Arkansas inflicts child abuse on its school children

[McBell]

Are you ok with them being indoctrinated with whatever the government wants to feed them?

Which is better, letting the government indoctrinate them or letting religion indoctrinate them?
Personally, I am of the mind that we should not indoctrinate them at them all.
But I seem to be in the great minority on the matter.

 

[Polymath257]

Only the evidence points to a much larger story than random mutations. The world is billions of times more complex than Darwin's silly theory allows.

Well, Darwin's theory has been extended since he lived to include genetics.YOu also need to include natural selection, not just mutation. It is the combination that produces complexity.

And mutation along with natural selection does produce great amounts of complexity. Do you have any proof of your claim that the world is *billions of times* more complex than evolutionary theory allows?

 

[Polymath257]

Not molecules to man evolution. Call it what you want, but you can't get there from an organism simply adapting with the DNA information it already contains. That's like saying if I turn the lights off in one room in my house, so my electric bill will be less (a benefit to me) that explains how the house built itself.

DNA mutates, it also duplicates and that allows more than one copy. And that allows for different lines of mutation.

We actually see this in, say, the globin compounds, or the serine proteases, or the G-proteins, or any number of recognized families of proteins.

 

[Polymath257]

Really? Parents should just shut up and let the state teach their kids? Do you have children? Are you ok with them being indoctrinated with whatever the government wants to feed them?
Maybe we could send them away to become good little communists, then we wouldn't have to take any responsibility for them!

I'd much rather they be educated by a system where the topics are chosen by professionals instead of local school boards. And I'd much prefer that to having the topics be chosen by religious institutions.

One of the BIG problems of the educational system in the US is that the local school boards have way too much power to overrule the experts. WAY too much education is simply avoided because it might offend some parents with nutty viewpoints.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which is better, letting the government indoctrinate them or letting religion indoctrinate them?
Personally, I am of the mind that we should not indoctrinate them at them all.
But I seem to be in the great minority on the matter.

That's not the question. The question is whether you have the right to teach your kids or whether you are going to give that right to others. And whatever philosophy you embrace, even if you think it's neutral, will be absorbed by your kids. And BTW, there's no such thing as a neutral philopophy. You WILL indoctrinate them one way or another.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'd much rather they be educated by a system where the topics are chosen by professionals instead of local school boards. And I'd much prefer that to having the topics be chosen by religious institutions.

One of the BIG problems of the educational system in the US is that the local school boards have way too much power to overrule the experts. WAY too much education is simply avoided because it might offend some parents with nutty viewpoints.

Lol., who are these so-called "experts"? Does the government have experts? Expert idiots for sure!

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well, Darwin's theory has been extended since he lived to include genetics.YOu also need to include natural selection, not just mutation. It is the combination that produces complexity.

And mutation along with natural selection does produce great amounts of complexity. Do you have any proof of your claim that the world is *billions of times* more complex than evolutionary theory allows?

Well we are what? Twenty years past sequencing the human genome and we still know next to nothing about it. We are only seeing tiny pieces of the elephant.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol., who are these so-called "experts"? Does the government have experts? Expert idiots for sure!

Well, for science classes, I would prefer those at professional scientific organizations or universities, not those hired by the government.

For history, I would prefer historians: those that actually do research in history.

Experts do exist and they do know more than the average person.

 

[Polymath257]

Well we are what? Twenty years past sequencing the human genome and we still know next to nothing about it. We are only seeing tiny pieces of the elephant.

Yes, there is a LOT of information. But we also need to know the proteins encoded by that genome and how they interact.

We know a LOT more than we did 20 years ago, but there is still a lot more to be done.

And why do you think that was an answer to my question? I asked why you think that the world is billions of times more complex than would be allowed by mutation and natural selection. What we have found in the genome fits perfectly well into evolutionary theory.

 

[Polymath257]

That's not the question. The question is whether you have the right to teach your kids or whether you are going to give that right to others. And whatever philosophy you embrace, even if you think it's neutral, will be absorbed by your kids. And BTW, there's no such thing as a neutral philopophy. You WILL indoctrinate them one way or another.

Unless you are qualified to teach in a variety of different subjects. And, in this case, qualified means that you have taken university level courses in the subjects involved *and* know how (have been trained) to teach children.

Now, it is possible that you along with a number of your educated friends might be able to get the required knowledge together, but that is rare. Determining a curriculum that encourages questioning and still provides the basics isn't as easy as many people seem to think.

And that is why we have schools.

Just to be clear: my daughter was home schooled until high school because we thought that the educational system didn't do enough. But she had the advantage of several people with higher degrees in a variety of subjects teaching her.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Unless you are qualified to teach in a variety of different subjects. And, in this case, qualified means that you have taken university level courses in the subjects involved *and* know how (have been trained) to teach children.

Now, it is possible that you along with a number of your educated friends might be able to get the required knowledge together, but that is rare. Determining a curriculum that encourages questioning and still provides the basics isn't as easy as many people seem to think.

And that is why we have schools.

Just to be clear: my daughter was home schooled until high school because we thought that the educational system didn't do enough. But she had the advantage of several people with higher degrees in a variety of subjects teaching her.

All our kids were homeschooled... with the exception of a few subjects where they took partial days in the public school and one year when we got tired and put them in a Christian school, which was a mistake, not because it was Christain, but because it was not quality education. Overall, on most subjects, they learned better at home with video assistance and the curriculum we purchased. Not all children are the same, some are more self motivated and will blow through the material and get way ahead, some will have to be encouraged just to stay current. At any rate, they are doing just fine as adults. And my wife had some training, but nothing that made her officially qualified to teach. The point here is that we should not give that right to someone else and besides, overall, the public schools aren't that great.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, there is a LOT of information. But we also need to know the proteins encoded by that genome and how they interact.

We know a LOT more than we did 20 years ago, but there is still a lot more to be done.

And why do you think that was an answer to my question? I asked why you think that the world is billions of times more complex than would be allowed by mutation and natural selection. What we have found in the genome fits perfectly well into evolutionary theory.

Again, random mutations can only do so much. Nature doesn't select anything, that's a myth. The very term "natural selection" suggests someone is selecting. DNA is much too complex to have randomly developed on its own. It's actually absurd to think it's even possible.

 

[metis]

But in the field all are already committed to the evolution paradigm. So it doesn't matter if someone disagrees with your exact conclusions they still aren't going to step outside the box.

This is because the overwhelming evidence clearly supports the ToE, so the basic process of evolution is considered to be an axiom of biology. On top of this, it really is just plain old common sense as all material objects appear to change over time, and life forms and genes are material objects.

So, please do not use what your church may be telling you if it ignores the science on this as my old church did. The last survey I saw had it that roughly 70% of all Christian theologians do not have a problem with accepting the ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

Thus, to reject basic science and even common sense makes a mockery of our faith.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, random mutations can only do so much. Nature doesn't select anything, that's a myth. The very term "natural selection" suggests someone is selecting. DNA is much too complex to have randomly developed on its own. It's actually absurd to think it's even possible.

OK, so you don't understand what natural selection means.

Mutations occur. Hundreds occur from each parent to each child.

Some mutations increase the probability of survival to the point of reproduction. others decrease that probability. I hope that is clear enough.

What that means is that from each generation to the next, the genes that are more likely to promote survival are more likely to exist in the child generation than they were in the parent generation. In others words, they have been selected for. THAT is natural selection.

Nobody is doing the selecting. it is simply a matter of which genes promote survival and which ones do not. Those that do are more likely to exist in the next generation.

And that is it. Complexity comes from the combination of mutations and different survival rates. And that has been verified by numerous simulations as well as in the wild.

And, yes, the complexity of living things is well within the complexity allowed by this mechanism.

 

[Polymath257]

All our kids were homeschooled... with the exception of a few subjects where they took partial days in the public school and one year when we got tired and put them in a Christian school, which was a mistake, not because it was Christain, but because it was not quality education. Overall, on most subjects, they learned better at home with video assistance and the curriculum we purchased. Not all children are the same, some are more self motivated and will blow through the material and get way ahead, some will have to be encouraged just to stay current. At any rate, they are doing just fine as adults. And my wife had some training, but nothing that made her officially qualified to teach. The point here is that we should not give that right to someone else and besides, overall, the public schools aren't that great.

But one of the reasons the public schools are not that great is that they cater to parents who don't want certain things taught. That is not the only fault they have, but it is a major one. This is exacerbated by local control of schools.

Other aspects that lead to poor public schools are the low salaries of teachers (so those who have more ability go into other fields) and poor parental support.

Given that it is clear you don't understand the concept of natural selection, I strongly doubt you gave your children sufficient education in biology to understand even basic things that are matters of public policy.

For example, understanding aspects of the current pandemic requires understanding things from genetics, to the nature of viruses, to epidemiology, to, yes, natural selection. My bet is that you covered those topics poorly, if at all, in your home schooling.

 

[Jose Fly]

You can go back, but said there are common subjects parents agree on that should be taught to everyone. Leave the rest out.
Evolution as far as the same species or virus changing over time is obvious and don’t think anyone has a disagreement.

Does this mean you believe parents should be the ones setting science curricula?

The term evolution meant things similar to Darwin’s theory which was man evolved over time from some organism over millions of years, was an ape and eventually a man. That there was no Creator and no God, no Designer. All creation points to a Creator.

Except for that pesky little fact that the majority of "evolutionists" are also theists.

 

[Jose Fly]

What happens are subtle changes within populations. A coyote is bigger than some areas than in other areas because he is adapting to the environment. A fox develops hair on his feet in some areas and not in others because of his environment. That all happens with no new information added to their DNA.

Invariably when a creationist says something about "no new information", all one has to do is ask "what is genetic information and how are you measuring it" to effectively put that talking point down. So what do you have?

Then why should we believe in universal common ancestry?

Why shouldn't you? It's had the overwhelming support of the world's life scientists for over a century, so if you've got something that shows it to be wrong, then by all means.....let's see it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

This is because the overwhelming evidence clearly supports the ToE, so the basic process of evolution is considered to be an axiom of biology. On top of this, it really is just plain old common sense as all material objects appear to change over time, and life forms and genes are material objects.

Change over time doesn't equal a ape becoming human or a fish becoming a mammal.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Given that it is clear you don't understand the concept of natural selection, I strongly doubt you gave your children sufficient education in biology to understand even basic things that are matters of public policy.

For example, understanding aspects of the current pandemic requires understanding things from genetics, to the nature of viruses, to epidemiology, to, yes, natural selection. My bet is that you covered those topics poorly, if at all, in your home schooling

Lol, they don't need fantasy theories to survive in the world.
I didn't deny change BTW, I just understand it in a different concept.
And I already told you they took some classes elsewhere to cover what we couldn't teach.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why shouldn't you? It's had the overwhelming support of the world's life scientists for over a century, so if you've got something that shows it to be wrong, then by all means.....let's see it.

Because it can't be repeated or verified. The evidence is shakey at best. It's not science unless it can be demonstrated. And don't give me the nonsense about bacteria getting stronger to try and prove molecules to man evolution... it's laughable.