[cuziamthecaptai]

No. Biology is biased--- towards reality. If the entire business of biology is geared towards evolution, colleges have a right to demand evolution education from their incoming students. It's such a universally important principle, it should be demanded even to those students not destined to become biology majors. I'm sorry-- but you have to learn 'proper' science. I've never seen so many fundies go PC on me.

It's no different than Hindu families homeschooling children to teach them that beef is inedible and expecting culinary schools to not discriminate against them.

If the only way you can accept evolution is to be an atheist (if it isn't, it should be; theistic evolutions are deluding themselves) then the only way you should be allowed into college should be if you're an atheist. Because, frankly, if you're not accepting of evolution, you're not ready for college. Anymore than if you're not accepting calculus, you're not ready for college.

I sense a disturbance in the force (secular humanism). Do we allow evolution to be a theistic concept, to fight the religious right? Or do we insist that evolution directly relates to atheist? Common sense points to the latter but at the same time there are those who want to propose that religion doesn't conflict with evolution, just so more people won't fight it. This concept, I beleive, we should abondon. We have enough evidence of evolution that it will survive any onslaught by the dark side. -- that's not meant to be pejurative, but I just saw that star wars movie. It was okay, but I was born a trekkie-- I'll die a trekkie.

[JerryLove]

And what's wrong with people teaching this?

It's wrong would be the biggest, though the fact that abstinance-only courses actually result in *higher* pregnancy and much higher STD rate than no education at all.

Yea, I suppose "it's wrong and it causes deaths" would by high on my list of what wrong with it... but we are leaving the topic.

And you discuss evolution to your bias, and me to mine, and everyone to their own bias...

You to yours, me to mine, hitler to his. What's your point?

Speaking from your own bias... you see an impartial nothing! No matter how much you would like for your views to be the only true and impartial ones, teaching evolution and only evolution in science is destructive to culture in general.

I look forward to your support on that. Do you feel the same about teaching only a heliocentric solar-system?

Do you not see how standardized education all across the board can be destructive? Education is more like brainwashing these days than preparing people for jobs.

Ironically, I know of no better a way to prepare for jobs than brainwashing. Do you have some nieve' belief that Jobs hire the most skilled people and reward innovation? I've worked for some of the biggest in the industry and can assure you that they do not.

Sure, education is supposed to help people perform their jobs better, but what does it really do? In the eyes of cuziamthecaptai, it should be to brainwash everyone into being on the secular side.

Actually, he believe that it should teach the truth, and that it should teach the infomation that actually matters to the industry. In both cases, that's evolution.

Pretty soon we'll be taking words out of our vocabulary because they're politically incorrect (faggot, ______, woman...).

Funny way of saying "offensive". Why don't you go say them on the pulpit at your church and see if that's a secular issue. Don't forget all the other national derogatives though, or the Aryian Nation church you appear to go to (based on the first three that came out of your mouth) won't prove my point as, like you, they hate homosexuals, blacks, and women.

[JerryLove]

I fail to see how the fact that I never really studied evolution in highschool (yes, I was homeschooled, and, yes, my mom was biased when she taught me biology... get over it, not everyone agrees with you or with your so-called "proper science") precludes me from studying music or economics... or from studying biology, for that matter, if that's what I had decided to major in.

Same reason not studying algebra would.

[+Donny]

I can't really agree with that sentiment. This started with a "fundies oft don't teach evolution in homeschool", which your defense of why (because they don't believe in it) merely supports.

No, that is wrong. My response was that they do teach about evolution. Just because they teach it as false doesn't mean they aren't teaching about it.

Evolution is proper science, much as calculus is proper math.

According to your opinion, sure. But not according to others, and unless you would like the government deciding for us what we believe, you should stop right there.

To teach evolution is false is no different than teaching math as false... and if I were a college, I would not wan't someone convinced that 2^0 = 0 to come into my school.

Then if you run a college, don't let anyone in who doesn't believe in evolution.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by cuziamthecaptai

No. Biology is biased--- towards reality. If the entire business of biology is geared towards evolution, colleges have a right to demand evolution education from their incoming students. It's such a universally important principle, it should be demanded even to those students not destined to become biology majors. I'm sorry-- but you have to learn 'proper' science. I've never seen so many fundies go PC on me.

I'm no fundy, but it's just ridiculous to insist on ideologically biased education for everyone. I'm not a biology major, and I don't have to take biology. At my school, we have to have two science classes with labs. We can choose biology, chemistry, physics, geology, plain physical science, and several variations and concentrations among those. I wanted to take biology, but it was all closed up. However, to force the teaching of a certain subject to achieve ideological goals is pretty damn oppressive and tyrannical, no matter how much you think it is just plain "right". A lot of people think that the Bible is just plain "right" but you wouldn't appreciate it too much if they brainwashed your kids into believing in the Bible, I'm sure.

It's no different than Hindu families homeschooling children to teach them that beef is inedible and expecting culinary schools to not discriminate against them.

It's much different than that. Sure, if you've never taken a class in biology that has to do with evolution, I wouldn't expect you to get very far as a biologist. However, I'm an economics major and biology is as relevent to my major/career path as literature. Sure, all subjects are related in a vague way and the understanding of some subjects can help one's understanding of others but insisting on a standard curriculum consisting of classes that would propel your worldview is nonsensical. I personally am against how the high school curriculum in America is practically standardized. Go to almost any college website and it will tell you that part of the admission requirement is HS classes in the following: 4 cred. Eng, 3 cred Sci (Bio and Chem were required out of those 3), 3 Math, 3 Hist. Basically, you can't get into college without those classes. While I think it's important to know those things, I think that people should be able to get into college based on their intelligence, not on how many theories or comma rules they know.

If the only way you can accept evolution is to be an atheist (if it isn't, it should be; theistic evolutions are deluding themselves) then the only way you should be allowed into college should be if you're an atheist. Because, frankly, if you're not accepting of evolution, you're not ready for college. Anymore than if you're not accepting calculus, you're not ready for college.

Yeah... I think anyone who doesn't agree with my perception of right and wrong, of reality in general, should be thoroughly oppressed. If they're not like me, **** their rights. Myself and people like me should be the only ones allowed to get an education. For the sake of letting everyone get an education, let's brainwash them into being atheists. What if the fundy's wouldn't allow atheists into college? Is this about winning the war or is it about a compromise in order to live together in civilization? I think you're probably a fascist at heart wearing a scrappy libertarian t-shirt.

I sense a disturbance in the force (secular humanism). Do we allow evolution to be a theistic concept, to fight the religious right? Or do we insist that evolution directly relates to atheist? Common sense points to the latter but at the same time there are those who want to propose that religion doesn't conflict with evolution, just so more people won't fight it. This concept, I beleive, we should abondon.

I agree that it probably shouldn't be attached to religion. It's "discovery" if you will was not a product of religious doctrine or theology, unless you want to call science a doctrine. It's more like an orthodoxy, a method or something.

We have enough evidence of evolution that it will survive any onslaught by the dark side. -- that's not meant to be pejurative, but I just saw that star wars movie. It was okay, but I was born a trekkie-- I'll die a trekkie.

Was it worth watching episodes I and II? I still haven't seen those....

[+Donny]

Everyone pause and look at this for a moment and notice the humor. We have Christians saying, "But we all have different interpretations" and the atheists saying, "But mine is right, so that's what should be taught". When was the last time you saw it turned around that way? Talk about irony.

Anyway, back to the fistfighting.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by +Donny

No, that is wrong. My response was that they do teach about evolution. Just because they teach it as false doesn't mean they aren't teaching about it.

It obviously does not; there is ample evidence that supports evolution. Are they leaving out that evidence? Or are they misrepresenting it?

For example, Nate said he was educated about evolution by his mom (KFBsmom, on this forum). With all due respect, here is a woman who is ignorant about most of the evidence that supports the theory she is teaching, as has been shown on this forum.

This would be similar to Cuziam teaching kids about Christianity. Cuziam is certainly well versed in arguments against Christianity, but (apparently, I could be wrong) it does not appear that he has studied the teachings of Christianity on their own terms, or studied the Bible in depth. This doesn't even have to do with him being an atheist. I have had atheist professors that taught me the exact same things as my Jewish and Christian professors in my religious studies classes. It has to do with how familiar the teacher is with the subject she is teaching, and whether or not she is trying to teach the subject, or trying to teach why the subject is wrong. There is a huge difference.

(By the way, Nate, your mom obviously is a decent teacher as evidenced by you and your brothers' intelligence ... not trying to be a jerk here!)

According to your opinion, sure. But not according to others, and unless you would like the government deciding for us what we believe, you should stop right there.

I think it is the government's responsibility to try to ensure that its citizens are educated about the world. This means teaching things that are scientifically proven, like that the earth revolves around the sun, and that life evolves from other life.

I disagree with Cuziam that we should abolish homeschoolers. If a parent wants to take a kid out of school because she does not agree with the consensus of scientists, and teach kids that evolution or heliocentrism are false, then that is her right, just as it is one's right to raise one's children Amish or Hasidic. In an ideal world (in my ideal world, anyway, and Plato's), this wouldn't happen, and children would be raised by the state ... but obviously this is a hopeless and probably disastrous ideal.

Then if you run a college, don't let anyone in who doesn't believe in evolution.

As far as I know, most biological divisions do not, for good reason.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Everyone pause and look at this for a moment and notice the humor. We have Christians saying, "But we all have different interpretations" and the atheists saying, "But mine is right, so that's what should be taught". When was the last time you saw it turned around that way? Talk about irony.

Anyway, back to the fistfighting.

Ha ha ha ... touche, Donny. Though I think that, as far as atheists go, I'm a little more "relativistic" than most.

Even so, my relativism only applies when we're talking about (pointless) metaphysics, not physics. I'm also an empiricist, after all. I honestly believe that the earth revolves around the sun. Relativism only comes in when you start asking questions like "what does it mean to 'revolve'" and "how do you know the sun and the earth are not the same thing? What is this concept of 'distinction between objects'? etc"

[+Donny]

It obviously does not; there is ample evidence that supports evolution. Are they leaving out that evidence? Or are they misrepresenting it?

For example, Nate said he was educated about evolution by his mom (KFBsmom, on this forum). With all due respect, here is a woman who is ignorant about most of the evidence that supports the theory she is teaching, as has been shown on this forum.

This would be similar to Cuziam teaching kids about Christianity. Cuziam is certainly well versed in arguments against Christianity, but (apparently, I could be wrong) it does not appear that he has studied the teachings of Christianity on their own terms, or studied the Bible in depth. This doesn't even have to do with him being an atheist. I have had atheist professors that taught me the exact same things as my Jewish and Christian professors in my religious studies classes. It has to do with how familiar the teacher is with the subject she is teaching, and whether or not she is trying to teach the subject, or trying to teach why the subject is wrong. There is a huge difference.

(By the way, Nate, your mom obviously is a decent teacher as evidenced by you and your brothers' intelligence ... not trying to be a jerk here!)

Assuming that all people coming out of high school should have an in-depth knowledge of evolution, and assuming your example is correct, all that proves is that sometimes kids come out not having the proper knowledge. So? The same happens with public schools. In fact, I would argue that it is much worse there on subjects of religion, creationism, etc. because of PC.
But this is stupid and better not boil down to a yelling match about whether public, private, or homeschooling is best.

I think it is the government's responsibility to try to ensure that its citizens are educated about the world. This means teaching things that are scientifically proven, like that the earth revolves around the sun, and that life evolves from other life.

I disagree with Cuziam that we should abolish homeschoolers. If a parent wants to take a kid out of school because she does not agree with the consensus of scientists, and teach kids that evolution or heliocentrism are false, then that is her right, just as it is one's right to raise one's children Amish or Hasidic. In an ideal world (in my ideal world, anyway, and Plato's), this wouldn't happen, and children would be raised by the state ... but obviously this is a hopeless and probably disastrous ideal.

Good to see you are being reasonable and not statist about this.

As far as I know, most biological divisions do not, for good reason.

Fine.

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Ha ha ha ... touche, Donny. Though I think that, as far as atheists go, I'm a little more "relativistic" than most.

Even so, my relativism only applies when we're talking about (pointless) metaphysics, not physics. I'm also an empiricist, after all. I honestly believe that the earth revolves around the sun. Relativism only comes in when you start asking questions like "what does it mean to 'revolve'" and "how do you know the sun and the earth are not the same thing? What is this concept of 'distinction between objects'? etc"

Blah blah blah, I still win.

[JerryLove]

No, that is wrong. My response was that they do teach about evolution. Just because they teach it as false doesn't mean they aren't teaching about it.

The same as if they taught math to be wrong. Do you think colleges should accept people who cannot perform and don't believe in mathmatics?

According to your opinion, sure. But not according to others, and unless you would like the government deciding for us what we believe, you should stop right there.

Of course the government tells you what to believe. Try putting down that Napoelion discovered America and see if you can get a degree (or even out of highschool) by arguing "but it's what I believe".

Then if you run a college, don't let anyone in who doesn't believe in evolution.

At least anyone who can not pass compitency on it, I wouldn't... any more than I would someone who cannot perform math.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Assuming that all people coming out of high school should have an in-depth knowledge of evolution, and assuming your example is correct, all that proves is that sometimes kids come out not having the proper knowledge. So? The same happens with public schools. In fact, I would argue that it is much worse there on subjects of religion, creationism, etc. because of PC.
But this is stupid and better not boil down to a yelling match about whether public, private, or homeschooling is best.

Hey, dude, I would like it if public schools offered comparative religion courses. My school offered a philosophy course, and it was objective enough to not simply say "here are a bunch of philosophies but all of them except 18th-century Rationalism are incorrect."

The problems with public schools turning out dumb kids are a different issue altogether, though. I think it has more to do with lack of funding (in many cases) and organizational issues than it does with ideology or PC-ness. I also think a major advantage homeschool has over public school is individual attention.

I should point out, though--I've noticed that nearly half of the schools that order Encyclopedias (I work for one) are Catholic or otherwise Christian schools. This really surprised me, as I had always thought that public schools were the norm accross America. But many, many Americans are educated at Catholic schools, and apparently (according to an anecdote from my mom), a couple generations ago, Catholic or religious school was the norm, and public schools were the strange new thing.

Of course, Catholic schools tend to turn out atheists a lot faster than public schools

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

I'm no fundy, but it's just ridiculous to insist on ideologically biased education for everyone. I'm not a biology major, and I don't have to take biology.

Is heliocentrism an ideologically biased education? Shoudl you be expected to know that the earth goes round the sun to get into college? If 99% of the astronomers believe that the earth goes round the sun and that this concept is important for kids to know before they enter college, should colleges hold incoming students to that standard?

Originally Posted by BrooksB

At my school, we have to have two science classes with labs. We can choose biology, chemistry, physics, geology, plain physical science, and several variations and concentrations among those. I wanted to take biology, but it was all closed up. However, to force the teaching of a certain subject to achieve ideological goals is pretty damn oppressive and tyrannical, no matter how much you think it is just plain "right".

Welcome to the oppressive world of college. Did I want to take calculus? Do I use it today? No, not really. At least with biology, it's everywhere. And if you think that biology won't become even more important in the coming years, you're fooling yourselves. It's obvious that bio-technology will be the next big thing. Taking biology shouldn't be an option in high school or college. And you can't exactly excise evolution from biology, any more than you can excise heliocentrism from astronomy.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

A lot of people think that the Bible is just plain "right" but you wouldn't appreciate it too much if they brainwashed your kids into believing in the Bible, I'm sure.

Kids have to be brainwashed into believing in the bible because there is no objective evidence to support it. Evolution, on the other hand, has both objective evidence and, most importantly, falsifiability.

Plus, you don't have to study evolution. You don't have to go to college.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Was it worth watching episodes I and II? I still haven't seen those....

I have the high distinction of never having watched any other star wars movies, first ones or recent ones. I've only ever watched the one I just saw at the movies-- episode 3. Ditto with LOTR and that harry potter stuff. I'll take my horror from king, my science fiction from roddenbury , and my science from the schools.

[+Donny]

The same as if they taught math to be wrong. Do you think colleges should accept people who cannot perform and don't believe in mathmatics?

Bad analogy. In this case, there is a widespread controversy over a scientific theory. If there was such a controversy over certain aspects of mathematics (I'm sure there are, somewhere), then no, I think it would be stupid for colleges to allow only students that agreed with them.

Of course the government tells you what to believe. Try putting down that Napoelion discovered America and see if you can get a degree (or even out of highschool) by arguing "but it's what I believe".

If I was going for a degree that didn't have anything to do with history, then, yes, I'm sure I could get a degree believing that.
And it's interesting that you are okay with the government forcing beliefs on its people. What next? You must believe in evolution to hold citizenship, or to vote? This is absurd statist nonsense, Jerry, and I can't believe you hold to it.

At least anyone who can not pass compitency on it, I wouldn't... any more than I would someone who cannot perform math.

Okay.

[+Donny]

Hey, dude, I would like it if public schools offered comparative religion courses. My school offered a philosophy course, and it was objective enough to not simply say "here are a bunch of philosophies but all of them except 18th-century Rationalism are incorrect."

My school offered "Theory of Knowledge", but I didn't stay long enough to take it, and I heard it was a bunch of bull**** anyway. My school kind of sucked, except for a cool 6 week course on humanities we had to take sophomore year, which was basically a brief history of art.

The problems with public schools turning out dumb kids are a different issue altogether, though. I think it has more to do with lack of funding (in many cases) and organizational issues than it does with ideology or PC-ness. I also think a major advantage homeschool has over public school is individual attention.

I doubt it's funding. I have heard statistics that seem to suggest funding has very little to do with it, though I'm not one to trust statistics just from hearing them briefly, so I don't know; in some places, I'm sure it's true.
Anyway, I just said that PC-ness tends to seem to restrict good philosophy and religion classes because teachers and admins are probably afraid of getting nailed. I don't know enough about the system to say why it turns out dumb kids, and I personally think that is more in the failure of parents and unmotivated students than in the failure of the schools themselves.
But, yes, individual attention and more freedom is a huge benefit of homeschooling, especially for younger children.

I should point out, though--I've noticed that nearly half of the schools that order Encyclopedias (I work for one) are Catholic or otherwise Christian schools. This really surprised me, as I had always thought that public schools were the norm accross America. But many, many Americans are educated at Catholic schools, and apparently (according to an anecdote from my mom), a couple generations ago, Catholic or religious school was the norm, and public schools were the strange new thing.

Of course, Catholic schools tend to turn out atheists a lot faster than public schools

Yeah, they are common, and appear to be getting more common with conservative Christians.
I'm a liberal arts geek, though, so I definitely like the idea of private schooling if I ever have kids.