[+Donny]

I think if the govt mandates high school education, it should mandate biological sciences. And you can't have high school biology without teaching evolution. You might as well attempt to teach chemistry without the periodic table of elements. I believe all high schoolers should have at least one class in biology.

And this is where we part ways, because I don't think the state has any place telling me what to teach my kids.

If your father is a carpenter, he doesn't need to be in college.

Out of context and missing the point.

Why have him go to high school at all? Why not just send him to a trade school that teaches carpentry?

That is his choice and the choice of his parents.

[Max Bialystock] assume away [/Max Bialystock]

Who is that?

So does everyone who isn't brainwashed into thinking the world was made in 6 days. You know they're laughing at us, right? The people in the other countries. It would be as foolish as if the germans decided the holocaust didn't exist. If 99% of historians say it did and the only ones who deny it are those who happen to be modern day nazies, well it doesn't take a genius to realize who is being brainwashed here.

Any "brainwashed" comments from here on out will be edited; I've had enough of it.

Whatever makes you feel better. Most biologists feel as strongly about evolution as astronomers feel about heliocentrism.

Make no mistake, this cultural war isn't between scientists, with an evolution and creation camp. They are all (>99%) in the evolution camp. The war is about the brainwashed fundies attempting to subvert the findings of the scientists, and the seculars fighting against it.

course that's just my opinion

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by cuziamthecaptai

I think if the govt mandates high school education, it should mandate biological sciences. And you can't have high school biology without teaching evolution. You might as well attempt to teach chemistry without the periodic table of elements. I believe all high schoolers should have at least one class in biology.

Absurd. You don't need to study biology to perform most of the jobs in today's economy. That would be like forcing every secondary school student in the country to study Portuguese.

If your father is a carpenter, he doesn't need to be in college.

You're missing the point. Certain disciplines don't require the study of others, so to mandate their study is not only stupid, but it's a waste of time and money.

Why have him go to high school at all? Why not just send him to a trade school that teaches carpentry?

Because going to school provides a base of education that is general to the majority of professions in the economy. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway.

So does everyone who isn't brainwashed into thinking the world was made in 6 days. You know they're laughing at us, right? The people in the other countries.

Which ones, exactly? And how many have you been to?

It would be as foolish as if the germans decided the holocaust didn't exist. If 99% of historians say it did and the only ones who deny it are those who happen to be modern day nazies, well it doesn't take a genius to realize who is being brainwashed here.

It's called Revisionism, and it's becoming quite mainstream among intellecutals in Europe. And they're not Neo-Nazis. In fact, the founder, Paul Rassinier, was an inmate in two German concentration camps, arrested for fighting against the Nazis. And beyond that, it has been espoused by several proeminent Jews (Josef Gideon Burg comes to mind).

Make no mistake, this cultural war isn't between scientists, with an evolution and creation camp. They are all (>99%) in the evolution camp.

Please don't present figures that you can't support.

The war is about the brainwashed fundies attempting to subvert the findings of the scientists, and the seculars fighting against it.

And I could turn around as say that it's about a bunch of brainwashed secularists trying to suppress Christianity, but unless I can prove my statement, it's ridiculous.

[JerryLove]

Once again, I'm sure someone could get through college believing that Napoleon discovered America. They could CLEP out of that history course and, from then on, be fine.

Someone with that poor a grasp of history is unlikly to pass a CLEP test on history.

Assuming evolution to be "true". That's the whole point, though.

Assuming math to be "true".

Actually whether it is true is not the point. Whether it has been determined to be true is more at issue. It has been, and the fact that a portion of the ignorant masses doesn't understand yet one more part of science is irrellevent.

Yes, it is an appeal to popularity. Creation vs. evolution is a big modern issue; heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is not.

An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy, and would make it impossible to teach the electoral system as it's widely misundersood.

Why is it important for a economist to know biology? And don't ask me what "important" means.

It's important for the holder of a collegic degree to have a breadth as well as depth of knowledge because that's the focus of a college degree.

This is different. Many people believe so because they simply don't know the facts. If someone was presented with proof that the president is, in fact, elected by the electoral college, and maintained that no, he is not, then yes, if I ran a college, I would not let that person in.

Which is the same reason that there are non-evolutionsis... ignorance (usually a mix of wllful and non willful) of the facts... and yet you cite the existance of people who do not believe in evilution as a reason not to test on it... similarly, there are many who do not have a belief in the electoral college.

Being ignorant of facts and believing false despite being shown the facts are two different things.
And, of course, this is assuming that evolution is proven as simply as the president being elected by electoral college is; you and I both know this isn't a fair comparison.

Actually it is... Evolution is not in dispute by those with the information (like those in the political process don't dispute the electoral college). As to the "it's just ignorance", well, so is not knowing math; but you still can't get into college without a minimum understanding, and you still can't get out without more.

Oh, of course not. I don't even have a problem with a college requiring a biology course that teaches evolution. What I have a problem with is the suggestion that the government make sure private and homeschools teach evolution

Do you object to the government having any requirements for home-schooling? Or would it be OK to keep my kid at home doing yardwork and call it "homeschooling". (If "yea, it's OK", are you saying that simply because you dislike manditory schooling?)

and that knowledge of evolution should necessary for entrance into college.

Are you disavowing that college should have prerequsites (should we let illerate people into college?) or are you simply continuning your "some people don't believe in evolution so it shouldn't be a requirement to know it"?

However, that is our opinion; not everyone thinks that way, so I fail to see why it should be mandated by the state or every single college in the country.

No such mandate exists... though by not offerinhg a breadth of knowledge, you have not a college but a trade school.

Assuming you are correct about the scientific facts surrounding the debate, and that they are simple and obvious, a person that has been shown such evidence and just plain ignores it would be in the same boat as the conspiracy theorist who thinks Bush was really elected by popular vote.

I also assume that addition works, that there is an electorl college, and that Napoleon did not discover America. (though how one "dicovers" a land with a few tens of millions of people in multi-thousand-year-old cultures living on it remains a mystery.

And this is where we part ways, because I don't think the state has any place telling me what to teach my kids.

Which is really just a claim against manditory education... another topic indeed.

[+Donny]

So what exactly is your point? What are you trying to say? That everyone should be an evolutionist, and by virtue of that, no one should have a college degree who doesn't affirm evolution? That everyone coming out of high school should affirm evolution? Or is just teaching about it? If it's that, I have no problem, but if it's the former, I think you are being absurd. Even assuming your claim that evolution is as obvious as the nose on your face if the evidence is examined (what about the ID people within modern science that aren't even Christians I have heard about?), your claims still fail. What about religious conservatives who hold the Bible above science? Does that mean they should get kicked out/not admitted? If that were the case, then there goes pluralism, tolerance, state religious neutrality, and a hell of a lot of other stuff that seem to be so important to America.
Your appeal to things like math and Napoleon discovering American miss the point. It is not whether it is true, but whether it is agreed upon by almost everyone. If there was a large portion of people who believed Napoleon discovered America based on some odd historical work, then out of respect for human fallibility, and just generally not to be asses, we should not make a position on such an idea a requirement for entrance into college.
Your insistence on this issue is getting as unreasonable as some conservatives and their pet idealogies. The underlying implication that anyone who rejects evolution must be a backwoods, hickish moron is not only offensive, but just plain annoying. If that is the basis for your statements in this thread (which is seems to be) then we can't really debate anymore.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Do you object to the government having any requirements for home-schooling?

Besides passing yearly standardized tests, yes. Most certainly, yes. Curricular mandates are craziness.

[JerryLove]

So what exactly is your point? What are you trying to say? That everyone should be an evolutionist, and by virtue of that, no one should have a college degree who doesn't affirm evolution? That everyone coming out of high school should affirm evolution? Or is just teaching about it? If it's that, I have no problem, but if it's the former, I think you are being absurd.

Same requirement I do for math and history. Doesn't matter so much if you "really believe" but you'd better be able to work using it.

Even assuming your claim that evolution is as obvious as the nose on your face if the evidence is examined (what about the ID people within modern science that aren't even Christians I have heard about?), your claims still fail. What about religious conservatives who hold the Bible above science? Does that mean they should get kicked out/not admitted?

Someone who cannot answer "what is 2^0", "did Napoelion discover America", and "how did modern morphology appear" with "1", "No", and "evolution" lacks the background to be admitted into college.

If that were the case, then there goes pluralism, tolerance, state religious neutrality, and a hell of a lot of other stuff that seem to be so important to America.

If evolution was a religious position, rather than true; then perhaps. Besides, in opposing the flat-Earthers, we are already there... nevermind the idolotry our kids are subjected to in art class and on posters.

Your appeal to things like math and Napoleon discovering American miss the point. It is not whether it is true, but whether it is agreed upon by almost everyone. If there was a large portion of people who believed Napoleon discovered America based on some odd historical work, then out of respect for human fallibility, and just generally not to be asses, we should not make a position on such an idea a requirement for entrance into college.

A large portion of America believes that presidents are elected by popular vote. Most of them cannot answer 2^0. Only the bare majority polled could tell you how many states there were in the US.

Your insistence on this issue is getting as unreasonable as some conservatives and their pet idealogies. The underlying implication that anyone who rejects evolution must be a backwoods, hickish moron is not only offensive, but just plain annoying.

Actually, I've said that they don't have enough educational bakground for college.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Nate

Besides passing yearly standardized tests, yes. Most certainly, yes. Curricular mandates are craziness.

And the other way to regulate and monitor home-schooling would be what?

[Nate]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And the other way to regulate and monitor home-schooling would be what?

What I mentioned in my post: yearly standardized testing.

[+Donny]

Same requirement I do for math and history. Doesn't matter so much if you "really believe" but you'd better be able to work using it.

And since most people don't use biology....
I have no problem requiring an understanding of evolution, but requiring one to be able to work using it is missing the point. Yes, make them understand it; fine, I'm not arguing that, and since you admitted that they shouldn't have to believe it, how do we disagree.

Someone who cannot answer "what is 2^0", "did Napoelion discover America", and "how did modern morphology appear" with "1", "No", and "evolution" lacks the background to be admitted into college.

How very elitist of you. Oh well, not much else we can do at this point, except for you to stop objecting if Christians take over the country and require you to be a theist to be admitted into college.

If evolution was a religious position, rather than true; then perhaps. Besides, in opposing the flat-Earthers, we are already there... nevermind the idolotry our kids are subjected to in art class and on posters.

Evolution certainly has religious implications to some, so my position stands; you are rejecting a good amount of what America stands for right now, so I am comfortable with just ignoring your position like I do the extremist right-wingers.

A large portion of America believes that presidents are elected by popular vote. Most of them cannot answer 2^0. Only the bare majority polled could tell you how many states there were in the US.

Stop dodging the issue. Those comparisons have been addressed before in other regards, but ignores the context of what I was saying by not taking into account the religious implications of evolution that some impute to the creation vs. evolution debate. In short, it's sheer insensitivity to the religion of a good amount of people, something the electoral system and basic mathematics have nothing to do with.

Actually, I've said that they don't have enough educational bakground for college.

It's exaggeration, Jerry; stop sidestepping with frivolous pickiness about words.

[JerryLove]

And since most people don't use biology....
I have no problem requiring an understanding of evolution, but requiring one to be able to work using it is missing the point. Yes, make them understand it; fine, I'm not arguing that, and since you admitted that they shouldn't have to believe it, how do we disagree.

In whether the handling of evolutionists by "fundamentalist homeschooling" is something that should be aquiesed to... or are you agreeing that colleges can/should require working knowledge of evolution, and answering based on it?

How very elitist of you. Oh well, not much else we can do at this point, except for you to stop objecting if Christians take over the country and require you to be a theist to be admitted into college.

And you might as well make a "college diploma" template in word, as you are saying "any answer is fine as long as you believe it".

Evolution certainly has religious implications to some, so my position stands; you are rejecting a good amount of what America stands for right now, so I am comfortable with just ignoring your position like I do the extremist right-wingers.

Heliocentricism has religious implacations to some too; it's still not a religious position.

Stop dodging the issue. Those comparisons have been addressed before in other regards, but ignores the context of what I was saying by not taking into account the religious implications of evolution that some impute to the creation vs. evolution debate. In short, it's sheer insensitivity to the religion of a good amount of people, something the electoral system and basic mathematics have nothing to do with.

Is irrellevent to whether or not it's true information and therefore irrellevent to the conversation.

You want one with religious implications? OK. The president isn't elected by the people or the electoral college, but is placed in office directly by God as stated in the Bible.

It's exaggeration, Jerry; stop sidestepping with frivolous pickiness about words.

And exaggerating a quote is dishonest. You are using prejudicial language rather than arguing the topic... or shall I exaggerate what you've said and say you are calling me a Nazi? Wouldn't that do wonders for the conversation? (Didn't Bush call Kerry's exact quote of him an "exaggeration"?)

[+Donny]

In whether the handling of evolutionists by "fundamentalist homeschooling" is something that should be aquiesed to... or are you agreeing that colleges can/should require working knowledge of evolution, and answering based on it?

I have no problem with a college requiring a good knowledge of evolution. I am going to school where I will be required to read Darwin's Origin of Species, and I am pretty excited about actually reading Darwin. However, that is the college. I don't think the state needs to order what is taught in homeschooling, so I would disagree on that account, but, yes, another topic.

And you might as well make a "college diploma" template in word, as you are saying "any answer is fine as long as you believe it".

When did I say that? And when did I deny that the student must show knowledge and capacity to learn? We are talking about one issue in one section of one discipline, and you are acting as those on it hinges the whole of knowledge, or at least a college degree.

BTW, the "its okay, as long as you believe" is postmodern, relativistic lingo, not Christian, so if you want to criticize that belief, aim it at a good portion of our soceity, not me.

Heliocentricism has religious implacations to some too; it's still not a religious position.

The "some" is a hell of a lot less, and I doubt that some is really to concerned about getting a degree, anyway.

Is irrellevent to whether or not it's true information and therefore irrellevent to the conversation.

So everything that is true and can be demonstrated so must be recognized and known by a college student if he wants to be accepted and obtain a degree? Obviously lines must be drawn. The question is where the line is drawn, not whether we draw it.

You want one with religious implications? OK. The president isn't elected by the people or the electoral college, but is placed in office directly by God as stated in the Bible.

Funny, I have never met anyone who believed that.

And exaggerating a quote is dishonest. You are using prejudicial language rather than arguing the topic... or shall I exaggerate what you've said and say you are calling me a Nazi? Wouldn't that do wonders for the conversation? (Didn't Bush call Kerry's exact quote of him an "exaggeration"?)

The exaggeration was not deceptive, it was rhetorical:

"The underlying implication that anyone who rejects evolution must be a backwoods, hickish moron is not only offensive, but just plain annoying."

The substance of the sentence is that you are looking down on those who deny evolution and treating them as intellectually lesser. Rhetorical exaggeration is perfectly fine, and my meaning was obvious.

[Qingu]

Actually, I'm confused. Are the creationist Christians on here content with not being able to get a college degree? If they are, then what exactly are we arguing about?

[JerryLove]

When did I say that? And when did I deny that the student must show knowledge and capacity to learn? We are talking about one issue in one section of one discipline, and you are acting as those on it hinges the whole of knowledge, or at least a college degree.

When you said that wrong answers should not prscribe you from attending colleges if there is a theistic movement that believes in them, if a lot of Americans belive in them, and/or if you believe in it.

People without the ability to pass a test should be admitted anyway on faith:

"Even assuming your claim that evolution is as obvious as the nose on your face if the evidence is examined (what about the ID people within modern science that aren't even Christians I have heard about?), your claims still fail. What about religious conservatives who hold the Bible above science? Does that mean they should get kicked out/not admitted?" - #64

People without the ability to pass a test should be admitted anyway on the basis that the belif is popular:

"Creationism is a big movement, so it would be very arrogant to exclude all creationists." - #46

BTW, the "its okay, as long as you believe" is postmodern, relativistic lingo, not Christian, so if you want to criticize that belief, aim it at a good portion of our soceity, not me.

People without the ability to pass a test should be admitted anyway on the basis that they believe their own answer:

"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." - #34

The "some" is a hell of a lot less, and I doubt that some is really to concerned about getting a degree, anyway.

Where is our cut-off number? How many people have to believe that the Earth is at the center of the solar system for it to be an acceptable answer on an entrance exam because of popularity?

So everything that is true and can be demonstrated so must be recognized and known by a college student if he wants to be accepted and obtain a degree? Obviously lines must be drawn. The question is where the line is drawn, not whether we draw it.

True. Comprehensive knowledge of all subjects is not a requirement to enter college. Subjects include Math, History, Composition, Reading comprehension, Physical Science, Chemestry, Biology, Economics and American Government. We've discussed why biology is there; though if you want to discuss why it's a more useless subject than (say) philosophy or chemestry, go right ahead.

Funny, I have never met anyone who believed that.

So which is the issue? If a lot of people believe it or if someone believes it for religious reasons (how about geocentracisism?)? Or does it take a minimum number of people who believe something on religious grounds to make it OK to have wrong information on it?

The substance of the sentence is that you are looking down on those who deny evolution and treating them as intellectually lesser. Rhetorical exaggeration is perfectly fine, and my meaning was obvious.

The underlying implcation that anyone wanting entrance exams to confrom to accepted standards is a religion-hating, god-bashing, faschist control-freak is not onlly offensive but annoying.

[+Donny]

Actually, I'm confused. Are the creationist Christians on here content with not being able to get a college degree? If they are, then what exactly are we arguing about?

No, I am not content not getting a degree simply because I don't believe in evolution, if said degree is not in the realm of biology, geology, etc. If the degree is in that realm, you may have a point.

[+Donny]

When you said that wrong answers should not prscribe you from attending colleges if there is a theistic movement that believes in them, if a lot of Americans belive in them, and/or if you believe in it.

People without the ability to pass a test should be admitted anyway on faith:
"Even assuming your claim that evolution is as obvious as the nose on your face if the evidence is examined (what about the ID people within modern science that aren't even Christians I have heard about?), your claims still fail. What about religious conservatives who hold the Bible above science? Does that mean they should get kicked out/not admitted?" - #64

People without the ability to pass a test should be admitted anyway on the basis that the belif is popular:
"Creationism is a big movement, so it would be very arrogant to exclude all creationists." - #46

How does this shift to "any answer is fine as long as you believe it"? It is a statement regarding human fallibility and the consequent arrogance of dogmatism; it is not a statement of relativism.

People without the ability to pass a test should be admitted anyway on the basis that they believe their own answer:
"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." - #34

Only if that test is written in such a way that a Christian conservative would be forced to violate his religious convictions in order to pass it. This is not simply a matter of bare facts.

Where is our cut-off number? How many people have to believe that the Earth is at the center of the solar system for it to be an acceptable answer on an entrance exam because of popularity?

Don't know, but cultural relevance may be a good cut-off.

True. Comprehensive knowledge of all subjects is not a requirement to enter college. Subjects include Math, History, Composition, Reading comprehension, Physical Science, Chemestry, Biology, Economics and American Government. We've discussed why biology is there; though if you want to discuss why it's a more useless subject than (say) philosophy or chemestry, go right ahead.

We are talking about an issue within a discipline. You don't have to be an evolutionist to know about biology, and even if evolution were essential to biology, you don't have to be an evolutionist to know about evolution.

So which is the issue? If a lot of people believe it or if someone believes it for religious reasons (how about geocentracisism?)? Or does it take a minimum number of people who believe something on religious grounds to make it OK to have wrong information on it?

If 99% of people believed in X, and yet the scientific elite believed in non-X, would it be okay to make non-X a requirement for college admissions?
Or maybe they don't require non-X, and then portions of the 99% actually start believing in non-X. If non-X is so vitally important, why not let them in and teach them?

The underlying implcation that anyone wanting entrance exams to confrom to accepted standards is a religion-hating, god-bashing, faschist control-freak is not onlly offensive but annoying.

No, it would go something like this, "the underlying implication that anyone wanting entrance exams to require affirmation of ideas that directly contradict doctrines of established, large, recognized religious organizations is....." BTW, you don't need a 100 on an extrance exam, so even if you included evolution, you could get in.
Of course, you could just avoid causing trouble and just stick that "assuming evolution..." at the beginning of the relevant questions, or at the beginning of the biology section, and all would be well. If that isn't good enough, it seems that you are more concerned with kicking out people that disagree with you than actually interacting and being at peace with your lesser brethren.