[QUOTE=prleone]
Should we let young devout students believe religion to
the extent where it might keep them unemployed?
[/QUOTE]
That’s not the problem. The problem is that some of the shitheads might end up employed. Like, at the Justice Department, or something.
[QUOTE=prleone]
It is my intention to discuss whether or not Creationism should be allowed to be taught in ANY school, as it may not prepare a student
for some life/career goals.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that it’s an interesting discussion topic, and I also agree that the result of such indoctrination is a net negative, to both society and the individual, but this is a futile academic exercise unless, as John Mace pointed out, a way can be determined to effect a permanent curricula adjustment at private institutions that doesn’t also trample constitutionally and discriminatorily on the rights of those with whom we disagree.
You and I are bothered that certain false assertions are taught as fact, contrary to empirical evidence. But our concern for the possible inability of graduates of these institutions to compete intellectually in a global society of nations whose citizens probably will not be burdened by a sub par education, does not make us the arbiters for methods of enlightenment…unfortunately. Although I don’t see much evidence of it, I’m hopeful the pendulum is about to swing in the other direction, as I feel we’re fast approaching an extreme.
Perhaps making the accreditation process and requirements more stringent and universal for all institutions of higher learning would be a step in the right direction.
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Perhaps making the accreditation process and requirements more stringent and universal for all institutions of higher learning would be a step in the right direction.
[/QUOTE]
I thnk Liberty is state accredited, and to retain that accreditation they most likely have to legitimately teach evolutionary theory. Of course, the culture of the campus is such that this mission is likely undermined at every possible opportunity (bare minimum covered, teacher emphasizing “this is only a theory, the state requies we tell you this”, and probably plenty of ID discussion groups on campus).
I am surprised at all you people smirking at the claim regarding the fossil. we have any number of 3,000 year old fossils of dinosaurs; we just happen to call them birds.
As to the threat from Liberty U., you’re worrying about the wrong school. Rather than Falwell’s Liberty, you should be worrying about Robertson’s Law School, where a bunch of his graduates have been gatekeepers for too many DoJ jobs for the last seven years.
[QUOTE=CJJ*]
I thnk Liberty is state accredited, and to retain that accreditation they most likely have to legitimately teach evolutionary theory. Of course, the culture of the campus is such that this mission is likely undermined at every possible opportunity (bare minimum covered, teacher emphasizing “this is only a theory, the state requies we tell you this”, and probably plenty of ID discussion groups on campus).
[/QUOTE]
I’m a little less concerned about what they don’t teach than what they do. If they don’t want to teach Evolution theory, that’s fine with me; it’s stupid, but it’s fine with me. What riles me is when they replace it with nonsense that can only serve to hurt the students’ futures, not to mention further erode the damaged perception of non Americans who think we’re nuts for allowing it to happen and thank their lucky stars their children don’t go to school here.
American students are already at an academic disadvantage compared to students of many first-world nations (2003 data), especially in mathematics and the sciences, which I chock up to a less than optimal emphasis on study and a lack of appreciation for academic achievement. However, what’s worse is we’ve allowed the glorification of anti-intellectualism and evangelical Christian dogmatism to establish a foothold in our daily lives, so much so that otherwise intelligent people are acquiescing too easily to pressure and actually considering the merits of allowing creationism to be taught in high school science class, thereby legitimizing the illegitimate. That it’s being called ID and not creationism simply makes the bitter pill a little easier to swallow. “After all, why make waves? It’s only high school science, which the kids are paying attention to, like, not at all. Anyway, I need this job.” Hi! Slippery Slope here! So, not only are we raising a generation of future dunderheads, we’re raising dunderheads who believe the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, was literally created in six days, and dinosaurs co-existed with man…in addition to not being able to find China on a map. Are we doomed yet?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Can you get those attack-trained? 
[/QUOTE]
Yes. It’s getting the other kind that’s tricky.
[QUOTE=prleone]
Yet, politicians will parade Falwell, Roberts, Graham, etc. onstage as their spiritual supporter. Notice, not religious supporter, but spiritual.
(Maybe it’s just the “governmentese” term of preference.)
[/QUOTE]
Falwell passed away this past spring. It was in the news.
Roberts (elderly Oral or his scandal-plagued son Robert) is not being courted by any politician. Do you mean Pat Robertson?
Billy Graham is very elderly and preparing for death, while his son Franklin has not made any politically-related appearances for a while.
Since you started the whole discussion by misidentifying Liberty U as Oral Roberts’ school & not Jerry Falwell’s, I really have my doubts that you have a firm grasp on what you’re talking about.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Rather than Falwell’s Liberty, you should be worrying about Robertson’s Law School, where a bunch of his graduates have been gatekeepers for too many DoJ jobs for the last seven years.
[/QUOTE]
They’re not the gatekeepers-- someone in the Bush administration is. They may facilitate the process, but I’m for squelching the problem on the demand side, not the supply side.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
They’re not the gatekeepers-- someone in the Bush administration is. They may facilitate the process, but I’m for squelching the problem on the demand side, not the supply side.
[/QUOTE]
Where do you think the people in the Bush administration come from? Investigation of the hiring practices of former Bush administration DoJ official and Regent University graduate, Monica Goodling
[QUOTE=Dr. Lao]
Where do you think the people in the Bush administration come from? Investigation of the hiring practices of former Bush administration DoJ official and Regent University graduate, Monica Goodling
[/QUOTE]
Who do you think put them there in the first place? It’s not like the snuck in and pulled the wool over Bush and his Cabinet members.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
They’re not the gatekeepers-- someone in the Bush administration is. They may facilitate the process, but I’m for squelching the problem on the demand side, not the supply side.
[/QUOTE]
They initially were introduced by a like-minded member of the administration, obviously, and were invited to join. However, after the inmitial recruitment, they established their own internal network, (with the first few bringing in more of the same), and when they reached critical mass (fairly early in the current presidency), they became gatekeepers to ensure that only the right sort of lawyers were hired and interns recruited.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
They initially were introduced by a like-minded member of the administration, obviously, and were invited to join. However, after the inmitial recruitment, they established their own internal network, (with the first few bringing in more of the same), and when they reached critical mass (fairly early in the current presidency), they became gatekeepers to ensure that only the right sort of lawyers were hired and interns recruited.
[/QUOTE]
But they could only be “gatekeepers” as long as the Bush administration allowed them to be such. The problem lies with Bush, not the university.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
But they could only be “gatekeepers” as long as the Bush administration allowed them to be such. The problem lies with Bush, not the university.
[/QUOTE]
I suspect that any law school that could turn out that many new lawyers who could be so easily led to impose religious (or other ideological) tests on applicants for government offices has its own problems, regardless of Bush patronage.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I don’t think anyone is having trouble understanding that.
Perhaps you could be more specific about how you would go about accomplishing that. Are there any other subjects you want to ban? And… do you support abolishing the 1st amendment in order to do it (the “free exercise” clause)?
You seem to be skipping the hard work about how you would go about doing this. Until you do, I doubt you’re going to get anyone to agree with you.
[/QUOTE]
Okay. Go to your local school board/administrator, etc,
and ask to ban creationism from being taught in both
public and private schools.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Falwell passed away this past spring. It was in the news.
Roberts (elderly Oral or his scandal-plagued son Robert) is not being courted by any politician. Do you mean Pat Robertson?
Billy Graham is very elderly and preparing for death, while his son Franklin has not made any politically-related appearances for a while.
Since you started the whole discussion by misidentifying Liberty U as Oral Roberts’ school & not Jerry Falwell’s, I really have my doubts that you have a firm grasp on what you’re talking about.
[/QUOTE]
I apologized for that, FT.
To me, Roberts, Fallwell, Haggard, etc., same people.
[QUOTE=prleone]
I apologized for that, FT.
To me, Roberts, Fallwell, Haggard, etc., same people.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, “they” all look alike, huh?
Btw, your previous post also shows a misunderstanding of what the term “private school” means. Local school boards/administrators have little-to-no authority as to what is taught in them.
What if a public school student was in class, took a course which taught evolution, did not object to it being taught, understood the material & did the course work, but also indicated in class discussion and/or assignments that the student still believed in creationism. Should that student be graded only on how well the subject was understood or also on what the student believed?
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Yeah, “they” all look alike, huh?
Btw, your previous post also shows a misunderstanding of what the term “private school” means. Local school boards/administrators have little-to-no authority as to what is taught in them.
What if a public school student was in class, took a course which taught evolution, did not object to it being taught, understood the material & did the course work, but also indicated in class discussion and/or assignments that the student still believed in creationism. Should that student be graded only on how well the subject was understood or also on what the student believed?
[/QUOTE]
I only attended private schools, Friar.
I don’t know WHAT a school board even does. (!)
In private schools, I was NEVER taught Creationism.
It was mentioned in HS as an archaic theory trumped by evolution.
In other words, no longer true.
Grades are not the issue. Belief is not the issue.
The student SHOULD NOT have been taught something so archaic
and nonsensical as Creationism. Note, I refuse to call it
“Intelligent Design”, because, as most of us have posted,
it is, indeed, NOT intelligent.
To me, it’s 3-year-old syndrome.
“Let’s examine your DNA to see–”
“Doesn’t matter. It was God!”
“And this evolved from–”
“It was God!”
And there will always be exclamation points.
Please refer to other entries on this.
Most of us are concerned that if someone believes in things like this,
how affective can they be in the workplace? In the world?
As another entry stated, (paraphrasing)“Noah and dinosaurs lived together,
couldn’t find China on a map, and the world is flat…”
Should not be taught. We don’t teach Voodoo!
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Yeah, “they” all look alike, huh?
No, I never judge on looks.
They all SOUND alike, Friar.
[QUOTE=prleone]
Please refer to other entries on this.
Most of us are concerned that if someone believes in things like this,
how affective can they be in the workplace? In the world?
[/QUOTE]
Who is the “us” you are talking about? I don’t see a single person agreeing with you in this thread.
Your belief that people are significantly hindered in the workforce unless they accept evolution is just as irrational as the beliefs you are criticizing. Most Americans don’t accept evolution. Most Americans do just fine in the workforce.
[QUOTE=prleone]
Please refer to other entries on this.
Most of us are concerned that if someone believes in things like this,
how affective can they be in the workplace? In the world?
[/QUOTE]
“effective”