SCHOOL: Pay your own way - Coeur d'Alene Press: Letters To Editor

SCHOOL: Pay your own way

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, October 26, 2012 12:00 am

It never ceases to amaze me why the same people who through my tax dollars want me to pay for their educational choice, via PYP and IB, but do not want to pay for teaching Creation Science, my educational choice for my kids. They say those of us who want our kids taught Creation Science can send them to a private religious school.

I am reasonably sure there are some private schools that teach PYP and IB. If not, there is always the choice of home schooling.

If the supporters of PYP and IB schools of choice truly wanted education choice they would support an educational voucher program. Then all parents would have equal opportunity to choose where and how they want to educate their children. They could decide whether to send their kids to public, private secular, religious, charter, or they could even home school them.

This plan should put an end to people forcing their educational philosophy on their neighbors’ kids.

JAMES FORREST

Coeur d’Alene

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

24 comments:

  • thepointis posted at 9:29 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.

    thepointis Posts: 98

    How did we ever acquire the information that is essential for an organism to develop in stages from amoeba to Man? No such progression has ever been observed, experimentally, and the question raised by the advocates of intelligent design has never been answered.

     
  • Humanist posted at 9:20 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 2979

    Quote thepointis: "There are plenty of scientists that use the scientific method and agree that a creation model is a better theory. "

    "Plenty" is a pretty subjective word. According to most estimates, there are about 0.10% of life scientists who believe in creationism.

    Here's an example of a whopping 94 scientists who believe in creationism as a valid scientific theory. I will repeat that, 94. And if you start to go through that list (which we've actually done here on the press comments before) you will find many who are completely lacking credibility. http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

    In any event, I would strongly suggest that you research both sides rather than relying on christian creationist apologetic sites for your information. Of particular interest might be knowing about the "Wedge Document" by the Discovery Institute (a creationist group) and that what you're seeing on the apologetics side pretty much follows this to a T. Their goal is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Keep in mind that they don't care if this is done via pseudo-science (since they can't do it with real science) as long as they meet their goal. http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

     
  • Humanist posted at 8:59 am on Thu, Nov 1, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 2979

    Ah, North Idaho's beloved wackjob Ben Stein........ Yes, I've seen it. And I've also seen the Richard Dawkins interviews discussing how horribly out of context his quotes were taken in the movie. Research it for yourself.

    http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2394
    http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2488
    http://www.expelledexposed.com/

     
  • thepointis posted at 6:43 pm on Wed, Oct 31, 2012.

    thepointis Posts: 98

    You guys ever watch "Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed"? Available on Netflix. Amazing. Even Richard Dawkins admits to ID and a type of creation!

     
  • thepointis posted at 6:27 pm on Wed, Oct 31, 2012.

    thepointis Posts: 98

    No, I understand that BB can not be proven. It's a theory based upon empirical evidence. There are plenty of scientists that use the scientific method and agree that a creation model is a better theory.

     
  • Humanist posted at 10:17 am on Wed, Oct 31, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 2979

    Actually, that is incorrect. The Big Bang theory is based on evidence whereas the creationism hypothesis is based on no evidence. You obviously do not understand the scientific method and what constitutes a valid scientific theory. I'm all for teaching creationism in the public school system in the context of a theology class, but absolutely, 100% oppose teaching it as science since it is not science. Even Mr. Regan with his engineering and scientific background and assumed knowledge of the scientific method would have to admit that.

     
  • thepointis posted at 9:33 am on Wed, Oct 31, 2012.

    thepointis Posts: 98

    You cannot "prove" the big bang theory any more than the creation theory. Now that IS a fact.

     
  • Humanist posted at 9:30 am on Tue, Oct 30, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 2979

    From a truly scientific perspective, are you wanting there to be equal plausibility weight on any hypothesis such as creationism and any theory such as the Big Bang since you see nothing as being "fact"?

    That confuses me since based on your quote of: "Most of the scientific information given to students during high school years is not actually factual, but the result of sophisticated theoretical development of ideas over time." it seems like you understand that there are significant differences between creationism, which is based on speculation and belief, versus the Big Bang Theory, which is based on evidence.

     
  • jmowreader posted at 9:08 pm on Mon, Oct 29, 2012.

    jmowreader Posts: 1061

    Creation is not Science. Creation is Religion--specifically, Christian religion because you know the folks who are pushing to have Creation taught in public schools don't want kids to hear the Hindu creation story or the Bahai creation story. (The Muslim story is almost identical to the Christian one.)

    Putting Creationism into the school curriculum would Create lots of lawsuits, and the schools, so interested in teaching the ISAT they teach little else, don't have time for it anyway.

     
  • thepointis posted at 5:26 pm on Mon, Oct 29, 2012.

    thepointis Posts: 98

    Thanks for making my point Mahiun! See my first post below...

     
  • Mahiun posted at 9:51 am on Mon, Oct 29, 2012.

    Mahiun Posts: 4774

    ...where did the...information come from in the Big Bang...?

    The short answer: we don't know. The slightly longer answer: at the level of quantum mechanics and mathematics, it appears that something really can come from nothing --- and apparently does, all the time, right here in this universe. At any rate, it is entirely mathematically possible. Just as it is entirely mathematically possible that the universe, or the multiverse, has always existed --- remember, there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang, because time did not exist before the Big Bang.

    But the bigger, more important question is, "Why isn't it enough to say, 'We don't know'?" Why do you feel that you have to have an answer, to fill in the gaps? And why does that answer have to be "God"?

    COULD it be "God"? Yes. But why does it NEED to be?

    And that's why "creation science" is not science. Even that seemingly preposterous idea of "something from nothing" is based on observed evidence. It is not just something that somebody, somewhere, at sometime, pulled out of their......umm........"thin air" and then wrote down or told around a prehistoric campfire. It is not just what we have randomly chosen to believe, completely different from what the folks three valleys over have chosen to believe, but what we know to be both possible and probable, based on evidence we already have.

    That's really what it all gets down to: the scientist, the rational thinker, is comfortable saying, "I don't know, but I'm going to do my best to find out," while the religionist appears so uncomfortable with the idea of the unknown that s/he must fill those gaps with "God", thereby saying, "Anything that can't be explained any other way is God's doing."

    But the mission of the schools is not to teach "gap-filling with God", it is to teach how to think rationally. Thus: science in the classroom, not religion.

     
  • Humanist posted at 8:21 am on Mon, Oct 29, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 2979

    It is unclear from your question what you mean by "information". Please clarify.

     
  • thepointis posted at 11:25 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.

    thepointis Posts: 98

    You're

     
  • thepointis posted at 6:24 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.

    thepointis Posts: 98

    "Someone like Regan knows exactly where their logical fallacies are but are conscientiously making the decision to ignore them."

    Your kidding, right?

     
  • thepointis posted at 6:21 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.

    thepointis Posts: 98

    Uh, Flash, Brent already delt with you in another thread so no need to here. Humanist, you didn't answer my question. I'll simplify it for you, where did the information come from? Period. Whatever your theory of origin.

     
  • Flash Gordon posted at 1:09 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1176

    Religion, science, and any other body of thought that attempts to explain why things are as they are should be taught in the public school system no matter what the parental objections. Children that eventually become adults need exposure to as much knowledge about things as they can be exposed to.

    The Albert Einstein's of this world would never have been able to achieve what "they" have achieved if they had grown up in a cloistered environment where bodies of ideas were ...selectively censored or ignored and never argued or thoroughly discussed......

     
  • Humanist posted at 10:22 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 2979

    You can always tell those who have little knowledge about scientific topics like these when they conflate theories like the Big Bang Theory, Abiogenesis and Evolution.

    And, thepointis, while a skilled inventor might be smart and clever, they many not necessarily be intelligent as determined by properly applying the skills of reasoning and critical thinking. Someone like Regan knows exactly where their logical fallacies are but are conscientiously making the decision to ignore them.

     
  • thepointis posted at 9:57 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.

    thepointis Posts: 98

    Sorry DC, Brent Regan is evidence of high intelligence in N Idaho. Are you aware of his inventions? Speaking of which, where did the intelligence i.e. information come from in the Big Bang theory?

     
  • Humanist posted at 4:11 pm on Sat, Oct 27, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 2979

    Discussing Creation "science" in the context of the scientific method, empirical evidence, and critical thinking would be something that I would be all for in our public schools. It would be a fantastic example of a controversial hypothesis that has failed to meet the criteria of being a scientific theory due to the lack of evidence. We could explain to our children that this is the reason it is not taught as science in our public schools and has even been tried in courts of law and deemed to not be science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District). We could further use it as an example of how a group of people (some creationists) might attempt to shoehorn a faith-based hypothesis into a scientific definition in an attempt to exploit our public school systems as a tool to spread their doctrine.

     
  • DCIDAHO posted at 8:09 am on Sat, Oct 27, 2012.

    DCIDAHO Posts: 1968

    If you believe Brent Regan, then it is further proof there is little intelligence in N Idaho.

     
  • Brent Regan posted at 4:53 pm on Fri, Oct 26, 2012.

    Brent Regan Posts: 606

    In the beginning there was absolutely nothing. Then there was an infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point of energy that then, eventually became Mahiun.

    Am I describing Genesis or The Big Bang? If you believe in Genesis (an unproven theory) then you believe Mahiun is the product of intelligence. If you believe in the Big Bang (another unproven theory) then Mahiun is not the product of intelligence.

     
  • thepointis posted at 2:09 pm on Fri, Oct 26, 2012.

    thepointis Posts: 98

    Science education is not merely about cramming students with scientific "facts". Indeed, it is not primarily about facts. Good science education is about training children to think scientifically, and this involves the usual scientific processes of building hypotheses and critically testing hypotheses. Most of the scientific information given to students during high school years is not actually factual, but the result of sophisticated theoretical development of ideas over time.

    Students should be taught about how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence, not exploiting one over another as "fact" which is impossible.

     
  • cdanative33 posted at 9:20 am on Fri, Oct 26, 2012.

    cdanative33 Posts: 354

    Very well said Mahiun.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 8:23 am on Fri, Oct 26, 2012.

    Mahiun Posts: 4774

    The single biggest problem with teaching "creation science" is that there is no such thing. It's an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. We do not teach creationism in public schools for the same reason we do not teach astrology, alchemy, or phrenology: they are pseudo-sciences, and the schools' charter is to teach science, not superstition.

    And this is why vouchers would not solve the issue, either: it is still the responsibility of publicly funded education to provide instruction in science, not superstition -- besides that whole "unconstitutional endorsement of religion" thing....

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks

Stocks