I read subby's headline as flat-earthers. Not that that'd be much better, but still

I'd just like to remind the anti-science idiots that many of us Texans breed livestock, so we've seen evolution first-hand. Also, we are well armed.

Creationists seem to come in cycles. When they are out of power nobody cares except other creationists so they work their way into power. After they win the evolutionists and their allies notice and spring into action. Eventually the creationists are driven out of power and we return to the start of the cycle.

Awesome. Public education isn't so swell when people you disagree with are allowed to set education policy for your children.

mmm... pancake

There's nothing about disagreement here. The young-Earthers are flat-out wrong. Teaching what amounts to lies and untruths is only harmful.

It's just Texas. Be happy we even HAVE schools.

Xaxor: There's nothing about disagreement here. The young-Earthers are flat-out wrong. Teaching what amounts to lies and untruths is only harmful.

I don't know what to tell you except that's how the system works. Those in power make the decisions for you. That was my point. They could be flat-out wrong and they decide what your kids will learn.

that's how the system works.

No. That's how the system fails.

A bunch of reality deniers band together and build a "science" curriculum based on demonstrably false garbage, propped up by absolute scum like the Discovery Institute, and Institution for Creation Research, organizations that have been REPEATEDLY caught in their poorly formed lies.

They take advantage of the local community's ignorance and laziness, which manifests as "fairness," i.e., "let's just believe that both sides deserve equal credence because it's too hard to be bothered to learn about science; that's what school boards should do."

co-conspirator: No. That's how the system fails.

Exactly. Public education fails because whoever is in power sets the curriculum for EVERYBODY. It's a lot easier to see when the other side is in power, isn't it?

Exactly. Public education fails because whoever is in power sets the curriculum for EVERYBODY.

Again, "No."

Public education fails when it ceases to deliver reality-based education, i.e., the skills needed to succeed in life. An understanding of science (which is a PROCESS of logical thought, not the memorization and eventual forgetting of some randomly presented facts), I continue to maintain is a critical life skill. Without it, you get people who can be fooled into believing just about anything.

co-conspirator: Public education fails when it ceases to deliver reality-based education

This is but a symptom of the larger problem. The problem being politics mixed with education.

Frequently the only thing you can do in medicine is treat the symptom.

Please help me see where you're coming from by providing an example or three about political decisions that are anti-reality, not just anti- some group or other's belief system about how reality should be.

There is no question that there are many problems with public education. Many spring from the sad reality that it is heading towards being a dreadfully poorly funded dumping ground for woefully unprepared students who receive no learning reinforcement at home. Why? Because their parents are either unable or unwilling ("what do we pay those damn teachers for") to fulfill their responsibilities to their children.

But that's separate from decisions about curriculum, which is the topic for now.

co-conspirator: Please help me see where you're coming from by providing an example or three about political decisions that are anti-reality, not just anti- some group or other's belief system about how reality should be.

Every decision about curriculum is a political decision made by someone at a high level. The politicization of education is reflected perfectly in the NCLB.

mmm... pancake: Every decision about curriculum is a political decision made by someone at a high level. The politicization of education is reflected perfectly in the NCLB.

That's why we have a court system, to make sure any decision is constitutional.

eqtworld: I hope the creationists win.

If they just win in one area, it will be national news and letting them teach will really, really make them look like idiots.

Even the kids will be mad when they realize they are being deprived of an education.

/if they win, they wont stay in charge of the curriculum very long
//I just want to read the 50 epic fark threads it will spawn

Actually, THIS.

I wouldn't mind seeing another high profile court-case stomping the issue flat. Granted some people with GEDs in Law might cry "activist judges" but there is no cure for willful ignorance, so they can't be helped.

However, getting the issue out into the light and publicly humiliated and destroyed would hopefully get enough people pointing and laughing that the creationists shut-up for awhile.

/wishful thinking?
//maybe, but without dreams, what are we?

If you or anyone you like is getting a science degree at a Texas school then you should have real concerns with this kind of educational policy. Would an employer rather hire a scientist/researcher/lab tech from a "science" state, or would an employer rather hire from a "God did it!" state?

Congrats, Texas. Come November, your resumes go to the bottom of the pile.

mamoru: However, getting the issue out into the light and publicly humiliated and destroyed would hopefully get enough people pointing and laughing that the creationists shut-up for awhile.

That'd be nice.

But the thing is, very few people really understand why creationism isn't science. The way our educational system works, most people think scientists are just making shiat up anyway. They're not equipped to recognize bullshiat.

From a purely intellectual stand point the politicization of education is interesting. And don't imagine for a second that this is not an attempt at achieving long-term political goals. The "teach the controversy" curriculum is an attempt to teach anti-logic and create in the students a trust of rhetorical constructs and authority over facts and logic.

The long term benefit of this is pretty clear. An electorate that trusts rhetoric and authority over logic is easier to manipulate. An easy to manipulate electorate can be convinced more regularly to accept things that are not in their b est interest.

The Soviets did things similar to this in their hey-day as well, because authoritarianism pretty much looks the same no matter who does it.

The solution is for the accreditation councils to to start yanking certifications, and for colleges and universities to reject applications. Let's see how they react when they find out their paper is worthless.

Lets get this out of the way, since its the same crap in every one of these threads:

Rules of atheism "Science":

Rule #1 God is IRRELEVANT
Rule #2 If God is relevant, see Rule #1
Rule #3 If God might be relevant, see Rule #1

Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves

No matter what we're going to have disagreements over what gets taught in schools. Instead of blanket rules, why not leave it up to the individual teachers? We could still base compensation/ratings on basic proficiency in math, etc, but leave the methodology up to them.

Oh goody, an 'intelligent design' thread, with what looks like a home school advocate.. I think I'll skip this one. We'll probably get some Boortz fans in for this one..

Wolf_Blitzer: Lets get this out of the way, since its the same crap in every one of these threads:

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves

Actually, Bevets and skinnyhead are voices of reason compared to that "I learn science from an anti-evolutionist" guy that was spamming yesterday's creationist thread with his idiocy.

Wolf_Blitzer: Lets get this out of the way, since its the same crap in every one of these threads:

Yes, let's.

Rule #1: Untestable hypotheses are IRRELEVANT
Rule #2: If an untestable hypothesis seems relevant, restructure it to render it testable.
Rule #3: If you can't render it testable, find another hypothesis.

The important thing here is that it does not distinguish between natural/supernatural. Either you have a hypothesis that can be tested and possibly disproved, or you don't. If there is a supernatural explanation, that's fine (but unlikely), so long as you can propose a test, a way to invalidate that hypothesis and then test it!

mamoru: I wouldn't mind seeing another high profile court-case stomping the issue flat. Granted some people with GEDs in Law might cry "activist judges" but there is no cure for willful ignorance, so they can't be helped.

The problem is that the creationists only have to win once. The current Supreme Court has already shown that it will overturn long-standing precedents in the name of ideology and Scalia has repeatedly expressed skepticism about the Establishment Clause interpretation of past rulings on creationism in public schools. That's why Dover was such a big deal. Because Judge Jones was a conservative appointed by W, the creationists thought that they would win and that through appeals the case would eventually reach a sympathetic Supreme Court. Fortunately, Jones turned out to be more interested in the law than in ideology (and the creationists were incompetent boobs) and as such his ruling made it strategically unwise for the creationists to pursue the issue through appeals. It was a much more precarious situation than people remember.

t3knomanser: The way our educational system works, most people think scientists are just making shiat up anyway. They're not equipped to recognize bullshiat.

Actually its not that bad (new window). While the U.S. has a long way to go, so do most adults in other countries as well. We're more scientifically literate than Europe.

If Texas is stupid enough to let this pass, how many people think we can get them to vote away their suffrage rights? I think if we got a few million, we could effectively have these pathetic idiots relegated to uncitizen status in a matter of months. Just add bits and pieces of 'liberal' and 'Jesus' and we'll have these assholes foaming at the mouth to vote away their rights to vote.

Shaggy_C: No matter what we're going to have disagreements over what gets taught in schools. Instead of blanket rules, why not leave it up to the individual teachers? We could still base compensation/ratings on basic proficiency in math, etc, but leave the methodology up to them.

If you've ever known an education major as he was getting his degree (as I have), you'd know that the vast majority of the training our primary-school teachers receive is about how to teach, not understanding of what they'll be teaching. They don't get much specialized instruction in a specific field because they're expected to teach whatever the school needs them to. Often, their understanding of the subject extends little beyond the textbook they teach from. They're about as qualified to determine the curriculum as the students are.

Yesdog: It's just Texas. Be happy we even HAVE schools.

The University of Texas at Austin is a world-class institution. There are some other fine universities in Texas too, both public and private.

Being one of those godless New Englanders, I thought Texas was already like this.

A bunch of the old guys I work with are trying to challenge the school board up the road to get them to teach Intelligent Design. I asked them all some basic biology questions ("What does DNA stand for?") and they couldn't answer. Then one produced the culprit... a DVD called "The Mysteries of Life". It's just a bullshiat anti-evolution hit piece that assures people who know nothing about science that evolution is wrong and people who believe it are defective.

I can't wait until this goes in front of the school board, I might have to attend...

//they also informed me that "evolution is just a theory..."

Creationism is the tinfoil hat evangelicals use to keep their ignorance in.

Wolf_Blitzer: They're about as qualified to determine the curriculum as the students are.

Yeech...I would hope they at least have enough of a brain on their shoulders (especially at the primary level) that they could teach any subject without any formal education specific to that area. I know education majors are best known for their drug usage and loose sexual habits in college, but they're not complete morons...right? right?

Maybe I should homeschool my kids...

Code_Archeologist: From a purely intellectual stand point the politicization of education is interesting.

It's not the fact that education is politicized by one side or another. It's that education is even politicized at all. Who was the asshole that decided putting elected politicians in charge of education was a good idea anyway? And decided that entire school districts, nay, even entire states, have to teach the same curriculum with the same books?

Politicians should have nothing to do with education. Parents, teachers, principals. That should be it. Push all decisions down to the lowest possible level. That way, you wouldn't even have this problem.

SemperLieSuckah: they also informed me that "evolution is just a theory..."

A theory is far better than what the creationists offer, which can barely be called a hypothesis. "Idea" is a better description- a hypothesis has to be testable. "Crazy idea" is the best description, since it not only makes no testable predictions, has no supporting evidence and stands in contradiction to all the evidence that we have.

Born to Die: Actually, Bevets and skinnyhead are voices of reason compared to that "I learn science from an anti-evolutionist" guy that was spamming yesterday's creationist thread with his idiocy.

Actually, if you read through to (near) the end of that thread, it turned out that individual was a home-schooled teenager, and he ended up falling apart and swearing at everyone. Bevets eventually told him to go to bed.

Shaggy_C: Maybe I should homeschool my kids...

There's one other thing to keep in mind. Children emulate those around them. If you surround them with other children, like in school, they will model their behavior against those children. If you surround them with adults, those adults become the model for behavior.

//Don't have kids
//Not advocating homeschooling, but it's something to think about.

Shaggy_C: No matter what we're going to have disagreements over what gets taught in schools. Instead of blanket rules, why not leave it up to the individual teachers? We could still base compensation/ratings on basic proficiency in math, etc, but leave the methodology up to them.

Because science isn't a democracy.

Because ID is thinly veiled religion, which conflicts with the First Amendment.

Because there isn't a controversy in the scientific community, the controversy only exists amongst those who are

2) lacking in a proper understanding of evolution, whether they know this or not.

Eff) may know better, but have ulterior motives.

D-13) so steeped in their religious views that they believe anything contradicting their personal interpretation of the Bible is the equivalent of a personal attack on them and a danger to the nation.

7) some combination of the above.

Wolf_Blitzer: If you've ever known an education major as he was getting his degree (as I have), you'd know that the vast majority of the training our primary-school teachers receive is about how to teach, not understanding of what they'll be teaching. They don't get much specialized instruction in a specific field because they're expected to teach whatever the school needs them to. Often, their understanding of the subject extends little beyond the textbook they teach from. They're about as qualified to determine the curriculum as the students are.

I hear you there. I didn't go into education myself but my alma mater is one of the biggest education-based universities around. A big part of that program is learning how to teach and then taking a separate degree on top of that. Still, if you go and get a masters degree in your own field you can pretty much teach at any level from the community college down and get paid more. And that's why I didn't bother majoring in education at all.

So letting people who have been trained to teach kids various things from a book control the curriculum? Not going to happen.

MasterThief: Politicians should have nothing to do with education. Parents, teachers, principals. That should be it. Push all decisions down to the lowest possible level. That way, you wouldn't even have this problem.

That wouldn't make it any less political, it'd just make it less visible politics. By definition, any decision involving the regulation of an organization is political.

Now, having elected officials deciding curricula is a particularly atrocious system, but I would never solve it in the way you've proposed, for the reasons I've stated. I would much prefer a system in which curricula for individual subjects are determined by professional groups composed of the people who actually study/work in the field.

No matter what we're going to have disagreements over what gets taught in schools. Instead of blanket rules, why not leave it up to the individual teachers? We could still base compensation/ratings on basic proficiency in math, etc, but leave the methodology up to them.

Teaching ID (or creationism) as opposed to (or in addition to) the scientific theory of evolution isn't an alternative teaching method. Using flashcards is a teaching method. Pop quizzing is a teaching method. Lecturing is a teaching method. Teaching non-scientific non-theories in science class is not an "alternative teaching method."

If you "leave it up to the individual teachers," some students are going to get bad information and fail the tests they take in college because their moron high school teachers decided to deviate from the scientific consensus.

As for the "why don't we present both sides of the argument and let the students decide for themselves" argument:

Think of how ridiculous this would be if you applied it to mathamatics: should we teaching our students the definition of a right triangle is a three sided shape with one 90 degree angle? Yes. But why don't we teaching them that a triangle is an 18 sided shape with each angle being 160 degrees? That's of course bizarre, but shouldn't we teach both ideas and let our students make up their own minds? You're just being a "90 degree angle" elitist and infringing on my right to decide what definition of a right triangle is true of ME.

Scientists should determine the science curriculum, not school board members with limited or no understanding of the scientific method.

90 degree-ism is the tinfoil hat mathematicians use to keep subjective geometric definitions out of their brainwaves.

sorry, "what definition of a right triangle is true FOR ME."

Sane parents should yank their kids from these science religion classes. If enough of them do it they might be able to force the school to spring for an alternative class, taught by someone who actually understands science.

Threadjack:

Do Texans get angry when you tell them Alaska is way bigger than their state?

/Threadjack.

t3knomanser: There's one other thing to keep in mind. Children emulate those around them. If you surround them with other children, like in school, they will model their behavior against those children. If you surround them with adults, those adults become the model for behavior.

I don't think I want my kids acting like me. I'm probably the worst role model on the face of the earth...I think I'll just adopt one that's already in high school and just keep them long enough to get sick of them, then kick them out when they graduate. I figure at that age I can't even really do a lot of developmental damage...

youl100: Threadjack:

Do Texans get angry when you tell them Alaska is way bigger than their state?

/Threadjack.

Yes. They do.

Our line is, "Shut up, or we'll cut Alaska in half and make Texas the *third* largest state."

We don't teach literature and composition in math class so keep theology out of science class

I've bookmarked this story for the next time some cretin starts whining about "Christianity under attack."

Shaggy_C

Maybe I should homeschool my kids...


"