The awful Education system of the US

[dianaiad]

So far, I don't think anybody has had to use it on the thread, but I didn't make a thorough search. Let's face it, the semicolon isn't exactly the most used punctuation sign; it's a more complex device that can be replaced with ease.



What? Either I don't make myself clear or you are seriously lacking in reading comprehension because I never said such a thing, not even close. I mentionned that people to be called educated enough to be good citizen need to know basic science (which includes the evolution theory amonst other things, but not exclusively) in supplement to basic history, literacy, mathematics and a host of other subjects.

PS: I hope you will notice my grammar joke.

It's 'you didn't make yourself clear.' There is NOTHING wrong with my comprehension.

 

[dianaiad]

Failing to teach them evolution basically is failing just as severally as failing to teach them algebra would. It's a fundamental essential cornerstone of biology. It's the replication of life itself (DNA), and biology is literally the study of life from that chemical perspective.

(sigh)

You aren't getting the point either.

Just how many people USE the theory of evolution, or the knowledge that the earth is 4 billion years old, in their lives? Think about that for a minute.

Now think about how often they might use algebra, or geometry. I use both almost every day, and I am discalculaic. (I have a calculator that I trust). I quilt, you see, and knit, and cook, and do all sorts of stuff that require being able to do math. And to read. I can't remember the last time my beliefs about evolution impacted my daily life or business.

My aunt, now 99 years old, bebops around like a jumping jack. She has raised her own garden for 86 years, has (I think)a rose named after her, is really devoted to using "legacy" seeds in her garden...seeds she gathers herself from previous years. She wins prize after prize in the local and county fairs because she's so good at gardening, veggies, fruits and flowers.

She supported my uncle all his life...he was a university professor and farmer/rancher himself. One thing, though; she is absolutely a 'young earth creationist." Hasn't stopped her from winning all those prizes and developing her own strains of carrots and other veggies. She's a bright, intelligent woman, who probably will be raising her garden when she is 110.

Her husband, btw, was an 'evolutionist,' as I am. He gave up attempting to convince her more than seventy years ago. She's doing just fine.

In fact, y'know what? I've had many, many conversations with a whole bunch of people about this and that...things important to daily life, raising kids and just being....and I don't remember anybody informing me that young earth creationism vs evolution made a huge difference in what they ate last night, or who they sold a car to, or whether Joe Neddleton over there needed more help with his taxes than usual this year.

But ALL of them needed to know how to read and figure; the cook book, the loan documents, taxes...

You can worry about young earth creationism all you want to, but quite frankly? Unless someone is discussing religion in a specifically targeted religious forum, NOBODY CARES.

Not unless they are geologists, biologists or televangelists.

But everybody cares whether their kids can read the back of the cereal boxes, or the instructions for putting Christmas presents together, or the mortgage documents for their houses. First, let's get the kids THERE.. THEN worry about whether they are suitably politically correct in their beliefs.

Sheesh.

 

[SomeRandom]

While I generally agree with the sentiment and the proposal, there is an extra issue. "Knowing your stuff" is likely to make you a good teacher, but you can be a genius in a field and still be a miserable teacher. To be a good teacher, a truly good teacher, you need to both know your stuff really well, but also be good with people. You have to be able to explain it to people who have no interest in learning in the first place and might actually actively try to undermine your efforts. That's another kind of game.

You also need to be able to command respect. I recall my grade 10 English teacher (who left only after one term.) Had like 40 years experience. Nice guy and even as a teenager I felt kind of bad for him. But damn he could not control a class to save his life. He made a guest appearance in my tourism class once (because he doubled as a Geography teacher.) My usually mousy very timid tourism teacher had to step in and regain control of the class for him several times during the lesson. I think even she gave up after like the third time lol. He was so useless.

 

[Heyo]

Oh, dear, and I thought I was doing so well.

Given the Flynn effect - Wikipedia you'd expect the youth to be more intelligent on average. (But it seems to have stopped and even reversed.)

 

[epronovost]

(sigh)

You aren't getting the point either.

Just how many people USE the theory of evolution, or the knowledge that the earth is 4 billion years old, in their lives? Think about that for a minute.

Now think about how often they might use algebra, or geometry. I use both almost every day, and I am discalculaic. (I have a calculator that I trust). I quilt, you see, and knit, and cook, and do all sorts of stuff that require being able to do math. And to read. I can't remember the last time my beliefs about evolution impacted my daily life or business.

My aunt, now 99 years old, bebops around like a jumping jack. She has raised her own garden for 86 years, has (I think)a rose named after her, is really devoted to using "legacy" seeds in her garden...seeds she gathers herself from previous years. She wins prize after prize in the local and county fairs because she's so good at gardening, veggies, fruits and flowers.

She supported my uncle all his life...he was a university professor and farmer/rancher himself. One thing, though; she is absolutely a 'young earth creationist." Hasn't stopped her from winning all those prizes and developing her own strains of carrots and other veggies. She's a bright, intelligent woman, who probably will be raising her garden when she is 110.

Her husband, btw, was an 'evolutionist,' as I am. He gave up attempting to convince her more than seventy years ago. She's doing just fine.

In fact, y'know what? I've had many, many conversations with a whole bunch of people about this and that...things important to daily life, raising kids and just being....and I don't remember anybody informing me that young earth creationism vs evolution made a huge difference in what they ate last night, or who they sold a car to, or whether Joe Neddleton over there needed more help with his taxes than usual this year.

But ALL of them needed to know how to read and figure; the cook book, the loan documents, taxes...

You can worry about young earth creationism all you want to, but quite frankly? Unless someone is discussing religion in a specifically targeted religious forum, NOBODY CARES.

Not unless they are geologists, biologists or televangelists.

But everybody cares whether their kids can read the back of the cereal boxes, or the instructions for putting Christmas presents together, or the mortgage documents for their houses. First, let's get the kids THERE.. THEN worry about whether they are suitably politically correct in their beliefs.

Sheesh.

How do you know which politics is best to fight off invasive species or even they they should be fought in the first place if you don't understand evolution? How could you understand or properly assess the danger of antibiotics use as fattening agents if you don't understand evolution? How could you understand the challenges and intricacies of animal or plant conservation without a knowledge of ecology and evolution? Should we be worried about GMOs?

These are but a few policy question that as a citizen you would have been asked of you and will be asked again in the future. In fact a host of healthcare and environmental policies rely on an understanding of evolution (and a host of other basic scientific concept). How can a citizen make an enlighten decision if they themselves don't understand an issue?

And that's just considering children will become citizens. Some, will also have to become trained in a variety of domain where a basic knowledge of science and biology is prerequisite. These domain are often highly competitive and the bedrock of entire local economies like pharmaceuticals to name only one.

You can't know what you don't know. You can live ignorant of many things and be very happy, but don't count on your ignorance on being "free of charge" forever.

 

[Father Heathen]

So you believe Republicans to be over-educated do you. Think these Trump Supporters (Republicans) are over-educated?

View attachment 36411​

Perhaps you do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just how many people USE the theory of evolution, or the knowledge that the earth is 4 billion years old, in their lives? Think about that for a minute.

What relevance is it? By that standard we may as well quit teaching history, English, literature, social studies, even math. But we teach science, and much like friction and gravity, evolution is a foundational and cornerstone theory of biology. You aren't getting the point of how important it is to the field.

 

[dianaiad]

How do you know which politics is best to fight off invasive species or even they they should be fought in the first place if you don't understand evolution?

How many people have to worry about that? How many people can worry about politics if they can't read the ballot instructions or the flyers?

I'm not saying these things are utterly unimportant. they are not, however, as important as the means by which people gain access to the arguments about them; reading, writing...communication. We aren't talking about whether the schools are failing because they don't teach your brand of religion, but whether the kids graduating from those schools can READ.

How could you understand or properly assess the danger of antibiotics use as fattening agents if you don't understand evolution? How could you understand the challenges and intricacies of animal or plant conservation without a knowledge of ecology and evolution? Should we be worried about GMOs?

How can you worry about any of those things if you don't have access to the arguments? If you can't read...and thus cannot understand...what people are saying about them?

These are but a few policy question that as a citizen you would have been asked of you and will be asked again in the future.

Yes. BUT I CAN READ.

In fact a host of healthcare and environmental policies rely on an understanding of evolution (and a host of other basic scientific concept). How can a citizen make an enlighten decision if they themselves don't understand an issue?

How can they understand ANY issue IF THEY CAN'T READ? How can they communicate their ideas and opinions IF THEY CAN'T WRITE?

And that's just considering children will become citizens. Some, will also have to become trained in a variety of domain where a basic knowledge of science and biology is prerequisite. These domain are often highly competitive and the bedrock of entire local economies like pharmaceuticals to name only one.

How can they enter any sort of workforce IF THEY ARE ILLITERATE, functionally or literally? The point is going WHOOSH, somewhere in the cumulo nimbus clouds above your head. FIRST make sure they have the ability to access and understand the arguments. THEN make them.


What's frustrating here is that I happen to agree with you that science is important and really needs to be taught. But science (and evolution as a part of science) is a bit like trying to teach a kid how to paint a picture on a blank canvass; FIRST you need to give him the tools to do so. You know, the paint, the brushes...the knowledge of how to make a brush stroke, what sort of paint to use (don't mix oils and acrylics, for instance...oh, and water colors and oils don't go together either) Once s/he has the tools, THEN teach him/her how to paint like Monet.

Before you take the kid into the wonders of biology/geology/paleontology/whatever, teach him how to be comfortable with the alphabet.

You can't know what you don't know. You can live ignorant of many things and be very happy, but don't count on your ignorance on being "free of charge" forever.

Before you can drive your Audi, you have to learn to drive.
Before you can investigate that gluten-free cookbook, you have to learn to read it.
Before you can talk about carbon dating and how it works, you have to learn to add 5 + 5 and get 10.

You are insisting that evolution is THE most important thing to learn. It's important, but if you can't read or write functionally, it doesn't matter how important it is. Before you can get the kid into that room full of wonderful and important things to learn, he has to know how to open the door and walk in. He has to be LITERATE.

Before the Olympic athlete can get his medal for the triathlon, he has to learn to walk. Before he can decide which seed to plant...disease resistant, 'organic,' or grows well in his climate, he HAS TO BE ABLE TO READ THE SEED PACKET and understand the arguments.

YOU, sir, are putting the cart WAY before the horse.

I am concerned about whether people have umbrellas in the rain, and you are insisting that it is more important that everybody has the same COLOR of umbrella.

Do you think I've thrown enough metaphors, cliche's and analogies at you yet for you to GET THE POINT?

 

[dianaiad]

What relevance is it? By that standard we may as well quit teaching history, English, literature, social studies, even math. But we teach science, and much like friction and gravity, evolution is a foundational and cornerstone theory of biology. You aren't getting the point of how important it is to the field.

You are putting the cart before the horse, too. Before you can teach anything like evolution, English, social studies or math, FIRST you need to make sure the students can read...or at least read well enough to understand what's being taught.

Is it more important to you folks that the students blindly echo back what you think they should believe than that they understand what they are reciting?

Because if you don't teach them to read and write competently, so that they understand stuff, that's all they'll be doing; reciting back spoon fed stuff that they believe because their teacher told them so.

Isn't that what atheists are supposed to be AGAINST?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Indeed? You DO realize that Mendel didn't die until 1884? You are making a great many assumptions here with absolutely no evidence to support it, except your 'no true scott' fallacy.



The point you've been trying to make is that no truly intellectual person would be a young earth creationist?

You are still missing the context -- 1884 was long enough ago that there was still no consensus in science. The following is taken from Wikipedia:

Creationists often argue that Christianity and literal belief in the Bible are either foundationally significant or directly responsible for scientific progress. To that end, Institute for Creation Research founder Henry M. Morris has enumerated scientists such as astronomer and philosopher Galileo Galilei, mathematician and theoretical physicist James Clerk Maxwell, mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, geneticist monk Gregor Mendel, and Isaac Newton as believers in a biblical creation narrative.


This argument usually involves scientists who were no longer alive when evolution was proposed or whose field of study did not include evolution. The argument is generally rejected as specious by those who oppose creationism.


Many of the scientists in question did some early work on the mechanisms of evolution, e.g., the modern evolutionary synthesis combines Darwin's theory of evolution with Mendel's theories of inheritance and genetics. Though biological evolution of some sort had become the primary mode of discussing speciation within science by the late-19th century, it was not until the mid-20th century that evolutionary theories stabilized into the modern synthesis. Geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, called the Father of the Modern Synthesis, argued that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," and saw no conflict between evolutionary and his religious beliefs.[180] Nevertheless, some of the historical scientists marshalled by creationists were dealing with quite different issues than any are engaged with today: Louis Pasteur, for example, opposed the theory of spontaneous generation with biogenesis, an advocacy some creationists describe as a critique on chemical evolution and abiogenesis. Pasteur accepted that some form of evolution had occurred and that the Earth was millions of years old.


The Relationship between religion and science was not portrayed in antagonistic terms until the late-19th century, and even then there have been many examples of the two being reconcilable for evolutionary scientists. Many historical scientists wrote books explaining how pursuit of science was seen by them as fulfillment of spiritual duty in line with their religious beliefs. Even so, such professions of faith were not insurance against dogmatic opposition by certain religious people.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Would someone with a PhD in Nuclear Physics and Earth and Planetary science that is a member of the U.S. the Atomic Energy Commission be good enough?
Proof of God in Five Minutes | Gerald Schroeder

Did you listen to the video? He does not speak of Young Earth Creation at all -- in fact is quite accepting of the notion that the universe is almost 14 billion years old.

 

[Audie]

(sigh)

You aren't getting the point either.

Just how many people USE the theory of evolution, or the knowledge that the earth is 4 billion years old, in their lives? Think about that for a minute.

Now think about how often they might use algebra, or geometry. I use both almost every day, and I am discalculaic. (I have a calculator that I trust). I quilt, you see, and knit, and cook, and do all sorts of stuff that require being able to do math. And to read. I can't remember the last time my beliefs about evolution impacted my daily life or business.

My aunt, now 99 years old, bebops around like a jumping jack. She has raised her own garden for 86 years, has (I think)a rose named after her, is really devoted to using "legacy" seeds in her garden...seeds she gathers herself from previous years. She wins prize after prize in the local and county fairs because she's so good at gardening, veggies, fruits and flowers.

She supported my uncle all his life...he was a university professor and farmer/rancher himself. One thing, though; she is absolutely a 'young earth creationist." Hasn't stopped her from winning all those prizes and developing her own strains of carrots and other veggies. She's a bright, intelligent woman, who probably will be raising her garden when she is 110.

Her husband, btw, was an 'evolutionist,' as I am. He gave up attempting to convince her more than seventy years ago. She's doing just fine.

In fact, y'know what? I've had many, many conversations with a whole bunch of people about this and that...things important to daily life, raising kids and just being....and I don't remember anybody informing me that young earth creationism vs evolution made a huge difference in what they ate last night, or who they sold a car to, or whether Joe Neddleton over there needed more help with his taxes than usual this year.

But ALL of them needed to know how to read and figure; the cook book, the loan documents, taxes...

You can worry about young earth creationism all you want to, but quite frankly? Unless someone is discussing religion in a specifically targeted religious forum, NOBODY CARES.

Not unless they are geologists, biologists or televangelists.

But everybody cares whether their kids can read the back of the cereal boxes, or the instructions for putting Christmas presents together, or the mortgage documents for their houses. First, let's get the kids THERE.. THEN worry about whether they are suitably politically correct in their beliefs.

Sheesh.

In the sheesh dept, why should anyone bother to study
the humanities? We dont much use any knowledge of
classical music or the history of Egypt.

To me, such as geology and evolution jor the humanities
have much to do with an appreciation for the world we live in.

It gives me joy.

A landscape comes alive for one who can see what the
formations are, how they came about, what they are doing
now.
A drive across Kansas is kinda boring, but when you see
limestone in a roadcut, you are seeing the bottom of the
great inland sea that once had crocodiles 60 ft long.
Kinda cool to know that.

Seems a shame for that to be of no interest , like seeing the
Parthenon and just seeing some broken rocks.

 

[dianaiad]

In the sheesh dept, why should anyone bother to study
the humanities? We dont much use any knowledge of
classical music or the history of Egypt.

Good question. Why WOULD they?

Because they are curious, perhaps?
Because it has become important to them?
Because they CAN, because (and here's the point being missed here) THEY CAN READ and understand the information?

To me, such as geology and evolution jor the humanities
have much to do with an appreciation for the world we live in.

It gives me joy.

Me too. But it only gives me joy because I have ACCESS to these things. I can read about them and understand the information.

A landscape comes alive for one who can see what the
formations are, how they came about, what they are doing
now.
A drive across Kansas is kinda boring, but when you see
limestone in a roadcut, you are seeing the bottom of the
great inland sea that once had crocodiles 60 ft long.
Kinda cool to know that.

Yes it is. I love driving through the 'cut' in the 14 freeway just south of Palmdale, where one can see very clearly the rock folds caused by the San Andreas Fault. I know what that is, and what they are, BECAUSE I CAN READ AND UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION.

Seems a shame for that to be of no interest , like seeing the
Parthenon and just seeing some broken rocks.

You are quite correct, but the point being missed here, and missed BADLY, is that before you can learn about anything you have to have access to the information. Once you can comfortably read and understand the material, you can learn everything. If you can't, you can learn nothing.

FIRST THINGS FIRST, and my point here is that the educational system is failing students on that very basic level. FIRST, teach the kids to read; give them the keys to open the door. THEN worry about teaching evolution.

 

[epronovost]

How many people have to worry about that? How many people can worry about politics if they can't read the ballot instructions or the flyers?

I'm not saying these things are utterly unimportant. they are not, however, as important as the means by which people gain access to the arguments about them; reading, writing...communication. We aren't talking about whether the schools are failing because they don't teach your brand of religion, but whether the kids graduating from those schools can READ.



How can you worry about any of those things if you don't have access to the arguments? If you can't read...and thus cannot understand...what people are saying about them?



Yes. BUT I CAN READ.



How can they understand ANY issue IF THEY CAN'T READ? How can they communicate their ideas and opinions IF THEY CAN'T WRITE?



How can they enter any sort of workforce IF THEY ARE ILLITERATE, functionally or literally? The point is going WHOOSH, somewhere in the cumulo nimbus clouds above your head. FIRST make sure they have the ability to access and understand the arguments. THEN make them.


What's frustrating here is that I happen to agree with you that science is important and really needs to be taught. But science (and evolution as a part of science) is a bit like trying to teach a kid how to paint a picture on a blank canvass; FIRST you need to give him the tools to do so. You know, the paint, the brushes...the knowledge of how to make a brush stroke, what sort of paint to use (don't mix oils and acrylics, for instance...oh, and water colors and oils don't go together either) Once s/he has the tools, THEN teach him/her how to paint like Monet.

Before you take the kid into the wonders of biology/geology/paleontology/whatever, teach him how to be comfortable with the alphabet.



Before you can drive your Audi, you have to learn to drive.
Before you can investigate that gluten-free cookbook, you have to learn to read it.
Before you can talk about carbon dating and how it works, you have to learn to add 5 + 5 and get 10.

You are insisting that evolution is THE most important thing to learn. It's important, but if you can't read or write functionally, it doesn't matter how important it is. Before you can get the kid into that room full of wonderful and important things to learn, he has to know how to open the door and walk in. He has to be LITERATE.

Before the Olympic athlete can get his medal for the triathlon, he has to learn to walk. Before he can decide which seed to plant...disease resistant, 'organic,' or grows well in his climate, he HAS TO BE ABLE TO READ THE SEED PACKET and understand the arguments.

YOU, sir, are putting the cart WAY before the horse.

I am concerned about whether people have umbrellas in the rain, and you are insisting that it is more important that everybody has the same COLOR of umbrella.

Do you think I've thrown enough metaphors, cliche's and analogies at you yet for you to GET THE POINT?

Let's take a step back. I think our two position are actually one and the same to a few details and we are over focused on our differences and forgetting that the essential is the same. Of course literacy is essential and of course you can't teach anything without a solid base in writting and reading. We both agree that basic skills in writting and reading are mandatory before any more complex learning experience can take place. Nobody here is claiming that science education is more important than basic literacy. What has been raised is that people having a poor knowledge of science and things like the evolutionnary theory is an important problem. Of course illiteracy is also a massive problem and would need to be solved before lack of knowledge of science is if only because you can't solve the later without solving the former.

You don't need to be able to read up to a college level to understand evolution or other basic principles in science neither should we wait up until that point before we teach it to student. I think you will agree that all a student needs to know to be able to understand evolution, is the skills to properly read the vulgarised texts and other didactic material. As hard as it is, it's essential for a good education system to teach students classes in a multitude of interconnected domains.

 

[dianaiad]

Let's take a step back. I think our two position are actually one and the same to a few details and we are over focused on our differences and forgetting that the essential is the same. Of course literacy is essential and of course you can't teach anything without a solid base in writting and reading.

Hallelujah.

We both agree that basic skills in writting and reading are mandatory before any more complex learning experience can take place. Nobody here is claiming that science education is more important than basic literacy. What has been raised is that people having a poor knowledge of science and things like the evolutionnary theory is an important problem.

Two things. I'm not the one who brought up the 'problem' of evolutionary science not being taught in the public schools. You are. My point has always been about the basics, because that's where the public education system fails. According to "Wallethub.com" it ranks 38. Not the lowest, but not great, either. Just don't educate your kids in New Mexico. Everybody seems to be unanimous regarding the poor performance of those schools.

Second thing: Even in California you aren't going to see Young Earth Creationism being taught in the public school system. It IS taught in private Christian schools, but the ironic thing there is that private Christian schools are far more likely to produce literate graduates than public schools are, and you can ALWAYS convert someone away from YEC after they graduate. You can, because THEY CAN READ YOUR ARGUMENTS and understand the science.

If I had young children and weren't such a fan of homeschooling, I'd put my kids in a private Christian school that taught them to READ, rather than a public school that taught evolution. Why? Because I can always teach the truth about evolution at home. I'd rather they learned to read and think. We can argue later. after they CAN read Darwin.

of. course illiteracy is also a massive problem and would need to be solved before lack of knowledge of science is if only because you can't solve the later without solving the former.

Whew. and hallelujah.

You don't need to be able to read up to a college level to understand evolution or other basic principles in science neither should we wait up until that point before we teach it to student.

.....and I didn't claim that we should, either, did I?

But I do think that the kid should be able to read something more complicated than 'Dick and Jane" (anybody remember Dick and Jane books? They bored me silly, but I was reading "Sue Barton, student nurse" books before I entered the first grade, and "Farenheit 451" in the second grade. )

and I think you will agree that all a student needs to know to be able to understand evolution, is the skills to properly read the vulgarised texts and other didactic material. As hard as it is, it's essential for a good education system to teach students classes in a multitude of interconnected domains.

...and you back track.

FIRST you give them the tools they need. THEN you teach them what to build.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

..or at least read well enough to understand what's being taught.

Really? Ya think? We can't teach kids distributive property before we teach them to add and multiply? (that point is an obvious given and our speaks about about you when you think others would assume we get kids running before they can walk).

Is it more important to you folks that the students blindly echo back what you think they should believe than that they understand what they are reciting?

It is crucial that students learn science in a science class. Science has no room for beliefs. It runs on facts and evidence. And it does matter, because america is an anti-intellectual culture who downplays intelligence and is an intellectual/academic desert because people would rather believe rubbish than discard fake beliefs and learn how the world really works. Astronomy, for example, doesn't arise from an actual basic understanding of what stars are. Medicine doesn't happen or people resort to old superstitions. Foresight used limited all around when society works rather believe in fairy tales than accept facts.

Isn't that what atheists are supposed to be AGAINST?

Im not an atheist, so I don't know.

 

[dianaiad]

Really? Ya think? We can't teach kids distributive property before we teach them to add and multiply? (that point is an obvious given and our speaks about about you when you think others would assume we get kids running before they can walk).

That's not an assumption by me, Shadow Wolf. Read the thread. That is what has been proposed; that teaching evolution is THE most important thing. It's not. It's ONE of the important things, but not THE most important. When I argue that first, we need to teach students to read and write, the argument coming back is about how important evolution is.

Well, it is important, but my point has ALWAYS been that we can't teach evolution or anything else until the students can read and write.

Oh....and as bad as the California educational system is, nobody teaches YEC in any public school, so that "problem" doesn't even exist.

Once someone can read and understand without struggling, THEN we can teach them science. Then we should teach them proper science...but until they can read and write comfortably, it's pretty useless to pound evolution into their heads.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

How do you know which politics is best to fight off invasive species or even they they should be fought in the first place if you don't understand evolution? How could you understand or properly assess the danger of antibiotics use as fattening agents if you don't understand evolution? How could you understand the challenges and intricacies of animal or plant conservation without a knowledge of ecology and evolution? Should we be worried about GMOs?

You'd figure it must kind of branch into like astrophysics and geology too right, if we are talking about the YEC thing

 

[epronovost]

You'd figure it must kind of branch into like astrophysics and geology too right, if we are talking about the YEC thing

YEC is a fairly fringe idea in my experience, but lack of knowledge about evolution, genetics, ecology, etc. is far more common. it helps YEC sell their bull**** or create FUD when it comes to science and the policies related to it though.

If you want to disprove YEC, you can simply use basic artyhmetic that a 6th grader can do. You don't even need to go into geology or astrophysics both discipline which require more ground work.

 

[metis]

Students should be taught how to both "walk and chew gum". Yes, they need to read, but then what to read logically follows that.

The ToE is basic science, thus not religion based. Are opponents to teaching science as it is to be autocrats mandating what is to be taught in our public schools and universities? So, students can read a lot of other things but not science? So, have them pray in public schools but not read science?

I know this is snarky, but I gotta say it anyway: I believe the Pubs want us to have a lousy public educational system so students will grow up to vote for future Pubs.