Religious Schools

[cacian]

are they justified or dated?

[OrphanPip]

There's nothing wrong with them as long as people aren't forced to attend them. It also depends on the nature of the school, as they are not all the same. I attended a Catholic private school for 2 years, but it didn't involve any religious commitments and the education was entirely secular.

Some religious schools happen to provide sub-par educations (certain religious affiliated universities in the US with substandard biology departments come to mind) that bend facts to fit ideology. That is not a good thing for anyone.

A private religious school that still provides a proper education alongside voluntary religious and cultural education for the community it serves is perfectly fine.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There seems to be a large misconception here in the US by many people that private (synonymous with religious in this case) schools are better than public schools for three reasons that I've observed: better quality of education, religious classes, and better student conduct. The only verifiable truth of those three is that private schools do offer religious classes--at our local Catholic high school students must attend a church service and take a Bible studies class each year. It's up to parents on whether or not school is the place for religious studies of this sort.

The two other ideas, that student conduct and quality of education are better, are false. At the best the tend to be just as good as public schools, and are sometimes worse because a school is a school, and teachers are teachers: private schools hardly have the exclusivity on good teachers. In this area, drug use and sex are just as much a problem at the catholic high school if not more so. And, of course, parents have to pay thousands of dollars a year to have their children go to that high school. Another irony is that the teachers at private schools are almost always payed less than those at public.

[Charles Darnay]

I think they are fully justified (as was said, as long as they are not forced on people) - then again, children really don't have a say in the matter, do they.

My only qualm exists in the Canadian system in which Catholic schools are publicly funded while any other religious school is not. Historically, fine - rationally not.

[The Comedian]

There seems to be a large misconception here in the US by many people that private (synonymous with religious in this case) schools are better than public schools for three reasons that I've observed: better quality of education, religious classes, and better student conduct. The only verifiable truth of those three is that private schools do offer religious classes

I think you sum up the benefits of private school well here, though your experience with them is different than mine. I'd say that all of the reasons you list:

better quality of education
religious classes
better student conduct


are more or less true of my experience with private Catholic schools. We moved our daughters from the public school to the Catholic school and have been overly impressed with the result.

The quality of education is better, I've found, but I agree that the teachers have little to do with the quality -- and this is no dig at teachers or the profession. Rather the primary reason for better education in the Catholic school is the vastly superior socio/economic environment. By in large the kids at the Catholic school are from stable, education-focused families who are involved and committed to the school and their children's education. As a result the classrooms are filled the great kids from good families. This means that the teachers can move through the tasks, offer more individual attention when needed, etc. . . .it's almost like cherry pickin'. . .

Let me compare this environment to the public school from which we moved:

vignette #1: when picking up my kindergartener, I'd regularly meet other parents smoking outside the door, in their PJs, saying stuff like this to their small kids: "Hey Jannie! Get your *** in the car, you baby sister's in there cryin' r' *** off. I gotta talk to your teacher to tell 'r I ain't doin' none'a that **** she send home with ya. That's what my tax dallers 'r for -- her ta teach you! Now hurry up to the car!" -- All I could think of when hearing stuff like this is that in a couple years, my daughter is going to ask to "have a sleep over" at these people's houses.

vignette #2: as a new parent, I started to attend the parent/teacher organization for the K-5 school of my district. Do you know who attended the meeting? Two teachers, the principal, some school staff and me. NO OTHER PARENTS from the entire school! At the Catholic school, they have to turn away parents from helping/volunteering time.

vignette #3: I'm friends with a fourth grade teacher in the public schools. She said that last semester she set up Parent/Teacher conferences for her class of 26 students. Of those 26 students, do you know how many kids' parents actually showed up for their conference? 4.

It's sad, but by my experience the reason the Catholic schools can offer such better education has little to do with the curriculum or instruction. It has everything to do with family and family attitude toward education.

The better student conduct is more true than not, by my experience at least for the same reasons listed above. Student conduct and attitude are what are demanded from school and re-enforced at home. Plus student conduct directly leads to a better educational environment for everyone.

And, yes, of course there are religious classes. But I don't mind them. Again, the Catholic school that my girls attend is not really conservative. (Hell, we're not even Catholic. We're Jewish). And I kind of like the idea of a spiritual development running parallel with an educational development; I think they reinforce each other in a bolstering and, generally, positive way.

I could go on, but this post is getting long enough.

[OrphanPip]

My only qualm exists in the Canadian system in which Catholic schools are publicly funded while any other religious school is not. Historically, fine - rationally not.

It depends on the province, but there are some good reasons for the public funding of Catholic schools. Mostly because they serve a larger non-Catholic student body. Enrolment is not restricted by religion and I don't believe they force catechism classes on anyone any more.

In Quebec we have subsidized semi-private schools (like the one I attended) that have general admission and follow government set guidelines. In contrast there are a couple Jewish schools I know of that restrict their admission to only Jews, in which case they shouldn't receive public funding. I don't think they are much different than the old WASP prep schools in Montreal. I think it's different when it is a private institution that opens its doors and services to all, then it might deserve some public funding to help make it more affordable to the general public

Quebec abolished the religious school boards when I was a child and re-organized them along linguistic lines into English and French school boards. Quebec still teaches religion in schools, though now it's a non-denominational course on ethics and religion. Just last month the supreme court upheld the curriculum against the complaint of parents who didn't want their child learning about other religions in school. So, at least the judicial system believes the teaching of religion still has a place in the schools.

In the back of my mind I hear the voice of my mother complaining about private schools undermining the quality of public education, and the subsidizing of private educations being an exploitative favouritism that helps keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

[blazeofglory]

I think religious schools are dated and I do not think we still hold the tradition of teacher - disciple relationship. There was an ancient oriental teacher student tradition but today they remain extinct.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think you sum up the benefits of private school well here, though your experience with them is different than mine. I'd say that all of the reasons you list:

better quality of education
religious classes
better student conduct


are more or less true of my experience with private Catholic schools. We moved our daughters from the public school to the Catholic school and have been overly impressed with the result.

The quality of education is better, I've found, but I agree that the teachers have little to do with the quality -- and this is no dig at teachers or the profession. Rather the primary reason for better education in the Catholic school is the vastly superior socio/economic environment. By in large the kids at the Catholic school are from stable, education-focused families who are involved and committed to the school and their children's education. As a result the classrooms are filled the great kids from good families. This means that the teachers can move through the tasks, offer more individual attention when needed, etc. . . .it's almost like cherry pickin'. . .

Let me compare this environment to the public school from which we moved:

vignette #1: when picking up my kindergartener, I'd regularly meet other parents smoking outside the door, in their PJs, saying stuff like this to their small kids: "Hey Jannie! Get your *** in the car, you baby sister's in there cryin' r' *** off. I gotta talk to your teacher to tell 'r I ain't doin' none'a that **** she send home with ya. That's what my tax dallers 'r for -- her ta teach you! Now hurry up to the car!" -- All I could think of when hearing stuff like this is that in a couple years, my daughter is going to ask to "have a sleep over" at these people's houses.

vignette #2: as a new parent, I started to attend the parent/teacher organization for the K-5 school of my district. Do you know who attended the meeting? Two teachers, the principal, some school staff and me. NO OTHER PARENTS from the entire school! At the Catholic school, they have to turn away parents from helping/volunteering time.

vignette #3: I'm friends with a fourth grade teacher in the public schools. She said that last semester she set up Parent/Teacher conferences for her class of 26 students. Of those 26 students, do you know how many kids' parents actually showed up for their conference? 4.

It's sad, but by my experience the reason the Catholic schools can offer such better education has little to do with the curriculum or instruction. It has everything to do with family and family attitude toward education.

The better student conduct is more true than not, by my experience at least for the same reasons listed above. Student conduct and attitude are what are demanded from school and re-enforced at home. Plus student conduct directly leads to a better educational environment for everyone.

And, yes, of course there are religious classes. But I don't mind them. Again, the Catholic school that my girls attend is not really conservative. (Hell, we're not even Catholic. We're Jewish). And I kind of like the idea of a spiritual development running parallel with an educational development; I think they reinforce each other in a bolstering and, generally, positive way.

I could go on, but this post is getting long enough.
I'm glad your priivate school situation is better in your area, because it isn't the same for ours. From everything I've heard, drugs and sex are a much bigger problem at our catholic high school than the public ones. Students tend to be more respectful from the catholic high school, but I can't help but suspect it's phony in a lot of cases. Plus, there's a lot less diversity.

I suspect it's different all over. From the parents in this area I've talked to who've had students in public and private schools, they've preferred the public. Note that I also live in the suburbs, so it isn't like our public schools are filled with inner-city ruffians.

[Dark Star]

I think that religious schools are fine assuming that they're required to teach all subjects in line (to an extent) with the state or national curriculum (whichever one is relevant in the country in question). I attended a non-denominational private school from 4th to 6th grade and while conduct was generally 'better' (less violence and bullying than the public school), the science education was god-awful when it came to evolution and anything else that was viewed as contradicting the Bible. There was also a general air of snobbishness among the students, and all sorts of stupid informal 'rules' they came up with (in spite of teachers' attempts to stop them) which essentially kept you from being part of the 'in-group' until you had been at the school for three or more years.

[Alexander III]

I dont see any problem with religious schools - from my mothers side everyone has gone to the same catholic liceo for over a hundred years, and the education recieved there is outstanding, and it is a public school, though there are restrictions for entrance.

In Italy what Mutatis said is largley true when it comes to liceo, in that public schools are for the most part just as good as private. But in england for example, the private grammar schools (called public schools) are vastly superior than the goverment ones.

It would make more sense that private schools are better though, and I dont understand mutatis' logic.

Firstly as the comedian pointed out in priavte schools the children are all from good families who value education and that creates a healthy and ambitious environment. Secondly, private schools have high tuition fees, because they pay the teachers high salaries because they are the best teachers. If one graduated from oxbridge and wanted to be a teacher, why would they teach at a goverment school when they could teach at a private school for quadrible salary.

High tuition= high salaries for teachers and staff=the best teachers.


But speacking from personal experiance drug and alchohol use is probably higher in private schools.

[The Comedian]

I suspect it's different all over. From the parents in this area I've talked to who've had students in public and private schools, they've preferred the public. Note that I also live in the suburbs, so it isn't like our public schools are filled with inner-city ruffians.

I agree; there is probably a good degree of difference all over the country. And in my experience the suburbs do tend to produce higher-end public schooling than in other areas. (I don't live in the inner-city; I live the hinterlands of the far northern Great Lakes area, but the attitude, I imagine, is similar; just replace "inner-city ruffians" with "backwoods rednecks", :-) )

[OrphanPip]

High tuition= high salaries for teachers and staff=the best teachers.


Often teachers at private schools are paid less and have less qualifications, because they aren't under a union and don't have the same strength of collective bargaining (The average private school teacher makes 15,000 less than the average public school teacher). They also often have less stringent education requirements for hiring teachers at private schools, where as teacher's unions will often require that a teacher have a degree in the subject they teach on top of official certification such as a 1 year post-graduate diploma (they have an invested interest in keeping their membership exclusive). Private schools in the US in some states are not even required to hire teacher's with bachelors degrees, which drives salaries way down.

[Alexander III]

Often teachers at private schools are paid less and have less qualifications, because they aren't under a union and don't have the same strength of collective bargaining (The average private school teacher makes 15,000 less than the average public school teacher). They also often have less stringent education requirements for hiring teachers at private schools, where as teacher's unions will often require that a teacher have a degree in the subject they teach on top of official certification such as a 1 year post-graduate diploma (they have an invested interest in keeping their membership exclusive). Private schools in the US in some states are not even required to hire teacher's with bachelors degrees, which drives salaries way down.

I think it is quite clear that the type of private schools I was talking about have nothing to do with the type of private schools you are talking about.

Everywere around the world they have different names which makes things confusing, but the equivalent in America I think is called a prep school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University-preparatory_school


Now I don't want to sound asinine and patronizing, but there is a reason that parents who can afford it pay (from 4,000(lower end prep schools) to 45,000(eton, harrow like schools) per year for their children to attent these schools.

Now I doubt they are paying for a lower quality of education.

I know my reply sounds obvious, but you previous post was lacking in common sense.

[OrphanPip]

I think it is quite clear that the type of private schools I was talking about have nothing to do with the type of private schools you are talking about.

Everywere around the world they have different names which makes things confusing, but the equivalent in America I think is called a prep school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University-preparatory_school


Now I don't want to sound asinine and patronizing, but there is a reason that parents who can afford it pay (from 4,000(lower end prep schools) to 45,000(eton, harrow like schools) per year for their children to attent these schools.

Now I doubt they are paying for a lower quality of education.

I know my reply sounds obvious, but you previous post was lacking in common sense.

I didn't say they got worse quality educations, I said the teachers tend to be paid less in private schools. People usually choose to teach private schools either because they lack the credentials to teach in the public system, they have a religious affiliation that attracts them to a certain private school, or they prefer the smaller class sizes and work loads. Certainly, some high end private schools can afford to pay quite a lot for teachers, but in reality most private schools don't. Like I said, it's just a fact that the average private school (defined as a school that is not publicly funded) pays less to its teachers.

[Alexander III]

I didn't say they got worse quality educations, I said the teachers tend to be paid less in private schools. People usually choose to teach private schools either because they lack the credentials to teach in the public system, they have a religious affiliation that attracts them to a certain private school, or they prefer the smaller class sizes and work loads. Certainly, some high end private schools can afford to pay quite a lot for teachers, but in reality most private schools don't. Like I said, it's just a fact that the average private school (defined as a school that is not publicly funded) pays less to its teachers.

Once again, like I said before, the type of schools I was talking about are clearly not the type you are talking about....

Unless you think a Harrow is equivalent to your standard government school

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It would make more sense that private schools are better though, and I dont understand mutatis' logic.

It's not a matter of my "logic," it's how things are here. I even intimated that it doesn't make sense.

[OrphanPip]

Once again, like I said before, the type of schools I was talking about are clearly not the type you are talking about....

Unless you think a Harrow is equivalent to your standard government school

I'm just going by the data that is available in general, privately funded (by tuition) institutions in the US do not tend towards attracting the best teachers, at least on grounds of pay. I don't doubt that some private schools use their resources to recruit high quality teachers, but the fact of the matter is that the general state of private schools is that they pay less and hire less qualified teachers (in terms of credentials).

[Alexander III]

I'm just going by the data that is available in general, privately funded (by tuition) institutions in the US do not tend towards attracting the best teachers, at least on grounds of pay. I don't doubt that some private schools use their resources to recruit high quality teachers, but the fact of the matter is that the general state of private schools is that they pay less and hire less qualified teachers (in terms of credentials).

Seriously...did you not read a word I said...To repeat for a third time that the schools I am talking abou------ screw this I don't feel like arguing uselessly.

Fine parents who spend more on their children's annual tuition than the medium income of most households are stupid. You are right it was stupid of me to even dare to talk. Forgive me.

[Buh4Bee]

Orphan Pip, even in the prep schools in the states the teachers are not as well paid as public school teachers. You are correct about the unions giving teachers the right to negotiate for better pay. The teachers at boarding schools are paid even lower salaries than at day schools. The reason teachers opt out of the public school system is to teach a better population of students. It's easier to manage a class of kids, if the parents are on-board.

I am not sure how this is different from European schools. I know on the International School circuit the salaries are as competitive as the American public school paying jobs in the states depending on the country and where you fall on the pay scale. But schools like the one A3 describes may pay a very good salary as they are in a different catagory than the run of the mill prep school. Like I said, I don't know, but I coud resist adding my 2 cents.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Seriously...did you not read a word I said...To repeat for a third time that the schools I am talking abou------ screw this I don't feel like arguing uselessly.

Fine parents who spend more on their children's annual tuition than the medium income of most households are stupid. You are right it was stupid of me to even dare to talk. Forgive me.

Has stuntpickle hacked Alex's account?

[papayahed]

And, yes, of course there are religious classes. But I don't mind them. Again, the Catholic school that my girls attend is not really conservative. (Hell, we're not even Catholic. We're Jewish). And I kind of like the idea of a spiritual development running parallel with an educational development; I think they reinforce each other in a bolstering and, generally, positive way.

I could go on, but this post is getting long enough.

I have to agree. I went to a Catholic school K - 12. I think it's a great idea. I was in the group that drank and smoked, and otherwise caused trouble, but the trouble we caused was nothing in comparison to some of my other non-catholic school friends. We learned to get into trouble without getting kicked out of school and keeping up our grades.

[Darcy88]

Religious schools are great. My father received a sound education in the worth and reality of pain and abuse at the hands of the Catholic brothers, a pack of child-beating and child-molesting angels.

Those Jesuits were pretty good educators though, as evinced by the genius of Descartes and Voltaire.

[stlukesguild]

Mutatis Mutandi-There seems to be a large misconception here in the US by many people that private (synonymous with religious in this case) schools are better than public schools for three reasons that I've observed: better quality of education, religious classes, and better student conduct. The only verifiable truth of those three is that private schools do offer religious classes--at our local Catholic high school students must attend a church service and take a Bible studies class each year. It's up to parents on whether or not school is the place for religious studies of this sort.

MM... I must say that my experience with religious and private schools is that the best ones do far better than the public schools... but for the following reasons:

1. The Religious and Private schools may "cherry-pick" their students. In other words, they will examine an applicant's behavioral history, his or her academic scores, and consider any "special needs" (ie, Special Ed.) as a large strike against the student.

2. The Religious and Private schools have the parents sign a contract with the school. If a student gets so many behavioral infractions, they must serve Saturday School (at parent expense). If they end up in Saturday School too often, they will be assigned a private tutor/aid (at parental; expense) to follow them at all time.

3. Any extreme behaviors, sexual harassment, drop in scores, or refusal of parents to adhere to the contract will result in expulsion and loss of tuition.

Obviously, the students attending such a school already have the advantage of parents who are engaged and involved with their child's education.

High tuition= high salaries for teachers and staff=the best teachers.

Contrary to Alexander's assumption, the exact opposite is true in the US. Teachers in the public schools tend to earn something like 40% more than teachers in the religious and private schools. The religious schools draw upon nuns, priests, etc... and church members in order to maintain a low salary base. Beyond that, they, and the private schools draw from the pool of new graduates unable to find a job, as well as graduate students majoring in the subject to be taught. They avoid proper certification, student teaching, as well as the courses required of any properly certified or licensed public school teacher.

Once again, like I said before, the type of schools I was talking about are clearly not the type you are talking about....

Alex... there may be a few exceptions, but these are largely irrelevant in the scope of American education if they charge a tuition larger than even most well-to-do parents can afford. Here in town we have several private schools that charge a tuition of $20,000-$30,000+. Students take frequent jaunts to Europe, major in art and literature, enjoy equestrian classes, fencing, and a slew of activities beyond the scope of most other private or public schools... yet they pay a salary of approximately 50% of what the public school teacher gets.

The reason politicians have signed on with the push toward privatizing education is surely not because they wish to ensure a higher quality education for all (at a higher price), but rather because they see state employees: teachers, police officers, sanitation workers, fire department employees, etc... as an area where they can slash budgets... in spite of the fact that the average state employee earns less than an employee with equivalent training and experience employed in the private sector.

[tomingram]

I have several family members who either still do or have taught school in my area, and the story is always the same. Children from low socio-economic status homes are more difficult to manage because they are not well managed at home to begin with. What child will care to do his homework when no one at home instills the need? The schools have to pass the students; that's public education.

Students respond to lectures about the value of education with, "Why do I need an education? When I turn 18, the government will give me my check."

Smart kids say these things. It's what they know.

[cacian]

I don't agree with education toppled with or by religion.
I personally think religion is one thing and learning is another, mixing the two together takes away the fun of what learning is all about.
From personal experience I think I will pass on religious schools because where children are concerned they do not get a say or a choice on wheere they are send to learn.

[stlukesguild]

I don't agree with education toppled with or by religion.
I personally think religion is one thing and learning is another, mixing the two together takes away the fun of what learning is all about.
From personal experience I think I will pass on religious schools because where children are concerned they do not get a say or a choice on wheere they are send to learn.

And how do you imagine that this differs in the secular schools? Not many schools operate on the concepts of Dewey and Rousseau's child-centered fantasies.

[Alexander III]

Because we all know America is the only country in the world which counts...does it matter what it is like in the majority of the world when in America it is in a certain way?

But words fail me, so infleunced by darcy I shall let an image speak for me:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B68htV-pAKI/TsMyRH1EcuI/AAAAAAAAAEU/g5wiuzbEnvM/s1600/double-facepalm.jpg

[RicMisc]

I think there's nothing wrong with religious schools. My primary school was protestant and my current secondary school is oecumenic. In The Netherlands there are basically three choices in primary education; public, protestant or catholic. The only thing that the latter two add to a child's education is knowledge of the bible since it is custom to pray every morning and read a story from the bible.

In secondary education there are mostly public schools and some are oecumenic. Some schools are in name religious but in practice they are the same as oecumenic or even public schools. There are of course islamic, jewish and very christian secondary schools (which are private) but there's a very limited number of those since there's basically no interests in them at all and the quality of education often doesn't compare to public schools.

This is basically how things are in The Netherlands in regard to religious schools. Keep in mind that we are a very secular nation with a lot of atheists (probably more than some of you could imagine) and the religious schools are currently having a hard time (as have churches).

In regard to private education there are several sorts of this in The Netherlands. As I said there are the religious private schools which are not very numerous and usually are not of high standard. There are also private schools that offer smaller classes, more subject, better guidance, more extracurricular activities and such. There are large tuition fees to be paid to attend such a school (especially since public education is free), but they do generally offer a child a better education and with that a better prospect.

[stlukesguild]

Because we all know America is the only country in the world which counts...

Now, now Alex... We could all be mean here and ask you when was the last time that Italy "mattered"? Somewhere around 1500?:devil:

[Darcy88]

Because we all know America is the only country in the world which counts...

Now, now Alex... We could all be mean here and ask you when was the last time that Italy "mattered"? Somewhere around 1500?:devil:

America and Italy are both certainly right up there as far as historically significant nations/territories go. Its kind of like the old retired olympian who won gold multiple times back in his prime watching the young star athlete dominatingly win medals in the present.

Canada never even made it as an alternate. We still whupped you in 1812 though, a fine consolation. :p

[BienvenuJDC]

Some religious schools happen to provide sub-par educations (certain religious affiliated universities in the US with substandard biology departments come to mind) that bend facts to fit ideology. That is not a good thing for anyone.


All schools BEND facts to fit ideology. The liberal universities have been bending facts for years now. People will teach what they believe to be true.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

All schools BEND facts to fit ideology. The liberal universities have been bending facts for years now.

What facts do these liberal universities (which ones are liberal?) bend?

[BienvenuJDC]

What facts do these liberal universities (which ones are liberal?) bend?

Are are not allowed to discuss those things for that discussion has been banned.

[Darcy88]

What facts do these liberal universities (which ones are liberal?) bend?

Evolution, carbon dating, archaeology, geology, climate science, all of politics and religion, probably literary interpretation - the whole shebang really.

:cheers2:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Are are not allowed to discuss those things for that discussion has been banned.

We can't discuss facts? Pretty convenient for you; you can make that claim and have a nice and pretty excuse for not having to back it up.

[cacian]

Evolution, carbon dating, archaeology, geology, climate science, all of politics and religion, probably literary interpretation - the whole shebang really.

:cheers2:

the whole shenanigan youmean haha:p

[JuniperWoolf]

There's nothing wrong with them as long as people aren't forced to attend them. It also depends on the nature of the school, as they are not all the same. I attended a Catholic private school for 2 years, but it didn't involve any religious commitments and the education was entirely secular.

Yeah, I used to volunteer at a Christian school when I was in grade twelve and it was pretty much the same as a regular school. The curriculum progressed at the same rate. The only difference was that they were allowed to read Christian books during story time, and at the end of each day they said the Lord's prayer (I think that's the one that begins "our father who art in heaven") and one kid would be picked to pray that everyone gets home alright. It only went up to grade nine so the evolution thing didn't even come into play, plus most Christians in our town are from the United church and I'm pretty sure they aren't creationists anyway. My nanny hates Christian schools though (and also nuns as a result), because she went to one in the '60s and '70s. Apparently they were allowed to beat students more severely and a lot later than public schools, and when someone was caught chewing gum in class they had to wear it on their face all day.

re. The idea that Christian schools have better behaved kids: when people are expelled from school in GC the only other school available is the Christian school, so that was were all the "bad" kids go. That's just because of our low population, but I'm told that in GP (pop. 45,000) parents of problem students often tend to put their daughters in the Catholic girls' school in the hope that it'll straighten them out so it kind of has a prison atmosphere, they get a lot of stabbings and such.

[Dark Star]

Are are not allowed to discuss those things for that discussion has been banned.

Surely you can give a few examples of examples of facts that are bent at universities without getting in trouble.

[Alexander III]

Evolution, carbon dating, archaeology, geology, climate science, all of politics and religion, probably literary interpretation - the whole shebang really.

:cheers2:

Actually, in defense of of what Bien said:

At university I was in a course, and during the lecture the lecturer digressed and began talking politics, he said that if everyone was educated properly, everyone would vote left and the monarchy would have long ago been tossed to the curb. I raised my hand and questioned his assumptions and tried to provide a counter-argument to what he said, I did this all in a polite manner, and then he gave a unfelt apology and made a note not to talk politics in any class I was. But had I not said anything, he would have continued to impose his politics like that upon students.

I mean he essentially said that anyone who votes conservative and is pro-monarchy in england is only doing so because he is ignorant. If that is not abusive propaganda I don't know what is.

But yes universities which teach creationism (if they actually exist, I know America can be extreme, but this seems a bit too extreme) is just shocking.

[Dark Star]

At university I was in a course, and during the lecture the lecturer digressed and began talking politics, he said that if everyone was educated properly, everyone would vote left and the monarchy would have long ago been tossed to the curb. I raised my hand and questioned his assumptions and tried to provide a counter-argument to what he said, I did this all in a polite manner, and then he gave a unfelt apology and made a note not to talk politics in any class I was. But had I not said anything, he would have continued to impose his politics like that upon students.

I mean he essentially said that anyone who votes conservative and is pro-monarchy in england is only doing so because he is ignorant. If that is not abusive propaganda I don't know what is.

I had a similar (though at opposite ends of the spectrum) experience with a terrible history professor at the first community college I attended. Among other things he ranted in class about how "liberals use big words to look smart", that England helped the South in the US Civil War because they were hoping they could re-take America if the country remained split (which turns out to have been his own conspiracy theory and have nothing to do with documented history but he did not indicate that it was his own personal hypothesis), and that the "PC story" about the invasion of America by the Spaniards and subsequent dissolution of the native culture was BS because those cultures were violent and should have been wiped out. If I knew then what I do now I would have reported him for this behavior.

Another case comes to mind, too: Several professors at Duke university used their lectures during the ongoing Duke Lacrosse Case as a bully pulpit to claim that the Lacrosse team accused in the case were rapists. The university has refused to take any disciplinary action against these professors even though the students were acquitted and the majority of the professors engaging in this behavior have refused to do so much as offer an apology.

That said, my personal experience with professors injecting politics into the classroom has generally been quite positive. The vast majority of professors have avoided stating their politics unless political discussion was a necessary part of the course (a debate during a philosophy course, for example), and while a few have expressed their political views to me in private, one-on-one discussions they made a point of expressing that they were just an individual stating opinions rather than an authority on the subject.

[OrphanPip]

But yes universities which teach creationism (if they actually exist, I know America can be extreme, but this seems a bit too extreme) is just shocking.

There are several throughout the US. Brigham Young University (affiliated with the Mormons) and Liberty University (affiliated with the Evangelical Movement in the South) are big ones.

There are more egregious examples too, like Bob Jones University, which certifies and published elementary and high school text books that besides the usual creationist stuff you'd expect, also show a complete misunderstanding of basic chemistry and physics. Like claiming that most scientist believe electricity is caused mysteriously by the sun.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/frickin_electricity_how_does_i.php?utm_source=most active&utm_medium=link

[Dark Star]

But yes universities which teach creationism (if they actually exist, I know America can be extreme, but this seems a bit too extreme) is just shocking.

I feel compelled to note that that none of the universities that OrphanPip has referenced are mainstream universities. They were all set up as alternatives to 'secular learning.'

By the way, one of the Pharyngula commenters told a great story. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/frickin_electricity_how_does_i.php?utm_source=most active&utm_medium=link#comment-2625187)

"As a new engineer I was seated next to a programmer who was a graduate of a christian university. Every so often he would make a statement like this that would make everyone else's head snap around. It wasn't just science, but history, government and sociology had all been perverted to reinforce christian dogma.

At one point we convinced him that before he called our European partners he had to convert time to metric. Ten hour day with hundred minute hour and a hundred second minute." [Emphasis mine]

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm in grad school, and I've yet to experience any political preaching in either direction, right or left.

[Dark Star]

I'm in grad school, and I've yet to experience any political preaching in either direction, right or left.

To my knowledge this is pretty normal. While some argue that 'political indoctrination' is the norm in university, in my experience this is not the case.

For the record, the community college professor who did the political ranting was a professor at a community college in a small town where professional standards were...lacking, to say the least. I didn't see any more of that behavior when I started attending college in a large city.

Forgive me for being so vague here, but this is the best way I can think of to keep this from veering into 'political debate' territory:

A certain political sector puts forward the hypothesis that universities are a place for political indoctrination because the majority of university graduates tend to vote for a party they're not fond of. There are a number of reasons for this ostensible shift in political views, but the path of least resistance is to argue that universities indoctrinate students in a certain sort of political views, so this is the path that is often taken.

[OrphanPip]

I feel compelled to note that that none of the universities that OrphanPip has referenced are mainstream universities. They were all set up as alternatives to 'secular learning.'


Unfortunately, they're less marginal than they might at first seem. BYU has a lot of success at placing its graduates in the work force and even graduate school. However, BYU in general seems to have a competent faculty and the benefit of a significant financial contribution from the Mormon community. I'd note that BYU has admitted intelligent design into their bio curriculum, but they still teach evolution in general.

In contrast, Liberty University seems to have no serious academic standards.

More concerning is how successful these institutions have been at lobbying school boards and producing "alternative" science and history text books, essentially seeking to hijack the public school curriculum. They have also bypassed the academic standards of peer review and vetting to produce their own publishing houses and journals. In turn, they have created a sort of false legitimacy by imitating the institutions of serious academia.

[Dark Star]

Unfortunately, they're less marginal than they might at first seem. BYU has a lot of success at placing its graduates in the work force and even graduate school. However, BYU in general seems to have a competent faculty and the benefit of a significant financial contribution from the Mormon community. I'd note that BYU has admitted intelligent design into their bio curriculum, but they still teach evolution in general.

In contrast, Liberty University seems to have no serious academic standards.

More concerning is how successful these institutions have been at lobbying school boards and producing "alternative" science and history text books, essentially seeking to hijack the public school curriculum. They have also bypassed the academic standards of peer review and vetting to produce their own publishing houses and journals. In turn, they have created a sort of false legitimacy by imitating the institutions of serious academia.

Please don't misunderstand me, they are most certainly a threat to education and I'm aware of all of these issues. That said, a number of Europeans I've met are under the impression that traditional, mainstream universities in the US are teaching creationism. I was merely trying to draw a distinction that makes clear that that is a myth.

[BienvenuJDC]

Please don't misunderstand me, they are most certainly a threat to education and I'm aware of all of these issues. That said, a number of Europeans I've met are under the impression that traditional, mainstream universities in the US are teaching creationism. I was merely trying to draw a distinction that makes clear that that is a myth.

Is the teaching of creationism really that big of a threat?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Is the teaching of creationism really that big of a threat?

Actually, I don't think it is. I think teaching it as I'd there's scientific merit to the ideas could be, though. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Some people think this is how things happened..." But saying that it's backed up with science, well, I don't think that's right.

As to the competency of professors. It doesn't help that the practice of hiring grad students more and more to teach classes is becoming more and more common. I might be teaching 101 next year, so you know it's bad. :D

[BienvenuJDC]

Actually, I don't think it is. I think teaching it as I'd there's scientific merit to the ideas could be, though. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Some people think this is how things happened..." But saying that it's backed up with science, well, I don't think that's right.

As to the competency of professors. It doesn't help that the practice of hiring grad students more and more to teach classes is becoming more and more common. I might be teaching 101 next year, so you know it's bad. :D

But science HAS backed it up. Although many refuse to hear the evidence because of the liberal agenda, but I'm not entering that argument here again.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If I remember the arguments, they almost entirely consisted of you dodging actually providing credible sources to back up your claims.

[BienvenuJDC]

If I remember the arguments, they almost entirely consisted of you dodging actually providing credible sources to back up your claims.

That is not how I remember it, but I don't think it's wise to open that can of worms again. Let's keep this site civil. We disagree and I think that we can agree on.

[Dark Star]

Is the teaching of creationism really that big of a threat?

In science courses, yes, teaching non-science is an issue, in particular when the entirety of applied biology (including medicine) is reliant upon evolution.

[JuniperWoolf]

That's a weird idea. How is medicine "reliant" upon evolution? I guess bacterial evolution has it's relation to sterilization, but that's all that comes to mind.

[OrphanPip]

Well seasonal influenza vaccines are developed ahead of times based on estimations of genetic change from season to season.

Although, not technically reliant on evolutionary theory, common descent explains why it is possible to use animal models to understand human biology.

[Dark Star]

That's a weird idea. How is medicine "reliant" upon evolution? I guess bacterial evolution has it's relation to sterilization, but that's all that comes to mind.

Off the top of my head, common descent is relevant when it comes to issues such as the transplant of animal organs when a human one is not available. A child died during one of the first heart transplants attempted because a creationist doctor used a baboon's heart rather than a chimpanzee's and the child's body rejected it. Evolution is also used in the study of bacteria (as you noted) and viruses. this blog (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/evolution-in-medicine/) also cites a few examples, and more can be found if one wishes to look.

[YesNo]

As to the competency of professors. It doesn't help that the practice of hiring grad students more and more to teach classes is becoming more and more common. I might be teaching 101 next year, so you know it's bad. :D
A tad off-topic, but sometimes the grad students are better than the professors. Sometimes not, of course.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I don't agree with education toppled with or by religion.
I personally think religion is one thing and learning is another, mixing the two together takes away the fun of what learning is all about.
From personal experience I think I will pass on religious schools because where children are concerned they do not get a say or a choice on wheere they are send to learn.

And how do you imagine that this differs in the secular schools? Not many schools operate on the concepts of Dewey and Rousseau's child-centered fantasies.

Montessori schools number over 20,000 world-wide

[Patrick_Bateman]

America and Italy are both certainly right up there as far as historically significant nations/territories go. Its kind of like the old retired olympian who won gold multiple times back in his prime watching the young star athlete dominatingly win medals in the present.

Canada never even made it as an alternate. We still whupped you in 1812 though, a fine consolation. :p

I'm sorry did you mention America and Italy together regarding historical significance?


Oh my days

[BienvenuJDC]

In science courses, yes, teaching non-science is an issue, in particular when the entirety of applied biology (including medicine) is reliant upon evolution.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that universities are teaching such a bias. You have been so indoctrinated with the "theory" of evolution, that you think that it's a fact. AND that everything is reliant on everyone believing it.

[Darcy88]

Damn biology majors and all the cool stuff you get to study. *shakes fist*

[OrphanPip]

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that universities are teaching such a bias. You have been so indoctrinated with the "theory" of evolution, that you think that it's a fact. AND that everything is reliant on everyone believing it.

The theory of evolution is not fact, but evolution sure is. The theory is a damn good functional body of tested hypotheses that provide a coherent explanation of the observable phenomenon of evolution.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

. . . I don't think it's wise to open that can of worms again. Let's keep this site civil.
Hmmmmm . . .

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that universities are teaching such a bias. You have been so indoctrinated with the "theory" of evolution, that you think that it's a fact. AND that everything is reliant on everyone believing it.

[BienvenuJDC]

Hmmmmm . . .

I have the right to change my mind if the opportunity presents itself.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Blah blah blah. I could ask you to back up your claims, but I'm sure you'd lay down the "let's not argue" bit to avoid accountability.

[JuniperWoolf]

Off the top of my head, common descent is relevant when it comes to issues such as the transplant of animal organs when a human one is not available. A child died during one of the first heart transplants attempted because a creationist doctor used a baboon's heart rather than a chimpanzee's and the child's body rejected it.

I'm pretty sure doctors would have come to that conclusion eventually without the theory of evolution. To say that medicine is *dependant* upon evolution is stretching the facts, which doesn't do anyone any good (even if only because it's so easy to counter).

[Dark Star]

I'm pretty sure doctors would have come to that conclusion eventually without the theory of evolution. To say that medicine is *dependant* upon evolution is stretching the facts, which doesn't do anyone any good (even if only because it's so easy to counter).

Are all fields of medicine dependent upon evolution? No, but much of it is. It's not stretching the truth to point out that studies in transplants, virology, and bacterial infections, among other things, are based on evolution. Wikipedia has a nice page on evolutionary medicine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine) that deals with the wide range of categories it covers.

I apologize if you misunderstood me and felt that I was arguing that the entirety of medicine is based off of evolution. That's not what I meant - I simply wanted to stress that evolution is the foundation of modern biology and that includes use in medicine.

[Dark Star]

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that universities are teaching such a bias. You have been so indoctrinated with the "theory" of evolution, that you think that it's a fact. AND that everything is reliant on everyone believing it.

Sorry, but playing with semantics does not provide evidence that universities are teaching a bias. You're arguing that a scientific theory is a hypothesis, which is not the case.

Would you argue that universities are indoctrinating people into believing that the existence of atoms are a fact because it is named Atomic Theory and that this is indicative of a liberal bias? If not, why would you treat evolution differently?


Damn biology majors and all the cool stuff you get to study. *shakes fist*

Full disclosure: I'm a geology major (who gets to study other kinds of cool stuff!) that has done an independent study on evolution and other areas of biology.

[Alexander III]

I'm sorry did you mention America and Italy together regarding historical significance?


Oh my days


Hahah yes I did not want to say anything so as not to begin another argument were everyone would have supported the fact the Italy and America were of equall historical. Actualy St.lukes probably would have said that it is ridicoulous to think the america historical and artistic creations can rival those of Italy and thus everyone would have followed him.

[Darcy88]

Other than South America Italy is the number one destination in the world I'd like to visit. But its crazy to say that comparing its cultural and historical influence to America's is in any way wrong or absurd. America as a political entity has been around for only a blink of an eye in comparison to Italy if you count as Italy the Etruscans and Romans, which I do. In that short span America has risen to dominate culturally, economically and politically practically the entire freaking globe. Compared to America's influence for the last 60 plus years the Roman Empire with its centuries of prominence was a mere fiefdom. Asia, South America, Europe, the Middle East, pretty much everywhere has been either totally or partially/ulteriorly dominated by the United States. Consider Athens and her Delian league alongside America and Nato. Compare Scipio's victory over Carthage and Caesar's conquests of Gaul and Pompey's subjugation of part of the near east to the incredible wowing accomplishments of Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur and Bradley. Then add to that Afghanistan and Iraq, the Philipines, a large number of Central and South American nations, heck the whole world nearly if you count economic and political domination. It may not be as lasting and profound as that of imperial Rome, but America's power is way more dazzling, way more far-reaching and just as meaningful. Next to world war 2 the Punic Wars were a series of petty skirmishes, and this coming from one who is obsessed with ancient history.

And do I really have to go into the cultural comparisons? In three and a half centuries America has become a if not THE leading nation of literature, music, film, and probably other arts, though I am ignorant of them and cannot with any confidence speculate. Not to mention science. Italy had Gilileo, America built the atomic bomb and put a man on the moon and revolutionized the world with its tech industry. America's products, cultural and consumer, are taken in around the globe with the repetition and ubiquity of breath.

I am not pro-America. But to dismiss the comparison between the United States and Italy in terms of historical and cultural significance is the absurd thing.

[BienvenuJDC]

The theory of evolution is not fact, but evolution sure is. The theory is a damn good functional body of tested hypotheses that provide a coherent explanation of the observable phenomenon of evolution.

Thank you. There is a big difference between General Evolution and Special Evolution. Again...for thinking that evolution (as it is taught in schools) is a fact, you have proven my point.

[Darcy88]

Thank you. There is a big difference between General Evolution and Special Evolution. Again...for thinking that evolution (as it is taught in schools) is a fact, you have proven my point.

The empirical evidence corroborating evolution is practically endless. I'll do the armed genie test. If a genie put a gun to your head and asked you whether the theory of evolution is true or false, and gave you time to look over the research, the arguments and evidences for and against, saying he'd pull the trigger and blow a hole in your head if you answered incorrectly, and you still said it was false, well then, that would just be silly and obtuse.

We went over this before. You basically wound up citing insubstantial and dismissible sources and calling into question things like archaeology and carbon dating, things that are as proven as two plus two adding to four.

[stlukesguild]

Hahah yes I did not want to say anything so as not to begin another argument were everyone would have supported the fact the Italy and America were of equall historical. Actualy St.lukes probably would have said that it is ridicoulous to think the america historical and artistic creations can rival those of Italy and thus everyone would have followed him.

You'd have to be mad to compare the cultural contributions of Italy to those of the United States... or nearly any other Western nation for that matter. I mean if we are speaking of Italy we are speaking of the Etruscans, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire (at least that part centered in Venice and Ravenna), the heart of the Renaissance and the center of the Baroque. We would be speaking of Dante, Petrarch, Cavalcanti, Boccaccio, Tasso, Ariosto, Machiavelli, Giotto, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Bellini, Titian, Caravaggio, Boccaccio, Allegri, Palestrina, Gesualdo, Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Corelli, Scarlatti, etc.. etc... Essentially we are speaking of nearly 2000 years as a major cultural/economic/military force.

The United States has but a little over 200 years... and for most of the first half of this period the majority of the resources of this nascent nation were spent upon survival and physically building the nation. 150 Years ago the spot where I now sit would likely have been covered in thick forest. The trek from here to Chicago which now takes 6 hours by car (1/2 hour by airplane) would likely have involved a perilous month of travel or more. Yet you would be hard-pressed to show another nation that had achieved as much culturally (and otherwise) within such a short time period immediately after its very inception. Over the last 100 years the United has been among the leaders in literature and poetry, music, art, architecture, dance, photography, and film (quite likely THE art form of our time).

Not having read Darcy's post until now I see it would be but redundant to go into American Military, Scientific, Economic, etc... achievements. Having said this much, Alex knows I am far from the blind patriot. I am repulsed by a great many aspects of American culture, economics, and foreign intervention. I think there are a great many things that are f***-ed up in the US. As anyone who is a ware of my artistic preferences is aware, I am far more enamored of the cultural achievements of Europe... including Italy... than many of those of the US. I'll take Michelangelo over Jackson Pollock anyday, La Traviata over Eminem, Dante over Melville and the Duomo over the AT&T building. Still... to scoff at American achievements as if they amount to nothing is quite simply blind denial.

[Dark Star]

We went over this before. You basically wound up citing insubstantial and dismissible sources and calling into question things like archaeology and carbon dating, things that are as proven as two plus two adding to four.

Calling carbon dating into question in a discussion about evolution or any other field that involves research deep into the Earth's history is a sure sign of ignorance. There's a reason it's used almost exclusively by archaeologists (and the occasional geologists working on very recent material). It has a relatively short half life (about six thousand years), and can only reliably track age up to about sixty thousand years. Beyond that point other isotopes with longer half-lives are used.

I find it particularly funny that he would use that sort of argument given that old Earth creationist geologists did pioneering work on radiometric dating while in the process of attempting to debunk it. Come to think of it, Ronald Numbers' The Creationists (http://www.amazon.com/The-Creationists-Scientific-Creationism-Intelligent/dp/0674023390/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333393812&sr=8-1) has some excellent history in there including those stories.

[BienvenuJDC]

The empirical evidence corroborating evolution is practically endless. I'll do the armed genie test. If a genie put a gun to your head and asked you whether the theory of evolution is true or false, and gave you time to look over the research, the arguments and evidences for and against, saying he'd pull the trigger and blow a hole in your head if you answered incorrectly, and you still said it was false, well then, that would just be silly and obtuse.

We went over this before. You basically wound up citing insubstantial and dismissible sources and calling into question things like archaeology and carbon dating, things that are as proven as two plus two adding to four.

I say that your evidence is insubstantial and you claim that my evidence is insubstantial. That doesn't make evolution true, nor does it make creation false. However, since the schools only teach one side, and they refuse to show the evidences on both sides...THAT makes them an agent of propaganda. Why don't they teach both sides and let people decide for themselves which one is legitimate? It's because they hate freedom to choose.

[BienvenuJDC]

Calling carbon dating into question in a discussion about evolution or any other field that involves research deep into the Earth's history is a sure sign of ignorance. There's a reason it's used almost exclusively by archaeologists (and the occasional geologists working on very recent material). It has a relatively short half life (about six thousand years), and can only reliably track age up to about sixty thousand years. Beyond that point other isotopes with longer half-lives are used.

I find it particularly funny that he would use that sort of argument given that old Earth creationist geologists did pioneering work on radiometric dating while in the process of attempting to debunk it. Come to think of it, Ronald Numbers' The Creationists (http://www.amazon.com/The-Creationists-Scientific-Creationism-Intelligent/dp/0674023390/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333393812&sr=8-1) has some excellent history in there including those stories.

The simple fact that you haven't even been exposed to certain evidences and ideas is further proof that the education as failed and is biased. You have been led into an agenda, and you don't even know that you are there. I have seen both sides, and I have chosen that which seems more reasonable.

[Dark Star]

The simple fact that you haven't even been exposed to certain evidences and ideas is further proof that the education as failed and is biased. You have been led into an agenda, and you don't even know that you are there. I have seen both sides, and I have chosen that which seems more reasonable.

Actually, I have seen the other 'side', but, just in case I haven't seen the particular articles that you're speaking of, feel free to point the way to some articles showing that the Earth is 10,000 years old or less, or something that can explain why standard geological techniques work so well for finding oil, gas, silver, gold, etc. when they're based off a system that is wrong, or speaking about why evolution is wrong.

[Darcy88]

I can't get into this again. Not gonna sabotage my good mood.

[BienvenuJDC]

Actually, I have seen the other 'side', but, just in case I haven't seen the particular articles that you're speaking of, feel free to point the way to some articles showing that the Earth is 10,000 years old or less, or something that can explain why standard geological techniques work so well for finding oil, gas, silver, gold, etc. when they're based off a system that is wrong, or speaking about why evolution is wrong.


Please answer this one question...just this one question...

How long does it take for coal to form in nature?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I say that your evidence is insubstantial and you claim that my evidence is insubstantial. That doesn't make evolution true, nor does it make creation false. However, since the schools only teach one side, and they refuse to show the evidences on both sides...THAT makes them an agent of propaganda. Why don't they teach both sides and let people decide for themselves which one is legitimate? It's because they hate freedom to choose.

Or MAYBE people in education and have decided to teach what is a more legitimate viewpoint. Our educational system can't teach everything. Anyways, what evidence should schools teach to show the "other side," hmmmm? You've provided no evidence at all that hasn't been shown to be highly questionable or down right fraudulent. Or, will you just sidestep and evade, pulling the old "You'll never take anything I post seriously" routine once again? You're the one who decided to change his mind and reopen the can.

And, from what I've read, it takes millions (hundreds of millions, I think) of years for coal to form from fossils of plants and animals.

[BienvenuJDC]

Or MAYBE people in education and have decided to teach what is a more legitimate viewpoint. Our educational system can't teach everything. Anyways, what evidence should schools teach to show the "other side," hmmmm? You've provided no evidence at all that hasn't been shown to be highly questionable or down right fraudulent. Or, will you just sidestep and evade, pulling the old "You'll never take anything I post seriously" routine once again? You're the one who decided to change his mind and reopen the can.

And, from what I've read, it takes millions (hundreds of millions, I think) of years for coal to form from fossils of plants and animals.

There has been observations in the recent years that coal has formed in a matter of decades. It can be formed in a laboratory in the right conditions in a matter of days. However, since this is in contradiction to the evolutionary hypothesis, we don't hear this in the biased schools.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't doubt at all that coal can be formed in a lab in days. Diamonds can, too. The question is can nature replicate this process? Diamonds are made using advanced technologies in labs that can't be at all replicated in nature (I actually learned this in a PUBLIC school, *gasp*). So, HOW is coal formed in labs? That it can be done is proof of nothing. We can do any number of things in labs that nature can't do, and vice-verca.

[The Comedian]

It's because they hate freedom to choose.

That hardly seems accurate. I teach in the school system, and I kinda like choice. And freedom is pretty neat too. Also, I know many, many scientists and they all see evolution as an accurate basis upon which to describe life processes on Earth.

I learned creationism in church. And to me, that's fine. Creationism uses a book of faith, the Bible, as its basis. So I can see schools teaching creationism as faith, as part of Christianity -- especially in a religious school, which is the topic of our discussion. But if scientists don't see creationism as science, then why should (government? church?) force them to teach something they see is not science?

To further complicate matters, at the religious school that our girls attend there are several Hindus and Sikhs who attend as well -- and I know that the creationism taught at the Catholic school (as science) is particularly vexing because it uses a faith book -- the Bible -- to found the basics of science, which the faith element is at odds with their own faith. It gets pretty complicated.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well said, Comedian.

[Darcy88]

They've cloned animals in laboratories and its therefore reasonable to assume that all prior generations of animals came about as the result of cloning.

[Dark Star]

Please answer this one question...just this one question...

How long does it take for coal to form in nature?

Sorry, but I'm not taking the bait. You claimed that you've looked at the arguments from both sides and chosen the more reasonable one, it's only fitting that you present some articles providing evidence of the viewpoint you're arguing.

[BienvenuJDC]

Sorry, but I'm not taking the bait. You claimed that you've looked at the arguments from both sides and chosen the more reasonable one, it's only fitting that you present some articles providing evidence of the viewpoint you're arguing.

I've done that before, but anyone who buys into the evolutionary thought denies any evidence presented. There are plenty of articles and arguments out there. Choose for yourself. But the fact that schools only present one side, and that they teach things that have been clearly been proven wrong (like how long it takes for coal to form), that proves that they are biased. That is my only argument here is that schools are biased.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If that's your only argument, why'd you bring up coal? Where were you going with that?

[BienvenuJDC]

If that's your only argument, why'd you bring up coal? Where were you going with that?

There is a bias. You'll never see it, but there is a bias.

[Dark Star]

I've done that before, but anyone who buys into the evolutionary thought denies any evidence presented. There are plenty of articles and arguments out there. Choose for yourself. But the fact that schools only present one side, and that they teach things that have been clearly been proven wrong (like how long it takes for coal to form), that proves that they are biased. That is my only argument here is that schools are biased.

I apologize if my previous tone was a bit brusque.

Two questions, and neither of these are facetious:

1. You claim to have looked at the evidence from both sides and chosen the more reasonable one. Did you come to this topic with no pre-existing bias towards either 'viewpoint'?

2. What or who are the schools biased against?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There is a bias. You'll never see it, but there is a bias.

How can there be a bias that can't be seen.

Oh, and WHERE WERE YOU GOING BY ASKING THAT STUPID COAL QUESTION?

[Darcy88]

How can there be a bias that can't be seen.

Oh, and WHERE WERE YOU GOING BY ASKING THAT STUPID COAL QUESTION?

Being non-biased is in itself a form of bias. Its a bias against bias.

[Dark Star]

Fascinating discussion going on here since the last time I posted, but there is one missing element. This whole argument over bias seems to have been split into a false two-part dichotomy of a bias in favor of science/against Christianity.

With that in mind, I have a question aimed at the minority element in this debate arguing that there is a bias against Christianity in the US educational system: There are many religions out there, each with their own creation myths. Why does it display a bias against Christianity to not teach (Christian) creationism in schools, if it doesn't display a bias against other religions to not teach their creation myths?

If it does, in fact, display a bias against all religions, why not argue that point instead of arguing exclusively for a bias against Christianity?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Fascinating discussion going on here since the last time I posted, but there is one missing element. This whole argument over bias seems to have been split into a false two-part dichotomy of a bias in favor of science/against Christianity.

With that in mind, I have a question aimed at the minority element in this debate arguing that there is a bias against Christianity in the US educational system: There are many religions out there, each with their own creation myths. Why does it display a bias against Christianity to not teach (Christian) creationism in schools, if it doesn't display a bias against other religions to not teach their creation myths?

If it does, in fact, display a bias against all religions, why not argue that point instead of arguing exclusively for a bias against Christianity?
Because the US is clearly a Christian nation because the founders were Christian, thus they wanted the nation to be a semi-theocracy. Didn't ya know?

[cafolini]

Fascinating discussion going on here since the last time I posted, but there is one missing element. This whole argument over bias seems to have been split into a false two-part dichotomy of a bias in favor of science/against Christianity.

With that in mind, I have a question aimed at the minority element in this debate arguing that there is a bias against Christianity in the US educational system: There are many religions out there, each with their own creation myths. Why does it display a bias against Christianity to not teach (Christian) creationism in schools, if it doesn't display a bias against other religions to not teach their creation myths?

If it does, in fact, display a bias against all religions, why not argue that point instead of arguing exclusively for a bias against Christianity?

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. The only bias I see is against the teaching of any specific religion over any other one. Of couse, people have their interpretations in accordance with their own bias. That's unavoidable.

[cafolini]

Because the US is clearly a Christian nation because the founders were Christian, thus they wanted the nation to be a semi-theocracy. Didn't ya know?

America doesn't have an actual Christian foundation and if it ever had it, it lost it very early. There are thousands of religions in America. Get informed about that. And there is actual, no fake, separation of church and state, which is the only possible way to guarantee freedom of religion.

[Drkshadow03]

America doesn't have an actual Christian foundation and if it ever had it, it lost it very early. There are thousands of religions in America. Get informed about that. And there is actual, no fake, separation of church and state, which is the only possible way to guarantee freedom of religion.

I think Mutatis was being facetious.

[cafolini]

They've cloned animals in laboratories and its therefore reasonable to assume that all prior generations of animals came about as the result of cloning.

You must mean like Adam and Eve.:rofl:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think Mutatis was being facetious.

I was about to point that out, but you beat me to it, Drk.

I mean really, caf, I'm not sure I could've laid it on any thicker.

[Dark Star]

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. The only bias I see is against the teaching of any specific religion over any other one. Of couse, people have their interpretations in accordance with their own bias. That's unavoidable.

I believe you misunderstood me. A couple of the commenters in this thread are arguing that the US educational system is biased against Christianity since it is not teaching Christian Young Earth Creationism. I'm arguing that by claiming this they're setting up a false dichotomy of atheism/secularism vs Christianity by ignoring other religions which have their own ideas about how the universe and world came into being.

[cafolini]

I believe you misunderstood me. A couple of the commenters in this thread are arguing that the US educational system is biased against Christianity since it is not teaching Christian Young Earth Creationism. I'm arguing that by claiming this they're setting up a false dichotomy of atheism/secularism vs Christianity by ignoring other religions which have their own ideas about how the universe and world came into being.

You are probably correct. I was annoyed by the subject, which to me has very little consequence. So I jumped on you to establish that priority. Sorry. I like this version better. Good points.

[JamCrackers]

This is not a topic people can handle. Modern Western civilization politically names everything in reverse to sell to the public. Anti-racism means institutionalized racism. Instead of blind justice: any person/sex A murdered any person/sex B, any person wanted job whatever; instead, we have mandatory labeling of all people. I am never going to get not being called ‘legally’ black. I will have being black tattooed on my forehead and told I will get the 'my kind only special help'. That's reality. Creationism isn't Christian; it is Hebrew. Religion does not require Gods. Religion is: using emotion and subjective values as absolute law. Do I know for science fact that mercy will fix mankind? No, that is an emotional subjective value I have. I believe it is true. I can’t prove it. We made up fiction that you should have one wife not five. That does not come from science. I happen to practice Christian moral values. I don't believe in God. Yes, I am Christian because that is the name put to chivalry moral values. I don't torture. What anyone does with the name, means nothing. You can join the religion of Popeye the Sailor and vow to live the moral values of Popeye. When you break your rules, I don't blame Popeye. Creationism itself is what atheists already practice. Quite simple scam of semantic fallacy. We practice ALL HUMANS ARE CREATED EQUAL. This was edited into ALL HUMANS EVOLVED EQUAL. We didn't. Problem with real evolution, is that real evolution includes humans not just animals. I don't want you taught evolution. No offense, I don't think you are intelligent enough to handle it. Other people when they learn humans also evolve, their first answer is that: all humans MUST be equal. If they are not equal, they must murder everyone they feel is unequal. You don't need to murder people because your gene line has gifts not found in other subgroups. As said, we compromised, we made up atheists’ Neo Creationism, where people want to pretend they accept evolution, but - not for humans, all humans are equal. Evolution Theory does not HAVE a theory of all of a species evolves fairly and equally. It says the opposite. It says some of them out evolve the others, then replace them by being superior. Much too dangerous a knowledge for the common person. Many will agree by accident. Sadly, yes, one caveman can say to another caveman, "I am more evolved than you." It is still true today. Creationism is Torah not New Testament. How is this explained? Technically, they are not Christians, we call them Christian Zionists. These are a new religion made up in modern times just like Wikka who are supposed Christians that serve the Pharisee who murdered Rabbi Jesus. You should call it Gentiles in Judaism, which it is. They like Old Testament War, Old Testament everything. The Hebrew TORAH teaches to kill gays. Who stopped Hebrews from killing gays? Jesus stopped the stoning executions of gays. Sad to say, people who talk the most religion, know the least about it. Jesus himself was an enemy of the Pharisee, not their servant. It is an important topic. Demanding the end to this Creationism is demanding the rise of science too dangerous for lesser minds. When they learn evolution applies to humans, they turn evil and want to murder people they think are weaker. 1 in 100 IQ is genius, the smartest person in your local tavern on Friday night. For the 1 in 1,000,000 IQ, your local genius is a color of moron. Please let's keep the idea alive that humans have equal rights in the law. A murder trial should take place where your sex and race never come up. If we were equal, it would not matter. If Carl Sagan had the need to kill everyone born with a lower IQ, we would all be dead. People frying hamburgers have no need to understand evolution; my fries will still get salted. How about they learn higher math and how to read? It was the atheists who LYNCHED Dr. Watson (discovered DNA) for publically saying evolution was real in humans. Atheists brought the torches and pitchforks to career murder one of their greatest atheists because he refused to be a neo-Creationist like them.

[OrphanPip]

No, I'm afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Liberalism and evolution.

That post is so rambling and jumpy that I'm feeling a little too lazy to do a breakdown of it.

First of all, of course humanity evolves, and of course people are not literally identical. This may come as a surprise to you, but people have always known that. It's not like Liberalism emerged in the 19th century and didn't realize that this idea had to be addressed to justify the principle of legal equality. To argue that people are equal is not to say that people all have the same abilities. You are using a simplistic definition of equality that is nothing more than a straw man.

One of the problems with your reasoning is that there is no such thing as more or less evolved. Evolution is not directional, there is fit and unfit, but that is dependent on environment and thus is a subjective designation that explains what traits get selected under certain circumstances. For example, sickle cell trait is adaptive in central Africa where malaria is a major cause of death, but it is maladaptive in New Jersey where it just contributes to high blood pressure. Is a person with sickle cell trait more or less evolved? The question is meaningless in terms of evolutionary biology.

Your understanding of evolution is really deriving from the idea of social-Darwinism (which Darwin himself thought was ridiculous), which misunderstood the science of evolution and misunderstood empiricism.

I don't really want to get into the subtleties of population genetics and why it involves a chain of logical fallacies to derive from the principles of evolution that any group of people is not equal to another.

See, the problem is that the measure by which equality should be determined has to be agreed on first. Are we going to do it by intelligence? But what is intelligence, there are different kinds of intelligence and the IQ test doesn't measure them all, nor does it necessarily effectively measure anything other than the ability to take an IQ test. The thing is that the definition we have come up with is that being human is enough to be considered equal, because that is the easiest answer, the most humane, and the most sensible given the limits of empiricism and the difficulty of bias in determining any other measure. It has nothing to do with ability, because we don't measure equality by ability, we measure it by personhood. And a morally relevant person is usually then debated to be either essentially human (Christians would argue this) or they are a rational thinking person (which I favour). However, you could even have more recent Utilitarians (which many of the founders of Liberalism were) that argue anything that feels pain is morally relevant. The thing about Utilitarians is that you don't even have to believe in the principle of equality to argue that people should all be treated decently.

Let's take another case example, the question of voting age. Do we limit the franchise of minors because we think all people under 18 are idiots? No, we set an age because we recognize that minors at some point are not capable of making rational voting choice, and at some other point they are. Determining the exact age for an individual is impossible, yet we know that this is essentially the case. We determine somewhat arbitrarily as a society that everyone over the age of 18 has a RIGHT to vote.

That is the essence of the Liberal conception of equality, it means that everyone has equal rights, not that they have equality abilities or positions. Now you have divisions within Liberalism. Classical Liberals believe people only have rights from, you have the right not to be imprisoned for writing rambling posts. Reform Liberals believe you have rights to, you have the right to equal employment opportunity. Some Reform Liberals would argue affirmative action helps correct systemic inequalities in the name of rendering the affirmative action redundant eventually, the point isn't to give black people a lift up who aren't qualified, but help give them equal opportunity in the face of arbitrary bias built into the system; it's a matter of perspective.

In another realm of thought you would have socialism which would argue instead of rights we have duties and expectations, we have a duty to sustain a minimum quality of life for all people and the expectation to help provide it if we have the ability to. This has some overlap with reform liberalism because in order to provide rights to things, certain people must be imposed duties to provide those rights.

Anyway, the point being that I don't think you have a nuanced understanding of either evolution or what equality means in a developed political discourse.

[JamCrackers]

Thank you, you made my point perfectly.
In all other animals, one isolated group would out evolve the others, then, replace them because they are superior. Then when the topic switches to humans which are also animals, thus enters the comical failure of popular atheism. In the godless atheist religion, nature 'loves you'. Nature is never 'mean'. Nature is never 'cruel'. What nature does would never make you so upset that you cry. A very pretty religion. All feel good fantasy, sadly. Real atheism and real evolution belong only in the hands of elite minds. The truth is infinitely too painful for regular folks. That is how I would define the atheist take on science itself, what is true is what feels good. Many would likely suicide if they heard and understood the truth. They were BORN missing critical genes in brain development? They were BORN incapable of making profound inventions, glorious art, or honestly enough, without the ability to be quiet in an apartment building because the very concept that their behavior hurts other people is beyond their ability to grasp. Because this is reality, we already do live in this reality. There is no what if when this came about. It is already what this world is. Everyone does not get to be Mozart. But then as shown, we already know all the 'special answers'. Lucky for us, all these painful facts of that brutal merciless savage which is nature, the very term the jungle, law of the jungle. DNA is not God. Evolution is not Jesus. Evolution does not love you. Evolution routinely makes your better replacement then sends that replacement to extinct you. "No one can be more evolved!!!!" (when you're humans). Gee, it works perfectly for every other form of life. Lucky for us that humans are the only life form ever to exist where the brutal cruel wickedly unfair rules of evolution don't apply. Am I the only person who can see how arrogant the alternative is. NO ONE? can be more evolved than you? YOU? are the pinnacle of human evolution? You name yourself the very tip of the spear of human evolution, then I assume believe that is a humble outlook on life? In our world, too many cooks spoil the broth. One leader is enough. We only need one. All the runners up in the contest of greatest mind can go work on the factory floor with all the other common folk. Atheist religion and their emotional needs. Is it really that frightening to look into the mouth of the monster? There is no need at all to teach evolution. The ultimate minds know these things without outside assistance. Everyone else when they are told, they lapse into emotional breakdowns and tantrums, which being evolved as they are, they do what they always do - murder helpless people.

[OrphanPip]

Well way to prove you didn't understand a thing I said. Good job.

Edit: Just to repeat, you do not understand how evolution works at all, you have a childish understanding of evolutionary theory.

[Darcy88]

Thank you, you made my point perfectly.
In all other animals, one isolated group would out evolve the others, then, replace them because they are superior. Then when the topic switches to humans which are also animals, thus enters the comical failure of popular atheism. In the godless atheist religion, nature 'loves you'. Nature is never 'mean'. Nature is never 'cruel'. What nature does would never make you so upset that you cry. A very pretty religion. All feel good fantasy, sadly. Real atheism and real evolution belong only in the hands of elite minds. The truth is infinitely too painful for regular folks. That is how I would define the atheist take on science itself, what is true is what feels good. Many would likely suicide if they heard and understood the truth. They were BORN missing critical genes in brain development? They were BORN incapable of making profound inventions, glorious art, or honestly enough, without the ability to be quiet in an apartment building because the very concept that their behavior hurts other people is beyond their ability to grasp. Because this is reality, we already do live in this reality. There is no what if when this came about. It is already what this world is. Everyone does not get to be Mozart. But then as shown, we already know all the 'special answers'. Lucky for us, all these painful facts of that brutal merciless savage which is nature, the very term the jungle, law of the jungle. DNA is not God. Evolution is not Jesus. Evolution does not love you. Evolution routinely makes your better replacement then sends that replacement to extinct you. "No one can be more evolved!!!!" (when you're humans). Gee, it works perfectly for every other form of life. Lucky for us that humans are the only life form ever to exist where the brutal cruel wickedly unfair rules of evolution don't apply. Am I the only person who can see how arrogant the alternative is. NO ONE? can be more evolved than you? YOU? are the pinnacle of human evolution? You name yourself the very tip of the spear of human evolution, then I assume believe that is a humble outlook on life? In our world, too many cooks spoil the broth. One leader is enough. We only need one. All the runners up in the contest of greatest mind can go work on the factory floor with all the other common folk. Atheist religion and their emotional needs. Is it really that frightening to look into the mouth of the monster? There is no need at all to teach evolution. The ultimate minds know these things without outside assistance. Everyone else when they are told, they lapse into emotional breakdowns and tantrums, which being evolved as they are, they do what they always do - murder helpless people.

Yes, excellent summation of what OrphanPip the biologist was explaining. Well done sir. Can I get your notes to Phenomenology of Spirit and Being and Nothingness? Heck, you ought to go work for SparkNotes. You'd do a grade A job I'm sure.

http://www.deviantart.com/download/114593517/Epic_Fail_by_thepaintrain.jpg

[JamCrackers]

Tantrums and insults when you lose,
oops, your evolution is showing.

[JuniperWoolf]

Tantrums and insults when you lose,
oops, your evolution is showing.

I think haikus are supposed to go 5-7-5.

[BienvenuJDC]

I think haikus are supposed to go 5-7-5.

Are you sure they are
Is that what defines haikus
maybe you are right

[Darcy88]

Are you sure they are
Is that what defines haikus
maybe you are right

:biggrin5:

Excellent Bien. Really made me laugh. Thank you.

[martunia99]

I go to a catholis school and I think it's really nice. There are children of diffrent religion and nationality in my school and they are all welcome as much as catholic Irish children.
We also learn as many other subjects as other schools. To be honest we don't even do that much religion, maybe like half an hour a week and of course we celebrate catholic festivals. Non-catholic children at my school are not forced to do our religion either. That's why I think catholic schools are fine.

[Paulclem]

I have a problem with religion being taught as a belief in schools rather than as a comparative religious subject, not just the religious schools. It might be the multicultural city where I live and have taught, but in a situation like this, how do you present religions?

In the school i taught in there were muslims, sikhs, hindus, christians, and nominal christians. of course the main focus came from the white middle class teachers who were christian if anything. Then there was the historical link to the two local churches of different denominations - but not the temple or the mosque where a good third of the kids attended. If there was any real attempt at informing each of the kids about the variety of religions, it was often done in a mechanical way, but there was clearly a great miss in terms of including and perhaps getting the support of other religous groups in the school.

As a supply teacer i worked in a Catholic school occaisionally. Nice kids, well behaved, Catholic flavour to assembly etc, but then they missed out on the wide variety of cultures in their city. At what point did these kids get to mingle with the other citizens of their city and gain an understanding and empathy with them? The same goes for the Muslim school.

I think religion is a personal/ family matter and too important for teachers who may not have the conviction or conflicting convictions. Anyway, teachers should be about education and the best that they should do is to teach comparative aspects.

Of course if the whole community is of one religion, then it might make sense, though I think awareness of other religions and cultures good for tolerance.

[hawthorns]

I hope religious schools aren't outdated. I graduated from one and loved it. But creationism is something they could never sell me on. The evidence, to me, seemed overwhelmingly obvious after my experiences in molecular bio, biochem, and micro. It left me puzzled as to why creationists find human evo so hard to accept, when viruses and bacteria have evolved mechanisms of defense, reproduction, prey, and physiologic adaptation that make the cellular capabilities of humans look stone aged.

It's fruitless to debate it though, especially without some sense of humor and civility. Each person has to do their own homework and decide for themselves because there are extremely learned people in both camps.

[KCurtis]

I think haikus are supposed to go 5-7-5.

:rofl: good one, wish I had seen this post earlier. funny!

[OrphanPip]

I thought this might be relevant to the thread.

Recent research at UBC found that undergraduates coming from urban public schools in Vancouver outperformed their peers coming from private schools and suburban public schools.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/public-school-graduates-beat-private-pupils-in-undergrad-research-finds/article2410574/