2 Topics

[Dragoon Fighter]

I decided to kill time as I today as I now got some free time on my hands, while I do have to get working on brawl hacks, I feel that first I will pay a visit to the debate halls, as I do not think I come here as often as I should, I recently subscribed to BPC's Think Channel out of respect (I thought it would be nice of me to subscribe to another smash debaters channel, if any or you have a smash/debate channel I probably will subscribe to you as well just PM the link.)

...but I digress.

After seeing some of his video's which where filled with some points I agree with some I do not, I decided to make a thread in the debate hall about some of the points on some of his videos I disagreed with/wanted to start a debate about. There where two that I wished to start a topic on...

Before we begin, to be perfectly fair to Mr.BPC here is his channel disclaimer video.

Now on to the videos.

Prohibition and the Social Contract

Okay, I agree when it comes to Pot, however there are some drugs which should (IMO) not be legalized for example meth...

I was talking to my schools police officer when he told me about how when a home has produced Meth that area is considered a toxic waste zone. Some times even a home that just has a fair amount of meth...

originally posted by Wikipedia
Meth lab waste is extremely hazardous and toxic. Waste cleanup is a major issue for authorities and property owners. Common wastes include brake cleaner, ammonia, soda bottles, kitty litter, lithium batteries, engine starter, matches, and pseudoephedrine blister packs.[18]

Full Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine

Now let us say that my sister started to use meth, to the point the home I lived in was considered a toxic waste zone, that violates my rights to live in my home, on top of that I must avoid my own home for my safety.

So if a drug violates the rights of the people around you, I argue that it should not be allowed under the social contract. I mean the drug itself (Like how meth can be toxic waste.) Not necessarily what stupidity the drug influences you do when you take it.

Next Video...

Why we cannot let parents decide what their children learn

Actually, I agree with most (99%) of this video, but I would like to see a debate on this subject, but really can not think of anything to disagree with. I do have a question though, who should decide what children are taught?

Anyway I am really curious to see where a debate with these topics will head. I hope BPC does not mind the fact I am using his videos as a spring board to try to start up solid debate(s).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Of course not. Could've been worse, you could've taken one of the ones that makes me look like a fascist. Will offer a serious reply when it's not 3 in the morning.

 

[ballin4life]

You realize that if drugs were legal then meth labs would not exist, right?

Meth is only produced that way because it is illegal. If it were legal then it could be produced in a safe fashion by a company. (Assuming that there would still be demand for it - legalization of drugs might lower prices of other drugs that are substitutes for meth so that meth would not be in demand at all. I think this would have a huge effect on crack - legalizing drugs would drop cocaine prices far enough that people would be able to afford cocaine rather than crack, the cheaper yet much more dangerous substitute. I don't know as much about meth and whether there are other amphetamines that meth is substituting for.)

Also, it's perfectly possible to criminalize toxic waste while leaving drugs legal. It's just like how a local factory can't dump all its trash on your lawn, yet it is still legal for it to make its products.

 

[ballin4life]

I think it would be a good idea to separate the two topics.

Anyway, I disagree with the education video a lot. It is a very apt to question to ask "if not the parents, then who?" Now, BPC will claim "I know SO much better than these stupid parents, so I should decide what children are taught". The problem is that those parents are going to argue the exact same thing.

Once we accept a centralized curriculum, those parents are going to use that to put their "wrong" curriculum in place FOR ALL STUDENTS.

This outcome would be FAR, FAR worse than simply having a few children whose views are incorrect due to parental influence. Note that regardless of curriculum taught in schools, the parents will likely instill those same beliefs in their children ANYWAY (note that these "bad" homeschool parents are taking a BIG interest in the education of their children, so they'll ensure that they teach their children what they want no matter what).


So we have two choices:

Choice 1: Let parents control schooling.
Outcome: Some children get a bad education because of their parents.

Choice 2: Enforce a centralized curriculum
Possible Outcome 1: A "good" curriculum gets put in place by the "right" people. Even though everyone gets a good education from school, those same children you are trying to help still get a bad education from their parents at home, likely having little effect on their overall beliefs.

Possible Outcome 2: A "bad" curriculum gets put in place by those "wrong" parents. The "bad" curriculum gets taught to all students, and now many more students get a bad education than just those with bad parents.


Choice 1 seems far better to me.

 

[rvkevin]

Now let us say that my sister started to use meth, to the point the home I lived in was considered a toxic waste zone, that violates my rights to live in my home, on top of that I must avoid my own home for my safety.

This doesn't follow. You cite that meth production causes the area to be a toxic waste zone, not meth consumption.

Choice 2: Enforce a centralized curriculum
Possible Outcome 1: A "good" curriculum gets put in place by the "right" people. Even though everyone gets a good education from school, those same children you are trying to help still get a bad education from their parents at home, likely having little effect on their overall beliefs.

Possible Outcome 2: A "bad" curriculum gets put in place by those "wrong" parents. The "bad" curriculum gets taught to all students, and now many more students get a bad education than just those with bad parents.

Who said that a centralized curriculum would be set by the parents? There the educators at the schools as well as experts in their individual fields to consult.

Also, scenario one doesn't take into account cognitive dissonance. If the students being misinformed at home don't ever hear the other side, they will be much more certain than they would have otherwise been. If they hear a conflicting account of the same facts, then they can investigate for themselves and actually learn something.

 

[ballin4life]

This doesn't follow. You cite that meth production causes the area to be a toxic waste zone, not meth consumption.

Who said that a centralized curriculum would be set by the parents? There the educators at the schools as well as experts in their individual fields to consult.

Ever hear of all the school boards that force their schools to teach intelligent design?

Yeah.

Centralized curriculum leads to people trying to control what goes into it.

Also, scenario one doesn't take into account cognitive dissonance. If the students being misinformed at home don't ever hear the other side, they will be much more certain than they would have otherwise been. If they hear a conflicting account of the same facts, then they can investigate for themselves and actually learn something.

That's true, but I don't think that effect is large. Look at all the people who oppose me in debates - they are clearly wrong, and they are exposed to the correct side (my side), but they still don't change their minds.

Anyway, I especially don't think this is the case for kids who are going to be heavily "brainwashed" by their parents - the people that BPC was talking about initially. If a parent is THAT adamant about a position, I think the child is usually pretty hopeless, regardless of whether he learns the correct info at school.

But EVEN if 100% of those children would follow the schools over their parents, it still wouldn't be worth it because of the possibility of Outcome 2.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Yeah, in my experience people rarely admit they're wrong, even when it's obvious.

Anyway, Centralized curriculums is just begging for a disaster. Who would control the curriculum? The government. Look back over the past 10 years at what our government has done. Wars, economic disasters, higher taxes, general incompetence... do you REALLY want these people to choose what EVERY child learns?

@ballin
You know, I was about to respond to your one comment about being "exposed to the correct side" when I read the edit reason and realized you were joking. XD

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Anyway, Centralized curriculums is just begging for a disaster. Who would control the curriculum? The government. Look back over the past 10 years at what our government has done. Wars, economic disasters, higher taxes, general incompetence... do you REALLY want these people to choose what EVERY child learns?

Are we talking about the USA? BPC lives in Germany. Anyway generally specking governments tend to get some things right and somethings wrong. While my government (The USA) is not the best, it already decides what the curriculum is anyway (The state/local government, I do believe).

I think what you mean to say is "Should we really let our federal goverment choice what EVERY child learns?" (Did I interpret this right? If not correct me.)

 

[rvkevin]

Ever hear of all the school boards that force their schools to teach intelligent design?

Which is why I said the educators (teachers) and experts in the relevant fields (historians inform history curriculum, biologists inform biology curriculum, etc.). The people that push intelligent design would not fit either of the criteria I laid out. When they do, its the National Center for Science Education that brought the experts to mount the defense (of evolution) at Dover, not the parents.

An interesting tidbit from the Dover trial testimony. Padian is a paleontologist who served as an expert witness (source).

Dr. Padian, have you had any experience with high school or elementary school curriculum development and teacher training?

A. ...Notably, I guess, I was one of the people who wrote and edited the state science framework for K-12 schools in 1990...

 

[Nicholas1024]

Which is why I said the educators (teachers) and experts in the relevant fields (historians inform history curriculum, biologists inform biology curriculum, etc.). The people that push intelligent design would not fit either of the criteria I laid out. When they do, its the National Center for Science Education that brought the experts to mount the defense (of evolution) at Dover, not the parents.

Now that's just uninformed. For crying out loud, Lee Strobel's books (The Case for Christ/Faith/a Creator) is built on the premise of him going to CHRSITIAN experts in those fields and getting their opinions on their subjects and how they apply to Christianity. To claim that being educated implies you can't believe in God is just downright horrible.

@Dragoon
Well, any government really. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. On this topic I'd recommend reading some stuff by Richard Maybury.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Now that's just uninformed. For crying out loud, Lee Strobel's books (The Case for Christ/Faith/a Creator) is built on the premise of him going to CHRSITIAN experts in those fields and getting their opinions on their subjects and how they apply to Christianity. To claim that being educated implies you can't believe in God is just downright horrible.

No. He's implying that being educated in biological fields means that you're probably not going to be a creationist. Because, you know, almost nobody who is educated in the field in question is a creationist. How many biologists do you know who are creationists? How many geologists do you know that hold to the flat-earth theory? How many geocentrist astronomers do you know? The reason for this is that being an expert in a field requires that you, you know, not ignore all the ****ing evidence the field has turned up. You can be an expert and a christian, but you cannot be an expert in a field and a geocentrist/flat-earther/creationist. The people who push intelligent design are not experts in biology. They are people who do not know the first things about biology, or do know the first thing and are willing to deny it all in favor of their religion.

 

[ballin4life]

Which is why I said the educators (teachers) and experts in the relevant fields (historians inform history curriculum, biologists inform biology curriculum, etc.). The people that push intelligent design would not fit either of the criteria I laid out. When they do, its the National Center for Science Education that brought the experts to mount the defense (of evolution) at Dover, not the parents.

An interesting tidbit from the Dover trial testimony. Padian is a paleontologist who served as an expert witness (source).

Intelligent design advocates will claim that they are the experts in the field.

No. He's implying that being educated in biological fields means that you're probably not going to be a creationist. Because, you know, almost nobody who is educated in the field in question is a creationist. How many biologists do you know who are creationists? How many geologists do you know that hold to the flat-earth theory? How many geocentrist astronomers do you know?

Quick note: "Geocentrism" is actually legitimate since there is no absolute frame of reference

The reason for this is that being an expert in a field requires that you, you know, not ignore all the ****ing evidence the field has turned up. You can be an expert and a christian, but you cannot be an expert in a field and a geocentrist/flat-earther/creationist. The people who push intelligent design are not experts in biology. They are people who do not know the first things about biology, or do know the first thing and are willing to deny it all in favor of their religion.

According to you they are not biology experts. According to themselves they are.


If you in particular had 100% control over all curriculum, then NO **** the curriculum is going to turn out how you want it. It's just that that's NOT what will happen. Instead you will get people fighting to put intelligent design in schools to be taught to everyone.


It's kind of like saying "I support dictatorship as long as I am the dictator." Well, I'm sure I would be a great dictator, and I'm sure you and your chosen scientists can make a great curriculum, but that's not what will generally happen when you implement the system.

Also please address my post about possible outcomes.

 

[Nicholas1024]

No. He's implying that being educated in biological fields means that you're probably not going to be a creationist. Because, you know, almost nobody who is educated in the field in question is a creationist. How many biologists do you know who are creationists? How many geologists do you know that hold to the flat-earth theory? How many geocentrist astronomers do you know? The reason for this is that being an expert in a field requires that you, you know, not ignore all the ****ing evidence the field has turned up. You can be an expert and a christian, but you cannot be an expert in a field and a geocentrist/flat-earther/creationist. The people who push intelligent design are not experts in biology. They are people who do not know the first things about biology, or do know the first thing and are willing to deny it all in favor of their religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)

A PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from University of California (A good school, not some third-rate backwater university), and an advocate of Intellectual design. Also, according to "The Case for a Creator", he studied evolution as a college student and became an atheist at one point, which implies that something AFTER he started studying evolution changed his mind on the evidence. QED.

 

[rvkevin]

Now that's just uninformed. For crying out loud, Lee Strobel's books (The Case for Christ/Faith/a Creator) is built on the premise of him going to CHRSITIAN experts in those fields and getting their opinions on their subjects and how they apply to Christianity.

You would have to see what I wrote to see if the experts Lee Strobel cites would fit the criteria I gave. They must be experts in the field of study that they informing us of. If the titles of the chapters give us any indication of what the chapter is about, in The Case for a Creator, Strobel interviews a theologian about evolution, a philosopher about science, a philosopher/theologian about cosmology, a philosopher about physics, a philosopher/theologian about astronomy, Behe on biochemistry, and a philosopher about neuroscience. The only one that has any sort of credentials in the field they were giving information about would be Behe, which I will discuss later. All the others are not experts in the relevant field, so they would not qualify. If Strobel wanted to interview experts, then he did an extremely poor job, but he most likely went to people who would tell him what he wanted to hear. If you wanted to get the philosophers expertise about a philosophy class, then I would have no qualms about it, but as is, they are talking about areas of expertise where they are not experts in, which would disqualify them from informing the process of creating and modifying the curriculum.

Notice how I said that experts would inform the process. At no time did I say that experts or a single expert would be the arbiter of the process. If someone does not represent the consensus view of their field, it will most likely be known via other experts. This is why scientific consensus is important. Any field will have fringes, but that doesn't mean that we have to take them seriously. Also, since we are talking about science here, failing to abide by the scientific method, failing to follow the evidence, would disqualify oneself as an expert.

Behe does not represent the consensus view of the field and does not represent the findings of the field accurately (i.e. Immune System Development). Also, one could simply ask him whether his ideas are the result of the scientific process, and if so, which test has he developed to determine if the immune system is irreducibly complex? I doubt he could answer in the affirmative, which would disqualify him as an expert. This is why he has a poor reputation among academia. An expert should be forthcoming with their knowledge of the evidence and findings, Behe is neither and this was demonstrated during the trial.

To claim that being educated implies you can't believe in God is just downright horrible.

I didn't claim that. In fact, one of the expert witnesses at the Dover trial, Kenneth Miller, is a practicing Catholic.

Intelligent design advocates will claim that they are the experts in the field.

Its one thing to claim it, its another to demonstrate it.

 

[Nicholas1024]

What you fail to notice is that these people aren't JUST philosiphers/theologians. Let's go more into detail.


Let's see, the theologian he interviewed about evolution. Well, by the wikipedia page, he has a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from University of California (A good school, not some third-rate backwater university). Check.

Hm, how about the philosopher he interviewed about science? Oh wait, he (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer) graduated with a degree in physics and earth science, and later won a scholarship to study at Cambridge.

Maybe the philosopher he interviewed about physics? Well, his graduate degree is in philosophy, but as an undergraduate he had a triple major in philosophy, applied math, and physics at Washington State University.

(If you want sources, just check their respective wikipedia pages, the info is right there.)

I won't continue, but you get the idea, these people aren't complete strangers to physics.

Anyway, as to why Lee Strobel chose to interview them instead of people with more degrees and papers and such, my bet would be it's because they're generally some of the most outspoken proponents of Intelligent design, so it's reasonable to assume that they'd know the most about the relevant arguments. (After all, the very process of debating forces you to build up knowledge about the relevant subject, else you can't effectively debate.)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Intelligent design advocates will claim that they are the experts in the field.

...As will insane rambling hobos. This does not make it true, however. You really think we can't filter out the crazies? Case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)

A PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from University of California (A good school, not some third-rate backwater university), and an advocate of Intellectual design. Also, according to "The Case for a Creator", he studied evolution as a college student and became an atheist at one point, which implies that something AFTER he started studying evolution changed his mind on the evidence. QED.

Ah, thank you for a perfect example.

Wells is the author of "Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution" for high school students, which is published by the Discovery Institute.[52] The National Center for Science Education has issued a list of answers to the questions.[52][53][54]

The book was praised by Tom Bethell, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science,[49] but was described by Dr. Reed Cartwright of Panda's Thumb as being "not only politically incorrect but incorrect in most other ways as well: scientifically, logically, historically, legally, academically, and morally."[50] Cartwright also wrote a chapter-by-chapter critique of the book.[50] A quote from the book linking evolution to eugenics, abortion and racism appeared on Starbucks paper cups in 2007.[51]

In 1991, Wells and his mentor Phillip E. Johnson signed a petition which said in full:

It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.[55][56][57]

Wells and Johnson have been criticized, along with others, for their questioning of the scientific and medical consensus that HIV causes AIDS.[57] In the Washington University Law Quarterly, critics Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey faulted Wells, Johnson, and others for denying the HIV/AIDS connection and promoting denialism via a petition designed to garner publicity but without any scientific support.[58]

In short, this man has, despite his degree, completely turned away from science, has been turned out of the scientific community, and is a complete nutbag. You really think we can't find a decent way to filter people like this out of the decision-making process? Yes, he thinks he's an expert in the field. He's not. He's as much that as, well, that raving hobo behind the dumpster who plays with his own feces.

And fine, there are creationists with serious degrees. But they are a severe exception to the rule, and guess what: being a creationist in the field of biology is like being a holocaust denier in the field of history: people stop taking you seriously.

 

[rvkevin]

Having a special piece of paper does not make someone an expert. They are correlated, but not causally related.

Let me highlight one part that should cover everything you said:

This is why scientific consensus is important. Any field will have fringes, but that doesn't mean that we have to take them seriously. Also, since we are talking about science here, failing to abide by the scientific method, failing to follow the evidence, would disqualify oneself as an expert.

So lets say that they (ID proponents) followed the scientific method, formed a hypothesis, tested it, and published the results so others can repeat the experiment confirm the results...could you please explain what their hypothesis was, what they did to test it, and whether others were able to confirm it? If they didn't go through this process, I find it odd that you would even try to say that they are "experts in a field of science that came to a different conclusion" since it would demonstrate either they have no clue about the scientific method or that they did not follow the evidence; both of which would disqualify them as experts.

 

[Nicholas1024]

So, basically your argument is "The scientific community does not accept him, therefore he's crazy."? Look, the majority deciding X/Y should rarely, if ever, be used as conclusive evidence on anything. Case in point: Obama (Actually, just pick your own favorite incompetent in office.)

If you'd like examples pertaining to the scientific community, remember Einstein's theory of relativity? It took many years for it to become widely accepted. Also, IIRC, it took a long time for the correct treatment for polio to become standard procedure, because scientists supposedly already "knew" how to treat it, and so were extremely close-minded towards anything contradicting that knowledge.

And that's not even mentioning selection bias. What's the majority of the scientific community composed of? Atheists. Do you really think they'd openly endorse the work of a creationist when just about all of it is directly opposed to their point of view?

@rvkevin
The problem is that outside of showing that established theories don't work, there isn't really much you can do to "scientifically" test the existence of God. Suppose you come up with some entirely new feature of our universe that nobody can explain. Would that be accepted as evidence for God? No, it'd be dismissed as an argument from ignorance/God of the gaps argument. Is there something I'm missing? What would you accept as scientific evidence of God?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So, basically your argument is "The scientific community does not accept him, therefore he's crazy."? Look, the majority deciding X/Y should rarely, if ever, be used as conclusive evidence on anything. Case in point: Obama (Actually, just pick your own favorite incompetent in office.)

Eh... slight difference here. When you say "the scientific community does not accept him", one of two things is true:
-He's somewhere between a lousy scientist and a raving lunatic
-The scientific community as a whole is compromised.

I don't know about you, but especially when he's known for things like Intelligent design

If you'd like examples pertaining to the scientific community, remember Einstein's theory of relativity? It took many years for it to become widely accepted. Also, IIRC, it took a long time for the correct treatment for polio to become standard procedure, because scientists supposedly already "knew" how to treat it, and so were extremely close-minded towards anything contradicting that knowledge.

This is normal. But they did change their minds after evidence showed up. They were skeptical. Think of it this way: what if the scientific community just accepted any far-fetched idea out of hand (and believe me, Relativity is pretty far-fetched) without seeing if it works? That's generally the mindset of, well, the kind of person who is both a creationist and an HIV-AIDS denialist. This Video sums up exactly what I mean. What you're describing is how science works. Furthermore, there's a second requirement to accepting something as fact: it has to be accurate. Both creationism and ID have been proven fairly flawed.

And that's not even mentioning selection bias. What's the majority of the scientific community composed of? Atheists.

Hmm, a disproportionate number of the smartest men alive, the men helping to make this life we have better, are atheists... Geez, I WONDER WHY. Yes this is tangential, but damn it just has to be said.

Do you really think they'd openly endorse the work of a creationist when just about all of it is directly opposed to their point of view?

Do you really think they'd stifle evidence and act like, well, creationists? Look, it's not that there's some hidden evidence for ID out there that the atheistic scientific community is hiding. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. It's a worthless hypothesis. And you know what's great about most skeptics? If sufficient reason shows up to convince them that their current worldview is incorrect, they will change their worldview to match reality. Unlike some folks I've heard of who, if they were to be presented with conclusive proof that their entire worldview was completely wrong, would shrug off the evidence and claim that "god is testing them". If creationism had a leg to stand on, maybe more people would believe in god. Here's the problem with this though: it doesn't. There's not a single valid argument, not a single valid piece of evidence, not a single anything for ID/Creationism to point to to say "hey, look, we have evidence!" Whereas the competing theory, the one that not only explains the way the world is but allows us to make incredibly accurate predictions based on it and has been proven to work time and time again, is possibly the single most backed-up theory in the history of scientific development!

I assure you, this is not a case of self-selection bias. This is a case of "hmm, one side has literally mountains of evidence and has proven to work; the other has none... I think I'll go for the guys with the evidence". That's what a normal skeptic would do. An indoctrinated moron, on the other hand, would say, "hmm, one side has literally mountains of evidence and has proven to work; the other has none... but the other is what my holy book says is correct, so it must be right". Self selection bias my ***.

The problem is that outside of showing that established theories don't work, there isn't really much you can do to "scientifically" test the existence of God. Suppose you come up with some entirely new feature of our universe that nobody can explain. Would that be accepted as evidence for God? No, it'd be dismissed as an argument from ignorance/God of the gaps argument. Is there something I'm missing? What would you accept as scientific evidence of God?

Here's a problem with that statement: as soon as it becomes scientific evidence, all the supernatural is gone. There cannot be scientific evidence of god. It is simply not possible. Even if there were evidence for god, it could not be recognized as such on its own. Even a physical manifestation of an apparently "almighty" doesn't let us conclude god, it could be an alien race just as well as your god.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo&feature=feedrec_grec_index
VIDEO VERY MUCH RELEVANT.

 

[rvkevin]

If you'd like examples pertaining to the scientific community, remember Einstein's theory of relativity? It took many years for it to become widely accepted.

This is a little slanted. It took years to even test it. He published his hypothesis in 1915, it was tested in 1919 (requires a solar eclipse). It was not accepted until it was tested, when it passed the test, it was accepted. There's not much of a point to be had here.

there isn't really much you can do to "scientifically" test the existence of God.

So you're saying that its unscientific to believe in God, that's a horrible thing to say. Basically proves my point, when someone is trying to use science to prop up God, they are not doing science, so their opinion can't be used to inform the science curriculum.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@rvkevin
Sorry, perhaps I was incorrect on the Einstein one. However, the polio example still holds, and I'm sure if I looked I could find others.

@BPC
Double-check your facts on the polio case, will you? I think it wasn't until long after tons of evidence had been shown regarding polio's treatment that the medical community changed its mind.

Maybe many of the scientists are atheists due to the brainwashing they receive in public school and the slanted view evolution is presented with in it.


Now, regarding scientific evidence for ID, the problem is this. Via YOUR definition of the scientific method and such, nothing would really count as evidence for God. Just about anything creationists could be present would be hand-waved away as an argument from ignorance, or applicable to aliens or such. And then, you go ahead and CRITICIZE ID for not having any scientific evidence behind it?!? When you exclude all possible evidence by your definitions, what do you expect?!?

I mean, to take a case in point, when I try and point out the immense improbability of life starting up without God's help, you guys say "Well, if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here." When your stance is basically that the entire universe is just a giant coincidence that just happened to result in humanity, what am I supposed to say to that?

And by the way, yes, I do think many atheists have a good deal more bias then they'd admit. (Actually, there's no reason to restrict that to atheists, I think it applies to humanity in general.) Unless they're shown conclusively, without a doubt that they're wrong, they won't recant.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Now, regarding scientific evidence for ID, the problem is this. Via YOUR definition of the scientific method and such, nothing would really count as evidence for God. Just about anything creationists could be present would be hand-waved away as an argument from ignorance, or applicable to aliens or such. And then, you go ahead and CRITICIZE ID for not having any scientific evidence behind it?!? When you exclude all possible evidence by your definitions, what do you expect?!?

He excludes hypothesis not supported by evidence. Also he is using the correct definition for how ideal science should work, not that it always works like it is supposed to, but he is using the agreed upon definition. Also did you watch the videos he posted in full?

I mean, to take a case in point, when I try and point out the immense improbability of life starting up without God's help, you guys say "Well, if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here." When your stance is basically that the entire universe is just a giant coincidence that just happened to result in humanity, what am I supposed to say to that?

Improbably does not equal impossible, It is at least far more likely then you moving though solid objects (Absolutely scientifically possible btw, check out the book physics for super heroes.)

Also how does the unlikeliness of live proof god? I do not see the connection.

And by the way, yes, I do think many atheists have a good deal more bias then they'd admit. (Actually, there's no reason to restrict that to atheists, I think it applies to humanity in general.) Unless they're shown conclusively, without a doubt that they're wrong, they won't recant.

Just curious what definition of atheist are you using?

As for the curriculum and what is decided maybe a random selection of experts in studying education systems, or is that too up to chance?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@rvkevin
Sorry, perhaps I was incorrect on the Einstein one. However, the polio example still holds, and I'm sure if I looked I could find others.

@BPC
Double-check your facts on the polio case, will you? I think it wasn't until long after tons of evidence had been shown regarding polio's treatment that the medical community changed its mind.

Source? I'm definitely not familiar with this case and don't really know where to look for info.

Maybe many of the scientists are atheists due to the brainwashing they receive in public school and the slanted view evolution is presented with in it.

...You're a creationist, aren't you? Because you sure have the honesty of one. Yes, let's call Evolution with atheism. Never mind that the catholic church accepts it more than it accepts condoms. Furthermore, "brainwashing" in the public schools? Jesus **** you are insane. What brainwashing? Please back up your claims. Yes, schools are secular institutions. But there is nothing in favor of or against god therein. I'd say the causation has more to do with atheists not being content with a small-minded, bronze-age understanding of reality.

Now, regarding scientific evidence for ID, the problem is this. Via YOUR definition of the scientific method and such, nothing would really count as evidence for God. Just about anything creationists could be present would be hand-waved away as an argument from ignorance, or applicable to aliens or such. And then, you go ahead and CRITICIZE ID for not having any scientific evidence behind it?!? When you exclude all possible evidence by your definitions, what do you expect?!?

Welcome to science. There's a reason that ID and creationism are so heavily rejected by scientific organizations, and that's because you literally cannot prove them. EVER!!! Did you even watch that QualiaSoup video? This is another reason, IMO, why atheists are overrepresented in science. God is a completely unscientific concept.

There cannot be empirical scientific evidence for ID/Creationism. It simply is not possible. Why? Because any "evidence" that shows up pretty much boils down to a "god of the gaps" argument. Remember when we knew there had to be a god because of disease? Lightning? Volcanoes? Now what if something completely not in line with our understanding of reality were to happen–would that be evidence of god? If you said yes, congratulations, you're going to be laughed at in 100 years as secular scientists find a naturalistic explanation and relegate that "proof" of god back to the tired old "God of the gaps" category. Just recently it happened with "irreducible" complexity. QualiaSoup made another great video on this one.

What creationists are trying to do is, guess what, play the "god of the gaps" game. Except, the mistake they're making is that they're trying to put god into a gap that simply no longer exists. So to fit him, they're trying to recreate that gap by destroying scientific research and development. ID and Creationism are completely unscientific concepts, this is why there cannot be conclusive proof for either.

I mean, to take a case in point, when I try and point out the immense improbability of life starting up without God's help, you guys say "Well, if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here." When your stance is basically that the entire universe is just a giant coincidence that just happened to result in humanity, what am I supposed to say to that?

TIRED. OLD. ARGUMENT. No, seriously, you really are acting like a creationist. Yes, I use creationist as a slur, like one would use "mafia goon" or "wall street banker" or "chronic liar". First of all, figure out what you're talking about. Abiogenesis is more or less completely detached from evolution; you can have a god that creates life on this planet several billion years ago, and it still fits with evolutionary theory and the evidence that we have. It doesn't have any evidence of its own to imply that god was ever there, but it's possible. Tbh I wouldn't bother teaching Abiogenesis in school, first of all because of dishonest creationists like you, second of all because it has no real modern scientific application (unlike evolution). But you're seriously mixing terms. And in addition to that, this "improbability" is, at the very least, explained by science, without the necessity for an almighty creator. Drake Equation ring any bells? In case you don't know what that has to do with abiogenesis, here's a little primer: there are trillions upon trillions of stars in the galaxy. At least a few billion of them would, statistically speaking, have to have planets rotating them with earth-like conditions. Those odds still looking that slim?

Look, maybe this will make sense to you: the difference between you and me is that I don't use a ****ing fairy tale to fill in my knowledge about reality. Assuming god because you don't know another explanation? You're invoking the god of the gaps fallacy. Except in today's world, those gaps are pretty much gone.

And by the way, yes, I do think many atheists have a good deal more bias then they'd admit. (Actually, there's no reason to restrict that to atheists, I think it applies to humanity in general.) Unless they're shown conclusively, without a doubt that they're wrong, they won't recant.

Welcome to debate. To quote the famous bumper sticker:

...Not to mention that you absolutely have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever. The hilarity of the fact that the burden of proof is on the believer is compounded by the fact that you literally cannot prove god.

EDIT: And yes, I have a bias against creationists. Based on the evidence I have seen, I have deduced that they are almost universally incredibly dishonest, and that they are at best dogmatically clinging to falsehoods, and at worst trying to force us back in to the dark ages!

 

[ballin4life]

University of California (A good school, not some third-rate backwater university)

You sure about that?

 

[ballin4life]

So, basically your argument is "The scientific community does not accept him, therefore he's crazy."? Look, the majority deciding X/Y should rarely, if ever, be used as conclusive evidence on anything. Case in point: Obama (Actually, just pick your own favorite incompetent in office.)

Big difference between the majority and the scientific majority.

And that's not even mentioning selection bias. What's the majority of the scientific community composed of? Atheists. Do you really think they'd openly endorse the work of a creationist when just about all of it is directly opposed to their point of view?

You have your causation backwards here I think.

The problem is that outside of showing that established theories don't work, there isn't really much you can do to "scientifically" test the existence of God. Suppose you come up with some entirely new feature of our universe that nobody can explain. Would that be accepted as evidence for God? No, it'd be dismissed as an argument from ignorance/God of the gaps argument. Is there something I'm missing? What would you accept as scientific evidence of God?

Yes that's exactly right. It is a contradiction for the supernatural to exist, because if it existed it would be natural and could be studied scientifically. If magic existed, we could still do experiments to see exactly what happens when different types of magic are used, etc.

...As will insane rambling hobos. This does not make it true, however. You really think we can't filter out the crazies? Case in point:

YOU can filter out the crazies according to your viewpoint, but from their viewpoint you are the crazy. It becomes a political process. This is exactly what happened with all the states that teach intelligent design in schools.

Also please address my post on Outcomes, because it explains the problem.

Here it is:

click the blue button

Do you really think they'd stifle evidence and act like, well, creationists? Look, it's not that there's some hidden evidence for ID out there that the atheistic scientific community is hiding. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. It's a worthless hypothesis. And you know what's great about most skeptics? If sufficient reason shows up to convince them that their current worldview is incorrect, they will change their worldview to match reality. Unlike some folks I've heard of who, if they were to be presented with conclusive proof that their entire worldview was completely wrong, would shrug off the evidence and claim that "god is testing them". If creationism had a leg to stand on, maybe more people would believe in god. Here's the problem with this though: it doesn't. There's not a single valid argument, not a single valid piece of evidence, not a single anything for ID/Creationism to point to to say "hey, look, we have evidence!" Whereas the competing theory, the one that not only explains the way the world is but allows us to make incredibly accurate predictions based on it and has been proven to work time and time again, is possibly the single most backed-up theory in the history of scientific development!

How is evolution the most backed-up theory in history? I don't see how that's the case compared to well known theories from basic physics.

Also, it's important to note that there is evidence for Intelligent Design, since by definition Intelligent Design is compatible with all the evidence that already exists. It's just that there is no evidence in favor of Intelligent Design over Evolution, and thus there is no reason to believe Intelligent Design rather than Evolution.

It's like how everything is perfectly consistent with me living in the Matrix, but there's no reason to believe that when a simpler explanation will suffice (that I'm in the real world).

So you're saying that its unscientific to believe in God, that's a horrible thing to say. Basically proves my point, when someone is trying to use science to prop up God, they are not doing science, so their opinion can't be used to inform the science curriculum.

See what I said above. God is (by definition) consistent with all our observations, but there is no reason to believe God over a "naturalistic" belief.

@rvkevin
Maybe many of the scientists are atheists due to the brainwashing they receive in public school and the slanted view evolution is presented with in it.

This makes NO sense at all. Most people go to public schools and are "brainwashed", but most people are not atheists.

Also lol at schools being biased about evolution, when you consider that tons of states teach intelligent design.

Now, regarding scientific evidence for ID, the problem is this. Via YOUR definition of the scientific method and such, nothing would really count as evidence for God. Just about anything creationists could be present would be hand-waved away as an argument from ignorance, or applicable to aliens or such. And then, you go ahead and CRITICIZE ID for not having any scientific evidence behind it?!? When you exclude all possible evidence by your definitions, what do you expect?!?

Well, that's pretty much how it works. But you're making a bit of an equivocation here. There can't be any evidence for God in particular, because anything that seems to be God could just be some super powerful alien being. But there can be evidence for intelligent design (like some aliens coming down to us and telling us that they intelligently designed us).

I mean, to take a case in point, when I try and point out the immense improbability of life starting up without God's help, you guys say "Well, if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here." When your stance is basically that the entire universe is just a giant coincidence that just happened to result in humanity, what am I supposed to say to that?

What's the probability of Mount Everest existing?

These questions don't make sense because you don't have a defined probability space.

Also, if you reject my above statement, then tell me what is the probability that God would decide to make humans rather than Vulcans or whatever else? Bringing in God doesn't really explain anything, it just shifts the burden.

And by the way, yes, I do think many atheists have a good deal more bias then they'd admit. (Actually, there's no reason to restrict that to atheists, I think it applies to humanity in general.) Unless they're shown conclusively, without a doubt that they're wrong, they won't recant.

Who is more biased though?

There cannot be empirical scientific evidence for ID/Creationism. It simply is not possible. Why? Because any "evidence" that shows up pretty much boils down to a "god of the gaps" argument. Remember when we knew there had to be a god because of disease? Lightning? Volcanoes? Now what if something completely not in line with our understanding of reality were to happen–would that be evidence of god? If you said yes, congratulations, you're going to be laughed at in 100 years as secular scientists find a naturalistic explanation and relegate that "proof" of god back to the tired old "God of the gaps" category. Just recently it happened with "irreducible" complexity. QualiaSoup made another great video on this one.

See above reply about equivocation. Intelligent Design could have evidence for it in particular (evidence for it over evolution), but it doesn't. God on the other hand can't have evidence for it in particular (evidence for it over being some super powerful alien or whatever).

TIRED. OLD. ARGUMENT. No, seriously, you really are acting like a creationist. Yes, I use creationist as a slur, like one would use "mafia goon" or "wall street banker" or "chronic liar".

I just got an internship on Wall Street ... you better check yo self

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So we have two choices:

Choice 1: Let parents control schooling.
Outcome: Some children get a bad education because of their parents.

Choice 2: Enforce a centralized curriculum
Possible Outcome 1: A "good" curriculum gets put in place by the "right" people. Even though everyone gets a good education from school, those same children you are trying to help still get a bad education from their parents at home, likely having little effect on their overall beliefs.

Possible Outcome 2: A "bad" curriculum gets put in place by those "wrong" parents. The "bad" curriculum gets taught to all students, and now many more students get a bad education than just those with bad parents.


Choice 1 seems far better to me.

What you're missing is, well, the control organizations. Things like the NCSE that know what they are talking about and go from the consensus of the scientific community. I would not trust an organization like this to do its job if there was not a society like the NCSE or the Society of Biology–a society headed and checked by actual scientists. These control institutions on a national level are critical to the success of the program, otherwise exactly what you described could happen. And as far as homeschooling goes... It should be an option but you really need to have these kids tested on the school curriculum. None of this "go to homeschool: it's bible class" bull****.

Anyway, Centralized curriculums is just begging for a disaster. Who would control the curriculum? The NCSE and similar organizations.

Fixed that for you. Putting the government at the head is a ******** idea, because the republicans are ********, self-serving jerks and the democrats are almost all either that or limp-wristed ****ies, unwilling to get anything done. When you have a huge majority in the house and senate, plus the president on your side, and you still cannot pass a bill, SOMETHING IS WRONG.

YOU can filter out the crazies according to your viewpoint, but from their viewpoint you are the crazy. It becomes a political process. This is exactly what happened with all the states that teach intelligent design in schools.

...The scientific community. I'm just going to use that as an answer. Figure it out. >.>

How is evolution the most backed-up theory in history? I don't see how that's the case compared to well known theories from basic physics.

Okay, one of the most backed-up biological theories. Sheesh.

Also, it's important to note that there is evidence for Intelligent Design, since by definition Intelligent Design is compatible with all the evidence that already exists. It's just that there is no evidence in favor of Intelligent Design over Evolution, and thus there is no reason to believe Intelligent Design rather than Evolution.

It's like how everything is perfectly consistent with me living in the Matrix, but there's no reason to believe that when a simpler explanation will suffice (that I'm in the real world).

Occam's razor strikes again!

I just got an internship on Wall Street ... you better check yo self

Stay away from my granny's 401K you monster.

 

[ballin4life]

What you're missing is, well, the control organizations. Things like the NCSE that know what they are talking about and go from the consensus of the scientific community. I would not trust an organization like this to do its job if there was not a society like the NCSE or the Society of Biology–a society headed and checked by actual scientists. These control institutions on a national level are critical to the success of the program, otherwise exactly what you described could happen. And as far as homeschooling goes... It should be an option but you really need to have these kids tested on the school curriculum. None of this "go to homeschool: it's bible class" bull****.

Fixed that for you. Putting the government at the head is a ******** idea, because the republicans are ********, self-serving jerks and the democrats are almost all either that or limp-wristed ****ies, unwilling to get anything done. When you have a huge majority in the house and senate, plus the president on your side, and you still cannot pass a bill, SOMETHING IS WRONG.

...The scientific community. I'm just going to use that as an answer. Figure it out. >.>

But the crazy homeschool parents don't accept the scientific community. I'm sure there are a million organizations called "Parents for God in Schools" or whatever else.

Look, I agree that if someone could implement the perfect curriculum, then that would be the best solution. But who is going to do that besides the government? And once the government is setting all these curriculum standards, then people are going to try to take advantage of that to get their curriculum taught.

My point is that trying to implement a perfect curriculum has a small upside (a few kids who MIGHT not succumb to their parents' brainwashing - which is still pretty dubious) and a HUGE possible downside (the wrong people get control of the curriculum). Meanwhile, in the system where parents can choose, there are a few children who learn the wrong things (but they would have learned the wrong things either way) and most children still learn the right things.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Another facet of this educational choosing-classes debate is how much choice should be given to high school students over what classes are required. I'm obviously biased since I'm in high school right now, but honestly I think requirements are often far too stringent. For instance, why should a high school student who is fairly sure they want to pursue a study field such as music be required to take classes such as biology if they have no use for said subjects? It seems like a waste to me. Obviously there has to be some concern that some lazy students might attempt to load up on easy electives if they have fewer required classes, so perhaps some requirements could be waived, but only for honors students who have a viable reason for not wanting to take certain classes.

Obviously I'm not advocating that there be no required curriculum whatsoever, as I think certain classes like English are valuable to anyone, as basic writing, reading, and speaking skills can help you in virtually any field. And students should certainly receive a smattering of a wide range of topics early on as they are still deciding what fields to pursue, but I think by the time high school students are of a certain age, they should be able to discern that some topics are not necessary for them to learn.

 

[El Nino]

Maybe many of the scientists are atheists due to the brainwashing they receive in public school and the slanted view evolution is presented with in it.

No science course I took during my education ever made any mention of religion, spirituality, or any god or creator. There is no brainwashing or lecturing on the subject of religion because it is considered a different field of study. We didn't learn about art history either, but it's not because we didn't believe in it; it just didn't pertain to the course of study.

I've worked with a number of scientists from a variety of backgrounds and religious affiliations. Many are agnostic or atheist, but there are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, among those of other religions. The only thing I will say about them is that they are often less dogmatic about religion and less likely to interpret religious texts literally, but that doesn't mean that they are not spiritual or religious people, or that they don't observe religious practices.

A religious scientist might regard his/her study of the universe as a study of the creator's work, and the things learned from science might overrun what is written in the texts. A story has a figurative and a literal interpretation. A religious scientist might just look at the text and make a figurative interpretation rather than a literal one.

Also, Darwin himself was a Unitarian, and he never relinquished his faith, even after he published Origins.

Via YOUR definition of the scientific method and such, nothing would really count as evidence for God.

There is only one definition of the scientific method, and it includes a hypothesis, an experiment, and a conclusion on whether the results of the experiment supported the hypothesis or not. If something cannot be tested according to the method, it cannot be scientifically verified. Inferences and deductions are expected, but it must make logical sense.

Matters of spirituality or religion cannot be tested according to the method, not even by deduction, primarily because the concept of the creator deity is an interpretation that depends on an individual's culturally influenced perception of reality. That does not make a religious view right or wrong; it just makes it something that cannot be scientifically verified, so it cannot be called a scientific theory.

Similarly, theories on art or politics cannot be scientifically verified either. That does not make these ideas wrong, but one cannot call them scientific ideas.

As for Jonathan Wells, his is criticized for his views because he makes claims that seem to be based on misinterpretations of evidence, which calls into question his understanding of the science of evolution itself. It should be noted that evolutionary biology is a separate field from molecular and cell biology. All biologists know the basics of evolution, but biology is a highly diverse field, and evolution is its own specialty. The field is specialized enough that a geneticist wouldn't know the same things a biochemist would know, and vice versa.

Darwin's theory encountered the same level of criticism (if not more) when it was introduced. Scientists are rigid by necessity, but that rigidness is directed towards openness and change. The rigidness you see in the scientific community overall is a strict adherence to the scientific method itself, rather than an unshakeable loyalty to any particular theory.

 

[adumbrodeus]

...

Ok, lemme make this clear, intelligent design is a WHY, not a how. It's generally more philosophy underpinning sciencetific fact and mechanics (as opposed to creationism which is more of a "*hands in the ears* la la la, I can't hear you fossil record!", which isn't to say that circumstantial evidence cannot exist.

Course since evolution stands on it's own merits, it's obviously a topic for classes that are philosophical or religious in nature, you know, things that actually deal with these sorts of whys.



Oh, and homeschooling is child abuse, I'm sure I'll back this up subsequently, but for now, personal experience.

 

[ballin4life]

Public school is child abuse

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Oh, and homeschooling is child abuse, I'm sure I'll back this up subsequently, but for now, personal experience.

I agree...

Public school is child abuse

I agree...

Let me explain, I once knew a friend back in elementary school named "Kevin" (Names of real people have been changed to protect me, I.E. not his real name.) he was home schooled though middle school, but because of a unknown reason his parents could not continue to educate him at home, he was really smart, but he had less social grace then me (and I have less social grace then my cat.) He would only go by the name of wolfie (Wolfs where his favorite animal) and would howl and bark in public. As well as attack people on occasion (That is where me and him where no longer friends when he tried to tear open my neck with his teeth because he could not hear his imaginary friend.) Now, he was really smart he always told the doctor exactly what he wanted to hear so he always was able to pass any psych exam with perfect scores. While he was autistic, I personally think he was 10% autistic and 90% spoiled and not raised around any children at all. (Bar when he was in elementary school.)

Now cut to an example of how public school can be bad, back in middle school I was bullied a lot. I would rather not get into to much detail because I really dislike talking about that part of my life. To the point, I was put into a mental hospitable because I started just to break down from all the bulling and because of certain events that I would rather keep to myself. I at the time felt really depressed and was suicide thought prone. Though it is not really the public schools fault bullies can contribute to physiological abuse. In short public schools are bad too.

In my opinion home schooling can be good, but only if done "right" (Not exactly sure what right is, something between a good education and exposing children to social interaction, and train the child on dealing with people, can not really give a solid definition though.) Ultimately I would say that over all Public schools are better then home schooling, because you build up the basic tools for dealing with people on a social level.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

My point is that trying to implement a perfect curriculum has a small upside (a few kids who MIGHT not succumb to their parents' brainwashing - which is still pretty dubious) and a HUGE possible downside (the wrong people get control of the curriculum). Meanwhile, in the system where parents can choose, there are a few children who learn the wrong things (but they would have learned the wrong things either way) and most children still learn the right things.

Fair enough, I have to concede that this point is correct. However, who should be in charge then? The individual districts, so you have a maximum chance of someone getting it right?

 

[ballin4life]

Fair enough, I have to concede that this point is correct. However, who should be in charge then? The individual districts, so you have a maximum chance of someone getting it right?

The parents and the market for schooling.

So parents that are super creationists will send their children to creationist schools, but those schools won't get much respect on the open market, since employers/colleges will probably respect non-creationist schools more (depending on what exactly is taught in each).

Parents have choices, but the market will move the education system into generally teaching good things as well.


Note: I support school vouchers over the public school system.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That's actually a pretty good suggestion.

 

[El Nino]

Parents have choices, but the market will move the education system into generally teaching good things as well.

If economics were the only factor at play here, you could get away with that argument. However, there are other variables in society that cannot be isolated from this equation.

By the time it becomes apparent that one form of education is not as lucrative as another, it's often too late for the individual student to change. Once time passes, it's gone, and when students grow up into adults, they'll have to face the consequences of it, shackled to new responsibilities that rarely allow them to go back and fix the decisions made in the past. And on top of that, they won't have the educational background to understand the root of the problem, so they're likely to repeat the same process with their own children.

Furthermore, an individual's view on education is dependent on cultural and socioeconomic factors. A creationist school could be sustained within communities that support that type of thinking, whether or not that education has value to the rest of society. Also, knowledge does not always lend itself to financial gain, and financial gain is not always dependent on quality education. As long as there is work and money to be made without higher education, or education that the rest of society values, then there will always be money flowing in for a creationist school, or any school that promotes a unique way of thinking. They may not propagate very far, and they may not be popular outside of their own communities, but once rooted, they will re-enforce the subculture of the area, and that culture is probably sustainable in isolation.

In any case, you don't need to believe in evolution to make money. You don't need to be an atheist either.

For the record, I'm not saying that it's wrong to have a creationist school or a religious school. I just don't see the market having much effect in weeding out certain education programs just because they don't perform to whatever standards we may want to hold them to.

The public school system in the U.S. as it now stands does face its own set of challenges. Public schools are funded by taxes, and lower-income areas generate fewer tax dollars, which means fewer resources for public education, among other things.

 

[ballin4life]

By the time it becomes apparent that one form of education is not as lucrative as another, it's often too late for the individual student to change. Once time passes, it's gone, and when students grow up into adults, they'll have to face the consequences of it, shackled to new responsibilities that rarely allow them to go back and fix the decisions made in the past. And on top of that, they won't have the educational background to understand the root of the problem, so they're likely to repeat the same process with their own children.

I agree that it's often too late for a student to change to better education; I think that's one of the big problems with the public school system.

Furthermore, an individual's view on education is dependent on cultural and socioeconomic factors. A creationist school could be sustained within communities that support that type of thinking, whether or not that education has value to the rest of society. Also, knowledge does not always lend itself to financial gain, and financial gain is not always dependent on quality education. As long as there is work and money to be made without higher education, or education that the rest of society values, then there will always be money flowing in for a creationist school, or any school that promotes a unique way of thinking. They may not propagate very far, and they may not be popular outside of their own communities, but once rooted, they will re-enforce the subculture of the area, and that culture is probably sustainable in isolation.

I don't really see anything wrong with that if people desire to learn about creationism.

In any case, you don't need to believe in evolution to make money. You don't need to be an atheist either.

But a school that teaches evolution is generally going to make more money since it will be a "better" school.

For the record, I'm not saying that it's wrong to have a creationist school or a religious school. I just don't see the market having much effect in weeding out certain education programs just because they don't perform to whatever standards we may want to hold them to.

A college is less likely to accept you if you go to "Darwin Sucks High School" or whatever.

I'm not saying it will necessarily have a massive effect, but whatever effect it does have will be the right amount. If people want to learn about creationism despite the problems with it, that's their choice.

The public school system in the U.S. as it now stands does face its own set of challenges. Public schools are funded by taxes, and lower-income areas generate fewer tax dollars, which means fewer resources for public education, among other things.

Funding isn't the problem. The US has the highest per capita amount spent on students. The problem is that the school system is terribly inefficient, which likely comes down to the lack of incentives for administrators to run better schools.

 

[El Nino]

A college is less likely to accept you if you go to "Darwin Sucks High School" or whatever.

Well, yes, if you apply as a bio major. But you could probably do humanities or physics and still be a creationist.

Funding isn't the problem. The US has the highest per capita amount spent on students. The problem is that the school system is terribly inefficient, which likely comes down to the lack of incentives for administrators to run better schools.

I know very little about how administrators run schools. But I do have friends who work as teachers, and they think the problem with low-performing schools has to do with the home environments of the students. If that's true, then that would mean that the source of the problem lies outside of the education system itself. If it does, then I think that makes it even harder to fix.

 

[ballin4life]

I know very little about how administrators run schools. But I do have friends who work as teachers, and they think the problem with low-performing schools has to do with the home environments of the students. If that's true, then that would mean that the source of the problem lies outside of the education system itself. If it does, then I think that makes it even harder to fix.

Oh yeah that's definitely an issue too. My biggest point though was that the answer is not simply "throw more money at the problem".

I think that administrators could perhaps find ways to talk to parents to improve home environment etc ... anyway check out "Stupid in America" for some details:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw