Some Louisiana schools seem to be intent on throwing away a lot of taxpayer money to lose court battles on material that has already been clearly settled by the courts. The problem appears to be that there are too many people who do not understand science.
What are the teachers teaching?
Not science.
Critics often assume religious schools teach only creationism and ignore evolution, however, that doesn’t appear to be the case in Rapides Parish.[1]
How does someone who understands evolution teach Creationism?
We could consider the scientific evidence for Creationism.
OK. We can’t, because there isn’t any scientific evidence for Creationism.
None.
We can teach about the scientific evidence that demonstrates that evolution is real.
How does a science teacher teach something that is not science, but pretend that it is science?
Incompetence?
–
–
At Holy Savior Menard Central High School in Alexandria, both evolution and creationism are taught, biology teacher Mike Cooper said.
Cooper teaches standard and honors biology and standard and advanced placement human anatomy and physiology at Menard. He teaches both evolution and creation as theories and tries not to emphasize one over the other.[1]
Apparently, Mr. Cooper has no understanding of science or the difference between the definition of scientific theory and the common use of theory, that has nothing to do with science. I explained this in Part I.
–
He said the curriculum includes the theory of evolution, but it is not primary. He said he believes in balance, though, making sure students learn both theories.[1]
Balance is the secret weapon of people who don’t understand science.
Balance makes us feel good about our ignorance.
Balance is empowerment for the ignorant.
This is the Oprah effect – and it is very popular.
My ignorance deserves your respect.
My ignorance is just as good as your science.
No.
We can keep repeating our ignorance and eventually somebody will believe it, but it is still a lie.
No matter what we believe, reality does not go away.
Balance? Should we teach both theories – the stork delivers babies[2] and the science of sexual reproduction?
What if – He said the curriculum includes the theory of sexual reproduction, but it is not primary. He said he believes in balance, though, making sure students learn both theories.
Where does he stop providing balance by including unscientific hypotheses as science?
What about Flat Earth theory?[3] Should we teach that the Earth is flat?
What if – He said the curriculum includes the theory of a spherical Earth, but it is not primary. He said he believes in balance, though, making sure students learn both theories.
What about Geocentric theory?[4] Should we teach that the Sun revolves around the Earth?
What if – He said the curriculum includes the theory of the Earth revolving around the Sun, but it is not primary. He said he believes in balance, though, making sure students learn both theories.
This is not science. This is just the empowerment of ignorance.
Teaching warm fuzzy feel good stories is not teaching science.
We should not hand out diplomas for ignorance.
Here is your participation medal.
We think it is more important that you feel good about school, than that you learn to think.
Science requires evidence.
There is no evidence for Creationism. There is plenty of evidence for evolution.
Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part I
Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part II
Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part III
Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part V
Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VI
Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VII
The Age of the Earth – Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VIII
–
Footnotes:
–
[1] Evolution, creation science taught in Rapides Parish private schools
12:40 AM, Aug 13, 2012
The Town Talk
Written by Leigh Guidry
Article
–
[2] The Theory of the Stork Rises Again
New evidence challenges the theory of sexual reproduction.
Published on March 31, 2012
by Paul & Shou-Ching Jaminet
Psychology Today
Article
–
[3] Flat Earth
Wikipedia
Article
–
[4] Modern geocentrism
Wikipedia
Article
.
I know the name “Holy Savior Menard Central High School” might not easily give it away that the school is a private religious school. However, a quick Google search reveals that. Private school= allowed to teach God if they so chose (in addition to secular teachings meeting the state education requirement). What right does anyone have to tell them what to teach in the classroom?
An hour or so away from where I live there is an Islamic private school. Should I bust in there and shut them down for teaching about Allah being God and Muhammad a messenger?
What about all the Catholic schools, they even punish kids by saying Hail Mary’s. Shall we blog about them because they’re teaching Mary was a Saint?
No one forces that child to go to a private school, in fact, they have to apply and pay a fee to get in. Even if you weren’t able to realize from the “Holy Savior” bit of the school name that the school is religious, the parents probably realize that somewhere in the admissions program.
Have the graduates suffered any because of the teaching of creationism with evolution? No, data shows Holy Savior Menard students score higher on state standardized testing as well as higher ACT scores than other state schools.
There is some EVIDENCE for you in black and white. Maybe we should teach creationism in all the classrooms then since it’s proven to increase test scores? Or should we just butt out of private affairs, your beliefs and religion don’t have to be my beliefs and religion, and my beliefs don’t have to be anyone else’s.
Show me a public school that’s teaching creationism side-by-side with evolution and then I might agree with you.
TexasMedicJMB,
As it states in the article, the school is taking government money from the voucher program.
Menard (Holy Savior Menard Central High School) will welcome 17 voucher students when the school begins its academic year today.
When the public is funding the school, the school has to meet public standards.
Taking government money means giving up being able to ignore
I am pointing out that what this publicly funded school is teaching is demonstrably false and trying to discourage approval of public funding of such ignorance.
–
Do you have evidence that demonstrates that what they are teaching is false?
Are they taking public money to teach this?
–
Did I suggest that the school teaching nonsense (Menard) is not religious?
Did I suggest that there is any validity to the nonsense being taught at Menard?
–
Higher than how many other state schools?
The average scores could be higher than two other state schools and still be well below average.
These are standardized tests you are referring to.
The more importance placed on these test, the more incentive a school has to focus on test taking skills, rather than on education.
–
Where?
I don’t see any link to any evidence anywhere.
–
Please provide some evidence that teaching Creationism causes higher test scores than at other Louisiana schools.
Even if they have higher than average test scores, there are many factors that affect test scores.
Provide some good evidence that controls for other factors and demonstrates that the teaching of Creationism is the reason for the difference in the scores.
Your conclusion appears to be based on a statement and an irrational conclusion that assumes some sort of liner relationship between teaching Creationism and test scores.
–
There is plenty of evidence for evolution and no evidence for Creationism. Creationism is nonsense.
We should strongly discourage the teaching of nonsense.
As stated in the article, Menard will welcome 17 voucher students when the school begins its academic year today.
–
Holy Savior Menard Central High School is taking public money and teaching both evolution and Creationism.
If you have some evidence that the article is incorrect, please provide that information, otherwise QED.
.
Rogue:
First of all, forgive me, I don’t know how to do the quote boxes like you so I have to paraphrase your responses.
The test scores I referenced can be found http://www.holysaviormenard.com/academics/testingdata.cfm.
You hit the nail on the head about standardized testing not being a true measure of education. I didn’t make the argument standardized testing was proof the school was great, I’m only measuring the school against the standards most states use: standardized testing. I agree, that’s no accurate measurement of actual knowledge, but it’s all we have to work with.
I don’t know if you have children but anyone that does or has recently attended a public school themselves can see the schools are a joke. Schools are overcrowded, staff is underpaid, supplies are at critical lows, etc. If the government says they’ll allow children to use the voucher program then great, that alleviates a lot of pressure on the local public schools.
As far as government money being used in a religious school, government funds get used for religious purposes all the time.
Since 2000 we’ve spent over $26 million on maintaining/restoring cultural religious sites around the world. These included mosques, cathedrals, temples, etc.
Following major disasters like Katrina, government funds have been used to rebuild religious buildings.
We give Social Security benefits to little old ladies all the time that use that money for gas to drive to church. Should we stipulate government benefits can’t be used to buy Sunday dresses and drive to church?
The use of government funding for religious purposes is rampant.
The voucher program may indeed further the use of government in a religious area, but it’s re-allocating funding that would be used in a public school, not creating an entirely new expenditure.
Why knock something that is helping the student? Do we want educated young men and women entering the workforce? Or do we want political correctness? Here are our uneducated products of public schools, but by Joe they were never taught Creationism!!
TexasMedicJMB,
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/how-to-use-blockquotes/
–
Thank you
–
Until we have something better, but this is a political decision.
–
Yes. I have a public high school graduate, now in nursing school.
–
If we have given money around the world, has that money been aid to other governments or to religious organizations?
–
If the government were to tell an individual that the individual may not spend their money on anything religious, that would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment, just as the government directly subsidizing any religion is a violation of the First Amendment.
–
Politicians are not known for obeying the law.
–
That is irrelevant. What matters is that the government is not supposed to subsidize religions.
–
How is the teaching of anti-science helping students understand science?
Creationism can be clearly demonstrated to be false. Should we be lying to students?
–
Of course we do, which is exactly why we need to teach real science and stop this Oprahfication of the schools.
We cannot each make up our own reality and expect to avoid ridicule.
–
The political correctness of teaching Creationism should be strongly opposed.
–
That does not make sense.
Creationism is a fraud. We should oppose fraud.
Teaching Creationism teaches people to draw illogical conclusions. This is the opposite of the goal of education.
Science should be taught in the science classroom.
Teaching astrology is wrong.
Teaching that the Earth is flat is wrong.
Teaching that the Sun revolves around the Earth is wrong.
Teaching that reproduction happens by stork delivery is wrong.
Teaching Creationism is wrong.
None of these are science, so none of them belong in the science classroom.
The political correctness of allowing Creationism into the science classroom without any scientific evidence is not science.
What is the purpose of teaching the politically correct, but evidence free, feel good idea of Creationism?
The purpose certainly is not to produce an educated citizenry that would be able to compete with people from other countries for science jobs.
But we need to be leading the world in science, not abandoning science to less politically correct countries, such as China.
.
Thanks!
Isn’t that all we’re doing if we say the voucher can’t be used because this school teaches Creationism? My tax money goes towards the education of my child. The government is telling me not to spend my money on something religious if they say the funds can’t be used solely on the fact Creationism is taught at this school.
You’re subsidizing and even dictating the absence of religion if you tell me it’s not allowed to permit religion in the school.
See test scores referenced before. This “anti-science” doesn’t interfere with the students test scores or college admission rates, both of which are higher than the state and national average.
Rogue, to my understanding of Creationism is simply that an all powerful being created the Earth and life. Prove to me that’s wrong. I’m not challenging evolution here, species evolve over time, there is ample proof of that. I’m not saying man hasn’t evolved, or the Earth hasn’t evolved. I hold the belief the start of Earth came from God, you can’t prove that wrong and I can’t prove that right. I don’t know what Holy Savior Menard is teaching about Creationism, maybe you shouldn’t have started knocking them without examining what exactly they were saying about Creationism. If they simply teach “We believe God started the world, then we evolved from there” what’s the problem? Show me proof some all powerful deity didn’t start the earth. Show me proof he did. You can’t either way. If they’re teaching the science of evolution with the belief of Creationism, the children aren’t learning “anti-science”.
Voltaire: “I think therefore I am” Since reality is determined by the main stream consensus this day in age, by discouraging someone from making a reality you’re discouraging free thought.
I’m confused. It’s politically correct to teach Creationism, but it’s also a 1st Amendment violation? You’re contradicting yourself, friend.
In any event, teaching Creationism and evolution gives the student the ability of free choice. You (rightfully so) bash protocol monkeys all the time because they follow a set of orders without free thought. If the school presents the idea of “We believe God created the earth and man thereafter” with the idea “some cosmic space dust bumped into this electrical particle and created some green ooze and that’s led to man” then we’ve not only taught the children two trains of though, but given them that ability which makes us stand out from the other animals: freedom of thought. The child may now choose to believe God created life, life came from cosmic dust, or any variation there of that he chooses.
If we don’t permit the child to have free thought and determine his own perspective on the world based on evidence and ideas presented to him, we might as well be a complete Marxist state. Let’s line the kids up at Tiananmen Square to talk about the downfalls of allowing Creationism in a private classroom
TexasMedicJMB,
The government is also able to say that Medicare will not pay for healthcare that has no valid scientific basis. You can use Medicare (if you qualify for the aid) to pay for medical care, but there are standards that must be met.
You will not be able to use Medicare to cover naturopathy, acupuncture, homeopathy, and other alternative medicine.
http://www.medicare.com/services-and-procedures/therapies/alternative-therapies.html
Using alternative medicine is the medical equivalent of teaching Crerationism as science.
There is no validity to it, so the government should not subsidize it.
–
No.
Not subsidizing religion is not the same as dictating the absence of religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
You can still pay for Creationism with your own money.
You can still pay for alternative medicine with your own money.
The government is only telling you what you can do with government money.
–
As is to be expected when comparing private schools with public schools.
It would be more appropriate to see how Menard compares with other private schools.
It is absurd to suggest that the science scores are due to teaching Creationism. How much higher would their science scores be if they were taught real science instead of fake science?
–
There is no conflict between belief in God and teaching evolution. There is no reason for people to make up lies about the magic of 6 Day Creationism being a theory on a par with evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory, while Magical 6 Day Creationism, the topic being discussed, is not remotely a scientific theory.
–
Then you are deceiving yourself or just trying to deceive others.
–
Descartes wrote, Cogito, ergo sum, not Voltaire. In your reality, maybe Voltaire did write it, but you are wrong.
Reality is not determined by mainstream consensus.
I am discouraging Creationist nonsense.
–
Not at all.
Politically correct has nothing to do with being legal.
Politically correct is just appealing to the masses.
–
No.
Teaching the nonsense of Creationism is still teaching nonsense.
This is not about choosing your own reality, so that you can feel good about being ignorant.
Your ignorance is not as good as reality.
–
This is not teaching students the flaws of the myth of the Magic of the 6 Day Creation, so there is no free thought being taught. This is teaching students to suspend their skepticism and just believe. That is not science.
Science is skepticism. Science is questioning everything in order to find out what is real.
Creationism is ignoring reality because the parents don’t understand reality.
–
If we want to teach children to think critically, then pointing out the many ways that Creationism is a fraud may be an excellent way to teach them how to recognize errors of judgment, but that would be the only positive.
Do you want the schools to pick up the Bible to teach about the ways to recognize the errors of literal interpretation.
A textbook guiding instruction in the errors of literal interpretation of Genesis would be an improvement over teaching the myth of the Magic of the 6 Day Creation.
.
Rogue:
Standards? Medicare is a joke. We can’t seriously use one of the most corrupt and fraudulent systems in the US government as a model for what is appropriate in the classroom. Unless of course it’s a school for politicians. In that case Medicare standards should be a capstone.
In 2011 Medicare paid out over $188 million for penis pumps. Penis pumps. If we can pay for penis pumps, why can we not allow funding for children to seek better education via the voucher program? If the government is able to say my tax dollars go towards a penis pump, I don’t see a harm in them allowing the funding to go to something actually useful, such as a religious school.
You and I both can think of a dozen separate examples of “valid” government spending on ridiculous things off the top of the head.
What the government calls validity is no indicator of what is actually valid or right. As a wise man once told me, “Politicians are not known for obeying the law”.
You mentioned something like this in an earlier post too. I think you’re taking it literally that I’m saying the scores are higher based on the fact they teach Creationism. I’m taking a page out of your book and using sarcasm to bring out a point. Sadly the Internet doesn’t allow us to hear voice inflections and see facial expressions and single finger waves, otherwise my intent would have been more clear.
I’ll state again I’m not sure how Saint Menard is presenting this lesson. Are you? The article you referenced doesn’t really detail how Creationism is brought up in the class. You say there is no conflict in belief in God and teaching evolution. If there is no problem, why is a scenario in which a belief that God created initial life ruled out? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Theory of Evolution never states where exactly life came from. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor#Hypotheses .
Scientist themselves argue over the possibility or existence of the origin of life.
In the event there is no science to prove or disprove the notion of a divine creation, where does the teaching of divine creation coupled with evolution fail?
Not to be dense, but I can’t follow you here.. What are you referring to?
Ouch. Touche sir.
In my circumstance, in the best of all possible worlds Voltaire coined “I think, therefore I am”. Ergo, by Voltaire logic I am right. You are wrong. Apology accepted sir. 😉
I would love to argue this point with you too, but for fear of dragging even more so away from the original topic I won’t… Yet.
Use science to prove Creationism is a fraud. As I said above, science is fuzzy on how exactly we all came to be. Your own standard of science fails to prove the absence of a deity capable of starting life.
TexasMedicJMB,
There is more validity to penis pumps than to Creationism.
–
They are teaching something that is claimed to be a scientific alternative to evolution.
Evolution makes no statement about cosmology. There is no conflict with religion, except for the various sects that have preachers who claim that 6 Day Creationism is something other than a metaphor.
From the article –
When discussing Creationism, I am referring to 6 Day Creation or any other Creation belief that is not science, yet claims to contradict the science of evolution.
The article makes it clear that the Creationism Mr. Cooper is teaching is some fraud that claims to contradict evolution.
–
There is no reason to introduce religion to a science classroom and no reason to introduce science to a religion classroom, but if we are going to be fair, we should do both or neither.
We need intelligent science teachers. Mr. Cooper is incapable of telling the difference between science and religion, so he should not be teaching any science.
How many of the dozens of Creation myths i listed in Part I should be covered in a class that is supposed to be teaching science, not mythology?
–
Exactly.
There is no conflict between religion and evolution.
If religions are taught, they should only be taught as religions, not as science.
And yet, you keep bringing this up as if you were making a valid point.
–
There is no reason to add mythology to what is taught in a science classroom.
Science is not about teaching mythology.
Science does not teach things because they cannot be proven to be false, otherwise science would have to teach about The Dragon In My Garage by Carl Sagan. The list of things science would have to teach is infinite.
Science requires proof before something is taught as science.
–
There was a sentence you had written above that. You chose to leave it out. You are making this seem as if this deception is intentional, rather than self-deception.
As I wrote above, your claim is false.
Menard’s science teacher is claiming that the Creationism he teaches contradicts evolution.
–
That is not following Voltaire’s logic.
Voltaire was ridiculing Dr. Pangloss.
PS. I misspelled Descartes, but have corrected it in all of the comments.
–
Many people believed that the Earth was flat. When that was a popular belief, was it true that the Earth was flat?
Did reality change as more people became more educated?
–
Any Creationism that claims to contradict evolution is a fraud.
I have not been referring to any other kind of Creationism.
Science can easily demonstrate that any Creationism that claims to contradict evolution is a fraud.
There is no scientific evidence for any Creationism that contradicts the science of evolution.
There is abundant evidence that evolution is real.
.
Quality of life is the issue of a penis pump. Creationism deals with the religious beliefs of an individual, very much a part of the quality of life no matter what the said religion is. If I’m understanding you correctly, you assert we can’t validate something we can’t scientifically quantify. So no, the penis pump is no more valid than Creationism.
Since creation there have been idiots. A mainstream idea or belief system can’t be held responsible for every off-sect that pops up. In my circles “Creationism” refers to the idea of creation I have outlined several times. This is the point I’m arguing. I’ll make the concession that an idea that attempts to disprove scientific theory is indeed fraudulent, such as the sects you are mentioning.
Religious school. I still hold to the fact that a private school has a right to teach what they will while meeting the state standard. The parents don’t have to chose that particular school if they don’t want that message reaching their children.
As for public schools, we teach the myth of Santa Claus, the myth of standardized testing, the myth of censorship promotes better education, etc. Public school is chock-full of myths.
Kind of a harsh response. I didn’t intentionally try and make it seem like your statement was deceiving. On the contrary, I was trying to clarify.
I’ll argue the mind is a powerful tool, Rogue. A blanket reality does not exist, it’s subjective to the person. I just feel you and I getting into a philosophical debate over reality, perception, existence, etc. detracts from the Creationism issue. I could write a few pages over that particular topic, the Creationism would get lost in the mix. I’m certainly not opposed to the discussion though. Via another medium perhaps?
Early on you led me to believe you were opposing Creationism in general due to the school receiving partial tax dollars. If you’re saying you have no opposition to the teaching of Creationism that does not contradict evolution, I think we’ve come to an agreeance. After reading your blog for awhile and listening to podcast you have participated in, I know how much you hate agreeing, so I’m sure I’ve misunderstood your intent.
TexasMedicJMB,
If the penis pump works, there should be evidence that it works. I have not reviewed the evidence, and I don’t intend to because I don’t care, but if Medicare covers it there should be evidence.
–
Creationism makes ridiculous claims that science shows to be false.
Is telling lies an important part of your quality of life?
–
Are you planning on passing penis pumps out in a science class?
We can demonstrate scientifically that Creationism is not true.
Creationism has no scientific validity, so Creationism is less valid than a penis pump.
–
I have been stating that things that are not science, such as 6 Day Creationism, should not be taught as science in a science classroom.
–
A private school is has to give up whatever exemption to public laws it may enjoy, if it is going to take public money. Hospitals are required to follow EMTALA, if they receive Medicare or Medicade, but they do not if they do not accept money from these sources. There are other ways of being included in EMTALA, but that is the major reason.
They are using public money to teach mythology as science.
Even if they do not take public money, they are telling lies if they are teaching Creationism in science classes. That is hardly an example of ethical behavior.
–
I would love to eliminate the myths from all classrooms.
I do not agree that two wrongs make a right. That is flawed ethics.
Too many people accept that amoral (there is no morality) excuse for behaving immorally (bad behavior, which requires an understanding of morality and the decision to engage in bad behavior anyway).
One problem is the myths.
A separate problem is the vile behavior of people demanding special treatment for their myths.
It is OK to behave immorally, because we are doing it to promote our God.
No.
–
Including all of the relevant information would help to clarify it. Eliminating parts confuses, rather than clarifies.
–
Because we aren’t able to exchange ideas here?
I do not accept that reality is whatever you want it to be.
I do understand that we all may have different experiences of reality.
Do you have any evidence that having a different experience of reality changes reality.
I do not accept that the Earth was flat when people were too ignorant to realize that the Earth is not flat.
–
There are two issues.
One is schools using public money to promote religion. The courts have decided that and it is just a waste of money that should be going to education. We already have enough problems with education. We don’t need frauds constantly looking for ways to find loopholes in the law so that they can preach using public money.
I don’t know why so many people support this amoral behavior. The parents are the ones who end up with the bill for the lawyers, because they put some frauds in a position to get them sued.
The other issue is one I have repeated throughout the comments – Creationism is not science. Even in a religious school, Creationism does not belong in a science classroom.
If the school teaches religion, the place for Creationism is in the religion classroom.
Any presentation of Creationism in a science classroom is a lie.
I don’t have a problem agreeing with people, but I do like to be clear about what we agree on. Too often, when I discuss the details, people do not agree with me on the specifics, even if they may agree in general. Some people persuade me to change my mind by providing me with evidence that convinces me that I am wrong.
.
Rogue,
Hope this finds you in good health sir.
Your argument is Medicare should have evidence, but you’re not sure what it is, but you’re somehow sure it’s there. I challenge you on that point.
Let’s even make it more simple, Medicare covers Epi in a full arrest. You’ve posted enough research on that to know the results. Is Epi justified in a full arrest? No. So your argument Medicare needs evidence is bogus, just like the penis pumps. Only someone is probably enjoying the penis pumps.
You let my argument about Medicare being a fraud stand, so I’ll reiterate we can’t use this system as a benchmark as to what’s appropriate in a classroom.
I’ve repeatedly said I agree with you 100% on Creationist that contradict evolution by using arguments such as the world is only 7,000 years old, we can’t evolve, etc. are wrong. One more time I’m making the assertion that mainstream Creationism simply believes the creation of life was of a divine hand. Never once have I argued “ridiculous claims” that science shows to be false. You and Bill Nye are focusing on a small group of backwards idiots and making a blanket assumption based on the actions of a few. Only he does it with a bow tie.
Some paramedics perform poor treatment, does that mean we label all paramedics in the US as sub-standard?
As for telling lies; you’re making it sound as if you’re calling religions a lie. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your intent. A lot of people believe very firmly in a God or gods of many different varieties, so please don’t tell me you’re saying religion is an unimportant lie.
The penis pump has no validity, yet it got $188 million last year alone. How much money went into Menard or other schools teaching Creationism? These schools are actually prepping young men and women for the workforce and will be our future generation, and you’re saying the funding takes a backseat to the pumps because of a lack of better research?
No, it doesn’t. The Lemon test (Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971) states the school may receive funding for non-secular purposes. I use the Catholic schools as an example because they are highly prevalent. Catholic schools around the country receive public funding every day. They don’t give up their rights. In previous post I’ve given you examples of the government stepping in and giving funding to religious institutions. Your argument public funding can only go to a non-religious purpose is wrong brother. There is much evidence to the contrary.
In a science class taught inside a private religious school they’re within their rights to mix religion into the science they teach. If you don’t like what’s being said then you take your child elsewhere. No one is forcing the parents or the children to conform to this religion.
Start a private school. I think you would make a great teacher. However, it remains the discretion of your pupils as to if they accept what you say or not, the same as it is in a classroom teaching Creationism.
I agree. The founding fathers wanted freedom up to the point you inhibited the freedom of another. If you take away Creationism in a public classroom that’s giving freedom, if you take away Creationism in a private setting you are now inhibiting freedom. John Wayne rolled over in his grave.
To be honest it’s getting harder to reference our earlier comments the more we write, I didn’t want to engage in another lengthy debate. I’m not taking a cheap shot at your website but it’s difficult to read back up sometimes. No matter, we’ll discuss it anyway.
It’s interesting when you asked me about ideas you chose that word to refer to it: ideas. Evidence and ideas rarely go hand-in-hand. An idea is a concept by definition, not something tangible. To flip your argument around do you have any evidence that not having a different experience of reality changes reality? No, we can’t. It’s an idea, we’ll have to hash it out like grown-ups and meet each other on the play ground at high noon.
Reality is subjective to the person experiencing the reality. Take a Schizophrenic pt for instance. That pt has a reality that the voices are telling her to kill herself. Do you and I hear them? No. Does that make it any less real to the pt? No. To them the voices are as real as you and I being in the truck with them. If we believe firmly in something then a reality has been created for us. Perception is reality, in my opinion. My wife doesn’t like steamed broccoli, I do. Is there a reality that stands aside from our beliefs? Our does a reality exist, specific to her, that broccoli taste bad steamed, and a reality exist specific to me that broccoli taste better steamed? An independent reality would imply one of us is right and by reflexive property one wrong. I believe we both have a reality in which we are right, a single reality wouldn’t allow both of us to be right.
What court decision was that? Reference it to me please. Frauds looking for loopholes? Reference me where the schools pushed for this voucher program to further an agenda.
If the school is a private school meeting the requirement set forth by the state board then we have no say so as to what is taught there. I cannot shut down the Islamic school, or Catholic school, or St. Menard because I disagree with what they have to say in secular teachings. I do, however, have the option to send my children elsewhere. I’ll bring up the point again the voucher program isn’t creating new money to send these children to school, it’s taking money that would have been spent on the pupil anyway and allowing the parent to decide where the child should go. Isn’t that more American anyway? We aren’t forcing the child to go to school A because we dictate it shall be so, nor are we taking tax money away and telling you it can only go to education if your child goes to school A. It’s more of a crime to me to take away money I’ve earned through working and tell me it must go to this school and I have no say so in the matter.
In a religious school, you may infer a lot of the teachings are religious based. I wouldn’t think the Spanish school happens to teach half a lesson in Russian for giggles. So why would I assume a religious school would count out religion in a classroom?
It’s an opinion, something the school is entitled to teach without regard for feelings of others because they are a private school.
Medicare funding penis pumps and Epi is a lie. Bill Nye telling the world the 3 Mile Island reactor (see Part III) was up and running was a lie.
Menard and any other school is entitled to teach a lesson that is religious in nature, even if it has no scientific value because they are a private school. Just because they receive partial state funding doesn’t mean they must know teach to public standards. You said yourself, private schools compared to public schools receive above average marks. We don’t want them going to teaching to the public standards and turning out less educated students. Partial funding doesn’t entitle the state to dictate what happens in the classroom. How much of a percentage are we talking about anyway here? 20% of tuition is state funded? 2%? 90%? Assuming the lower numbers, you have to apply the analogy to a real world scenario. If I own 2% share of a company does that give me equal say-so over the happenings as the person who owns the other 98%? No.
TexasMedicJMB
Rogue,
Hope this finds you in good health sir.
No.
My point is that there should be evidence, but that I do not care enough to want to look it up.
–
There is evidence for epinephrine in cardiac arrest.
I don’t think that the evidence is adequate. That is not the same as no evidence.
Epinephrine clearly increases ROSC, but I do not think that helps us improve survival. I think these patients would have better outcomes without the epinephrine.
–
Medicare is supposed to base its reimbursement on whether there is good evidence to support a treatment as being efficacious and safe.
What is taught in the science classroom should be based on what can be demonstrated to be good science, not based on politics, or religion, or some other bias.
–
Here is a collection of a bunch of polls on evolution from the Pew Research Center.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1107/polling-evolution-creationism
As you can see, denial of evolution is rampant.
–
Since Menard is telling lies, the penis pump is much more worthwhile.
–
From the summary of Lemon v. Kurtzman –
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_89/
The use of public funds to pay teachers in religious schools was found to be unconstitutional.
–
How can you defend lying to children?
They are teaching lies. They are teaching the lies as science.
That is immoral.
–
I would teach them how to evaluate evidence.
Once they understand that, they can make up their own minds about the validity of the evidence that they are presented with.
Teaching students how to recognize lies is important.
The Creationism being taught is a bunch of indefensible lies.
–
That is not science.
Science is not whatever you want it to be.
–
Reality is what is there regardless of what we believe.
–
A schizophrenic hearing voices that are not there does not make the voices there for anyone else, because there is no reason to believe that reality differs from person to person. We have no reason to attribute this to anything more than a difference in perception.
Taste is subjective, not objective.
You have not made any valid point about reality.
–
I do not believe that lying to children is an American value.
Exactly the opposite.
–
Why have any criteria for what is taught in any classroom.
As long as we are going to lie, why waste the time of the children and let them go play all day?
–
Science is not an opinion.
–
No.
I have already explained this.
–
They scored slightly higher than public school students on standardized tests, which are not the way we should evaluate understanding.
You agreed with that.
Since you think that it doesn’t matter what they teach, why waste the money on schools? Spend it building trash dumps.
That would be much more honest.
.
Words of wisdom for arguing with the religious…
“It’s like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it’s victorious”
Agreed, Rogue Medic. I’m personally one who has to have a little proof. I’ve been led astray by lies in my youth enough to learn what to expect when someone rails that someone is truth. As for the Catholic School comment about punishing for saying Hail Mary’s, I graduated from a Catholic high school. I’ve never seen that nor heard that happen. Does that mean it hasn’t happened? No. I’ll take the man for his word. And honestly, there is little other than the weather that makes me want to watch the news anymore…