The Jesus freaks have taken over

[The_Dark]

Teach kids to read.  1/2 of them in America cant.  Teach them to do basic mathmatics.  Again - in America, we are on a downward trend.  Teach them lifeskills that have nothing to do with identity - leave the rest to parents and families.  Equip the kids to be self sufficient, so that they do not become a taxpayers burden - thats the job of our schools. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, oh hell yes.

[phee]

Yes, oh hell yes.

I second that...

[Msterbeau]

Count me in.

[float]

who the hell is this Steven person

this is the first post I've ever read from him

AND ITS BRILLIANT

"you don't say much friend, but when you do it's to the point and I salute you for it'

[Shade Everdark]

Now - as far as creationism (intelligent design) -vs- Darwinism being taught in school - I dont want either one taught.  Teach kids to read.  1/2 of them in America cant.  Teach them to do basic mathmatics.  Again - in America, we are on a downward trend.  Teach them lifeskills that have nothing to do with identity - leave the rest to parents and families.  Equip the kids to be self sufficient, so that they do not become a taxpayers burden - thats the job of our schools. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, you'd give them reading, and 'ritin', and 'rithmetic. And you'd provide them no chance for cultural enrichment. No chance to explore. No drama programs. No music. No art. No anything that actually makes life worth living?

[Jarodaka]

Now - as far as creationism (intelligent design) -vs- Darwinism being taught in school - I dont want either one taught.  Teach kids to read.  1/2 of them in America cant.  Teach them to do basic mathmatics.  Again - in America, we are on a downward trend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not entirely true. Here's a different look on American's test scores. Also, consider that most parents are actually quite satisfied with their own child's school. (Kind of like the polls that show most Americans don't trust Congress, but they sure do like their local Congressman. Or the ones that show most Americans don't trust 'mainstream media', but trust their local paper.)

[Steven]

So, you'd give them reading, and 'ritin', and 'rithmetic.  And you'd provide them no chance for cultural enrichment.  No chance to explore.  No drama programs.  No music.  No art.  No anything that actually makes life worth living?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess I was too vague here shade, because you missed my point. By all means, include these important programs, I'm in agreement with you (i'm a writer and a who never spell checks and musician). But let's not forget the basics - and let's not impose on our children in a public forum, those types of "truths" that in the end are meant to shape and define one's identity in a spiritual or a secular manner. Basically - let's leave the orgins of life to the parentals and let the kids decide on their own in due time. Your kid does not need to be forced to learn about my theories on God and Christ, its not fair to him or her. Likewise, my kid (when I have one) does not need to be forced to embrace Darwinistic principles. Both topics tend to carry some tremendous weight with them beyond the textbooks and onward into the future. I don't beleive this is the responsibility of the public school system,a nd that both approaches can do great harm.

Steven

[Steven]

That's not entirely true.  Here's a different look on American's test scores.  Also, consider that most parents are actually quite satisfied with their own child's school.  (Kind of like the polls that show most Americans don't trust Congress, but they sure do like their local Congressman.  Or the ones that show most Americans don't trust 'mainstream media', but trust their local paper.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hear what your saying dude but I disagree categorically. First - because I hate statistical truth, to me it always seems to miss the core of the issue and it always seems to be readily maniputable (is that a word??) by the powers and agendas that be.

My points of view on this subject (the downward slide I pointed to) are based on two debatable yet very real sets of experiences.

The first being that of watching the public school system through the eyes of my wife, who worked in Special Ed for 11 years. The majority of the special ed kids she worked with primarily were stunted socially - there was a distinct pattern of unrest at home, with detatched parents and very little follow thru in regards to the future of the child. Parents wanted their teachers to do their parenting for them, never returned phone calls or came to parent teacher meetings, and the school system eventually (and politically mind you) developed a method of passing children out of the system and onward to high school when those same children could barely read or write. They could roll great joints and were allready sexually active - but they could not read a 3rd grade level story book or tell you what 9 divided by 3 was.

The 2nd viewpoint comes from my (and still) having been a supervisor at work for many years. Part of my job has been to oversee all field reports, general paperwork, and project management. This requires a great deal of data accumulation and attention to detail - yet all on a very basic level - nothing special. Over the years, the biggest problem I have consistently faced is the inability of men my age and / or peer group to read line item instructions, or write, let alone articulate at the most basic levels, in any consistent manner. I've spent thousands of hours over the years re-reading and re-writing the work of 35 year old men who communicate like they are 8 years old. It has literally frightened me as I've watched it grow worse every year, and I beleive this is a growing trend that is very disturbing. And bear in mind that these guys are categorically just like me - blue collar grunts with only a high school education, yet the difference is often tremendous.

Steven

[Msterbeau]

I guess I was too vague here shade, because you missed my point.  By all means, include these important programs, I'm in agreement with you (i'm a writer and a who never spell checks and musician).  But let's not forget the basics - and let's not impose on our children in a public forum, those types of "truths" that in the end are meant to shape and define one's identity in a spiritual or a secular manner.  Basically - let's leave the orgins of life to the parentals and let the kids decide on their own in due time.  Your kid does not need to be forced to learn about my theories on God and Christ, its not fair to him or her.  Likewise, my kid (when I have one) does not need to be forced to embrace Darwinistic principles.  Both topics tend to carry some tremendous weight with them beyond the textbooks and onward into the future.  I don't beleive this is the responsibility of the public school system,a nd that both approaches can do great harm.

Steven

Hmmm... I think for some, and you may agree with me here, music , math, art and language can also be very central to what defines who we are as an individual. I think I would prefer that rather then pulling these sorts of discussions completely out of school, that they were presented in a balanced way and updated judiciously as our understanding of a particular topic improves or changes. I'd be fine with the inclusion of classes about ALL spiritiual practices to balance the science part of the equation. If they have questions after that, that's our place to discuss our own beliefs and help them shape their own. What I find most disturbing is that many parents force their beliefs and ideals on children, instead of just guiding their development. Racism, absolutism and other equaly negative (to me) social issues arise from this.

[The_Dark]

Marc,

Then you should have no problem with ID being taught alongside Darwinism. As taught in school, the I behind the D is an unknown. So doesn not favor any one religion. It's cause, so to speak, is spearheaded by people of a certian religion... but they are not the only one's that beleive (spiritually) this way. Don't kill the cause because you have issues with it's champion.

Mark

[Msterbeau]

Marc,

Then you should have no problem with ID being taught alongside Darwinism. As taught in school, the I behind the D is an unknown. So doesn not favor any one religion. It's cause, so to speak, is spearheaded by people of a certian religion... but they are not the only one's that beleive (spiritually) this way. Don't kill the cause because you have issues with it's champion.

Mark

I'd toss it in the spirtual discussion where it belongs. It's not science because it relies on faith in the unknown rather then provable facts or theories. If you don't agree with that, then we will disagree on this point.

Funny thing. I started doing a little research on Darwinism just to clarify it in my head, and ran headlong into some sites that support the belief that Darwin got it wrong and that science does not support his theories... I haven 't read all the arguments yet so don't ask me to comment either way. Interesting that they attack him as a racist....

Ultimately I think both points are academic. it's humanity, in the here and now that matters most. It's the similarities, not the differences that should be uppermost in our mind. It's about respect for each other and the world in which we live that should guide us. People seem to care more about where we came from and where we go when we die then what's going on right now. For being such a "smart" species, we sure haven't learned much about making where we live a better place to do so.

[The_Dark]

Do me this one favor. Anyone. Explain Darwin's Evolution in purely scientific terms. I ask because Darwin used the words Chance, Luck and Design a

lot. Also because Darwin didn't write God out of his theroy until after the death of his daughter at age 12.

[Steven]

Hmmm...  I think for some, and you may agree with me here, music , math, art and language can also be very central to what defines who we are as an individual.  I think I would prefer that rather then pulling these sorts of discussions completely out of school, that they were presented in a balanced way and updated judiciously as our understanding of a particular topic improves or changes.  I'd be fine with the inclusion of  classes about ALL spiritiual practices to balance the science part of the equation.  If they have questions after that, that's our place to discuss our own beliefs and help them shape their own.  What I find most disturbing is that many parents force their beliefs and ideals on children, instead of just guiding their development.  Racism, absolutism and other equaly negative (to me) social issues arise from this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand what your saying here - I just dont think that the same principle applies. In general, and obviously this is a bit vague and is a blanket statement - I'm really only talking about the two subjects of Evolution and Intelligent design. I'm talking about things that ultimately can steer one either toward or away from, a spiritual (meaning an absolute and intelligent higher power) worldview.

The difficult part is quite simply, where do we begin, and where do we end?

Your idea of discussing ALL spiritual practices for balance is a good one, one that I've discussed with others myself. But the problem is - somone, at some point, takes issue, claims their children are being led in a particular manner, and ultimately it becomes a media fuled legal issue. Personal agendas quickly come to the forefront, and then larger more powerful agendas muscle in and take over.

I'm a big fan of decency and order - I just dont beleive in it based on how we are as people, I dont beleive we'll allow the model to work. We are a divided society that likes to create lawsuits political platforms out of nothing.

As for the "forced beleifs" of parents onward toward their children - again, how do we introduce general decency and order into the process? You cant. Unless you let the Government raise and teach your children, which we may not be too far away from....

When I was a kid in school in the 70's and 80's, I was not taught any form of religion, nor was I taught any form of evolution as a scientific "law". Perhaps I simply slipped through the cracks, i dont know. but there were plenty of acedemic subjects to keep me busy besides these two hot topics.

[Paper Hearts]

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, evolution is:

A process of continuous genetic adaptation that results in inheritable changes in a population of organisms spread over many generations.

-Very simple concept albeit unproven through almost 150 years

Creationism is:

A theory that all organisms were created by the fiat of an omnipotent Creator, and did not gradually develop.

-Intellignet desiegn is unproven through (an arguable amount of) thousands of years.

Creationism is a flawed concept as explained by members of our "Christian" society who are promoting the teaching of intellignet desiegn in our public schools...and I don't believe that Charles Darwin was spot on with everything he theorized but, well, just say for a moment that there is an omnipotent creator...where did this omnipotent creator come from? If you continue along inside the boundries of this philosophy, then obviously this "omnipotent" creator must not be actually "omnipotent" but rather created by a being who actually is omnipotent. Ahh, but if this truly omnipotent creator created our creator then who was it that actually made the creator of our creator? -Our creator's creator must have had a creator too...oh but wait! Who created the creator of our creator's creator!? -And so forth.

We haven't been able to explain the very begining of time by evolution but intelligent design, by it's own nature as well as common reasoning, rules out the possibility of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic account being accurate (these religions speak of only one "god" who also, has simply always been-which is impossible)-and since it is a member of that group "championing" this way of thinking, then as a school of thought, intelligent desiegn is illusory at best and also defunct. Of course, history records the existance of Hinduism and Budhism being established thousands of years before what the Bible or Koran say that the Earth has even existed for...if these creationists can blindly claim that their creator has (none the less) just always been and ignore everything else, then Darwinists can reply that evolution has always been, as well, in the meantime.

Similarly, Darwin disproves his own theory as an explanation of the origin of all existance without providing the name of what started the process. Something cannot evolve if it does not yet exist. Although, evolution on a smaller scale, as merely a means of explaining differnces in climate or species is still reputable. Evolution only becomes an issue when it is taught on the broadest level, where it threatens the teachings of the Bible, for example.

There is room for evolution and creation to coexist but not by evolution as Charles Darwin explained and not by creation as Christains or Jewish or Muslims explain.

[Steven]

...

Evolution only becomes an issue when it is taught on the broadest level, where it threatens the teachings of the Bible, for example.

There is room for evolution and creation to coexist but not by evolution as Charles Darwin explained and not by creation as Christains or Jewish or Muslims explain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

very good.

Again I can only ask the obvious question..... HOW do we introduce these concepts "lightly" - or on a shorter scale ?? Does our human nature really allow us to do that, to simply educate (again in a public school environment) without an agenda or pre-disposed slant? Note that Christians (of which I am) have been just as guilty if not more so, than other social or political groups attempting to mold the mindset of future generations via "education" and general propoganda.

I dont even trust my own kind with this stuff.

[Paper Hearts]

very good. 

Again I can only ask the obvious question..... HOW do we introduce these concepts "lightly" - or on a shorter scale ??  Does our human nature really allow us to do that, to simply educate (again in a public school environment) without an agenda or pre-disposed slant?  Note that Christians (of which I am) have been just as guilty if not more so, than other social or political groups attempting to mold the mindset of future generations via "education" and general propoganda.

I dont even trust my own kind with this stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't believe in trying to cover up loopholes in religious or scientific theories; to hide implausabilities in the explaining of either is counter productive to any purpose beyond cowering in the bliss of one's own stupidity and if the purpose of science and therefore a science class is understanding, well, anyone can see where we might cause ourselves some difficulties if that is our approach. If instead of discussing these concepts on "lighter" levels we treated them as something harmless, something that can only be helpfull to explore (as they can only be unless one is of questionable objectives), we might not have any more of an answer to the question of existance than we have now or will ever have but it takes someone who understands that to teach it, that's for sure and it'll take that sort of method by this type of person, if we are ever to break any new ground.

[SomeDanGuy]

Looks like the issue is moving on to gravity now too

(I <3 the Onion :grin:)

[Msterbeau]

Looks like the issue is moving on to gravity now too

(I <3 the Onion :grin:)

Well said PH. I like it when someone can blow both sides of a question into oblivion... leaving one to go on enjoying life.

Well timed Dan..... :laughing :laughing :laughing

[the eternal]

I was told when I got on here, that everyone just talks in three word phrases and has nothing intelligent to say.

That's durn stoopid

Thanks for taking my rudimentary knowledge and deepening it.

I'm going to remember you guys when these jackbooted bible-toting wackos come up to MI.

Ohio is way too fucking close for my comfort.

:fear :fear :fear :fear :fear :fear :fear :fear :fear :fear :fear

[SomeDanGuy]

I'm going to remember you guys when these jackbooted bible-toting wackos come up to MI. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, thinking in those terms doesn't help being very open-minded, hehe :innocent