Does America have a future? Education verses Mysticism

[Tom Clancy]

So then, does this mean you're a "dumb American" as well?

I wouldn't say so. Luckily, my family values continued learning and intellectual curiosity. I can hold my own.

Right, so.. Everyone else is a Dumb American, but you aren't?

Well shit, aren't you lucky?

 

[rdean]

The majority of Americans don’t understand why we can’t “teach” the “controversy”. What is wrong with “alternate” theories?

The problem with that is that science is all interconnected. If you are going to change one theory, you have to change them all.

How will these theories and sciences change to fit into the perception of science influenced by “mysticism”?

...

Understanding science has led this country to greatness. By changing understood and well thought out scientific theories, do we undermine what we have built? Our country has slid from first to the twenties and thirties in math, science and other learned and intellectual “elitist” skills. This has coincided with the forceful introduction of mysticism and the occult into our science classrooms.

Does America have a future?

Even when you think you sound smart, the inanity foolhardiness of your "thought" can be pierced with just a mere few examples and questions, not the least of which are:

Who is it that is now resisting real *ahem* progress and change, by claiming that the many should just blindly go along with the reputed "superior intellect" of the few?

How much peripheral science was changed when Fred Hoyle's steady state theory of the universe was disproved?

What's your direct and verifiable evidence that elite institutions of reputed higher science have been forcefully infiltrated and influenced by this mysticism you irrationally dread so much?

Answers: You...None...None.

Fortunately, blithering idiots like you are relatively few and far between. Therefore, prospects for America's future still remain fairly positive.

Fred Hoyle's steady state theory of the universe was never long in main stream science. It was easily disproved by the theory of thermodynamics.

Worse, Einstein, who believed in a "universal constant "K"" was proven wrong by Hubble through simple observation. I don't think anyone took the steady state theory seriously since the 70's when it was one of the "catch phrases" of the creationists".

The thing the right doesn't seem to understand about science is that scientists LIVE to disprove each other's theories. Scientists are incredibly competitive.

 

[rdean]

The majority of Americans don’t understand why we can’t “teach” the “controversy”. What is wrong with “alternate” theories?

The problem with that is that science is all interconnected. If you are going to change one theory, you have to change them all.

Understanding science has led this country to greatness. By changing understood and well thought out scientific theories, do we undermine what we have built? Our country has slid from first to the twenties and thirties in math, science and other learned and intellectual “elitist” skills. This has coincided with the forceful introduction of mysticism and the occult into our science classrooms.

Does America have a future?

Deanie, I hope you don't mind my piggy-backing on this thread, but this seems appropriate here:

From “Against Mediocrity: The Humanities in America’s High Schools,” edited by Finn, Ravitch, and Fancher.

1. There is no sound education that does not include the teaching and learning of the humanities, the study of literature, history and languages. Forsaking learning in a particular discipline such as literature, history, or philosophy, eager “humanistic” zealots have imposed “humanistic education,” “humane studies,” and “values inquiries” upon the schools. In my experience, courses offered under these banners have largely failed to impart much knowledge; but they have succeeded in altering the public perception of the humanities. Now, thanks to educational sloppiness verging on intellectual anarchy, there is often a skeptical and distrustful attitude when one use the term “humanities.”

2. The College Board revealed in 1975 that scores on the SAT had fallen steadily and sharply since 1964. The College Board’s own blue-ribbon panel reported in 1977 that the most substantial score decline had occurred after the demographics of the applicant pool, expansion of the low-income and minority test takers, had stabilized. They acknowledged that the likely influence of the lowering of standards and the lessened emphasis on critical reading and thoughtful writing.

3. Without values and ethics, the wisdom and knowledge, the insight and context, the shared understanding and communications embodied in the humanities, we risk becoming a society that loses its balance. If the system only strengthens in science, math and basic skills, we risk producing no more than technopeasants, individuals who manipulate complex machines without any understanding of why, who depend on other machines for amusement and recreation, who have no real intellectual interests or cultural lives, whose behavior is defined by the interaction between hedonistic cravings and externally imposed controls, who have no valid basis for judging the claims of politicians, gurus, and cult figures, and who lack any sense of a collective past or any vision of a better future.

I read your post twice and couldn't find anywhere where you mentioned "problem solving".

It would seem you equate "education" with "memorization". If that's the case, you might as well spend your time in Bible Studies.

 

[Oddball]

The majority of Americans don’t understand why we can’t “teach” the “controversy”. What is wrong with “alternate” theories?

The problem with that is that science is all interconnected. If you are going to change one theory, you have to change them all.

How will these theories and sciences change to fit into the perception of science influenced by “mysticism”?

...

Understanding science has led this country to greatness. By changing understood and well thought out scientific theories, do we undermine what we have built? Our country has slid from first to the twenties and thirties in math, science and other learned and intellectual “elitist” skills. This has coincided with the forceful introduction of mysticism and the occult into our science classrooms.

Does America have a future?

Even when you think you sound smart, the inanity foolhardiness of your "thought" can be pierced with just a mere few examples and questions, not the least of which are:

Who is it that is now resisting real *ahem* progress and change, by claiming that the many should just blindly go along with the reputed "superior intellect" of the few?

How much peripheral science was changed when Fred Hoyle's steady state theory of the universe was disproved?

What's your direct and verifiable evidence that elite institutions of reputed higher science have been forcefully infiltrated and influenced by this mysticism you irrationally dread so much?

Answers: You...None...None.

Fortunately, blithering idiots like you are relatively few and far between. Therefore, prospects for America's future still remain fairly positive.

Fred Hoyle's steady state theory of the universe was never long in main stream science. It was easily disproved by the theory of thermodynamics.

Worse, Einstein, who believed in a "universal constant "K"" was proven wrong by Hubble through simple observation. I don't think anyone took the steady state theory seriously since the 70's when it was one of the "catch phrases" of the creationists".

The thing the right doesn't seem to understand about science is that scientists LIVE to disprove each other's theories. Scientists are incredibly competitive.

Right...Except when the "science" being debunked as anything to do with anthropogenic global war....ummm...I mean climate cha....er....global climate crisis....Yeah, that's the ticket.

It's still 29 September and you're still an hysterical moonbat.

At least we still live in a consistent universe.

 

[rdean]

Even when you think you sound smart, the inanity foolhardiness of your "thought" can be pierced with just a mere few examples and questions, not the least of which are:

Who is it that is now resisting real *ahem* progress and change, by claiming that the many should just blindly go along with the reputed "superior intellect" of the few?

How much peripheral science was changed when Fred Hoyle's steady state theory of the universe was disproved?

What's your direct and verifiable evidence that elite institutions of reputed higher science have been forcefully infiltrated and influenced by this mysticism you irrationally dread so much?

Answers: You...None...None.

Fortunately, blithering idiots like you are relatively few and far between. Therefore, prospects for America's future still remain fairly positive.

Fred Hoyle's steady state theory of the universe was never long in main stream science. It was easily disproved by the theory of thermodynamics.

Worse, Einstein, who believed in a "universal constant "K"" was proven wrong by Hubble through simple observation. I don't think anyone took the steady state theory seriously since the 70's when it was one of the "catch phrases" of the creationists".

The thing the right doesn't seem to understand about science is that scientists LIVE to disprove each other's theories. Scientists are incredibly competitive.

Right...Except when the "science" being debunked as anything to do with anthropogenic global war....ummm...I mean climate cha....er....global climate crisis....Yeah, that's the ticket.

It's still 29 September and you're still an hysterical moonbat.

At least we still live in a consistent universe.

At least you're clear where you stand on science.

 

[THE LIGHT]

The majority of Americans don’t understand why we can’t “teach” the “controversy”. What is wrong with “alternate” theories?

The problem with that is that science is all interconnected. If you are going to change one theory, you have to change them all.

How will these theories and sciences change to fit into the perception of science influenced by “mysticism”?

Paleontology – The study of the forms of life existing in prehistoric or geologic times, as represented by the fossils of plants, animals, and other organisms.

Biology – concerned with the structure, function, distribution, adaptation, interactions, and evolution of all living organisms including both plants and animals. Biology encompasses a broad spectrum of academic fields that are often viewed as independent disciplines.

Physiology – The scientific study of an organism's vital functions, including growth and development, the absorption and processing of nutrients, the synthesis and distribution of proteins and other organic molecules, and the functioning of different tissues, organs, and other anatomic structures. Physiology studies the normal mechanical, physical, and biochemical processes of animals and plants.

Botany – covers a wide range of scientific disciplines that study the growth, reproduction, metabolism, development, diseases, and evolution of plants.

Astronomy – The scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.

Geology – The scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the earth

Plate Tectonics – A theory that explains the global distribution of geological phenomena such as seismicity, volcanism, continental drift, and mountain building in terms of the formation, destruction, movement, and interaction of the earth's lithospheric plates.

Climatology – The scientific study of climates, including the causes and long-term effects of variation in regional and global climates. Climatology also studies how climate changes over time and is affected by human actions.

Understanding science has led this country to greatness. By changing understood and well thought out scientific theories, do we undermine what we have built? Our country has slid from first to the twenties and thirties in math, science and other learned and intellectual “elitist” skills. This has coincided with the forceful introduction of mysticism and the occult into our science classrooms.

Does America have a future?

Yes and that mysticism of which you speak is Evolutionism.

 

[geauxtohell]

"Teach the controversy" was the battle cry of the intelligent design mob.

How and why this thread turned into a referendum on the quality of public education, ironically by some posters who argue that ID should be taught as a competing theory, I don't know.

However, this is a simple issue. Intelligent Design relies on a supernatural force, therefore it is indeed "mysticism". The scientific method makes no provisions for and does not allow for the supernatural. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Call it philosophy or theology, but it's not science. It can not be falsified (unless you are willing to admit that the existence of an all-powerful supernatural being, presumably God, can be disproven by conventional science).

Case closed.

I am rather heartened that a conservative federal judge recognized this and struck down ID in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

As for the 1920-30s and other periods in our time, watch "Inherit The Wind" or read about the Scopes Monkey trial. We've progressed and for those willing to undertake the discipline to study science, the opportunities are readily available in this country.

For the intellectually lazy, they are more than free to continue to be lazy.

Just stop trying to screw up the curriculum for other people's kids.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Evolutionism cannot be falsified unless you have billions of years on your hands.

No, doubt crime and illiteracy have skyrocketed with the aggressive push for evolutionism into our schools.

Case closed.

However, in ID, the fact is that life was intelligently designed. This concept is falsifiable and answers many of the questions in the scientific world and can be quite useful. If the implications happen to be that there is a god then so be it. We shouldn't just steer away from it because we don't want there to be a god now should we? That would be scientific bias.

 

[geauxtohell]

Evolutionism cannot be falsified unless you have billions of years on your hands.

Case closed.

However, in ID, the fact is that life was intelligently designed. This concept is falsifiable and answers many of the questions in the scientific world and can be quite useful. If the implications happen to be that there is a god then so be it. We shouldn't just steer away from it because we don't want there to be a god now should we? That would be scientific bias.

Evolution could be falsified by simply finding a a fossil in the wrong place during an excavation. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the core concepts of this theory of evolution.

ID can not be falsified. Once you introduce an all powerful entity, then anything is possible to include intentional supernatural deception.

Explain to me how you can falsify the existence of God.

I mean, it's not like man has been struggling with this issue since the dawn of time or anything.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Evolutionism cannot be falsified unless you have billions of years on your hands.

Case closed.

However, in ID, the fact is that life was intelligently designed. This concept is falsifiable and answers many of the questions in the scientific world and can be quite useful. If the implications happen to be that there is a god then so be it. We shouldn't just steer away from it because we don't want there to be a god now should we? That would be scientific bias.

Evolution could be falsified by simply finding a a fossil in the wrong place during an excavation. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the core concepts of this theory of evolution.

ID can not be falsified. Once you introduce an all powerful entity, then anything is possible to include intentional supernatural deception.

Explain to me how you can falsify the existence of God.

I mean, it's not like man has been struggling with this issue since the dawn of time or anything.

Fossils are where they are. There is no such thing as finding a fossil out of place.

Then again, I guess you could say there have been misplaced fossils when evolutionists intentionally misplace them to create hoaxes.

As for ID there is no need to falsify a god. All that needs to be falsified is can life come about without the aid of someone implanting the information.

Placing interpretations on fossils has NOTHING to do with science. On the other hand, answering the profound question of how did life get started is very important to science and oddly the one ignored by evolutionists.

 

[geauxtohell]

Fossils are where they are. There is no such thing as finding a fossil out of place.

Then again, I guess you could say there have been misplaced fossils when evolutionists intentionally misplace them to create hoaxes.

As for ID there is no need to falsify a god. All that needs to be falsified is can life come about without the aid of someone implanting the information.

Placing interpretations on fossils has NOTHING to do with science. On the other hand, answering the profound question of how did life get started is very important to science and oddly the one ignored by evolutionists.

There certainly is. If you found a fossil of a human in the level of the earth where there are dinosaur bones, then evolutionary theory would be instantly disproven.

As for falsifying the existence of God, for something to be a legitimate scientific theory, it must be falsifiable.

Furthermore, evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of life.

You really don't have a clue about this, do you?

Why do you keep acting like you do?

 

[Douger]

No

 

[konradv]

Here's your Progressive Educational System at work

Our education system is not progressive. Montessori schools are progressive. Schools in Japan and Europe are progressive. We place very litte value (monetary or otherwise) into public elementary education. It's not as lucrative as war and corporate welfare and tax cuts benefitting millionaires. If there's no profit in it, this country doesn't care about it. We value education as much as we do the way in which food is grown and processed here - ie we don't.

It is not money that the public education system needs, it is decent parents, engaged students, getting rid of 'tenture', and providing decent teachers with the back up to do the job well. Dumping more money into a bottomless pit does not fill it. Idiot.

We're doing it in Baltimore, where the Reps are no better than a third party and primary day IS election day.

City Schools, Teachers Union Reach 'Landmark' Deal

Teachers To Get Pay Raises Based On Performance

City Schools, Teachers Union Reach 'Landmark' Deal - Baltimore, Maryland News Story - WBAL Baltimore

 

[Si modo]

I have no problem with the 'controversy' being taught, the 'controversy' between intelligent design and evolution. Not at all. In fact, I hope every school would cover it. Just keep it out of the science curriculum.

Intelligent design does not belong in any science curriculum. On its face, it is non-scientific. It is non-falsifiable thus, not a scientific theory.

It is quite straight forward.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The majority of Americans don’t understand why we can’t “teach” the “controversy”. What is wrong with “alternate” theories?

The problem with that is that science is all interconnected. If you are going to change one theory, you have to change them all.

Understanding science has led this country to greatness. By changing understood and well thought out scientific theories, do we undermine what we have built? Our country has slid from first to the twenties and thirties in math, science and other learned and intellectual “elitist” skills. This has coincided with the forceful introduction of mysticism and the occult into our science classrooms.

Does America have a future?

Deanie, I hope you don't mind my piggy-backing on this thread, but this seems appropriate here:

From “Against Mediocrity: The Humanities in America’s High Schools,” edited by Finn, Ravitch, and Fancher.

1. There is no sound education that does not include the teaching and learning of the humanities, the study of literature, history and languages. Forsaking learning in a particular discipline such as literature, history, or philosophy, eager “humanistic” zealots have imposed “humanistic education,” “humane studies,” and “values inquiries” upon the schools. In my experience, courses offered under these banners have largely failed to impart much knowledge; but they have succeeded in altering the public perception of the humanities. Now, thanks to educational sloppiness verging on intellectual anarchy, there is often a skeptical and distrustful attitude when one use the term “humanities.”

2. The College Board revealed in 1975 that scores on the SAT had fallen steadily and sharply since 1964. The College Board’s own blue-ribbon panel reported in 1977 that the most substantial score decline had occurred after the demographics of the applicant pool, expansion of the low-income and minority test takers, had stabilized. They acknowledged that the likely influence of the lowering of standards and the lessened emphasis on critical reading and thoughtful writing.

3. Without values and ethics, the wisdom and knowledge, the insight and context, the shared understanding and communications embodied in the humanities, we risk becoming a society that loses its balance. If the system only strengthens in science, math and basic skills, we risk producing no more than technopeasants, individuals who manipulate complex machines without any understanding of why, who depend on other machines for amusement and recreation, who have no real intellectual interests or cultural lives, whose behavior is defined by the interaction between hedonistic cravings and externally imposed controls, who have no valid basis for judging the claims of politicians, gurus, and cult figures, and who lack any sense of a collective past or any vision of a better future.

I read your post twice and couldn't find anywhere where you mentioned "problem solving".

It would seem you equate "education" with "memorization". If that's the case, you might as well spend your time in Bible Studies.

Ah, deanie, I either underestimated you, ...or vastly overestimated you.

Here I almost had you out of the running for the vaunted "DP" award, and you catapaulted yourself right back into the lead!

Bravo, my little toad!

Now, did you miss post #11?
Or perhaps your 'comprehension pills' expired?

Or perhaps "I read your post twice ..." and it wasn't enough.
A tutor, maybe?

Let me not be too harsh...possibly the article was too difficult, after all it requires more than your G.E.D.

Here is a precis...Dr. Hirsch found that even among the brightest (oops...I know that hurt) comprehension was a problem without a body of - yes, memorized- knowledge.

“I came to see that the text alone is not enough,” Hirsch said to me recently at his Charlottesville, Virginia, home. “The unspoken—that is, relevant background knowledge—is absolutely crucial in reading a text.” Hirsch’s big work of literary theory in his early academic career, 'Validity in Interpretation', reflected this shift in thinking. After publishing several more well-received scholarly books and articles, he received an endowed professorship and became chairman of the English department at the University of Virginia."
E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy by Sol Stern, City Journal Autumn 2009

And the proof of his (traditional) methodology?
"The “Massachusetts miracle,” in which Bay State students’ soaring test scores broke records, was the direct consequence of the state legislature’s passage of the 1993 Education Reform Act, which established knowledge-based standards for all grades and a rigorous testing system linked to the new standards. And those standards, Massachusetts reformers have acknowledged, are Hirsch’s legacy. If the Obama administration truly wants to have a positive impact on American education, it should embrace Hirsch’s ideas and urge other states to do the same."
Ibid.

Now, let's go back to post #11, which indicates that the Progressive ideas are seriously flawed, and result in the morass we see in those who have been through Progressive education....and if the shoe fits, deanie-weanie,...

" Traditional education insists on a body of knowledge, as opposed to Progressive:
"The pedagogical point of Freire’s thesis : its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content, which Freire derides as “official knowledge” that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society."http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_freirian-pedagogy.html"

Clear now?

Let me double up on that and show you the Marxist-Progressive idea of education:

"[Paulo] Freire never intends “pedagogy” to refer to any method of classroom instruction based on analysis and research, or to any means of producing higher academic achievement for students. [H]e relies on Marx’s standard formulation that “the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat [and] this dictatorship only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.”
The pedagogical point of Freire’s thesis : its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content, which Freire derides as “official knowledge” that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society. "
Pedagogy of the Oppressor by Sol Stern, City Journal Spring 2009


And, as for "...you might as well spend your time in Bible Studies," we in the religious community second your sentiment.
In your case it would be doubly relevant, for both insight and its value as literature.

 

[rdean]

Deanie, I hope you don't mind my piggy-backing on this thread, but this seems appropriate here:

From “Against Mediocrity: The Humanities in America’s High Schools,” edited by Finn, Ravitch, and Fancher.

1. There is no sound education that does not include the teaching and learning of the humanities, the study of literature, history and languages. Forsaking learning in a particular discipline such as literature, history, or philosophy, eager “humanistic” zealots have imposed “humanistic education,” “humane studies,” and “values inquiries” upon the schools. In my experience, courses offered under these banners have largely failed to impart much knowledge; but they have succeeded in altering the public perception of the humanities. Now, thanks to educational sloppiness verging on intellectual anarchy, there is often a skeptical and distrustful attitude when one use the term “humanities.”

2. The College Board revealed in 1975 that scores on the SAT had fallen steadily and sharply since 1964. The College Board’s own blue-ribbon panel reported in 1977 that the most substantial score decline had occurred after the demographics of the applicant pool, expansion of the low-income and minority test takers, had stabilized. They acknowledged that the likely influence of the lowering of standards and the lessened emphasis on critical reading and thoughtful writing.

3. Without values and ethics, the wisdom and knowledge, the insight and context, the shared understanding and communications embodied in the humanities, we risk becoming a society that loses its balance. If the system only strengthens in science, math and basic skills, we risk producing no more than technopeasants, individuals who manipulate complex machines without any understanding of why, who depend on other machines for amusement and recreation, who have no real intellectual interests or cultural lives, whose behavior is defined by the interaction between hedonistic cravings and externally imposed controls, who have no valid basis for judging the claims of politicians, gurus, and cult figures, and who lack any sense of a collective past or any vision of a better future.

I read your post twice and couldn't find anywhere where you mentioned "problem solving".

It would seem you equate "education" with "memorization". If that's the case, you might as well spend your time in Bible Studies.

Ah, deanie, I either underestimated you, ...or vastly overestimated you.

Here I almost had you out of the running for the vaunted "DP" award, and you catapaulted yourself right back into the lead!

Bravo, my little toad!

Now, did you miss post #11?
Or perhaps your 'comprehension pills' expired?

Or perhaps "I read your post twice ..." and it wasn't enough.
A tutor, maybe?

Let me not be too harsh...possibly the article was too difficult, after all it requires more than your G.E.D.

Here is a precis...Dr. Hirsch found that even among the brightest (oops...I know that hurt) comprehension was a problem without a body of - yes, memorized- knowledge.

“I came to see that the text alone is not enough,” Hirsch said to me recently at his Charlottesville, Virginia, home. “The unspoken—that is, relevant background knowledge—is absolutely crucial in reading a text.” Hirsch’s big work of literary theory in his early academic career, 'Validity in Interpretation', reflected this shift in thinking. After publishing several more well-received scholarly books and articles, he received an endowed professorship and became chairman of the English department at the University of Virginia."
E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy by Sol Stern, City Journal Autumn 2009

And the proof of his (traditional) methodology?
"The “Massachusetts miracle,” in which Bay State students’ soaring test scores broke records, was the direct consequence of the state legislature’s passage of the 1993 Education Reform Act, which established knowledge-based standards for all grades and a rigorous testing system linked to the new standards. And those standards, Massachusetts reformers have acknowledged, are Hirsch’s legacy. If the Obama administration truly wants to have a positive impact on American education, it should embrace Hirsch’s ideas and urge other states to do the same."
Ibid.

Now, let's go back to post #11, which indicates that the Progressive ideas are seriously flawed, and result in the morass we see in those who have been through Progressive education....and if the shoe fits, deanie-weanie,...

" Traditional education insists on a body of knowledge, as opposed to Progressive:
"The pedagogical point of Freire’s thesis : its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content, which Freire derides as “official knowledge” that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society."http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_freirian-pedagogy.html"

Clear now?

Let me double up on that and show you the Marxist-Progressive idea of education:

"[Paulo] Freire never intends “pedagogy” to refer to any method of classroom instruction based on analysis and research, or to any means of producing higher academic achievement for students. [H]e relies on Marx’s standard formulation that “the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat [and] this dictatorship only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.”
The pedagogical point of Freire’s thesis : its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content, which Freire derides as “official knowledge” that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society. "
Pedagogy of the Oppressor by Sol Stern, City Journal Spring 2009


And, as for "...you might as well spend your time in Bible Studies," we in the religious community second your sentiment.
In your case it would be doubly relevant, for both insight and its value as literature.

I find this concentration on "tradition" quite funny.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw]YouTube - Fiddler on the roof - Tradition ( with subtitles )[/ame]

New Math. Hardly "tradition".

We look at "the space race" and how that actually happened. The entire country was directed, it was a concerted effort. Teachers, government and parents.

I remember when I was in school, the "science fairs" and the competitions. Winners would be on national news and Johnny Carson. Where has that gone?

Now, smart children are called "nerds" and "geeks". Good grades are something to be embarrassed about. Black children call other black children getting good grades "trying to act white". There is not a segment of this society that hasn't undermined education.

And the conservatives are the worst. Because they make up the largest single group in this country and are the "natural" leaders. And they have thrown out that "mystical creation" and "education is just a piece of paper". They have delegitimized education. And it's easy to understand why.

By delegitimizing education you:

Keep "mystical creation" going. Making religion more "real".

You keep women in a more subservient role.

It's easier to keep the gays ostracized.

It's easier to keep church leaders in power.

It's easier to keep the right slaves to their ideology.

It's all about "power". The last thing you want is people asking questions.

Today's circumstances force us to take a new path. We are at the fork. Go left, and you find knowledge, understanding, financial success and security. Go right and you become Afghanistan. Those are the real choices.

Remember, it was that "liberal" education that gave us the moon, won us the space race and created all the new technology. Look at where that is concentrated in this country. That tells you the entire story. It's not like it's a secret.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Fossils are where they are. There is no such thing as finding a fossil out of place.

Then again, I guess you could say there have been misplaced fossils when evolutionists intentionally misplace them to create hoaxes.

As for ID there is no need to falsify a god. All that needs to be falsified is can life come about without the aid of someone implanting the information.

Placing interpretations on fossils has NOTHING to do with science. On the other hand, answering the profound question of how did life get started is very important to science and oddly the one ignored by evolutionists.

There certainly is. If you found a fossil of a human in the level of the earth where there are dinosaur bones, then evolutionary theory would be instantly disproven.

As for falsifying the existence of God, for something to be a legitimate scientific theory, it must be falsifiable.

Furthermore, evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of life.

You really don't have a clue about this, do you?

Why do you keep acting like you do?

Finding a human fossil next to a dinasaur would prove nothing but that there was a human bone next to a dinasaur bone.

Yes, I know evolutionism says nothing about the origin of life. That was my point. And don't give me your evolution is about changes bull crap because you know what I am talking about. I am talking about "evolutionists" who hold and anti-ID view and intentionally ignore the origins of life because THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

ID says nothing about the origin or existence of God.

You really don't have a clue about this do you?

Why are you so willfully stupid?

 

[rdean]

Fossils are where they are. There is no such thing as finding a fossil out of place.

Then again, I guess you could say there have been misplaced fossils when evolutionists intentionally misplace them to create hoaxes.

As for ID there is no need to falsify a god. All that needs to be falsified is can life come about without the aid of someone implanting the information.

Placing interpretations on fossils has NOTHING to do with science. On the other hand, answering the profound question of how did life get started is very important to science and oddly the one ignored by evolutionists.

There certainly is. If you found a fossil of a human in the level of the earth where there are dinosaur bones, then evolutionary theory would be instantly disproven.

As for falsifying the existence of God, for something to be a legitimate scientific theory, it must be falsifiable.

Furthermore, evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of life.

You really don't have a clue about this, do you?

Why do you keep acting like you do?

Finding a human fossil next to a dinasaur would prove nothing but that there was a human bone next to a dinasaur bone.

Yes, I know evolutionism says nothing about the origin of life. That was my point. And don't give me your evolution is about changes bull crap because you know what I am talking about. I am talking about "evolutionists" who hold and anti-ID view and intentionally ignore the origins of life because THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

ID says nothing about the origin or existence of God.

You really don't have a clue about this do you?

Why are you so willfully stupid?

There is only one possible explanation. God put dinosaur bones in the ground to show us what creatures on other planets look like. He did it as a favor to dogs because they like digging up bones.

He killed two birds with one stone.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I read your post twice and couldn't find anywhere where you mentioned "problem solving".

It would seem you equate "education" with "memorization". If that's the case, you might as well spend your time in Bible Studies.

Ah, deanie, I either underestimated you, ...or vastly overestimated you.

Here I almost had you out of the running for the vaunted "DP" award, and you catapaulted yourself right back into the lead!

Bravo, my little toad!

Now, did you miss post #11?
Or perhaps your 'comprehension pills' expired?

Or perhaps "I read your post twice ..." and it wasn't enough.
A tutor, maybe?

Let me not be too harsh...possibly the article was too difficult, after all it requires more than your G.E.D.

Here is a precis...Dr. Hirsch found that even among the brightest (oops...I know that hurt) comprehension was a problem without a body of - yes, memorized- knowledge.

“I came to see that the text alone is not enough,” Hirsch said to me recently at his Charlottesville, Virginia, home. “The unspoken—that is, relevant background knowledge—is absolutely crucial in reading a text.” Hirsch’s big work of literary theory in his early academic career, 'Validity in Interpretation', reflected this shift in thinking. After publishing several more well-received scholarly books and articles, he received an endowed professorship and became chairman of the English department at the University of Virginia."
E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy by Sol Stern, City Journal Autumn 2009

And the proof of his (traditional) methodology?
"The “Massachusetts miracle,” in which Bay State students’ soaring test scores broke records, was the direct consequence of the state legislature’s passage of the 1993 Education Reform Act, which established knowledge-based standards for all grades and a rigorous testing system linked to the new standards. And those standards, Massachusetts reformers have acknowledged, are Hirsch’s legacy. If the Obama administration truly wants to have a positive impact on American education, it should embrace Hirsch’s ideas and urge other states to do the same."
Ibid.

Now, let's go back to post #11, which indicates that the Progressive ideas are seriously flawed, and result in the morass we see in those who have been through Progressive education....and if the shoe fits, deanie-weanie,...

" Traditional education insists on a body of knowledge, as opposed to Progressive:
"The pedagogical point of Freire’s thesis : its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content, which Freire derides as “official knowledge” that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society."http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_freirian-pedagogy.html"

Clear now?

Let me double up on that and show you the Marxist-Progressive idea of education:

"[Paulo] Freire never intends “pedagogy” to refer to any method of classroom instruction based on analysis and research, or to any means of producing higher academic achievement for students. [H]e relies on Marx’s standard formulation that “the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat [and] this dictatorship only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.”
The pedagogical point of Freire’s thesis : its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content, which Freire derides as “official knowledge” that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society. "
Pedagogy of the Oppressor by Sol Stern, City Journal Spring 2009


And, as for "...you might as well spend your time in Bible Studies," we in the religious community second your sentiment.
In your case it would be doubly relevant, for both insight and its value as literature.

I find this concentration on "tradition" quite funny.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw]YouTube - Fiddler on the roof - Tradition ( with subtitles )[/ame]

New Math. Hardly "tradition".

We look at "the space race" and how that actually happened. The entire country was directed, it was a concerted effort. Teachers, government and parents.

I remember when I was in school, the "science fairs" and the competitions. Winners would be on national news and Johnny Carson. Where has that gone?

Now, smart children are called "nerds" and "geeks". Good grades are something to be embarrassed about. Black children call other black children getting good grades "trying to act white". There is not a segment of this society that hasn't undermined education.

And the conservatives are the worst. Because they make up the largest single group in this country and are the "natural" leaders. And they have thrown out that "mystical creation" and "education is just a piece of paper". They have delegitimized education. And it's easy to understand why.

By delegitimizing education you:

Keep "mystical creation" going. Making religion more "real".

You keep women in a more subservient role.

It's easier to keep the gays ostracized.

It's easier to keep church leaders in power.

It's easier to keep the right slaves to their ideology.

It's all about "power". The last thing you want is people asking questions.

Today's circumstances force us to take a new path. We are at the fork. Go left, and you find knowledge, understanding, financial success and security. Go right and you become Afghanistan. Those are the real choices.

Remember, it was that "liberal" education that gave us the moon, won us the space race and created all the new technology. Look at where that is concentrated in this country. That tells you the entire story. It's not like it's a secret.

OMG! I almost thought I was agreeing with you!!!!

I believe I have the vapors...

Then you saved me from a fate worse...well, that may be over he top.

You see, I buy paragraph one, how low knowledge and education have fallen, but then you proved to be the same old 'head-of-stone' deanie-weanie:

"Now, smart children are called "nerds" and "geeks". Good grades are something to be embarrassed about. Black children call other black children getting good grades "trying to act white". There is not a segment of this society that hasn't undermined education.

And the conservatives are the worst. Because they make up the largest single group in this country and are the "natural" leaders. And they have thrown out that "mystical creation" and "education is just a piece of paper". They have delegitimized education. And it's easy to understand why. "

I've explained it to you twice, but, alas, you're not able to break free, you know, and actually think for yourself.

The depredation of education can be traced to the ascendancy of left wing thinking in society...the sixties, my poor slow-thinking friend.

Since even tiny bits of learning have slipped past you, understanding the big picture is out of the question...but just, just, just in case, (I am the eternal optimist) here is the provenance, and a liberal, left wing provenance it is:

1.The unrest of the sixties was born in June of 1962 at the AFT-CIO camp at Port Huron, Michigan.
Some prior rumblings had been heard in a nascent civil rights movement, and from the Free Speech movement at Berkeley- but it was the Port Huron meetings that represented the heart of Sixties radicalism.

2. Port Huron was an early convention of SDS, a small group of alienated, left-wing college students, 59 from 11 campuses.

3. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962. It sets forth an agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world. In it, one can hear the ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescents: the euphoria due to being convinced of their own wisdom, moral purity, and ability to change everything.

4. Now, here it comes: where did these folks go? The schools!

They destroyed education!

"The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.


5. Is it a coincidence that since these folks graduated and took over all of the bastions of liberal thought, schools have stopped educating?

"The College Board revealed in 1975 that scores on the SAT had fallen steadily and sharply since 1964. The College Board’s own blue-ribbon panel reported in 1977 that the most substantial score decline had occurred after the demographics of the applicant pool, expansion of the low-income and minority test takers, had stabilized. They acknowledged that the likely influence of the lowering of standards and the lessened emphasis on critical reading and thoughtful writing."
From “Against Mediocrity: The Humanities in America’s High Schools,” edited by Finn, Ravitch, and Fancher.

And so, my easily-led friend, you have directed your contumely in the wrong direction...
too bad you are beyond learning or changing.

 

[rdean]

Ah, deanie, I either underestimated you, ...or vastly overestimated you.

Here I almost had you out of the running for the vaunted "DP" award, and you catapaulted yourself right back into the lead!

Bravo, my little toad!

Now, did you miss post #11?
Or perhaps your 'comprehension pills' expired?

Or perhaps "I read your post twice ..." and it wasn't enough.
A tutor, maybe?

Let me not be too harsh...possibly the article was too difficult, after all it requires more than your G.E.D.

Here is a precis...Dr. Hirsch found that even among the brightest (oops...I know that hurt) comprehension was a problem without a body of - yes, memorized- knowledge.

“I came to see that the text alone is not enough,” Hirsch said to me recently at his Charlottesville, Virginia, home. “The unspoken—that is, relevant background knowledge—is absolutely crucial in reading a text.” Hirsch’s big work of literary theory in his early academic career, 'Validity in Interpretation', reflected this shift in thinking. After publishing several more well-received scholarly books and articles, he received an endowed professorship and became chairman of the English department at the University of Virginia."
E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy by Sol Stern, City Journal Autumn 2009

And the proof of his (traditional) methodology?
"The “Massachusetts miracle,” in which Bay State students’ soaring test scores broke records, was the direct consequence of the state legislature’s passage of the 1993 Education Reform Act, which established knowledge-based standards for all grades and a rigorous testing system linked to the new standards. And those standards, Massachusetts reformers have acknowledged, are Hirsch’s legacy. If the Obama administration truly wants to have a positive impact on American education, it should embrace Hirsch’s ideas and urge other states to do the same."
Ibid.

Now, let's go back to post #11, which indicates that the Progressive ideas are seriously flawed, and result in the morass we see in those who have been through Progressive education....and if the shoe fits, deanie-weanie,...

" Traditional education insists on a body of knowledge, as opposed to Progressive:
"The pedagogical point of Freire’s thesis : its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content, which Freire derides as “official knowledge” that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society."http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_freirian-pedagogy.html"

Clear now?

Let me double up on that and show you the Marxist-Progressive idea of education:

"[Paulo] Freire never intends “pedagogy” to refer to any method of classroom instruction based on analysis and research, or to any means of producing higher academic achievement for students. [H]e relies on Marx’s standard formulation that “the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat [and] this dictatorship only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.”
The pedagogical point of Freire’s thesis : its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content, which Freire derides as “official knowledge” that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society. "
Pedagogy of the Oppressor by Sol Stern, City Journal Spring 2009


And, as for "...you might as well spend your time in Bible Studies," we in the religious community second your sentiment.
In your case it would be doubly relevant, for both insight and its value as literature.

I find this concentration on "tradition" quite funny.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw]YouTube - Fiddler on the roof - Tradition ( with subtitles )[/ame]

New Math. Hardly "tradition".

We look at "the space race" and how that actually happened. The entire country was directed, it was a concerted effort. Teachers, government and parents.

I remember when I was in school, the "science fairs" and the competitions. Winners would be on national news and Johnny Carson. Where has that gone?

Now, smart children are called "nerds" and "geeks". Good grades are something to be embarrassed about. Black children call other black children getting good grades "trying to act white". There is not a segment of this society that hasn't undermined education.

And the conservatives are the worst. Because they make up the largest single group in this country and are the "natural" leaders. And they have thrown out that "mystical creation" and "education is just a piece of paper". They have delegitimized education. And it's easy to understand why.

By delegitimizing education you:

Keep "mystical creation" going. Making religion more "real".

You keep women in a more subservient role.

It's easier to keep the gays ostracized.

It's easier to keep church leaders in power.

It's easier to keep the right slaves to their ideology.

It's all about "power". The last thing you want is people asking questions.

Today's circumstances force us to take a new path. We are at the fork. Go left, and you find knowledge, understanding, financial success and security. Go right and you become Afghanistan. Those are the real choices.

Remember, it was that "liberal" education that gave us the moon, won us the space race and created all the new technology. Look at where that is concentrated in this country. That tells you the entire story. It's not like it's a secret.

OMG! I almost thought I was agreeing with you!!!!

I believe I have the vapors...

Then you saved me from a fate worse...well, that may be over he top.

You see, I buy paragraph one, how low knowledge and education have fallen, but then you proved to be the same old 'head-of-stone' deanie-weanie:

"Now, smart children are called "nerds" and "geeks". Good grades are something to be embarrassed about. Black children call other black children getting good grades "trying to act white". There is not a segment of this society that hasn't undermined education.

And the conservatives are the worst. Because they make up the largest single group in this country and are the "natural" leaders. And they have thrown out that "mystical creation" and "education is just a piece of paper". They have delegitimized education. And it's easy to understand why. "

I've explained it to you twice, but, alas, you're not able to break free, you know, and actually think for yourself.

The depredation of education can be traced to the ascendancy of left wing thinking in society...the sixties, my poor slow-thinking friend.

Since even tiny bits of learning have slipped past you, understanding the big picture is out of the question...but just, just, just in case, (I am the eternal optimist) here is the provenance, and a liberal, left wing provenance it is:

1.The unrest of the sixties was born in June of 1962 at the AFT-CIO camp at Port Huron, Michigan.
Some prior rumblings had been heard in a nascent civil rights movement, and from the Free Speech movement at Berkeley- but it was the Port Huron meetings that represented the heart of Sixties radicalism.

2. Port Huron was an early convention of SDS, a small group of alienated, left-wing college students, 59 from 11 campuses.

3. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962. It sets forth an agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world. In it, one can hear the ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescents: the euphoria due to being convinced of their own wisdom, moral purity, and ability to change everything.

4. Now, here it comes: where did these folks go? The schools!

They destroyed education!

"The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.


5. Is it a coincidence that since these folks graduated and took over all of the bastions of liberal thought, schools have stopped educating?

"The College Board revealed in 1975 that scores on the SAT had fallen steadily and sharply since 1964. The College Board’s own blue-ribbon panel reported in 1977 that the most substantial score decline had occurred after the demographics of the applicant pool, expansion of the low-income and minority test takers, had stabilized. They acknowledged that the likely influence of the lowering of standards and the lessened emphasis on critical reading and thoughtful writing."
From “Against Mediocrity: The Humanities in America’s High Schools,” edited by Finn, Ravitch, and Fancher.

And so, my easily-led friend, you have directed your contumely in the wrong direction...
too bad you are beyond learning or changing.

So many words for nothing.

Think about what the root of "conservative" means. Conserve. No change. Pickled in sugar. Keep things from changing.

Science is all about learning and study and investigation and the number one force driving science is "curiosity".

How many times have we heard the right referred to as "incurious"? For a reason. They lack curiosity.

Just the one fact demonstrates why conservatism is a failed ideology that has ruined our educational system. Yes, it's just that simple.