our culture starts appreciating education, the system will suck. That's why foreign kids do better than we do. They've been raised better.

[Darkblade]

Now what i would say is the biggest problem is that everyone wants a say in what is taugh. Everyone wants what they beleive taught. As a response the government tries to compensate and we lose real knowledge. Instead of trying to be accomadating to different cultures we should ignore culture and teach facts. No parent or group should be able to influence what is taught. If only because they take away the choices of the student to follow their own path.

There is no anti education movement, just a bunch of stupid people complaining and getting things changed that make it hard to teach real knowledge.

As for teaching creationism and the like then it shouldnt be in school. Its a religeous idea not a valid theory. If they put creationism in a science book then they should put in my beleife that magical elves with special powers created everything.

Its crazy. There are so many things that you could change in how we approach knowledge. Such simple things that could make so much difference.

[AntiGnostic]

As for teaching creationism and the like then it shouldnt be in school. Its a religeous idea not a valid theory.


So you say. Evolution is merely a naturalistic means of explaining the origins of the universe. Creationism does not only rely on natural explainations, but super natural ones as well. Does that make Creationism an invalid theory?

If we're going to teach students about the origins of the universe, then we should either present all theories (naturalistic evolution, theistic evoulution / intelligent design, creationism, etc.), or no theories.

And if a child's parent's object to a student being taught a particular theory, or the way in which said theory is being taught, then excuse the child from that class. Leave it up to the parents. They are the ones who are responsible for their children's education, after all.

[Darkblade]

Yes it does. Because supernatural explanationas are not valid.

And no if you are going to teach knowledge then you should teach the most reasonable scientific theorys and not fantasy or religious conjecture. God and allah and krishna and whatever have no place in school.

As for the parents they should have no say whatsoever in what their children learn in this country. Because when they are given the ulitmate authority then they can persuade and coerce their kids to whatever they want. I hate to think that they make decsions for kids instead of letting the kids make up their own minds. Thats what i dont like about parents and religious groups having a say, they dont know and are not qualified to teach. Their opinions mean nothing. Anything they teach a child will be their own prejudeces and hatreds. They wont teach logic and truth but their own distorted views.

Religion is important to a lot of people but it means nothing if you are forced to be a certain religion whether you beleive or not by your parents. If you make the descision yourself on your own terms then yes it is sacred, but if your parents force you to beleive whether you really do our not then it is a sin and a lie.

Edit: If you are going to give knowledge then no parent should be given the right to interject. When you give in to the parent you take away a right from the child. No child should be refused knowledge because their parents beleive something. The choice should be with the child always.

[Muffin Mage]

Logic and truth? Are you saying we start them on Aristotle at an early age? Aristotle was flawed, as he used only his observations without experimenting. That is where we got the idea of spontaneous generation, and combinations of four elements.

How do we know that supernatural theories are invalid? Our current theories are based on empiricism, wherein one goes out and pokes things with sticks and writes down the reactions. Therefore, if one observes wrong, one makes a wrong theory. However, Occam's Razor, as you ought to know, says that the simplest solution is probably the most correct. There are several dozen reasons as to why creationism is illogical and, since that is the crux of the debate, we can assume that it is too complex and ignore it. That does not, however, say that evolution is the correct theory, but the most correct of those to date. It could be that the Earth sprang fully-formed from the belly-button of a giant earwhig, for all we know.

This is teetering on the edge of a religious discussion, in case you folks haven't noticed. Maybe we should try to stop?

As to education itself, I think that there should be a stress on the classics early on. There have been, after all, very few truly new ideas in the past three or four centuries. And I think that everyone should be required to learn Latin, as it is the root language for half the languages in Europe and the basis for more than half of the English vocabulary.

[shiney]

I think what needs to happen is we need to take a hard line on failing all the idiots. Schools aren't messed up. Kids are. They fail and still get to pass. Why bother to even try if you don't have to? Even if you are failed your parents will just sue.

Parents need to grow the fuck up and kick their kids' asses when they fail. Kids need to grow up and not fail. Standardized testing should be made harder, and when it is, there shouldn't be 3000 people failing them and then expecting to just be passed anyways.

As far as our generation being lazy slackers, that's also bullshit. There's a lot but no more than any generation, just they weren't spoken of as much. We have plenty of driven members of society trying to succeed. There's always gonna be joe blows who have their parents pay/sue their way through education, and there will always be lifeless bums wandering the streets. But on average the students are at least completing school. There wouldn't still be things like college courses for highschool students, or the A-honor roll.

Just a few idiots that make it seem worse than it really is.

And teaching religion in schools should never be compulsory. Freedom of religion, sorta why people came here in the first place. It would be an affront to the american people if we became christianland and had mandatory bible study hours. If they want to teach one religion they have to teach all religions.

[AnonCastillo]

There are many problems with the Public school system, I agree. Hell, I would know, since I'm still in it right now. The main problem that I see, however, is that teaching simply isn't a worthwhile job. It is thankless, and pays little. I mean, who wants to work in high schools today? Mine has 5 police officers working around the clock, and over 20 security guards, just to keep us from killing each other. Its madness! I've had a few teachers who were really outstanding, and who obviously loved their job. However, I've had many more bad teachers than good. I remember learning more from other students and my text book what my teacher was under qualified to teaching. It�s a shame, it turns off so many kids from learning.

Privatizing schools would help with this. A private school would generally pay teachers more, making the job more rewarding in at least one way. At the same time, teachers would have to actually earn their money - no school set up to make a profit is going to put up with a teacher who does a lousy job, because parents won't pay for that school unless their kids are getting a good education. With public schools, parents have to send their kids to school whether or not the school is doing a good job.

I also feel that it is pointless to make schooling mandatory. I would say about half of my school is failing at least 1 class, and would leave in a heartbeat. It just isn't productive to be schooling people who don't want to be there. In order to learn, you have to actually try, or care. You can't just learn through osmosis...it simply doesn't work. If we got rid of the students who, not only are bound to fail, but are already failing, it would leave more funding for the promising students. Not everyone can grow up to be doctors and lawyers, and this is America. We have the right to determine our own future.

Good idea, and another point in favor of private schools. With public schooling, you can make attendance mandatory, meaning good students have to share classes with disruptive kids who don't want to learn. This means nobody learns. With private schooling, schools can refuse to take disruptive students. Because parents know that their kids will only be able to stay in school if they behave, parents will also become more involved in making sure their kids are behaving. This way good students get a chance to learn without disruption.

I disagree with you on the issue of PE, though. Well, more specifically, on sports. I'm of the opinion that extra-curricular sports, like Football, Basketball, etc., have no real place in a school setting. If even a fraction of the cost that went into equipment and maintaining the fields, went into our computer department, we would be able to have some decent programs to work with, maybe even decent computers. Sorry, but QBasic isn't a language worth learning. Not only that, but most of our sports players are failing. Our football teams average GPA is 1.2...thats a tad bit better than a D average. Playing sports in High School has no bearing on your future, unless you get extremely lucky and become a professional. But what are the odds of that?

Another beauty of private schools is that you pick a school that has the things you want, without wasting money on the things you don't. Want a school that focuses more on computers than on PE? Send your kids there/ask your parents to enroll you there. Want a school that's more sports-oriented? Send your kids there/ask your parents to enroll you there.

Now, this is exactly why I hate organized religion. Religion, IMO, relies on ignorance. I mean, it�s faith-based, therefore logic has no place in it. Super-Christians, generally, become very uncomfortable when asked to explain anything in the Bible. Just how would one go about telling us how we all descended from two perfect beings (that in itself is impossible, or we would be perfect ourselves. Which we aren't, as is evident by the fact that we die), or that the world was created in 7 days? You can't. I can just envision America, full of red-neck hicks run through the Bible Belt. Thats what will happen eventually if we stop educating ourselves. Not a very bright future, is it?

Disorganized religion = teh win! Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!
What's that? No religious discussion? Okay, okay....

Vouchers are a shit idea and I'll explain why.

The Public schools are already underfunded. So taking money away from them to cyphon it to private schools will only worsen the situation in public schools. If parents want their kids to go to private schools there are scholarships.

There's a flaw in your logic. Private schools cost about 1/2 to 2/3 as much as public schools. So, say your school district spends an average of $6000/year per student, and a voucher system was started that paid $4000/year per student. For every student that switched from public to private school, there'd be an extra $2000/year for the students who stayed in public school, plus the public school would be less crowded and you'd be sending a kid to a more successful private school.

Son? I'm not that young buddy.

You realize that, right below your name, it says "LVL 12 Son Of Darkness", right? Just checking. ;)

[Darkblade]

The title is a tribute to the old ezboard channel.

[Squishy Cheeks]

There's a flaw in your logic. Private schools cost about 1/2 to 2/3 as much as public schools. So, say your school district spends an average of $6000/year per student, and a voucher system was started that paid $4000/year per student. For every student that switched from public to private school, there'd be an extra $2000/year for the students who stayed in public school, plus the public school would be less crowded and you'd be sending a kid to a more successful private school.

Private school superiority is a myth. The teaching at a private school is higher quality since they can actually have an ability public schools don't have, the ability to reject students. If Public schools didn't have to educate even the stupidest of kids they'd be just as good as private schools.

[AnonCastillo]

Private schools superiority is a myth. The teaching at a private school is higher quality since they can actually have an ability public schools don't have, the ability to reject students. If Public schools didn't have to educate even the stupidest of kids they'd be just as good as private schools.

Did you edit your post shortly after posting it? I swear it looked totally different when I read it, from what's showing up in the quote box now. Looks like you took out the part about my either being from a private school (was publicly schooled and hated it) or being a Republican (I hate most of them too). Anyway....

If public schools could reject students the way that private schools can, they'd be extremely unjust and unfair, because the parents of stupid children would still have to pay for other people's children to go to school, when their children were denied the use of the schools that they pay for. At least with private schools, you only pay for the school your child goes to.

Besides, that's only one of many factors that makes private schools better than public schools. Another one is that private schools actually have to teach things to students in order to get parents to pay to send them there. Public schools generally get more money when they're failing, so it's in a public school's best interests to do a poor job of educating children.

[Squishy Cheeks]

Funny. In my state if a school fails their funding get's pulled. The problem is public schools funding is tied to standardized test performance. So this means the teachers can only teach tested material, or lose their jobs do to lack of funds.

[Mental-Rectangle]

A lot of it just sounds like lame excuse after lame excuse.

Let's hear some then. I'm really eager to learn what the lame excuses in evolutionary theory are.

Besides, that's only one of many factors that makes private schools better than public schools. Another one is that private schools actually have to teach things to students in order to get parents to pay to send them there. Public schools generally get more money when they're failing, so it's in a public school's best interests to do a poor job of educating children.

How? Any extra funds a school gets will always go into pointless extracurricular programs or field trips. Never for improving teaching conditions or salaries. And as you said earlier, teachers generally get cut if their students aren't doing well.

I'd also like to know how we'd overcome particularity in private schools? They can grant scholarship benefits to certain groups. They can bias their material. And how do you solve the problem of impoverished families unable to send kids to private school? The initial fees for families have to cover the entire education (and often aren't refunded if a student gets dropped). They pay probably nothing for public schools, but their kids can still attend.

It's not a quick or easy fix, but a combination of public coordination and private funding could be a good mixed school system. You pay for your kid's education; he/she can choose a path of study to take; and the kids that don't go to school don't have to pay. The motivation for improving the system to reflect more advanced learning standards is always going to be tough, whether public or private. Dropping all the worst kids to compete with other schools isn't a good idea. Dropping all the teachers that don't perform well isn't a good idea (how do you know if it's the course, or the teacher, or the funding, or the students?) Choosing to send your kids to another system might work, if we broke it up into districts and kept the funding local, but again that shows preferance towards suburban areas, and reduces the ability for low-income urban areas to have good schools (perhaps gov't tax assistance for the most critical areas?) And then you have the problem of needing enough schools to be able to have them compete for enrollments, while at the same time being able to handle wide variations in the populations of students.

Basically: lassaiz-faire-everything might seem like a romantic obvious fix for all of our problems, but it comes with just as many complications as federal programs. In the end the mixed system always looks the best, but it's a matter of which parts of each system to use.

[Muffin Mage]

OF course, we could steal the old British system, where everyone takes the same path to eighth grade, then the defective students are shunted off into blue-collar training and the more intelligent ones are given schooling for whatever they wish.

[Lucas]

Let's hear some then. I'm really eager to learn what the lame excuses in evolutionary theory are. the lightning + water = life? i don't see why creationism and evolution aren't reconciled, call god the creator of the divine spark in yon bacteria, and bam, you're theologically secure yet once again.

[Mental-Rectangle]

Lightning + Water makes hydrogen and oxygen gas sometimes, but not life. I think the leading hypothesis for the 'beginning' of life is a mudpool similar to those in Yellowstone, where RNA nucleotides can be naturally assembled and sheathed in a fatty membrane: the template for all cells. Diffusion just takes time; it doesn't need a god.

[AnonCastillo]

How? Any extra funds a school gets will always go into pointless extracurricular programs or field trips. Never for improving teaching conditions or salaries. And as you said earlier, teachers generally get cut if their students aren't doing well.

Public schools that aren't doing well can usually either convince their community to raise taxes to pay for "improvements" (which, as you point out, rarely go towards actual improvement), or con either the state or federal government into giving them more money.
Even if your state government gives schools money based on performance, and even if the federal government gives money based on performance (as they're apparently starting to do with the NCLB act), it still doesn't help much, because the people running the school don't actually profit much off of it. Tying salaries specifically to student learning might help more, but then you've got to pay for a huge bureaucracy and standardized test programs (which aren't a very accurate gauge of in-class learning) to see which teachers are doing the best job, and it'd be difficult to make a really accurate system, so improving public education is pretty damn tricky at best.

I'd also like to know how we'd overcome particularity in private schools? They can grant scholarship benefits to certain groups. They can bias their material. And how do you solve the problem of impoverished families unable to send kids to private school? The initial fees for families have to cover the entire education (and often aren't refunded if a student gets dropped). They pay probably nothing for public schools, but their kids can still attend.

Particularity only matters if there's no competition. Sure, one school may choose to only admit Catholics, but if there are non-Catholics in the town/city who are willing to pay for their kids' education, a non-Catholic school will open up to take their money.
Business segregation in the South didn't catch on until state governments began forcing businesses to segregate. The vast majority of businesses didn't care who was paying them, as long as they got paid. It wasn't until a bunch of "moralists" got into office and passed laws requiring segregation that businesses actually started segregating.

As for sending poor families to school, did you not notice my support of vouchers? Even without vouchers, there are already plenty of charity-run schools. I ddi volunteer work at one over the summer a couple years ago. My church helps fund a few of them.

It's not a quick or easy fix, but a combination of public coordination and private funding could be a good mixed school system. You pay for your kid's education; he/she can choose a path of study to take; and the kids that don't go to school don't have to pay. The motivation for improving the system to reflect more advanced learning standards is always going to be tough, whether public or private. Dropping all the worst kids to compete with other schools isn't a good idea. Dropping all the teachers that don't perform well isn't a good idea (how do you know if it's the course, or the teacher, or the funding, or the students?) Choosing to send your kids to another system might work, if we broke it up into districts and kept the funding local, but again that shows preferance towards suburban areas, and reduces the ability for low-income urban areas to have good schools (perhaps gov't tax assistance for the most critical areas?) And then you have the problem of needing enough schools to be able to have them compete for enrollments, while at the same time being able to handle wide variations in the populations of students.

Public coordination with private funding is the worst idea I've ever heard. First of all, it still has the problem of poor students not being able to afford to go, since their parents would have to pay, while even the voucher system I've suggested doesn't have that. Second, it doesn't have competition, which is the main thing that causes private schools to excel over public schools. A publicly funded, privately coordinated system would actually let everyone, regardless of income level, attend school, while ensuring that parents had a choice over where to send their children, and ensuring that bad schools would get less money while better schools would get more money and be able to expand and take on more students.

The motivation to advance learning standards is actually pretty easy in a private system - money. The motivation in a public system falls on things like good will, kind-heartedness, wanting to make a difference, etc. - things that would still motivate people in a private system, only that in a private system they'd also be making more money for doing a good job.

[Lucas]

Diffusion just takes time; it doesn't need a god. and according to leading evolutionary models, the probability of creating a fully formed organism made for a time frame that should have had bacteria sprouting around the time of the dinosaurs. even with the science, its like saying "damn, we just rolled a twenty sided dice and got 20's 100 times in a row!" or "damn, we just rolled bruce willis and scarface together, and the new being DIDNT kill everyone" and so on.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Look people, I thought Religious arguements were not allowed. And as far as I can see, you guys going on and on about the superiority of evolutionism are just religious fanatics that say they are men of "logic."

The theories of the creation of the Universe are all religious in nature, no matter what you say. And unless someone invents a time machine (which according to your Einstein would involve going faster than light and becoming infinitely massive and ceasing to exist, and as such is impossible) then any theory of the creation of the universe is just that...a theory. No one theory needs to be stressed more than the other, unless someone has some sort of proof, which you can't get, since nothing and/or god was around at the beginning, so we should take all theories of the creation of the universe out of the school system.

[Otaku Son]

From one of my many research papers:
Our school systems are modeled after the Prussian’s school systems in an attempt to form us into the beings our government wants(Gatto, 35). Schools are factories meant to prepare us to be adults for society, but by making us easily controlled by society. Anyone who crosses beyond the barriers constructed by school is deemed unintelligent and not fit to be a part of this society.

Gatto, John Taylor 33-38 Harper’s Magazine

[AntiGnostic]

Look people, I thought Religious arguements were not allowed. And as far as I can see, you guys going on and on about the superiority of evolutionism are just religious fanatics that say they are men of "logic."

I believe it is theological discussion that is not allowed (i.e. is there a God? Which religion is the right one? etc.). And you're right about these super-evolutionists. Almost worse than super-creationists :D


The theories of the creation of the Universe are all religious in nature, no matter what you say. And unless someone invents a time machine (which according to your Einstein would involve going faster than light and becoming infinitely massive and ceasing to exist, and as such is impossible) then any theory of the creation of the universe is just that...a theory. No one theory needs to be stressed more than the other, unless someone has some sort of proof, which you can't get, since nothing and/or god was around at the beginning, so we should take all theories of the creation of the universe out of the school system.

Unless we teach all origin theories, then we should teach none, at least in public schools. Evolution springs from ideaology as much as creationism does, regardless of what some may say.

[Squishy Cheeks]

I prefer the british model, over the prussian. Mainly cause the world does need ditch diggers.

[AndyBloodredMage]

I completely concur with you. The downside to that is if a teacher doesn't like a student, s/he might send the student to the blue collar place, when they really deserve to be a part of the smart people.

[AnonCastillo]

We need an educational system that actually offers students the chance to learn at their own pace. Homeschooling offers this, if you have a parent who's prepared or intelligent enough (and it's usually the best option if you do). Unfortunately, there are only a handful of private schools that really teach this way (Montessori schools being the only ones I really know of).

[Mental-Rectangle]

and according to leading evolutionary models, the probability of creating a fully formed organism made for a time frame that should have had bacteria sprouting around the time of the dinosaurs. even with the science, its like saying "damn, we just rolled a twenty sided dice and got 20's 100 times in a row!" or "damn, we just rolled bruce willis and scarface together, and the new being DIDNT kill everyone" and so on.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html
Well... it did take 1-2 billion years for the first prokaryotes to show up. Then another billion years, and all eukaryotic life came about at a (relatively) rapid pace. 'by the time of the dinosaurs' suggests that by adding another billion onto that, you're actually making a difference. Because a lot of this is diffusion, a lot of it is chance. A molecule doesn't have to travel in every direction before it inadvertedly goes in the right direction, thus every possible combination for nucleotides and fatty acids didn't have to be made before the essential ones were. Evolution only shows the winning numbers.

Anyway, some of these models would be nice. Y'know... linkage?

[Mental-Rectangle]

Y'know what's interesting about our school system is that when it was originally installed, it was meant to be for discipline: a place for kids to go when their parents were off at work, and not cause any trouble. It taught stuff like manners, and obedience, and other ways to be subservient to the rich kids who were homeschooled. The sacrifice, of course, was keeping them from being productive during that time, so education was incorperated into it later. Such an archaic system, and it's still in use today.

Public coordination with private funding is the worst idea I've ever heard. First of all, it still has the problem of poor students not being able to afford to go, since their parents would have to pay, while even the voucher system I've suggested doesn't have that.[quote]

[quote]Second, it doesn't have competition, which is the main thing that causes private schools to excel over public schools. A publicly funded, privately coordinated system would actually let everyone, regardless of income level, attend school, while ensuring that parents had a choice over where to send their children, and ensuring that bad schools would get less money while better schools would get more money and be able to expand and take on more students.

It's not taking away competition. Schools are still privately funded, so they'll compete for quality of turnouts to be able to get more funds. They main thing that's changed is the material being taught, which is put together by the district/state rather than the marketing committee of 'Pepsi presents Washington High School'. You can still have different material at different schools, and there would still be more progressive institutions for advanced learning, and so-called 'idiot boxes', rather than trying to do everything at each school, when only a couple programs are really needed (as evident in public schools).

There are a bunch of micro-management additions you'd make to it to keep it manageable. Again, there's no easy answer for a piss-poor school system.

And as for that homeschooling: that's always great. The most important things I ever learned were definitely not from school. But parents have jobs, so most people would probably opt for a school system of any kind.

The motivation to advance learning standards is actually pretty easy in a private system - money. The motivation in a public system falls on things like good will, kind-heartedness, wanting to make a difference, etc. - things that would still motivate people in a private system, only that in a private system they'd also be making more money for doing a good job.

With a private system you also have schools that completely tank. Ones that can't compete well at all, and were a bad idea from the beginning. But, many people would find that risk preferable to having a public school system where if one thing doesn't work, the whole system suffers.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

Instead of pissing away the Bill Gates Grant (i don't remember the amount, but it was a hell of a lot of money) on stupid things or finding excuses to hoard and keep the money, the highschool put it to good use.

The year that I got out of school they (the school admins, teachers, students) were nearing the end of a three year long(something like that) extreme change process. Instead of One large school they broke it down into specialty schools. Technology, Art, history, language arts, etc. etc. to more fintely tune a student's interests. It really caught my interest because they really did their homework on it. And from what I hear overall grades, morale, etc. is significantly higher now that the students have even more freedom to choose their educational path.


That is...the ones who weren't drugged up fools.

[AnonCastillo]

Instead of pissing away the Bill Gates Grant (i don't remember the amount, but it was a hell of a lot of money) on stupid things or finding excuses to hoard and keep the money, the highschool put it to good use.

The year that I got out of school they (the school admins, teachers, students) were nearing the end of a three year long(something like that) extreme change process. Instead of One large school they broke it down into specialty schools. Technology, Art, history, language arts, etc. etc. to more fintely tune a student's interests. It really caught my interest because they really did their homework on it. And from what I hear overall grades, morale, etc. is significantly higher now that the students have even more freedom to choose their educational path.


That is...the ones who weren't drugged up fools.

And see, that's one improvement all of us can agree on. You have this with private schools, but if public schools aren't going away we at least need to give students more choice in what they learn, and specialty schools are a good way to do that. At least you leave the students with some choice.

[Cicero]

The theories of the creation of the Universe are all religious in nature, no matter what you say. And unless someone invents a time machine (which according to your Einstein would involve going faster than light and becoming infinitely massive and ceasing to exist, and as such is impossible) then any theory of the creation of the universe is just that...a theory. No one theory needs to be stressed more than the other, unless someone has some sort of proof, which you can't get, since nothing and/or god was around at the beginning, so we should take all theories of the creation of the universe out of the school system.

Unless we teach all origin theories, then we should teach none, at least in public schools. Evolution springs from ideaology as much as creationism does, regardless of what some may say.

Evolution does not spring from ideology, it springs from verified facts.

Looks like we need to get a few things straight.

First of all, a theory (in the scientific sense) is not a wild guess (we call that a conjecture). It is not even a well thought out guess (that's a hypothesis). A theory is a framework of ideas used to explain verified facts, and to make future predictions. A theory is the result of a great deal of observation and experimentation. A theory has weight.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is NOT a "creation theory". At its most basic, evolution concerns the change in the frequency of certain alleles (variations of specific genes) in a population over a period of time. It has nothing to do with how life first came to be. That's a whole other ball game.

Thirdly, creationism is NOT a theory, and it is NOT SCIENCE. I do not mean that it is bad science, I mean that the designation of "science" simply does not apply to creationism. Unlike the theory of evolution (which fits all of the facts and continues to make accurate predictions) it does not rely on observable facts, and it is not testable.

As it is not science, creationism should not be taught in a scientific classroom. It's that simple.

[Illuminatus]

As it is not science, creationism should not be taught in a scientific classroom. It's that simple.

Agreed. The problem occurs when Christian fanatics see evolution as a threat to their faith, which I, also as a Christian, do not.

I find my life is easiest when I ignore such people.

[Elminster_Amaur]

The only problem I have, is that textbooks teach it as verified fact, and that is not right. Evolution is a theory, and it should be explained to the impressionable children that it is just that, a theory. But the most widely used textbooks generally start out..."Billions and billions of years ago, the Earth was formed. After a few billion years, the Earth began to cool, and it started to rain. Nucleotides began to form together..." And it goes on from there. You see, what I read from that is:
"As the writer of a textbook, I have the ability to sway young minds into believing what I believe, and that makes me better than you, because a bunch of children will back me up, and site my textbook as the reason that that theory is the truth."

[Cicero]

The only problem I have, is that textbooks teach it as verified fact, and that is not right. Evolution is a theory, and it should be explained to the impressionable children that it is just that, a theory. But the most widely used textbooks generally start out..."Billions and billions of years ago, the Earth was formed. After a few billion years, the Earth began to cool, and it started to rain. Nucleotides began to form together..." And it goes on from there. You see, what I read from that is:
"As the writer of a textbook, I have the ability to sway young minds into believing what I believe, and that makes me better than you, because a bunch of children will back me up, and site my textbook as the reason that that theory is the truth."

Evolution is a verified fact. Over time, the frequency of certain alleles in a population will vary. This has been observed. It is a fact.

Once again, you're confusing a scientific theory with a hypothesis (this is natural enough, as the two words are used more or less interchangeably in everyday speech). A theory is not merely an intelligent speculation, it is an explaination which takes account of all of the facts and proposes possible relationships between them. A theory can be tested, and must be, repeatedly, with results that confirm it, if it is called such. A theory is a powerful thing.

Gravitation is a theory. Relativity is a theory. The heliocentric solar system is a theory. Would you suggest that scientific textbooks spend equal time on alternate explanations for all of these phenomena?

Nothing can be 100% proven in science. We can only rely on those ideas that seem to explain the facts, and continue to make accurate predictions. If, in the future, one of these ideas fails to do so, it must be modified or completely discarded. It is for this reason that any scientific explnation for any phenomena must be capable of being disproved--something that creationism, and most pseudoscience, isn't. Science textbooks merely present the ideas that all study up to this point has shown to be most likely to be correct. And that's all that we can reasonably expect them to do.

[EVILNess]

Heh... you should come to my hometown. The school adminstraors here are to quote RM "...Sadly for us they are vindictive and filled with bad ideas." Yeah ok examples.
1. Uniforms
2. No facial hair for guys, and hair mus be even with ears.
3. Firing or making teachers quit during a teacher shortage.
4. Using a 5.0 grade scale when the rest of the free world uses a 4.0 scale.
5. Using art classes and Tech classes to and I quote "reinforce the core subjects."
6. Forcing teachers to teach classes based on what will be on a standerdized test.

In fact thinking about my old High school make fell glad I graduated. I really dodged a bullet with all of these new regulation coming in. It also makes me think of another quote...
"Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education."
-Bertrand Russell

[Zero]

To join the Military as a Chaplain, you have to go through a World Religions class, to see what else is out there.

It would be nice if the parents actually got involved in there child's education, and gave them a bit of incentive to learn, as Shiney suggested earlier.

Another thing, is that in America we are dealing with a very wide array of ethnic groups. In Japan, it's mostly just the Japanese. In France, it's mostly French. In America, we have tens of ethnic groups in each school. The different mixture of genes end up giving us kids with different paces of learning, as someone mentioned earlier. I say we all hook up to a great big Matrix, and until we are ready for the real world, where we learn at our own pace in a place situated for our needs. It completely disregards parents and religion! Of course, we would have to have hundreds of programmers, and billions of dollars, but in the end it would be controlled by a great big machine. But...yeah...I'm going to shut up now, for I have been hit with the stupid stick.

[Mattias]

You're contradicting yourself Cicero.

Evolution is a verified fact. Over time, the frequency of certain alleles in a population will vary. This has been observed. It is a fact.

Here your saying that that evolution is absolutely true.

Nothing can be 100% proven in science. We can only rely on those ideas that seem to explain the facts,

Now here you are letting yourself be open to the thought that maybe your first statement is false. Well my original post was going to explain how everything in natural sciences are pretty much time and tested theories, not fact, you convinently contractdicted yourself, making my post merely this.

We can only rely on those ideas that seem to explain the facts, and continue to make accurate predictions. If, in the future, one of these ideas fails to do so, it must be modified or completely discarded. It is for this reason that any scientific explnation for any phenomena must be capable of being disproved

Your explaining Paradigms, and Paradigm Shifts. Already written about by Thomas Kuhn, in his book the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. When new evidence is introduced to a field, one of three things can happen. 1) New Evidence reinforces the current paradigm. 2) New Evidence contradicts current paradigm, then through testing, old paradigm wins out and new evidence is discarded. 3) New Evidence contradicts, then through testing New Evidence prevails and the old school of thought must be torn down or thrown out to make way for a new paradigm. (examples: Copernicus and Plutonian teracentric solar system, Einstein and Newtonian physics, Darwin and Creationism)

Science textbooks merely present the ideas that all study up to this point has shown to be most likely to be correct. And that's all that we can reasonably expect them to do.

Correct, because current textbooks are in our current paradigm of thought. If you looked at a school in 1800's. text books would teach creationism much with the same absolute truth, as you have backed evolution earlier.

Evolution is Scientific Theory, but not absolute truth. Where our paradigm stands now, Evolution is taught only because there is no other theory (creationism is thrown out because of seperation of church and state) to challenge it.

[Muffin Mage]

Thesis: Evolution is the most logical way of explaining the world.

Point: There is no reliable proof against evolution.
Point: There is no reliable way of proving or disproving creationism of any sort.
Point: There are no other provable means of explaining the world.

ERGO:

Evolution must be true.

See that? Yep, logic in action. Logic is something that is truly lacking in the public education system, and is something that should be taught.

[AndyBloodredMage]

I don't believe that makes it fact, just that noone has yet to come up with a better explanation.

[Cicero]

You're contradicting yourself Cicero.


Evolution is a verified fact. Over time, the frequency of certain alleles in a population will vary. This has been observed. It is a fact.


Here your saying that that evolution is absolutely true.


Nothing can be 100% proven in science. We can only rely on those ideas that seem to explain the facts,


Now here you are letting yourself be open to the thought that maybe your first statement is false. Well my original post was going to explain how everything in natural sciences are pretty much time and tested theories, not fact, you convinently contractdicted yourself, making my post merely this.

Perhaps I phrased my post poorly. My point was that no scientific theory can be 100% proven, as it is always possible that tomorrow we may find some data that disproves our theory. We can, however, be sure about what happened concerning particular occurances in the past, e.g. that the frequency of certain alleles in a certain poulation changed over time. This is a fact. It does not does not, however, guarantee that such will occur in every population, or that it will continue to occur in the future.

Evolution is Scientific Theory, but not absolute truth.

Due to its relying heavily on inductive reasoning, science can never reach any sort of "ultimate truth" (of course, it is questionable whether any sort of "ultimate truth" can even be said to exist, and if so, if it could ever be known by humans--but that's another discussion).

Evolution is taught only because there is no other theory (creationism is thrown out because of seperation of church and state) to challenge it.

Creationism is thrown out due to more than the seperation of church and state; it's thrown out because no evidence exists for it. We'd be drowning in a sea of could-be's if we were to give every idea that hasn't been disproven equal credence regardless of the amount of evidence.

[Muffin Mage]

I don't believe that makes it fact, just that noone has yet to come up with a better explanation.

Yes, yes, I know. That's the point of decent logic, though. When something else comes along that is more logical, it supercedes the previous "Most Logical" thing.

Or, you can look on the idea of relative truth. Right now, evolution is truth. A hundred and fifty years ago, Christian creationism was truth. In Scandanavia, everyone knew that the three parts of the world, Asgard, Midgard and Niflheim (sp) were strung along Ydrisdigal (also sp), until they were converted. Or, do you remember the idea of spontaneous generation? It was held as gospel until it was disproven in the 18th century. Truth, you must understand, is a wildly varying entity, something that is not taught in schools.

[Elminster_Amaur]

But the thing is, Evolution is not the most widely accepted theory by scientists who have been doing research on the beginnings of the universe, Creation is. 55% of scientists who have poured over all of the evidence have found that such a string of coincedences that must occur for evolution to have been the way we formed, is inconcievable. Also, the term Evolution is a misleading factor. A form of evolution has been observed, yes, but that is micro-evolution. What I don't understand, is how, when there has been no evidence to show that macro-evolution has ever occured, that the textbooks are allowed to say that it has. You may say, "well, the other 45% of scientist are the more accepted experts," but no, only around 35% of the scientists believe in Evolution as the textbooks teach it. The remainder of them have merged the theories together, or have some other theory on the beginnings. I just say, that as scientists don't have more than 65% agreement on the subject, we shouldn't let any theory's that have no viable way of being tested be taught in schools. The beginning of the universe is something that should be left to the parents to teach to their kids.

[Archbio]

But the thing is, Evolution is not the most widely accepted theory by scientists who have been doing research on the beginnings of the universe, Creation is. 55% of scientists who have poured over all of the evidence have found that such a string of coincedences that must occur for evolution to have been the way we formed, is inconcievable.

Maybe we don't mean the same thing when we say "scientific community", but that's not the impression I had at all. And since when was "the beginning of the universe" a question, scientifically speaking, linked to biological evolution? Firsthand experience of macro-evolution won't be possible unless we stick around a long time, the way I understood it.

I hardly think "Creation", as meant in most cases, makes much sense when combined with the fact that micro-evolution exists. That would mean that species, which were fully formed and separated at the beginning of their existence, would slowly degrade and change, but never enough to cross the lines we've defined between species, and become something else. It seems very arbitrary, and demands that life be much younger than I think we can determine it to be. So yes, I think if Creation is true at some point, I don't think we can imagine it as being separated from Evolution.

But yes, textbooks meant for lower echelons of education seem to to be too categorical, and that about everything. Evolution designates many variations on the same interpretations of facts, and those textbooks probably pick one and declare it Truth. People do the same thing with Creation, too.

Dr EDIT: Cicero, people aren't allowed to be so much more eloquent than me!

[Cicero]

But the thing is, Evolution is not the most widely accepted theory by scientists who have been doing research on the beginnings of the universe, Creation is.

Irrelevant. For thousands of years it was taken for granted that the earth was the center of the universe; that doesn't make the propisition any more true. A great deal of research has been done over the years proving the contrary. Science is a cumulative process.

55% of scientists who have poured over all of the evidence have found that such a string of coincedences that must occur for evolution to have been the way we formed, is inconcievable.

You may say, "well, the other 45% of scientist are the more accepted experts," but no, only around 35% of the scientists believe in Evolution as the textbooks teach it. The remainder of them have merged the theories together, or have some other theory on the beginnings. I just say, that as scientists don't have more than 65% agreement on the subject, we shouldn't let any theory's that have no viable way of being tested be taught in schools. The beginning of the universe is something that should be left to the parents to teach to their kids.

Do you have a citation for these claims? Incidentally, when I ran a search on Google, I found the following:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/549_00science_and_societyrev.doc.

The degree of public acceptance of evolution is differs sharply from that within the scientific community. In a 1996 survey of a sample selected from American Men and Women of Science, Witham and Larson asked scientists the same Gallup poll questions regularly asked of the general public.1 Whereas in 1997, 47% of Americans answered "agree" to Gallup's question about the special creation of humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, only 5% of scientists did. (I for one was surprised it was that high!) To Gallup's question on agreement whether evolution occurred without God's involvement, 45% of scientists answered affirmatively, but only 9% of nonscientists. Disproving the idea that all evolutionists are atheists, scientists and nonscientists had the same response to the "theistic evolution" question (evolution occurred, but was guided by God): 40% agreed. So while less than half of Americans accept evolution, an overwhelming majority of scientists do.

Methinks your source was equivocating.

Also, the term Evolution is a misleading factor. A form of evolution has been observed, yes, but that is micro-evolution. What I don't understand, is how, when there has been no evidence to show that macro-evolution has ever occured, that the textbooks are allowed to say that it has.

Nonsense. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing, except on different scales. If two populations are seperated for enough time, they will eventually diverge from each other so much that each can be said to be a seperate species. This has been observed. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

The beginning of the universe is something that should be left to the parents to teach to their kids.

Once again, I repeat: evolution has nothing, NOTHING to do with the origins of the of life, and even less to do with the origins of the universe!

By the way, I strongly encourage both proponents and opponents of the teaching of the theory of evolution to check out theTalk Origins Archive. (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html) It can help to clear up quite a few misconceptions concerning evolution.