Splintering our Education System based on FAITH

I know, Iv'e read many of the threads. I just couldn't resist the gig.

Thanks for the link. I'll want to study it more later. I'd say offhand, however, that it looks like they teach science quite well. You are simply bothered by the creationist philosophy, but that doesn't affect the teaching of actual scientific content, observation and methodology at all.But as I say, I'll have to check again later. I have to park this website for a while and get some other things done.

OK, this keeps getting repeated so I have to ask: What exactly is wrong with "splintering" the system? I've answered that Holmes' expectations are unwarranted, that everybody would be going off in some completely different direction from everybody else, but what exactly ARE you all worried about if different schooling systems are made available? Isn't that the American way? There's nothing particularly commendable about homogenized education and it tends to the lowest common denominator.I HAVE to leave for a while so I won't see answers until later.

That is part of it.The other part is slightly more complicated. Private schools entail a committment on the part of the parents, if nothing else one of finances above the continuing tax based charges for the public system. In the case of home schooling it is the commitment of time, money and facilities towards education.That basic commitment on the part of the parents goes a long way towards warranting the quality of the output. The simple fact that the parents have made a commitment to education, raised it to a level somewhat above universal daycare would likely increase the quality of the output product.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes.Must..work. Bye

Faith, evolution and geology are ACTUAL science. Not teaching it or teaching that it is incorrect due to some holy text is the very definition of anti-science.

I think the problem is that in America, we use the education you've completed as a guide to what you know, particularly in occupations where that knowledge is vital.I think what people are worried about is that, if there's all these different systems, with presumably different concentrations in different subjects, and they're all to be considered equivlent, then there's a real possibility that your doctor, for instance, might be totally lacking some crucial knowledge that he or she might otherwise have been exposed to.I dunno, I'm not that scared. As it stands now, there's already every possibility that your doctor skipped classes and cheated on his exams.

Well, there are state medical licensing boards, CPA examinations, bar examinations, the Professional Engineer registration, accreditation boards like ABET for this very reason - that the quality of education in these fields from various universities already varies widely. Of course, the quality of the exams and accreditation standards could be altered...I'm not aware that acceptance, or lack thereof, of evolution is, or should be , part of the criteria for passing these exams.I personally don't care whether my CPA is an atheist or a Pentecostal if they do my taxes properly and follow the law.Now I would be a bit bothered by a YEC medical doctor, but that's just me.

That is simply not the case. This is the biggest fallacy to be found among evolutionists. NEITHER evolutionism NOR creationism affects the content of science in the slightest. All the work that is done in laboratories and in the field is exactly the same work whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist. Knowledge of how the universe works, how genes work, the physical laws, the entire natural world, what kinds of rocks there are and how they are formed and where you find them, and fossils too, and where dinosaurs are found buried and what they looked like and so on -- ALL THAT IS THE SAME no matter which theory you believe. It is simply NOT true that you have to believe the universe is any particular age, that the layers in the geologic column were formed 4500 years ago or bazillions, that dinosaurs lived 5000 years ago or some millions of years ago, or that we were created in Eden or all evolved from the primordial swamps, in order to do excellent science.HOWEVER, my own personal vision is that Christian schools would teach evolution AND all the arguments against it to perfection, that graduates would know more about it all and be better at arguing every aspect of it than any product of the public schools. Eventually the ToE would go the way of the dinosaurs if that were to happen.

Faith we are veering off topic for this thread, but to be honest (and you do want to be honest right?!) science currently supports an old universe, old earth, dinosaurs living millions of years ago, evolution as fact and theory, ... That is science! This is ignorant assertion: It is true that you don't have to believe it, but that is what the evidence says.This message has been edited by kjsimons, 03-31-2005 08:18 PM

This is false. My wife is hard at work in the lab, as we speak, doing work that wouldn't be possible in the absence of the evolutionary framework.As they say, biology only makes sense in the light of evolution. It does very much affect the content of the biological sciences; it turns something that would just be basically bug collecting into a useful, predictive, and explanitory model.

I couldn't disagree more. Good science is about using multiple corroborating lines of evidence, from many fields if necessary, to develop a testable model that best explains the evidence and can be used as the basis for both further scientific understanding and practical applications.The old universe model satisfies this. The young universe model does not. At best the young universe model relies on question begging and ad hoc hypotheses to explain away the more likely inferences from the evidence, but these fall apart when the comprehensive scrutiny is done from all angles.I'm sure you've heard this before but it sounds like you don't understand how science works or is done. It is not about gathering a body of unrelated measurements and factoids.

Evolution is a false model whether or not it generates scientific projects. You can't have science that's science with a false model.

It's amazing but all the corroborating lines of evidence are like conspirators in a delusion. Evolution doesn't explain anything. The data is forced to fit it. And there are NO practical applications whatever. It is absolutely unnecessary to any of the practical business of science. It wastes time corroborating itself by multiplying delusion upon delusion. The question begging is on the evolutionist side of this. Over and over I've been answered here by arguments that come down to nothing more than "Evolution is true because it's true."

I point you to posts #1 and #6 in this thread.

---

*not an actual doctor