Posted on 10/18/2002 11:16:06 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Yes, the idea that it is in my own best self interest to have an educated populace, the original argument for public education, is becoming overshadowed by both the feeble education provided by public education today, and the indoctrination in socialist dogma that is has degenerated to. I know kids in high school who cannot read the instructions on how to put their skateboards together. It is a sad state of affairs.
Dear PH, I don't have issues with those disciplines -- not at all. But the reason for that is they are all "rigorous" in a way that biology is not, not even to mention the social sciences. The latter of which (I agree with you here) are mainly at the present time, mostly a CROCK...of something or other....
I just don't want to see biological science or any of its cognates fall into the same hole....
I see it all too often on employee applications. Anyone that can't read is incapable of doing a great many things, let alone handling dangerous machinery for fun and profit.
So force the states to give back that ~10,000 per student in taxes and we'll see if the entrepreneurs can do a better job.
I posted it as a double entendre on purpose to illustrate that inquiry is a good thing regardless of establishment prejudice. The word Truth would be capitalized from the creationists' point of view.
It seems to me that teaching kids how to critically analyze anything ought to be part of the fundamentals of a public education. Otherwise, the schools are fostering the sheep mentality.
I agree with your observation: If you don't have public review of science education then what happens when some group of scientists 'prove' that Jews are genetically inferior?
With social "sciences" being elevated (wrongfully IMHO) - and political correctness run awry - and a sheep mentality, the scenario you gave sends chills up my spine.
I also agree that education should not be publically funded unless it meets a very high standard and all forms of ideology are left at the door. I include materialism and most forms of political correctness in the ideology bucket.
And about time, with the tons of Evidence Disproving Evolution available, it is time the lie was discarded.
I agree with your statement: To say the evolution issue has been dispositively "decided," therefore all further discussion is moot, is the complete antithesis of how Western science has proceeded in the past.
My two cents was that "inquiry is not a threat to truth." I could have extended that as follows:
They should spend even less time on it. In fact they should not spend any time on a theory which with each new biological discovery gets disproven. Evolution has led science into too many false assumtions for it to be considered useful for anything.
A bald assertion which you cannot back up. That science, any kind of science is consistent with evolution is ludicrous. Science is about finding repeatable, measurable order in the Universe. Evolution denies order by postulating randomness as the source of it. So evolution cannot be science and each discovery which finds order and repeatability in nature disproves it.
Tell us how you really feel. That would be more along the lines of
"How dare anyone even dream of criticising Evolution! Anyone who criticizes Evolution is brain dead."
Evolution should not be taught period, in public, private or any schools, as it is totally worthless and adds zero value to science and has no real applicabilty.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
That there is too not enough critical analysis taught in schools is certain. However, to continue the practice by giving evolution a pass will not solve that problem. Perhaps this decision will lead to more critical analysis in the rest of education so I do not see how this decision can in any way be harmful.
Well, logically speaking, I do not think that the above can be true. If there is no God as materialistic/evolution claims, then intelligent design would be impossible. If there is a God then the ridiculous assumptions of matter changing itself by evolutionists must be false. This is not really a scientific argument at all but a theological one and therefore cannot be half true/half false.
Actually biology is pretty rigorous. Perhaps the question you have with it is that it is just fairly recently that we have been able to scientifically examine many of the assumptions which were being made about how organisms work. We have medicines and many cures for ailments which do work. We are learning every day exactly how many things in our bodies occur through very exact experimentation. We do not have all the answers, and we never will but that is true of biology as well as the other sciences.
Ah, but Patrick, that is precisely the position of those such as yourself who oppose teaching the contradictory facts and the controversy in our public schools. Can it be explained why so-called Darwinist science closes its mind at some definitive point known only to the Evolutionists?
The broader answer is that only the inattentive, continuously bombarded by the Orwellian, Leftist Media, can remain "convinced" that Atheist, Anti-Christian Darwinism is science. People are beginning to "get it".
Thanks so much for your thoughtful post, Phaedrus. That doctrine you mentioned ... I never heard of it. I don't believe in it or advocate it. As most people know, the theory of evolution is only about the development of living things, and it has nothing to say about theology.
I take your point, gore3000, but would qualify it. What I was driving at was the idea that both sides of the evo-crevo debate seem to depend on doctrinal formulations to make their respective cases. Eric Voegelin has pointed out that doctrines often operate as "reality substitutes" which, by hypostasizing truth, tend to deform it.
Dakmar...
I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.
fC...
These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Dakmar...
Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.
God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.
452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar
When biology sticks to what can be directly observed, however, it can be just as rigorous as the physical sciences. I think the human genome project, for instance, is a good illustration of this.
JMHO FWIW.
I can't imagine how anyone could object to this statement! It seems so transparently clear to me....
Thank you so much for writing, A-G.
Actually I doubt it's the case of one or the other. "A pox on both their houses!" For both ideologies suffer from the same fatal fault, which is the absolute rejection of spiritual being, the denial of God. THAT is the root of evil in the world, IMHO. Both Darwin and Marx equally attacked the very root of what had come to be recognized as "enlightened, moral civilization" as it had historically evolved. Indeed, both Stalin and Hitler (among others) actually blended the two sources to create their pernicious ideologies. The rejection of God continues... and so we continue to live with the consequences, in all their variety and diversity.
JMHO FWIW
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.