Education

Please, how can one possibly lack knowledge of science when he/she possesses higher (science) education? I.e., I'm a physician and eschew pseudo-science (hyper-Newtonian theories of evolution, oversimplified quantum-quark theories, ad-hoc inflationary-big-bang theories of the cosmos). You want to be paid for deceiving people? I view that as bigoted science-cloke of vanity. Moreover, the opposite seems true: Lack of quantum study and relatavistic study has blinded the poor hyper-Newtonian thinker(s) into flawed understanding(s) of cosmogeny. It seems (to me) you've just contradicted your first statement (1). Now it seems you're begging that creos lack science education, papers, or something. Not the current bigotted hyper-Newtonian mega-mutationalistic *science*, I hope.

True...But, the topic question remains NWR: Is education helping or not?Why do you think creos and evos so *sarcastically* debate against each other?Or...Is it some insatiable "desire to postulate mega-origins" or something?

Alright, I think NWR addressed the topic better than I, if this is merely statistician's socio-political study.This message has been edited by Philip, 12-12-2005 01:45 PM

A curious paradigm and fallacy: "Education for education's sake." Reminds me of "ever-learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth". Still, I agree, "ever-learning" may be a viable mechanism of adaptation (thinking as an evo). Actually, I've seen the opposite: That is, my prior home-schooled students demonstrated *less dopish* learning (in my former high school science science classes).They did not at all seem helplessly unable to examine evidence(s); rather, most *shined* as peer leaders and respected their teachers on *trite* science matters.Eclectic education that includes home schooling seems more "adequate education" don't you (honestly) think? Should a person *dopishly learn* by a faulty evolutionist system SANS a nuclear-family core of education (during the period when parents are accountable)?This message has been edited by Philip, 12-12-2005 02:26 PM

"Science for science sake" vs. "science as just a means to the practitioner's end" ... which is important here?Also, plumbers (like physicians) seem to me to require ongoing research and theory-testing skills, albeit, just on a more macroscopic scale...Looking in a typical plumber's van I've seen a hundred or so tools, several thousand types of materials and fittings, etc.They, too, have experimented and tested materials and techniques, and employed ongoing of scientific methods and research to design, construct, and/or fix hydro-mechanical phenomena.True, a humble toilet-scientist may not be as proud as a slime-scientist (AKA, micro-biologist). Yet both have advanced degrees of education.Thus, it seems silly to me that a master-plumber need be ... "sorely-lacking in research and theory-testing skills".

I may be missing something, Ned, but any Post Grad trend seems statistically invalid (or such) if it can be demonstrated that Evo's vehemently eradicate their post-grad institutions from ID-ists (especially, YECs)....The title itself, "Evo-ID Wars" may suggest (to me) that many an IDist may have been *slain* ... from being admitted to the post-grad level. I've witnessed a sort of pre-extermination or "undue-process" against creos at UAH (AL) ... by vociferous biologists against creo post-grads and pre-meds in 1988.Notwithstanding, I don't deny that evos, as a rule, possess a higher IQ, than creos (for what its worth). This would also help place them in a position for post-grad acceptance and strenuous intellectual tasks, like writing coherent papers.But scientific wisdom (if there be such a thing) seems desperately wanting: from quantum theory's *quarkian* limitations to inflationary theory's drastic unlimitations (of the speed of *pre-quarks* or whatever)....Evo-Science Wisdom might rightly say:"Give it up, Philip", science authority can not really comprehend *sub-quarks* nor *pre-big-bang evolution*."It gets *swallowed up* and rooted in metaphysics on every level"."Discoveries in evo-science seem increasingly infinite and baffling.""The space-time continuum is a microcosm of something bigger”,etc.

...Shh...(I've just demonstrated to Shraf that my humble hydro-mechanics-specialist (plumber) is no different as a research scientist than my proud (yet sublime) slime-mechanic (biologist); the difference being perhaps a marginal difference in IQ and/or macroscopic vs microscopic *underlying mechanisms* (if there be such a thing).Who (pray tell) fully understands underlying mechanisms of his profession? The master-plumber or the meticulous slime-mechanic ?And who knows quantums and quarks? (with "full understanding")Admittedly the biologist may have crammed "underlying mechanisms" in his/her "stream of consciousness" (if there be such a thing) to teach us medicine.What about the underlying mechanisms of the underlying mechanisms? What are they founded on?This message has been edited by Philip, 12-12-2005 06:09 PM

Sounds like silly pride to me. My humble plumber lives on the lake and makes about thrice as much as most UAH research biologists.If that plumber's not employing the scientific method with his research, than why is he so much richer than smart biologists?

True, most plumbers keep their "advanced statistical techniques", inventories, etc. at somewhat of a more phlegmatic level.But "advanced statistical techniques" have been so mis-employed by individual "research" scientists as to oft become suspiciously invalidated. I never place much credence in my American Podiatric Journal stats, especially with new procedures and techniques by research scientists.For example, NosyNed's Harris Poll stats here from Message 4... He stated the stats showed an "obvious trend", which is *obviously* not true (to me)... I quote: I've demonstrated (to Ned) (http://EvC Forum: Education -->EvC Forum: Education) that those educational stats are fatally misleading due to extraneous variables.My cat knows more about "advanced statistical anyalyses" than these social psychologists. The point being, as a physcian, I must suspect fanciful new theories by *research* scientists and their stats.(Returning to the topic) I view that personality types, IQ, socio-ethnic backround, faith, etc., probably would correlate greater in determining Evo vs. Creo than educational levels.This message has been edited by Philip, 12-13-2005 04:52 PM

My logic is faulty and bigotted (perhaps even from a humane perspective) and is ONLY meant to expose pompousness of proud know-it-all *researchers*. I stand corrected. Also I apologize if I've insulted any (beside myself).The point being, most abrasive biology researchers I've encountered could stand a bit of sarcastic humor, don't you think?

So whats your position on the topic at hand ... (education and all)?

Respectfully, Phat, I see the opposite...I would surmize that evos (in general) are pretty narrow minded and are taught one belief paradigm wheras creos have by and large been better educated and are able to incorporate a wide variety of belief paradigms which give them a much broader perspective.i.e., ...better and more broadly educated ... with regard to perceiving ID and IC, spirituality of man, loving others, believing in Christ (vs Ashtoroth) as Lord, metaphysics, theology, art, and music (especially).(I may be wrong, but that is what I perceive)

...I sought: everything I've observed that you stated seemed off topic (Haekel, vertebrates, etc.), having nothing to do with education stats.Peradventure, make it clear and/or summarize your views and/or stats about education.This message has been edited by Philip, 12-13-2005 06:00 PM

...You win#!

Depends what you mean by evidence: *statistics* can be a Pandora’s box (as I've tried to demonstrate with NosyNed's ed stats (which seemed informative but invalid).Also, I frankly don't know nor believe you or I can ever prove which group has the "evidences".
I mean, men (and women) seek for evidences that fit the big picture(s) correctly (which no individual nor entity has a handle on). You're a psychologist, Shraf; what "evidences" define the "stream of conscience" phenomena? Frankly, it seems to me the creos excel in metaphysical aspects of explaining the metaphysics of consciousness, music, art, personality types, etc.Surely as a psychologist you'd frankly view that human beings are metaphysical entities with *oceans* of affections (conscious or subconscious). In other words, I don't deny some "behavioral response" research psychologies (B.F.Skinner was c/w the ToE) as slightly valid, holistic psychologies (Adler, Jung) and humanistic (K. Horney, Rogers, etc.) psychologies seem more applicable (to me).My mother is a psychiatrist, I have a b.s. in psychology; I've seen *psychology research* amount to minimal (if any) good. I.e., my entire 11 siblings (excluding myself) are bipolor, divorced, and dysfunctional; I'm the only YEC in the bunch; heck my identical twin violates most of the comparative twin pscych *theories* (another topic) Excellent but paradoxical point. Albeit both sides seem *guilty* in great measure (another topic). Though I personally prefer Absolute Creo Truth vs. Absolute Evo Truth be preached into my ears (vs. (say) no absolute(s)), I agree, Absolute Mega-ToEism overly-abused preaching in science.I mean, I view the ToE has evolved into an Absolute Truth (read the N.A.S. *absolute* exclusion of creationism on "all levels" of science); sounds absolute, stupid, and preposterous to me.Also, Shraf, I don't see the "Bible" preached in my son's AL high school AT ALL (except for non-biblical Xmas and Ishtar crap); so your point might be obselete. Do you really think if the mega-ToE-of-Origins was eradicated from educaton that fundy Biblicists would pollute technology classes (in the US)? As a YEC, I'd agree with you. Mega-ToE-origins seem to me to have failed most-if-not-all testing (another topic).Also, methinks most creos are ToEists that have succombed to throwing away their fundy literalisms. Shraf, your debate may be against non-mainstream creos, the YEC minority. In my frail knowledge, I don't think even Kansas schools are YECist (though I may be wrong).