Science standards under threat in Arizona

[ecco]

I do get sick of unwelcome evals which are logic fallacies.

Referring to your lack of knowledge of history as "abysmal" is a logical conclusion one can draw from your posts, past and below.

Translation. Cherry picking.

• Blacks captured and kidnapped Blacks and brought them to the west cost of Africa to be sold. You left that out.

I left it out out because it was not germane to the conversation unless you want to argue that blacks kidnapped and sold blacks because of Darwin.

It was justified on many grounds including historical precedent. It was opposed based on the Bible including Exodus and prayers to God in the form of hymns like Go Down Moses. You left that out. The early America was in transition.

So then what good is your Bible if it can be used to argue for and against slavery? In any case slave owners justified owning slaves based on the Bible, not on Darwin.

Missed that part where Luther advocated to murder of Jewish women and children.

Here again you show a dismal knowledge of history. I suggest you read, or at least familiarize yourself with:

Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies. Wittenberg, 1543
On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.​

It was justified in the education community via Darwin and naturalism which assumes race inequality and survival. They simply applied Darwin.~ Exterminate and replace.~ The victims were considered dangerous, including women and children.

The Jews would disagree with your assessment. The following quote is from Mein Kampf and taken from a Jewish Holocaust site.
(emphasis mine)

Extracts From Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler | www.yadvashem.org

If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.

Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].​

See also post #279

Equality before God and responsibility to God are all Judeo/Christian Theistic concepts. Somebody mentioned Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson practically predicted the Civil War.

"" - Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII5

Your quotes have nothing to do with racism based on Darwin so why post them?

 

[dimmesdale]

So then what good is your Bible if it can be used to argue for and against slavery? In any case slave owners justified owning slaves based on the Bible, not on Darwin.

What good is a hammer if it can be used to pound nails or hit someone on the head? If you do not think it is any good then you are entitled to your opinion. The fact being it has remained long before and will remain long after its critics are dead and gone.

The Jews would disagree with your assessment.

You do not speak for the Jews. Darwin's words in Descent was exterminate and replace and that is exactly what the Germans attempted to do with European Jews. They applied Darwin who predicted race wars.
Luther did none of that. Luther did not advocate for the murder of women and children. The extinction of races. There are some major differences which are being overlooked here.

 

[dimmesdale]

Referring to your lack of knowledge of history as "abysmal" is a logical conclusion one can draw from your posts, past and below.

Critiques are off topic since nobody comes on here for these reasons. They are rude and uncalled for. They are not arguments. Keep it on the subject.

I left it out out because it was not germane to the conversation unless you want to argue that blacks kidnapped and sold blacks because of Darwin.

It adds context.

Here again you show a dismal knowledge of history.

Strike two.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Critiques are off topic since nobody comes on here for these reasons. They are rude and uncalled for. They are not arguments. Keep it on the subject.



It adds context.




Strike two.

Oh noes!! The dreaded "strike two". That means you have only one more.
Perhaps instead of complaining so much it would be wiser to try to properly support your claims. Otherwise you make it look like the "critiques" that you hate so much to be spot on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What good is a hammer if it can be used to pound nails or hit someone on the head? If you do not think it is any good then you are entitled to your opinion. The fact being it has remained long before and will remain long after its critics are dead and gone.

You do not speak for the Jews. Darwin's words in Descent was exterminate and replace and that is exactly what the Germans attempted to do with European Jews. They applied Darwin who predicted race wars.
Luther did none of that. Luther did not advocate for the murder of women and children. The extinction of races. There are some major differences which are being overlooked here.

Really? If those are his words and he meant them the way that you claim that he did then you surely should be able to find a link that enables us to see this quote in context..

Just a reminder for those that like to argue by quote mining: The Bible says "there is no God" at least twelve times. Does that mean that the Bible refutes the existence of God?

 

[ecco]

What good is a hammer if it can be used to pound nails or hit someone on the head? If you do not think it is any good then you are entitled to your opinion. The fact being it has remained long before and will remain long after its critics are dead and gone.

Your knowledge of how to properly use analogies is at a par with everything else.

You do not speak for the Jews.

I didn't. Once again, you show your lack of reading comprehension. I clearly showed that the quotes were not mine but were taken from a Jewish Holocaust site.

Perhaps it is not a lack of reading comprehension. Perhaps it is a conscious attempt on your part to intentionally misrepresent what is written. That seems to be a theme.

Darwin's words in Descent was exterminate and replace

The fact that you try to bring up this red herring testifies to your racist/creationist viewpoints. I could bring up many articles that show how deceitful your argument is, but I'm sure you are already aware of that.

Luther did none of that. Luther did not advocate for the murder of women and children. The extinction of races. There are some major differences which are being overlooked here.

Martin Luther - "The Jews & Their Lies"
...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!

I brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safeconduct, or communion with us.

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.

Sixth, I advise ...that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow,

​

This is what Luther recommended...

• Eject them from the Country.
• Burn their homes, schools and places of worship.
• For those who would be teachers, torture and kill them.
• Take away all safeguards.
• Take away all their money.
• Enslave the young men.

Did Luther base his ideologies on Darwin?



There is, of course, "evidence" that you are right. Where can we find "scholarly" articles that support your position?

Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust​

Good old Answers in Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your knowledge of how to properly use analogies is at a par with everything else.


I didn't. Once again, you show your lack of reading comprehension. I clearly showed that the quotes were not mine but were taken from a Jewish Holocaust site.

Perhaps it is not a lack of reading comprehension. Perhaps it is a conscious attempt on your part to intentionally misrepresent what is written. That seems to be a theme.



The fact that you try to bring up this red herring testifies to your racist/creationist viewpoints. I could bring up many articles that show how deceitful your argument is, but I'm sure you are already aware of that.

Martin Luther - "The Jews & Their Lies"
...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!

I brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safeconduct, or communion with us.

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.

Sixth, I advise ...that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow,

​

This is what Luther recommended...

• Eject them from the Country.
• Burn their homes, schools and places of worship.
• For those who would be teachers, torture and kill them.
• Take away all safeguards.
• Take away all their money.
• Enslave the young men.

Did Luther base his ideologies on Darwin?



There is, of course, "evidence" that you are right. Where can we find "scholarly" articles that support your position?

Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust​

Good old Answers in Genesis.

I predict "strike three".

 

[ecco]

I do get sick of unwelcome evals which are logic fallacies.

Referring to your lack of knowledge of history as "abysmal" is a logical conclusion one can draw from your posts, past and below.

Cherry picking.

I left it out out because it was not germane to the conversation unless you want to argue that blacks kidnapped and sold blacks because of Darwin.

Critiques are off topic since nobody comes on here for these reasons. They are rude and uncalled for. They are not arguments. Keep it on the subject.

You accused me of arriving at and posting "logic fallacies". Then you call me rude for showing that my conclusions were not "logic fallacies".

It adds context.

Posting something that is not germane to the conversation at hand doesn't add context. It is a thing that some people do to try to distract from the conversation at hand.

Strike two.

Ohh, what happens if I get to strike three? Are ya gonna snitch to the 4th grade teacher?

 

[dimmesdale]

Your knowledge of how to properly use analogies is at a par with everything else.

You did ask what good is the Bible since it can be used to both justify and argue against slavery and I simply applied your reasoning (ecco-logic) to a hammer. Would you like another? How bout a car? A car can be used for getting from point A to point B. A car can also be used to run people over and kill them. So under your reasoning what good is a car? There is nothing wrong with the analogy. The problem is elsewhere. If you think the Bible is worthless then don't read it. Do you think we come here to try and get you to like the Bible? That would be a waste of time.

The fact that you try to bring up this red herring testifies to your racist/creationist viewpoints.

A racist is anyone winning an argument with a lib atheist. What red herring? Inequality and rights from man is your paradigm. Ours is equality and right from God which transcend the rule of human leaders.

I could bring up many articles that show how deceitful your argument is, but I'm sure you are already aware of that.

Then why tell me things you think I already know? The thread is not about me or your evals so why do you do it? And you quotes of Luther are selective. Nobody including his contemporaries advocated his rants. He was probably crazy.

Did Luther base his ideologies on Darwin?

Luthers differences were beliefs in nature. With the Nazi's it was both ideological and racial. They were considered racially inferior to the Jews. Congenital defective. Anyways I am done with you. You are second on ignore list.

National socialism is applied biology. Hess.

 

[ecco]

Inequality and rights from man is your paradigm. Ours is equality and right from God which transcend the rule of human leaders.

Yes, the right to own and beat slaves is indeed a good example of the equality that is held in such esteem by your biblical god.

Then why tell me things you think I already know? The thread is not about me or your evals so why do you do it? And you quotes of Luther are selective.

Yes, they are selective. Should I have copied and pasted all 65,000 words of Von den Jüden und iren Lügen?

Nobody including his contemporaries advocated his rants. He was probably crazy.

Uh huh. I'm guessing you are a member of a Protestant denomination. As such, you are a follower of a segment of Christianity founded by the person you refer to as crazy. What does that make you?

Luthers differences were beliefs in nature. With the Nazi's it was both ideological and racial. They were considered racially inferior to the Jews. Congenital defective.

Wow! I must be really getting to you. The above is your most incomprehensible comment yet.

Anyways I am done with you. You are second on ignore list.

Wow, and Wow! Two ignores and you haven't been here a week yet. I may be wrong, but I think that's a new record. They just don't make 'em like they used to.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I guess what we should really be teaching is reading /understanding to fundy Christians. Where have I stated "that religion study should be abandoned in schools, because it's complicated. "?

Comon' BB, no ducking and dodging - just show where I said that.


I guess to encourage reading skills among the home-schooled.
To help you with your self flagellating sacrifice.

The article you thrilled to said exactly that! Get real.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

What good is a hammer if it can be used to pound nails or hit someone on the head? If you do not think it is any good then you are entitled to your opinion. The fact being it has remained long before and will remain long after its critics are dead and gone.

You do not speak for the Jews. Darwin's words in Descent was exterminate and replace and that is exactly what the Germans attempted to do with European Jews. They applied Darwin who predicted race wars.
Luther did none of that. Luther did not advocate for the murder of women and children. The extinction of races. There are some major differences which are being overlooked here.

I agree with the majority of your replies. Yes I to claim to be a Christian, more and more I am sliding from the PhD professors of philosophy types like Dr Craig whom I admire to the old school style that relies more on faith than PhD level science as a foundation for my faith. But we do need both kinds of advocates! Anyway, I see your debate partners are resorting to the same old worn out tactics against people of faith. The first is usually questioning the quality of our education. Then our credibility etc etc. Rarely do they debate the real issues. Just the fact that they squeal so loudly when anything emerges to support religious belief tells me we are making progress.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with the majority of your replies. Yes I to claim to be a Christian, more and more I am sliding from the PhD professors of philosophy types like Dr Craig whom I admire to the old school style that relies more on faith than PhD level science as a foundation for my faith. But we do need both kinds of advocates! Anyway, I see your debate partners are resorting to the same old worn out tactics against people of faith. The first is usually questioning the quality of our education. Then our credibility etc etc. Rarely do they debate the real issues. Just the fact that they squeal so loudly when anything emerges to support religious belief tells me we are making progress.

When a poster makes wild donkeyed claims and cannot support them of course one begins to question their education. Of course religion should not even be part of this discussion. The creationists are the ones that make the artificial claim that evolution goes against their beliefs. At that point the proper answer is "who cares". If one believes in a Flat Earth one does not get to abuse one's children by demanding that the school "teach the controversy". If a person believes the creation myths of Genesis he does not get to demand that the schools support those myths. What an adult should do is to try to learn why and how he is wrong. We do not see that from the diehard creationists. All they can do is to deny the science. They have no evidence for their own beliefs.

Please do not conflate Christianity with creationism. That is the same as conflating Christianity with a Flat Earth. Most Christians do not believe in a flat Earth and worldwide most Christians accept that life on the Earth is a product of evolution.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Free speech guarantees everyone has a right to say what they like. It doesn't guarantee an equal platform. Science works off the available evidence. It doesn't discard evidence because it MIGHT be tainted. If you think some evidence is tainted, prove it.

Oh yes haven't you seen any science evidence or studies that the AGW folks that was faked or tweaked ? Just Google it !


The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/..

UN Global Warming Fraud Exposed by Detailed New Study ...
https://principia-scientific.org/un-global-warming-fraud-exposed.

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/...
They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to...

The above are just a few chosen at random, but they quoted and referenced credible studies, and used qualified reports and studies to show cause for concern. I am not claiming Global warming is not happening. I am suggesting that some of the propaganda for AGW is questionable at best. I am saying before we throw the baby out with the bath water extensive studies should be ordered and be carried out by a new neutral organization. The members of this new org should be background checked polygraphed and that the information and audits are overseen with Manhattan project like vetting and security. I believe the truth about AGW or not is that important.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

When a poster makes wild donkeyed claims and cannot support them of course one begins to question their education.

The problem is that we don't trust much of the information coming from the corporate vetted AGW stooges. Some of their 'scientific' claims and theory are more whacked than the best that a Bellevue long time resident could dream up.

Of course religion should not even be part of this discussion. The creationists are the ones that make the artificial claim that evolution goes against their beliefs. At that point the proper answer is "who cares". If one believes in a Flat Earth one does not get to abuse one's children by demanding that the school "teach the controversy".

I think that before creationism or ID should be taught in public schools tehe proponents must build a standard theory. Until then teachers should be allowed to say something like this; Evolution is the go to theory, however there are other ideas that you may choose to believe such as ID. Lastly those that are pro eugenics and/or lend themselves to other Nazi like endeavors such as taking criminal action against a parent for teaching their children their religious beliefs are the worst kind of thug in my book.

If a person believes the creation myths of Genesis he does not get to demand that the schools support those myths. What an adult should do is to try to learn why and how he is wrong. We do not see that from the diehard creationists. All they can do is to deny the science. They have no evidence for their own beliefs.

Not so fast. If I pay taxes I have a say in anything taught to my child in a public school.

Please do not conflate Christianity with creationism.

What? Christianity requires the belief that God created the heaves and the earth.

That is the same as conflating Christianity with a Flat Earth. Most Christians do not believe in a flat Earth and worldwide most Christians accept that life on the Earth is a product of evolution.

And? I think ID with a stranded theory should be the goal of 'believers'. Until then they have a unwinnable war to fight. With a standard theory of ID written with contributors like Behe and William Craig etc we would have a bit of a chance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that we don't trust much of the information coming from the corporate vetted AGW stooges. Some of their 'scientific' claims and theory are more whacked than the best that a Bellevue long time resident could dream up.

Yes, the anti-AGW crowd is almost as bad as the anti-evolution people.

I think that before creationism or ID should be taught in public schools tehe proponents must build a standard theory. Until then teachers should be allowed to say something like this; Evolution is the go to theory, however there are other ideas that you may choose to believe such as ID. Lastly those that are pro eugenics and/or lend themselves to other Nazi like endeavors such as taking criminal action against a parent for teaching their children their religious beliefs are the worst kind of thug in my book.

But there is no evidence for ID either. The best that they have had are refuted arguments from ignorance. If one understands how science is done and the concept of evidence you would understand that there is none for ID. That is a big reason they lost the Dover trial. The judge could see that it was creationism dressed up with a lab coat.

And the abuse of an idea is not evidence against an idea. Parents are free to teach their children whatever nonsense they want to at home. Schools are another matter. They have to deal with reality.

Not so fast. If I pay taxes I have a say in anything taught to my child in a public school.

To an extent, yes. But you cannot argue for your child being taught obviously false claims. You do not get to have your child taught that there was no holocaust. You do not get to demand that your child get taught that the Earth is flat or that there is a controversy. You do not get to demand that your child is taught creationism, and that includes ID and that there is a controversy, again there isn't.

What? Christianity requires the belief that God created the heaves and the earth.

And that can be interpreted many different ways. What I can't understand is why some demand that it be interpreted so that God has to be a liar. For example the evidence against the flood myth is so strong that by believing in it one is tacitly claiming that God lied.

And? I think ID with a stranded theory should be the goal of 'believers'. Until then they have a unwinnable war to fight. With a standard theory of ID written with contributors like Behe and William Craig etc we would have a bit of a chance.

Fine, let them develop a theory. It is not a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. Behe's claims have been refuted, Craig is an idiot that only makes a complicated argument for ignorance. Williams? I don't know who Williams is and what he has done.

A scientific theory must be testable. If you ask someone what reasonable test based upon something that we have not observed yet would refute his theory and he has not answer then by definition he does not have a theory.

 

[ecco]

Wow, so the article, and your comments, in large part, indicates that religion study should be abandoned in schools, because it's complicated. Let's ease up on STEM in schools, too, because quantum mechanics is complicated, and we don't want to hurt young people by giving them hope they can ever tackle complex subjects.

I guess what we should really be teaching is reading /understanding to fundy Christians. Where have I stated "that religion study should be abandoned in schools, because it's complicated. "?

Comon' BB, no ducking and dodging - just show where I said that.

The article you thrilled to said exactly that! Get real.

You mean from this post...

Really? How often have you gone to a local school board meeting and suggested they should teach comparative religions at the high school freshman level?

Which you didn't answer


Or this part...

Now, please take the time to read the following:

Why comparative religion courses are untenable in American public schools

Which religions do we teach? It’s impossible to teach them all given that there are more than 10,000 species of belief on our planet, and you can’t teach “comparative” religion without at least a broad sampling—including the faiths of eastern Asia, Oceania, and Africa. Too, how do you teach them? You can imagine the squabbles between Sunni and Shia Muslim parents over the relative weights given to these faiths.

And what about the bad stuff that religion has inspired: the Inquisition, the Crusades, ISIS, and the doctrines of many faiths that oppress women, gays, or even unbelievers, as well as terrorize children. Do you neglect those issues, which, after all, comprise one reason to teach religion as a major force in history? How can you understand the colonization of America without understanding religious persecution? How can you teach about religious wars without mentioning the emnity produced by thinking that you, as opposed to your neighbor, have the absolute truth. And how do you deal with the Holocaust? Was that purely a cultural phenomenon?

The American solution, of course, is “fair play”: teach that all religions are not only good, but equally good, and that anything bad associated with them can be imputed not to religious beliefs but to culture. That is, you sanitize the entire endeavor to such a degree that students fail to understand religion.

​

Do you not understand the difference between "complicated" and "untenable"?

It’s impossible to teach them all given that there are more than 10,000 species of belief on our planet,
You can imagine the squabbles between Sunni and Shia Muslim parents over the relative weights given to these faiths.
And what about the bad stuff that religion has inspired: the Inquisition, the Crusades, ISIS, and the doctrines of many faiths that oppress women, gays, or even unbelievers,
And how do you deal with the Holocaust? Was that purely a cultural phenomenon?
you sanitize the entire endeavor to such a degree that students fail to understand religion.

No, you do not understand the difference between "complicated" and "untenable"?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The problem is that we don't trust much of the information coming from the corporate vetted AGW stooges. Some of their 'scientific' claims and theory are more whacked than the best that a Bellevue long time resident could dream up.



I think that before creationism or ID should be taught in public schools tehe proponents must build a standard theory. Until then teachers should be allowed to say something like this; Evolution is the go to theory, however there are other ideas that you may choose to believe such as ID. Lastly those that are pro eugenics and/or lend themselves to other Nazi like endeavors such as taking criminal action against a parent for teaching their children their religious beliefs are the worst kind of thug in my book.



Not so fast. If I pay taxes I have a say in anything taught to my child in a public school.



What? Christianity requires the belief that God created the heaves and the earth.



And? I think ID with a stranded theory should be the goal of 'believers'. Until then they have a unwinnable war to fight. With a standard theory of ID written with contributors like Behe and William Craig etc we would have a bit of a chance.

But you trust the daily telegraph?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What despicable thing is that? Daring to question evolution?

Claiming that creationism is science, and scaling back the teaching of legitimate science in the schools.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Public education has a reputation for being controlled by fanatic naturalists who litigate against the schools whenever the football team takes a knee before a game. Celebrates the defeat of a library book reference in a courtroom. (Dover). This has backlash even with Muslim parents many of whom prefer Catholic education for their children. It depends on which part of the country, the location of the school so there are many variables. As it is, parents will work extra jobs to get their kids out of Public Education and they will lobby the government for refinancing education. They do not sit on the sidelines and are politically active. One of the reasons Trump won. The fact being we compete both for funds and students. Many of the best are being siphoned off to Private Schools.

If the 'best' kids are sent to the 'best' schools, and we use standardized testing to measure performance, amazingly the 'best' schools rate better.

If there is a financial incentive for the best schools to perform better, then you will find skewed curriculums teaching to test, rather than testing to teach.

Happily, this all can be presented in a neat, self-fulfilling package asking people to look at how the 'best' schools are doing, and encouraging them to use this 'evidence' to remove their kids from the public system, further perpetuating the cycle.

Parents simply don't buy it and i don't blame them. The claims are both outrageous and lacking evidence. Parents view it as lying to children, dehumanizing by telling them they are big-brained apes.

You support both standardized testing AND the removal or reduction of evolution from the science curriculum? Interesting point of tension, but perhaps you simply draw a barrier around America and ignore the rest of the first world when setting 'standards'.

Why is the math SAT unfair? Vague and not in dispute but does not address my points. They do these tests in part to evaluate academic readiness and they work overall. These are professionals working in their fields. They need to evaluate student progress. Standardized provides a sober eval of student learning absent grade inflation which is rampant.

I honestly don't mean to be elitist here, but have you spent any time studying the topic you are talking about in real detail? Have you considered systems with greater or lesser reliance on standardised testing?

Let's step back for a moment...in you opinion, what is the impact of standardised testing on an education system, not only at SAT level, but throughout schooling?

These kids will be competing in world markets going up against the smartest students from all over the world. If we don't do it right then we fail in our responsibilities to equip them to excel.

Says the person looking to develop a science curriculum taking religious sensibilities into account.
There is a lack of consistency in your position.

If we want them running six-minute miles, then we have to get them out to the track field and time them.

So your argument is that a standardised test is a good representation of the skills they need to...what exactly? What do you think the role of standardised testing is, how closely do you think it measures relateable skills, and what are you basing this on?