This next story on the other hand suggests that there's a lot that's wrong with American education that has nothing to do with creationism: Boy with D and C on report card is "honor" student, the sort of thing that must be attributed to "liberal" stupidity that wants everybody to FEEL they do well without regard to how well they actually do.
Shouldn't it be attributed to the fact that all his other grades were As? Like the article says?
I suppose so. Didn't the Principal explain that they use a formula of some sort, and that half the student body are on the honor roll?
You didn't get on the honor roll when I was in school with a D or even a C on your report card. You had to score in the upper upper, not the fiftieth percentile.
I'm surprised to find you explaining this away. I would have guessed you had stricter standards for achievement.
I'm not explaining it away, I'm just explaining it. That's the explanation.
In this instance I don't know what my "standards for achievement" should be, since I have only the vaguest idea of what an honor roll is. Also, I have no idea what Homecoming is and why it requires a Queen, and I can never remember if it's a good thing or a bad thing to be on the Dean's list. I was educated somewhere else, remember?
Shouldn't education be about teaching students how to think, not what to think?
Could you make this proposal more concrete? For example, instead of teaching them the periodic table, we should do what? Teach them the scientific method and give them some boxes of matter, let them figure it out?
The benefit of education is that we do not personally have to repeat the process of discovery that took our species thousands of years to accomplish. If we did then even the smartest among us would probably get no further than the Late Neolithic. "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
By teaching them a broad spectrum of an issue, even the controversial ones?
So we should teach them, what, that the Holocaust didn't happen? That germs don't cause disease? That Bush planned 9/11? There's your controversy.
As for the "broad spectrum", perhaps you could give some idea of how this is to be achieved, once again flesh out your ideas. Is the teacher meant to stand in front of the class saying: "The Holocaust happened, no it didn't, yes it did, no it didn't"?
The creation issue was involved in science education at least somewhat more 50 years ago than it has been in the last couple of decades. The U.S. government is having a much harder time paying its bills now than it was 50 years ago.
There is something to be said for teaching students "how to think" which is that they'd be too ashamed to put forward drivel like that as an argument. But a quick course on critical thinking would achieve that, it needn't be at the expense of teaching them scientific facts.
Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
Particularly regarding #2, the tyrants of the religions of 250 years ago could correctly say the evidence of their religion was empirical.
Why do you say that they'd have been correct in so saying?
For religion to be empirical in the (now obsolete) sense 2 you'd have to have a bunch of people who knew that certain rituals were effective in (for example) bringing rain or curing disease, but had no underlying theory why it should work --- i.e. no theological framework: people who said "It's a funny thing, but if I kneel down and say "Please let it rain amen" then it rains. Damned if I know why."
But instead, then as now, it didn't work but they had a theory as to why it should.
No, the first step would be to make sure they know that science isn't the only source of knowledge, that when the U.S. was founded, and it was being determined what would be good or bad for it, that science had very little to do with it.
No-one thinks it did, so that step would seem to be superfluous.
Teaching them how to think, not what to think, as one example, would be to make sure they understand what Federalist Paper #10 was about, including the definition of what a 'faction' is.
That would be teaching them what to think.
You don't seem to have answered my question. Let's continue with chemistry as an example. How would you go about teaching chemistry if you taught them not what to think, but how to think?
That's for sure, if we give in to atheist, liberal, global warming factions, all the irreversible problems it is sure to cause could have been avoided if only those who allowed it to happen had known something about the tyrannies of history.
These vague ramblings do not answer my point.
No, history shows that it did.
Well, you and I agree that this is what history shows, but Holocaust deniers say that it shows the opposite. Now, according to you we should teach "a broad spectrum of an issue, even the controversial ones". Wouldn't this include teaching Holocaust denial?
That's not controversial.
Well, there are people who deny it. So yes it is. Should we therefore teach "the broad spectrum"?
I'm sure most atheists/liberals in the scientific community consider any discussion about U.S. financial problems to be "drivel" because most of them don't have even a high school level knowledge of economics.
And those who do would consider what you posted about economics to be drivel.
Of course not, I'm sure atheist liberal courses on critical thinking would include nothing more than science, and have little to do with history, economics, morals, etc.
And this is only one of many things you're wrong about.