Education

NIghttrain, it's apples and oranges. The basis for believing in the Bible and religious beliefs is as much based on personal analysis and experience. The Bible does not present the scientific method as a means to attaining knowledge of and relationship with God.Evolution does claim to hold to the scientific method. So it is perfectly reasonable to assess evolutionism on the basis of whether it holds to it's claims.

Shraf, someone kindly stepped up and provided you with a link. That doesn't satisfy you because you want to waste my time debating with you after I told you I would not be willing to discuss the topic with you if you did not do some research and make an effort to substantiate your points as well. Since you showed no willingness to do that, I decided not to participate on the thread, and in general, I'm not as interested in participating on new thread that try to call me out on something, and the rules do not require someone participate on a new thread if they do not want to.Maybe if you change your tone and behaviour, I would consider it down the road sometime when I am less busy.

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

As is always the case. But do you really think there is no causation between lack of a science education and a belief in mysticism over science? Although true it is my guess that it is also rare. The folks who push creation science or its ID varient who are also legitimatly educated did so for the purpose of pushing creation science and ID. There are also many examples of individuals trying to do just that though that ended up rejecting irrational position of creation science through the pursuit. The only thing that keeps the die hards from doing the same is absolute dogmatism and an unprecidented skill to be able to reject reality right in the face of it.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-12-2005 11:21 AM

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Education is always good. I can think of nothing better than enabling people to examine the evidence, and decide for themselves. It is unfortunate that the home schooling movement is denying some children an adequate education. I don't know for sure. But I suspect it is because fundamentalist Christianity is failing, and we are seeing the struggles of its death throes.Protestantism started as a rebellion against authority (the authority of the pope). It was a grass roots movement, and a quite effective one. Now it has changed into an authority based system, appealing to government legislation, constitutional amendment, and a rigidly conservative judiciary, in an apparent attempt to impose its belief system on people. In the meantime the gay rights movement and the new age religions are using grass roots methods that are making deep inroads into the culture. In spite of its appeal to authority, fundamentalist Christianity seems incapable of resisting these grass roots movements.At the same time, we see the fundamentalists denominations splintering into multiple sects. It is a little like the high rate of mutation that is sometimes seen in a biological species that is under heavy pressure. Some of the splinter groups become successful and form mega-churches. But often this success is temporary and based on the personality of a single leader. It is like a spurt of growth on a new shoot, which runs out of steam after a while. Some of the new splinter denominations are successful because of social programs rather than as a result of their theology. Some of them are experimenting with alternative theologies (considered heretical by the more orthodox denominations).Oops! I'm wandering off-topic here. If anyone wants to argue the OT issue I just raised, please start a new thread.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

I think the number of people affected by an absolute dogmatism is actually rather small. The bigger problem is the number of highly gullible people who are swayed by these dogmatists.Some people make their decisions based on evidence. Others seem to make their decisions by picking someone to trust, and then playing "follow the leader." And often their decision on whom to trust is based on emotion rather than reason. Over the last few decades, we have seen a transformation from a knowledge based society into an entertainment based society. We are seeing the consequences of that change.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

We don't know all the facts and we can not ever know all the facts. We don't "know" that the Theory of Evolution is 100% correct and we can not ever know that anything is 100% correct. In fact, we know that the Theory of Evolution is not 100% "correct". Why else would we keep studying and trying to improve it? No it isn't. It is a conclusion drawn from the evidence. No it isn't. The Bible does not contain any "evidence" in the sense that the word "evidence" is used in science.Evidence must be verifiable. Everybody must be able to see the same evidence, or it doesn't qualify as evidence.When everybody agrees about what the Bible says, you can call it evidence. Until then, it is a collection of individual beliefs. Beliefs and conclusions drawn from evidence are not the same thing.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

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

Home schoolers that also go to regular school some years have more of an eclectic learning experience, which imo, is better suited for developing critical thinking.I think this extends to those that reject evolution but are interested in science. They seem to me to actually understand evolution better, not worse, and thus can see it's flaws.

Exactly correct. And if you go back to what I was saying I specifically restricted that description to the few creationists that actually have advanced degrees in things like biology. The only way they could ignore the evidence long enough to actually get a respectable degree in the field yet blatantly think it is all false is by the sheer will of their dogmatism.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-12-2005 12:34 PM

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

I distinguish between education and mere book learning. I did not intend to suggest that all home schooling is bad. I'm sure some is quite good. And even where students do attend an academy (whether a public school or a private one), what they learn at home is still quite important. When parents abandon their educational responsibilities and rely exclusively on the schools, that can be just as much of a problem as is some of the home schooling. I avoid sweeping generalizations. Dopish learning is a bad idea at any time.One of the problems in todays education scene is that there is often too much emphasis on mastery of facts and too little attention paid to developing an understanding of processes and relations.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

quote:

---

Please, how can one possibly lack knowledge of science when he/she possesses higher (science) education? I.e., I'm a physician

---

Sorry, but physicians are not scientists. The training doctors get is not very much at all like the training that scientists get.That is, unless they are MD/PhD's and do research for a living.Physicians do get some science in undergrad but they are generally sorely-lacking in research and theory-testing skills.They are practitioners--they apply practically what scientists have learned.

quote:

---

Shraf, someone kindly stepped up and provided you with a link.

---

That's nice. What does that have to do with your particular claims?

quote:

---

That doesn't satisfy you because you want to waste my time debating with you after I told you I would not be willing to discuss the topic with you if you did not do some research and make an effort to substantiate your points as well.

---

But randman, for the millionth time, you made the claim.The thread in question is my request to you to support that claim.Forum Rule #4 requires that you support it with evidence or withdraw it.It is really very simple.It is incumbent upon youyou to support the claim or withdraw it.I'm still waiting, and so are others in that thread.

quote:

---

Since you showed no willingness to do that, I decided not to participate on the thread,

---

But you are the one who made the claim, randman.I made no claims in that thread. I asked you some very narrow questions regarding your claim that I am still very curious to learn the facts of that you must have based your claim upon.I would like for you to show me the basis for your facual claim so that I might make a more informed opinion reagrding ADC, yet you refuse to help me, and all the other people on this board out by refuing to show all of us the facts and information upon which you have apparently based your opinion.Why so stingy? Why do you refuse to show me up, at the very least, by supplying that thread with the links and evidence that would leave no doubt that you are right? You yourself said that it would be a simple matter to look up the facts, right? So why not be a true educator in the best sense of the word and, well, educate me?

quote:

---

and in general, I'm not as interested in participating on new thread that try to call me out on something, and the rules do not require someone participate on a new thread if they do not want to.

---

Well, I can certainly understand that.All you have to do, then, is withdraw the claim.

quote:

---

Maybe if you change your tone and behaviour, I would consider it down the road sometime when I am less busy.

---

Hey, I'm not the one who calls people liars and frauds every other post. I've also never needed to be suspended for dishonest debate tactics, either, so I really don't think I need a lecture on "tone and behavior" from the likes of you, thanks.I've been at EvC for over 5 years and have over 7,000 posts. You have been here less than a year (with some suspenstions in there, too) and have almost half that many. I think you are clearly here all the time and a single post in a single thread is but a drop in the bucket of your very prolific posting rate.The thread is waiting.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-12-2005 02:59 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".