See, this is the problem. They are PRIVATE schools. As long as they meet the requirements for being accredited, then what ever else they want to teach is their business, not anyone else’s. But I’m in the minority, I know. I think parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit (including the beliefs and values they hold), not the way other people want them to.
Actually they are usually made under carefully controlled situations that try to isolate the experiment from real world conditions.
Welcome to the club, but you will find that this won’t net you a cup of coffee here on the SDMB.
Madam Curie <sp>? for one of many.
My point is it isn’t, and should not be taught as such, but the powers that be seem fit to declare science as truth.
So what does apply directly to reality?
MEBuckner]So what does apply directly to reality?
[/QUOTE]
What is the meaning of life? Where does that sock go in the wash? - These are some of the great unanswered questions of our existence. We do the best we can with what we have around us, and have gotten pretty good at some aspects, but we have no idea of really how everything really comes together.
I see science as a very valuable study, one that should be taught as an entire subject in schools. I just want the students to realize that this type of methodology is our human attempt to make sense of and add order to our world.
Other non-scientific theories will most likely not help the cause of science, and very well could cause science to go in the wrong direction and should be avoided in science class. A point that I feel also should be made to students.
—Separate issue—
Origins, which I am not limiting to Creationism, should be taught, not in science class but other subjects such as history, social studies, and English. A particular origin could be taught as part of a religious study class. On a college level I feel origins can be a class in itself.
Do the children themselves have any right to a legitimate education?
"What is the meaning of life?’ is not a legitimate question until you can prove there has to BE a meaning. As to discovering “how everything comes together,” we really only have one method for doing that. It’s called science. Religion is not a methodology for discovering information.
What alternatives are there? I’m not aware of any.
Admitting that “non-scientific theories…will not help the cause of science” is another way of saying they cannot give us any verifiable information about reality.
What do you mean by “origins?” Do you mean creation myths or do you mean something else? I have no problem with teaching the stories as literature or as part of a comparative religions class but teaching them as having anything to do with physical reality is ridiculous.
In the context of a modern society, I would say this can be considered a right. The issue is who decides what a ‘legitimate’ education is, the parents or state or a combo.
I would agree mainly due to the word ‘verifiable’. I do think people do find information about reality through self discover processes, such as religions and meditations, but it is on a individual level, which incidentally is a area where science is lacking.
Why does a alternative have to exist just because the present method is imperfect?
Creation myths would be a fair term to use here.
Actually, the control is to try to keep everything except one variable constant. That variable is a windown to real world conditions.
Well, I get free coffee at work, actually. 
My point is that I deal with nasty real world stuff all the day. I especially deal with when things go wrong, when our engineering assumptions don’t match reality. So, I’m very much a part of the reality based community.
Okay. I was assuming you were talking about nuclear weapons, not experiments blowing up in your face. I could argue this is part of experimental science, and is thus close to engineering. People who spend time near volcanos measuring them die also, which is a bit purer.
Well, that I agree with. The dangers of improper science education are not just believing in creationism, but believing that scientists are white coated priests. The concept of provisional acceptance of a theory, and the difference between this and belief in a theory, is obviously a hard concept for many people to grasp.
The state obviously has to take some interest in ensuring that what is being taught is factual and accurate. My opinion is that private schools and home schools should be required to teach some basics of Darwinian evolution. I don’t say they should have to teach it as fact or that they shouldn’t be allowed to teach religious beliefs alongside it or that they should be allowed to teach that evolutionary theory may conflict with some religious beliefs. I do think that kids at least have a right to know what the theory IS (and what it is not) and should be able to answer some questions about it on a standardized test.
Science isn’t “lacking” in these areas. It doesn’t try to address them at all. It’s fine to teach the “why” questions in a philosophy or world religions class but those questions should not be confusedwith questions about physical reality.
I disagree that the scientific method is imperfect if applied correctly and I’m not aware of any alternative methods for discovering information about the physical universe.
Voyager I basically agree with your last post, and this last statement is my concern about science, just teach it for what it is and not make a ‘god’ out of it.
I never thought I’d hear this from you. I have no problem with teaching Darwinian evolution as scientific theory, and think it a good guide line. As for requiring it of private schools and home schools, I like using it as a guide line only, giving some leeway. Like having a list of subjects that is recommended learning and as long as 75% or so are done that would work for me.
The reason for this is not anti science, or pro creationism or whatever, it is because I believe the current education model is wrong, and kids should be steered towards their strengths, which by necessity means they will not learn some of their weaknesses.
Understanding the human brain is one of the goals of some scientists, as well as an entire industry (pharmaceutical).
Others have said so, but I think you’re wrong here. While many creationists say that they believe in the idea of change within species, and they call it micro-evolution, it really isn’t the same thing as what scientists mean by the term, and it still turns out, in practice to deny the underlying mechanisms for change that we know are the case with bacteria. It might be true, then, that creationists accept that bacteria can acquire resistances, and thus maybe too harsh to say that should take anti-biotics. But they still cannot beg off of basically being in denial about the underlying mechanisms at work.
Most specifically, virtually every manner of evolution-denying creationist, even some of the more modern ID ones, make a big point about how evolution and mutation and so forth cannot “create new information.” What they really mean by this is that nothing new actually happens to the genomes. They see bacteria, resistance, then, primarily as the flourishing of pre-existing strains of bacteria that were always resistant to this or that drug, that come to the fore when their fellows are killed off by it. While that is sometimes the case, so is mutation and genome change, and mutation and genome change IS the mechanism by which bacteria ultimately continue to defeat all efforts to wipe them out. Bacteria REALLY DO mutate into new strains that then can survive certain drugs, and anyone that denies this really IS denying a basic and necessary principle used to combat those bacteria and their effects.
Exactly. Maybe I’m different from you in this regard, but I would hope that teaching unsubstantiated bullshit as science would be a major roadblock to accreditation.
I’m tired of the excuses everybody uses,
he’s your kid, do as you see fit
Just to remind you that you’re using a phrase that was for many years used to condone the right of parents to physically abuse their children.
We as a society restrict the “right” of parents to “raise their children as they see fit,” and for damned good reason, too. You and I probably disagree about where that line should be, but I’m sure you agree that the line should be there.
Of course. I said:
Meaning that they have to teach basic core concepts to be accredited. What else they teach is up to them. AFAICT, you agree:
I have no problem with that statement.
Maybe you are, or maybe you don’t understand what it was I said:
So yea, I’m saying that as long as the private schools teach the basics of evolution (assuming that that is part of the required curriculum for that state), and their students can pass the standardized tests given on that subject, then I don’t think it’s anybodies business if the very next words out of their mouth to their students are “So, that’s what science would have you believe, but we know better, our Lord God teaches us that blah, blah, blah.” And neither should you, unless you want to cross the line into claiming that society has a right to determine what an individual believes.
Yes, RTF, you’re exactly right. Physically abusing their child is exactly the same in every particular as believing that God created the world. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Sure. But maybe you could limit your discussion to society’s right to interfere with parents raising their children as it they see fit WRT this particular subject instead of dragging half the scarecrows from the south 40 into the thread?
[/quote]
So far, so good.
Hey, I don’t care what they say the Lord God says. The problem comes when they say the Evilutionists (their word) are lying about the science, and that either YEC or ID (depending on their mood) really could be proven, if it weren’t for the Darwinist conspiracy.
Look, you didn’t say “believing that God created the world.” You said “I think parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit (including the beliefs and values they hold), not the way other people want them to.” That’s a much broader statement.
It’s up to you to say what you mean, rather than saying something that’s sort of vaguely in the neighborhood of what you mean, and relying on us to intuit your precise meaning.
I was talking about private schools and accreditation; you brought in parents, without being specific about how. But I have to assume you’re talking about conservative Christian parents, given the nature of this discussion.
Over the years, the fundies have indeed been using that as code for having the right to literally not spare the rod. Since we’re talking about fundies here, that seems rather germane to the subject.
History is a good thing to know in a discussion like this.
Maybe not equivalent to physical abuse, but yes, I believe teaching one’s children unsubstantiated bullshit as science is a form of psychological abuse insofar as it can limit the child’s potential, and not only as a biologist or paleontologist. Having a false idea how the world operates and being taught to accept authority unquestioningly are limiting thoughout life. And please don’t reply with some canard that scientists accept evolution unquestioningly; it is constantly being questioned and tested.
Why is that a problem? People believe all manner of stupid things, teach them to their children, and have every right to do so. In this example, society’s right to interfere with that ends once the children are taught what they need to know to pass the evolution part of the test. Anything beyond that crosses over into thought control. Apparently you DO think that society has a right to try and control what people believe. Good thing we have that nasty old First Amendment to protect us.
I made that statement in the context of a discussion about teaching creationism. You brought in physical abuse as a straw man to change the subject. I’m not relying on you to do anything other than stay on topic, although I should know better by now.
Parents fund private schools with their tuition dollars. I assumed this was an obvious connection, but maybe to you it’s not.
If that’s a subject you feel like discussing, I suggest you start a thread on it; don’t hijack mine.
I think this falls entirely under the heading of “your opinion”-which you are 100% entitled to hold-but it’s just that, and opinion, and not something you have the right to require other people to honor.
I have no clue why you would say this, if you’ve been reading the thread it’s pretty obvious that I am the furthest thing from a creationist. Why do you think I’d come out with nonsense like that? 
Wow. You’re equating (1) requiring schools to not tell blatant lies in the teaching of science if they want to be reaccredited, with (2) thought control.
That’s just plain over the edge, dude.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
And I would have assumed that schools - unlike parents - needing to meet certain standards to be accredited would be a pretty obvious distinction.
If I’m a parent, I can tell my kids that the Lord God says the Earth is burrito-shaped; I can even tell my kids that that’s been scientifically proven.
I would expect accreditation standards to allow private schools to do the former but not the latter.
If you don’t like topical drift, then don’t engage in it.
Yet when a parent refuses to put his child in school without providing an alternative education he can be arrested. Education of children is compulsory in this country and a grounding in evolution is important to understand many parts of science. To shortchange a child by giving him any less of an education than is possible is irresponsible and damaging to the child. I see that as a form of abuse.
What you are suggesting is merely “teaching for the test,” which I assume you, as a responsible person, would reject as defining a good education in another subject, like math. Why do less for evolution–because it is an “opinion?”
Just heading off nonsense from other people. I will jump to the conclusion, poorly supported as it may be, that more than one person reads my posts.
No, actually I’m equating your statement that schools should not be allowed to teach whatever they want in addition to the curriculum required for accreditation as thought control. And I agree, it is right over the edge.
Good thing nobody has suggested that they don’t have to.
And that’s because you think that you have the right to tell other parents how to raise their kids and that those same parents do not have the right to spend their money to educate their kids the way they see fit. It’s sad really.
Every post of mine in this thread has been right on topic. Too bad you can’t say the same.
By requiring that certain subjects (like evolution) be taught in order to have schools accredited, you are making sure that the child has that grounding. There’s a difference between grounding and indoctrinating. The former is the province of the dept of education, and the later is the bailiwick of the parents. I agree with you that they are handicapping their kids by teaching them nonsense like creationism, but it’s their right to do so. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Not really. First of all “teaching the test” is what public schools already do in a large part. Second, if they want to teach Pi=3 because of that verse in the Old Testament, that’s fine with me, as long as they also teach that in the real world Pi=3.14, and that that’s what they’ll have to know IRL. Again, we are talking about private schools, where parents are paying their own money so that their kids will be taught the concepts and principle that they believe-in addition to those concepts that the state requires for a basic education.