The awful Education system of the US

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody knows what you're talking about.. It was @Father Heathen who made the claim originally, and then @Shadow Wolf who carried it -all without sources... Yet you deceitfully want to throw it all in my lap, and point to me as the culprit.

LOL... Whatever. Just more tit for tat garbage as usual.

One can simply follow the arrows in the quotes and work backwards if one wants to know. Perhaps you forgot what was being discussed. I think you may be conflating more than one conversation.

 

[Cooky]

One can simply follow the arrows in the quotes and work backwards if one wants to know. Perhaps you forgot what was being discussed. I think you may be conflating more than one conversation.

I know what I said. I said it's the "opposite", but to you, that means something way out in left field.

...Besides, nobody cares about such worthless studies, since there are many factors involved outside of politics on why the majority of democrats would be more educated than the majority of Republicans. But you'd be glad to ignore that fact wouldn't you? because your goal is tit for tat nonsense, right?

 

[Shaul]

I actually was telling the truth.

The teaching of the theory of evolution is required in every state in the Union. The ideological thought police of the secular humanists regularly suppress any public school teachers that don’t teach it or even suggest it is wrong.

I actually was telling the truth.

What you were telling is a personal anecdote of dubious relevance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what I said. I said it's the "opposite", but to you, that means something way out in left field.

...Besides, nobody cares about such worthless studies, since there are many factors involved outside of politics on why the majority of democrats would be more educated than the majority of Republicans. But you'd be glad to ignore that fact wouldn't you? because your goal is tit for tat nonsense, right?

I only want accurate posts. That is all.

 

[Cooky]

And was that paper a joke? What point was there in posting such drivel?

Drivel..?

You should give him a chance.
How do you explain consciousness?

Extended cognition - Wikipedia

 

[Deeje]

Demonstrating that your grasp is consistent with the educational problems under discussion.

LOL...yep that's what a lot of academics will say....."we tried to educate you you but you were resistant to our evidence. You failed to be convinced that the suggestions we made were the absolute truth.....because you wanted proof. We don't do proof."

Maybe some of us are not in a hurry to believe an unprovable theory when we have all the evidence we need for an Intelligent Designer.....? Flukes are not science to us. Deliberate design is the product of intelligence.

Being a scientists doesn't mean you know everything. Learning about science is very enlightening....when you read what is actually written about the subject of macro-evolution in particular, you find the language of uncertainty. If something is a fact, there is no uncertainty. That's what separates science fact from science fiction. Evolution is not a fact...it is still a theory. Redefining the word to mean something that it doesn't, alters nothing.

"Theory masquerading as science?" Quantum theory is just that -- a theory. One that works so well that it gave us the ability to do MRI scans.

Why do you fail to separate what is provable from what is not? Every theory that is proven to be valid has passed the test, so it cannot still be termed a "theory" in its real definition.

What can science actually prove about evolution by documented experimentation? It can prove that any species can "adapt" to changed environmental conditions. Adaptation has never taken an organism outside of its established taxonomy. All the experiments proved is that you can get varieties within a family of creatures. Macro-evolution suggests that original single celled organisms had the ability to morph into all the lifeforms that exist, both past and present. Scientists have no real evidence that that ever happened...or that it is even possible.

And ToE is so incredibly well attested -- and also works so well -- that it is in its broadest outline equivalent with fact.

It is not "incredibly well attested" as a result of any real evidence....it is hammered into school children so that they feel completely stupid if they don't accept it. It is hammered into university science students so that they can't really tell if there is a rational, well explained alternative.....BTW, YEC is not that alternative.

"No one should accept science fiction as fact?" Well, one should at least be able to tell the difference. And the difference between science fiction and scientific theory.

Yep, there is a difference all right.....but evolutionary science is so indoctrinated in people of the current generation that it is felt that only uneducated fools will reject it. I believe the opposite is true. Its a con job of monumental proportions IMO. The indoctrinated fools will live to regret throwing the baby out with the YEC bathwater. He was never in that bath to begin with.

 

[dianaiad]

neither is it my job to do YOUR homework. If you want to have an intelligent conversation and be considered intelligent, do what it requires and make at least a cursory research on google or wikipedia (you don't need anything fancy at a basic level) before you engage yourself or else you will come off as an idiot who demands to be force fed basic essential information without which the conversation itself shouldn't even take place. For any intelligent conversation a certain level of basic knowledge is expected. If you want to talk about voter's demographic in the US, you should know those basic numbers before the conversation starts or be willing to play catch up by yourself. If not, you can be accused of being obtuse or even of "sea-lioning". Even if it doesn't amount to the that, I would certainly not claim special wisdom and intelligence in that field.

PS: If you demand respect and cannot stand the sight of the smallest ad hominem thrown your way, I would refrain from usin caplock texts or making quips about your opposition being stupider than you (or puffing up your own intelligence). This exposes you to a treatment in kind.

No.

Your claim.

Your job to provide references. Period. I have neither the time, the inclination nor any obligation to debunk or support your claims. If you don't like that, don't make claims.

And don't excuse yourself by insulting people in the hope that they will get too mad to notice that you are using insults to distract them from the FACT that the one doing the claiming has to provide the references.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

LOL...yep that's what a lot of academics will say....."we tried to educate you you but you were resistant to our evidence. You failed to be convinced that the suggestions we made were the absolute truth.....because you wanted proof. We don't do proof."

Maybe some of us are not in a hurry to believe an unprovable theory when we have all the evidence we need for an Intelligent Designer.....? Flukes are not science to us. Deliberate design is the product of intelligence.

Being a scientists doesn't mean you know everything. Learning about science is very enlightening....when you read what is actually written about the subject of macro-evolution in particular, you find the language of uncertainty. If something is a fact, there is no uncertainty. That's what separates science fact from science fiction. Evolution is not a fact...it is still a theory. Redefining the word to mean something that it doesn't, alters nothing.



Why do you fail to separate what is provable from what is not? Every theory that is proven to be valid has passed the test, so it cannot still be termed a "theory" in its real definition.

What can science actually prove about evolution by documented experimentation? It can prove that any species can "adapt" to changed environmental conditions. Adaptation has never taken an organism outside of its established taxonomy. All the experiments proved is that you can get varieties within a family of creatures. Macro-evolution suggests that original single celled organisms had the ability to morph into all the lifeforms that exist, both past and present. Scientists have no real evidence that that ever happened...or that it is even possible.



It is not "incredibly well attested" as a result of any real evidence....it is hammered into school children so that they feel completely stupid if they don't accept it. It is hammered into university science students so that they can't really tell if there is a rational, well explained alternative.....BTW, YEC is not that alternative.



Yep, there is a difference all right.....but evolutionary science is so indoctrinated in people of the current generation that it is felt that only uneducated fools will reject it. I believe the opposite is true. Its a con job of monumental proportions IMO. The indoctrinated fools will live to regret throwing the baby out with the YEC bathwater. He was never in that bath to begin with.

You said it all: "its a con job of monumental proportions...IMO." But your opinion is based on reading religious sites to understand science in the way you wish to, rather than reading science to understand science.

When I make my arguments about religion, I always use the source texts -- like the Bible. I don't go to science to talk about God, because science has nothing whatever to say about God except that there's nothing for science to examine on the subject. You cited zero science in dismissing science -- only your own opinion based on religious thinking.

I think that's unfortunate, but I've been watching you do the same thing for quite some time now -- kind of a one-trick pony, in that regard.

 

[dianaiad]

YEC is not something that is agreed "religiously." It is simply false, and therefore an affront to basic science -- and that should not be something that any school deserving the name should tolerate.

I repeat. Some of the most erudite and knowledgeable people in the world have been YEC's. that does not affect their ability to read, to write or do math. Young Earth Creationism is a religious concept and has nothing at all to do with the problems education has.

Though I agree that it should not be taught in public schools, and in fact, is not so taught in any public school I've ever been to or associated with.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I repeat. Some of the most erudite and knowledgeable people in the world have been YEC's. that does not affect their ability to read, to write or do math. Young Earth Creationism is a religious concept and has nothing at all to do with the problems education has.

Though I agree that it should not be taught in public schools, and in fact, is not so taught in any public school I've ever been to or associated with.

Could you give me a few names of these "most erudite and knowledgeable people in the world" who have been YECs, please?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Drivel..?

You should give him a chance.
How do you explain consciousness?

Extended cognition - Wikipedia

His "argument" against materialism was pure drivel. He might have some interesting ideas but when one combines it with incredibly poor logic it detracts from his message.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Could you give me a few names of these "most erudite and knowledgeable people in the world" who have been YECs, please?

Kent Hovind. Ray Comfort, ooh ooh, and the Hamster, Ken Ham.

 

[dianaiad]

Could you give me a few names of these "most erudite and knowledgeable people in the world" who have been YECs, please?

Really? How about pretty much every great mind prior to the twentieth century?

Gregor Mendel?

Young Earth creationism only means that the person believes that God created the planet around six thousand years ago, and created man around then, as well. It doesn't apply to math, or literature, or modern history, or a whole bunch of other topics.

Good heavens, I know a rocket scientist who was a bona fide member of the Flat Earth society. It's a RELIGIOUS idea, and doesn't knock heads with anything unless one is speaking about evolution and/or geology. There are a great many other fields of study in which this idea does not play any part at all.

Now me, I'm NOT a 'young earth creationist." So don't go trying to paint me with that one. I AM a teacher (retired) and I KNOW that one can teach a kid to read, write and learn his multiplication tables and not go near creationism, young earth or not, nor worry one whit about evolution or geology.

The problem here is that you are attempting to force your religious opinions on everybody else, and trying to make creationism 'the problem' in education...when it's not. Once we get the kids to read, write and do sums, THEN they can figure out the creationism thing....and not in public school.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? How about pretty much every great mind prior to the twentieth century?

Gregor Mendel?

Young Earth creationism only means that the person believes that God created the planet around six thousand years ago, and created man around then, as well. It doesn't apply to math, or literature, or modern history, or a whole bunch of other topics.

Good heavens, I know a rocket scientist who was a bona fide member of the Flat Earth society. It's a RELIGIOUS idea, and doesn't knock heads with anything unless one is speaking about evolution and/or geology. There are a great many other fields of study in which this idea does not play any part at all.

Now me, I'm NOT a 'young earth creationist." So don't go trying to paint me with that one. I AM a teacher (retired) and I KNOW that one can teach a kid to read, write and learn his multiplication tables and not go near creationism, young earth or not, nor worry one whit about evolution or geology.

The problem here is that you are attempting to force your religious opinions on everybody else, and trying to make creationism 'the problem' in education...when it's not. Once we get the kids to read, write and do sums, THEN they can figure out the creationism thing....and not in public school.

Oh my, scientific concepts are not "religious opinions". Religions, in case you did not know, are faith based. The sciences are evidence based. What you deny is massively supported by evidence. In fact there is no reliable evidence for creationist beliefs. Or at least none that I have ever seen. I frequently try to get creationists to post evidence but all that they ever do is to demonstrate that they do not understand the concept. And learning the basics of all of the sciences is part of basic education. One does not get to skip concepts simply because some religious person does not like them. Objections need to be based, like science, on evidence. Yes, one can get by without knowing these things. And in fact one can get by without any advance math, or higher writing skills. There are all sorts of things taught in school that one could "get by without". But one unfairly limits the options of students if they are not taught at least the basics of those areas of knowledge.

And though Mendel was probably a creationist, I hope that he was not so ignorant as to be a YEC. But even that is possible since geology was a relatively new science in his lifetime and he may not have been educated in it. You won't find him giving any cogent arguments against geology. I love how creationists tend to assume that if they can't find anything

And in fact it could even be argued that he was not a "creationist" since creationism arose as an opposition to science. People made poor assumptions due to a lack of knowledge. One should not smear their names by giving them a title that they did not earn.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So what's the point? That every single Republican is uneducated? Are you attempting to display some kind of symbolic trophy? Is this supposed to convince me that I should submit to the Democrats because they're wiser as a group?

If you'd quit knee jerking and take the information it means those with more education are more likely--not guaranteed--to vote democratic. And please don't insult my intelligence by saying I'm trying to say all republicans are uneducated. Nor did anywhere I suggest you shoyld switch sides, but at least twice recently you've told me I should.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Interesting thing though....when liberals are
shown smarter, what kind of "liberal" is it?
Democrats assume them, but many are
most illiberal in the other sense of the word.

Roughly democrat, as is how conservative is used roughly to say republican.

I notice that it's the left leaning posters who post
about studies proving themselves smarter.
Is this too for them to feel better?

I have seen them used in ways that suggest such.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Kent Hovind. Ray Comfort, ooh ooh, and the Hamster, Ken Ham.

Were I not an atheist, I would have to say "God'll get you for that!"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The teaching of the theory of evolution is required in every state in the Union. The ideological thought police of the secular humanists regularly suppress any public school teachers that don’t teach it or even suggest it is wrong.

What you were telling is a personal anecdote of dubious relevance.

What I was telling you was my experience taking an AP biology class. My freshman biology teacher did teach it. Not the one I had for a higher level. She skipped evolution because it makes no sense and god did it - no lie, no exaggeration. I didn't know much about evolution then, but the other 3 students in that class agreed with the teacher.Andshe was good after two years due to a number of complaints.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You realize that you have just deeply insulted every teacher on the planet, right?

No, I haven't. It is not the teacher's fault, but the educational system. If you took offense to it, then that was because of your personal interpretation of it.

And that is MY problem; our educational system requires that teachers be extremely highly educated, credentialed and degreed....and then doesn't let us actually teach anything.

Perhaps liberal arts subjects differ from STEM. For instance, at the university I went to (an above average medium-sized school in the midwest), we had mathematics degrees and mathematics education degrees. The math ed major was a watered down (easier) version of the mathematics major which I got my degree in, with a few teaching courses thrown in. But that's the problem. A person actually qualified to teach high school math well will be taking a $100K/year data science job rather than a $60K/year teaching job. That's why high school STEM teachers aren't as qualified as they could be. If they were, they'd take the higher paying, more advanced job. However, if math teachers salaries were increased to that of data scientists, programmers, engineers, etc, then high schools could have a chance at getting more qualified teachers that understand the subject on a deeper level, since the would-be data scientists/software enginner math majors would actually consider teaching as a profession.

 

[dianaiad]

No, I haven't. It is not the teacher's fault, but the educational system. If you took offense to it, then that was because of your personal interpretation of it.



Perhaps liberal arts subjects differ from STEM. For instance, at the university I went to (an above average medium-sized school in the midwest), we had mathematics degrees and mathematics education degrees. The math ed major was a watered down (easier) version of the mathematics major which I got my degree in, with a few teaching courses thrown in. But that's the problem. A person actually qualified to teach high school math well will be taking a $100K/year data science job rather than a $60K/year teaching job. That's why high school STEM teachers aren't as qualified as they could be. If they were, they'd take the higher paying, more advanced job. However, if math teachers salaries were increased to that of data scientists, programmers, engineers, etc, then high schools could have a chance at getting more qualified teachers that understand the subject on a deeper level, since the would-be data scientists/software enginner math majors would actually consider teaching as a profession.

Where I went to school, one had to have a BA/BS in the field one wishes to teach. No education courses...UNLESS one is planning to teach at the elementary level. In which case one could get a degree in education. Then, at a post grad level, one has to take two years of educational courses, with some courses aimed at your core degree. It is, in fact, equal to an MA anywhere else. Those who wish to teach on the elementary level must also take two more years, with courses aimed at teaching at that level. They, of course, have to teach everything, not simply one topic.

After the credential is obtained (and that involves many tests along with student teaching, so it takes another year) teachers here are required to take continuing education. Most teachers end up with Master's degrees in their core fields, and not a few end up with doctorates (usually the doctorates are in education). That was where I was headed before I had to retire...though my doctorate was aimed at English lit and linguistics, not education.

I can tell you this; your level of education wouldn't get you a teaching credential in California without a lot more education and some very involved testing. As well, there is no such thing as a 'STEM' level BA/BS here. A BS in math is a BS in math. Period. The education classes come at the post grad level.

....so California teachers are, academically, probably THE best qualified teachers there are...yet the educational system is one of the worst. You are right; it's not the teacher's fault, but don't go telling ME that it's because the educational (university level) system doesn't train them. the problem is that they train the teachers...but do not allow those teachers to do what they are trained for.