|
Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!
You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!
Maps and Figures "Hitler or Coulter?" QuizMap1 - Teen Pregnancy Map2 - Incarceration Map3 - Homicide Rates Map4 - Drop-out Rates Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates Map6 - Driving Distances Map7 - Energy Use Map8 - Gonorrhea! Map9 - Tax Burden Map10 - State GDP Map11 - DHS funding Map12 - Adult Illiteracy. Map13 - Abortion Bans: Map14 - ER Quality Map15 - Hospital Quality Map16 - Coal Burners Map 17 - Infant Mortality Map 18 - Toxic Waste Map 19 - Obesity Map 20 - Poverty Map 21 - Occupational safety Map 22 - Traffic deaths Map 23 - Divorce Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work Give Up Shopping guide  
link to xml feed
|
Monday, October 30, 2006
Christianofascism
This weekend several of us at Give Up Blog went to see Jesus Camp at the Virginia Film Festival (which had one of its best years yet).
This was an interesting movie, that depicted the authoritarian teachings of Becky Fischer, and her indoctrination of pre-adolescent youths through her summer camp. We had blogged about what her teachings sounded like before and their frightening resemblence to madrasses. But what is interesting is that in the movie, Fischer says that is her specific goal - indoctrination at the youngest possible age in order to insure that her kids, like the ones in madrasses, will "lay their lives down" for Jesus. It starts by showing several of the kids about to attend meeting Fischer as she travels about promoting her camp and her youth ministry, and then shows these kids being "educated" by their homeschooling parents. The parents, using creationist textbooks, weren't only teaching the kids not to believe in evolution, but also that global warming was unimportant, and that science itself was unable to explain anything. This homenoschooling was worse than what Buck has been seeing on wife swap, because they were literally giving these kids a denialist education, not based on learning facts, the scientific method, or even a history of discovery but a set of tools they could use to glibly attack science whenever they hear it. It was the best argument for either forcing standards on homeschooling, or forbidding it I have yet seen. The kids they profiled are great, they're smart, mature, and heartbreakingly damaged by this upbringing. Forced to doubt every natural impulse or desire to enjoy life for a focus on religion. One girl speaks of dancing and how she must concentrate on dancing for Jesus and not dancing "for the flesh" and she couldn't have been older than 11 or 12, which is a bizarre thing to be thinking about at that age. Kids at the camp were told to stop telling ghost stories because they didn't glorify Jesus (a common theme when just about anything fun was engaged in). Also, the tendency to stress the importance of obedience in the girls popped up several times in the movie. Then the kids go to camp (which before they arrived was carefully blessed by the ministers who prayed over the chairs, the projector, but also Powerpoint, which was hysterical). They immediately start with a sermon in which Fischer attacks Harry Potter and says he essentially should be killed for being a warlock, and how none of the kids should read him no matter how much he fights for good, then proceeds to break down the childrens' spirits. The ministry focuses on making them cry, and shake, and speak in tongues, and repent sins, and oppose abortion, and generally create the ego collapse that is critical for any cult indoctrination. There is no discussion about the teachings of Jesus, the sermon on the mount, the need to protect the poor, to feel love, to prevent war, etc. It instead is about asking the kids to die for Jesus, and they quite clearly are being raised to be warriors, not peacemakers, as the generation the ministers hoped would be the one to bring back Jesus. There are a few things about this movie that are frightening, like when Fischer basically says she wants to replace Democracy with a Christian theocracy, but I've got to say, I'm not as concerned as most. There were also many things I thought were funny as hell, like the idolatry when they pulled out the cardboard cut-out of George Bush and had the kids worship it. They all became commandment breakers and it was hysterical. I also loved the unintentional hilarity of Fischer saying that, "It's the devil that goes after children" when that was her specific stated goal throughout the movie which she follows very carefully. But in terms of what this means for our country? Not much. This is child abuse, certainly. There is no excuse for this kind of treatment of children, which is essentially using the classic methods of cult conversion to create mindless followers. They had everything, the music hammering throughout the process, the pressure to conform (which kids are especially sensitive to), the breaking of the kids ego, instilling feelings of worthlessness, and then the emotional catharsis through the worship and renewal. They call this getting the spirit in them, but really what it is is brainwashing, cult-style. What Fischer doesn't realize is that cult mentality is somewhat fragile when it conflicts with the modern world, and she's set most of these kids up for a major crisis when they get older. The mindset she creates is so opposed to modernity that unless these kids withdraw to the point they're practically Amish, eventually they are going to crack. They will have to be sheltered from the world completely, essentially for their whole lives and well into adulthood for this mindset to stick. That means no public education, no friends not from the church, no secular activities away from a group to prevent the chance encounter with a Harry Potter fan, no college (unless it's Bob Jones - but they can't house all these poor souls), no TV, no movies, no magazines, no books (unless they're Christian-themed) etc. The state that is created is fragile, and once they start getting in those teenage years and the hormones kick in and the brain starts seeing the bullshit, the same thing will happen with pretty much every seriously indoctrinated person I've ever met. They'll either crack, or totally withdraw. They simply cannot interact with the modern world, and while they'll vote for assholes like George Bush, they can't interact well enough with nonChristians or even non-Evangelical Christians (which the kids would say belonged to "dead" churches because they don't shout in services) in order to be politically effective. And look at their so-called Christian leaders. Kuo's new book exposes their relationship for what it is. The Republicans they elect don't believe in this garbage (with exceptions like Brownback), but they use it to rile them up and get votes to cut taxes. Then when it comes time for "faith-based initiatives"? The budget gets cut, and the Evangelicals are ignored until the next election cycle. These people, through their rejection of the modern world just reinforce their powerlessness. This will lead to two things: increasing political irrelevance and a greater tendency towards violence. We are certainly looking at our future terrorists, but not our future leaders. |
23 Comments:
I guess it's true that ghost stories don't glorify Jesus; the resurrection is more of a zombie story.
-JE
2:11 PM, October 30, 2006
You know, there is one thing you don't mention at all in your blog. Is the movie Jesus Camp in any way based on truth? If it is, Ms. Fisher is a very unusual brand of Christian.
I am a Christian, homeschooling parent, and nothing you say about that movie rings true for me, with the exception that I do teach my children that science supports creation, not evolution. (Oh, yeah - and I do believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus.)
My family has MORE fun than most, not less; we laugh often, play games, read stories, travel all over the city and around the country as well, watch movies, bake cookies, do science experiments, stare at cloud formations and rainbows, play computer games, have memberships at the zoo and museums, swim and do gymnastics, play in the band, sing in the choir, take drama classes, play the piano, build with Legos and K'Nex, and on and on. My children love being homeschooled and are happy, healthy, and smart.
Not only that, they are socially far ahead of their peers. Our home is the place the neighborhood children love to congregate. After gymnastics last week my 10-year-old said, "Mom, I don't understand - why don't the girls just be friendly to J (one of the 'outcasts' on the team)? Things go a lot more smoothly if you just make friends with her."
I'd put my girls (ages 6 and 10) up against any public- or private-schooled child in the country in terms of maturity, relationships, intelligence, knowledge, wisdom - you name the area, my kids are probably doing well. Not only that, I work in a homeschool enrichment program with 108 other homeschooled kids, and I'd put that group up against any group of schoolchildren in the nation in any area you'd like to choose.
I'm inclined to believe this movie warns of dangers that are almost non-existent. The vast majority of homeschooling families are healthy, well-adjusted Americans, not the religious fanatics you and the movie's creators warn against. OK - we may be cautious about government involvement; we know of older families whose kids had to hide under the bed any time the doorbell rang during the day, and we hope we never have to go back to that.
I have to wonder whether this movie's creators - or this blog's authors - know many homeschoolers. I just don't find this characterization to be at all typical of the many homeschoolers I know.
9:13 PM, October 30, 2006
The areas in which your kids would not stand up to a favorable comparison with public schooled children are, at least, geology, paleontology, and biology. This is a minimum consequence of teaching creationism and resurrection-as-fact instead of science.
The main question I have for you is this: why isn't it sufficient to teach Christ's message? Why can't you impart the wisdom of forgiveness without the stubbornness of myth? For every element of myth that you insist on teaching as fact, you will retard your children's understanding of and advancement in the world. Teaching morality without myth is a worthy endeavor and one that will pay off in upstanding, well-adjusted offspring. Why muddy it up with hocus pocus?
-JE
12:07 AM, October 31, 2006
This is a true story, a documentary about real Christians, and real homeschoolers.
Further, you're credibility is undermined the second you say that you're creationists. There is no debate about the scientific fact of evolution. There is no excuse for teaching innocent children lies about our origins for the sake of preserving the absurdity of biblical literalism.
That you teach your children creationism makes you a bad parent, no matter how good you are in other respects. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have also further damaged your agenda of promoting homeschooling as a reasonable alternative as well. If you're teaching your children this as science, you are a bad parent, you are a bad educator, and you are an embarrassment to the 21st century. Shame on you.
12:48 AM, October 31, 2006
Homeschoolers of all stripes -- including all of us who value science -- make up what? 2%? of the school-age population.
Americans who believe in creationism? Various polls I have looked at show somewhere around 10% of the population actually thinks evolution is the right way to think about this. The other 90% have some sort of "all god all the time" or "a little bit of god over time" version of creationist belief.
Now, most of these people went to public school. Most people do. Wikipedia says 85%. That sounds right to me.
So, how's attending public school or regulating homeschoolers going to fix all this again??
Nance
9:24 AM, October 31, 2006
Nance,
Just go see the movie.
Worst schooling ever.
Remember my denialism post? The mother was literally teaching her kid how to be a denialist. Not just on evolution either, on global warming, on science as a whole. Science as a whole was dismissed as a fiction by this family.
If you ask me, that kind of education is just child abuse.
I'm just not sure I buy this idea that people have a constitutional right to teach whatever they want to their kids. Why is that ok? Kids can not consent to this, they're too young, they can't make the choice for themselves. And then when the parent chooses to say, raise them to be a complete and total ignoramus on purpose, how is that fair to the kid?
It seems that for the sake of the kids' constitutional rights that this simply shouldn't be allowed. Kids aren't parents' property, and it shouldn't be the law of the land that you can just teach them whatever you want. What if the parent wanted to raise an illiterate because they thought books were evil? Or, as in this case, an education that merely exists to promote the parents' political views at the cost of a legitimate education? This is just child abuse.
11:35 AM, October 31, 2006
If I may borrow and modify the Rev. Dr.'s fine anti-libertarian argument, what gets taught in our public education system is not simply based on the whims of faceless bureaucrats and fatcats in DC. It is based on a certain set of largely-agreed upon set of facts and standards around which our society is based.
We teach our children English because English is the primary means by which our society exchanges information. (Remember the uproars over 'Ebonics' and education in Spanish?)
We teach mathematics because it is vitally important to so many basic occurrences in our lives.
And we teach evolution because it is the model adopted and universally used by practicing research scientists around the globe.
We don't teach children that the English word for "tree" is "farfnagle", because to do so is to invite Babel all over again.
We don't teach children that 2+2=5 and multiplication is an atheistic conspiracy, because to do so is to completely cripple their ability to even simply balance a checkbook.
And we don't teach creationism because it produces no research; has no model; and has no testable theory behind it. There are no "creation scientists" anywhere with any sort of planned course of research or even any unequivocal statement of what the so-called "theory" of creationism actually states (besides "EVILUTION IS FALSE").
On the other hand, biologists use the theory of evolution every day (whether directly or through derived principles and programs) to advance knowledge in the field. The scientists who research and discover cures every day use mice and other model organisms because they know we share so much similarity in our genes. We have evolutionarily-based computer programs to assist us: it is trivially easy to do sequence similarity searches to find human homologs of other mammalian genes.
Evolution works and is the 'language' used by practicing biologists. You simply don't find creationists working in biological research because creationism offers absolutely nothing that works.
Also because what typically gets taught as creationism consists of lies ("no transitional fossils"), simplistic misrepresentation of various scientific concepts (does any creationist who has ever tried using the "second law of thermodynamics" argument even know Clausius' mathematical expression of the law, or gone any deeper than "Durrr, it's CHAOS!"), and just plain omission of facts.
There's simply no there there with creationism; no theory, no model, and arguments based on a second grade understanding of science.
Evolution, on the other hand, runs deep. The simple concpets build on one another and allow you to understand more, prepare you for further learning. It is simply the basis of the cutting edge research that goes on today. Teaching your child creationism is to hobble your child's understanding of science and effectively cut them off from any productive research career in biology.
Like it or not, it is the agreed-upon framework within which modern biological research is performed. This is why evolution education is the standard in science classes.
You're free to teach your children any sort of metaphysical statements you wish. Passing them off as valid science is as irresponsible as teaching them that cars are good to eat.
12:26 PM, October 31, 2006
Wow - you guys really think I'm neglecting my children's education by teaching them creationism. Unfortunately, I've spent a significant amount of time studying the science behind this, as well as the science behind evolution, and I find multiple problems with your supposedly "proven fact" of evolution.
Scientists are by no means unanimous in their beliefs about evolution, unless you deliberately define "scientist" to exclude anyone who believes in creation. Though the majority of scientists do believe in evolution, they believe it with varying degrees of certainty and there are almost as many different positions about it as there are scientists who hold those positions. And many, including certain prominent ones such as Stephen Jay Gould, are not Darwinists, but believe instead some other theory such as punctuated equilibrium, in which changes occur suddenly, because there is so little evidence in favor of gradual evolution.
There are hundreds of scientists who believe in creation, and they are using their beliefs and their scientific knowledge to advance science, technology, and industry. "minimalist," your assertion that, "You simply don't find creationists working in biological research because creationism offers absolutely nothing that works," is quite simply untrue. Dr. Raymond Jones, for example, is a creationist scientist who, as Officer-in-Charge of the CSIRO (Australia's government scientific body) Davies Laboratory, Townsville. He was singlehandedly responsible for developing a method which allowed cattle in Australia to eat "Leucaena," a legume which had previously left them sick and thin, by discovering and transferring to them a particular microbe which allowed them to digest the food. Dr. Jones has published more than 140 scientific papers. Or take Dr. Ian Macreadie, winner of the Australian Society for Microbiology's top award; or Professor Walter Veith, Chair of Zoology and the University of the Western Cape in South Africa; or Dr. David Pennington, the first plastic surgeon to successfully reattach a human ear; or Dr. Raymond Damadian, who invented the first machine that discovers cancers through magnetic resonance imaging.
Or, moving out of biology into other scientists, you would find missile researcher Joe Sebeny; geologist Jim Farquhar; research chemist Patrick Young, who works for DuPont Laboratories and holds patents related to the manufacture of Kevlar and Mylar, and who was named one of the outstanding young men of science in 1993; geophysicist Sergei Golovin of the Ukraine; physicist Saami Shaibani, a leading consultant for the FBI; hydroscientist Alan Galbraith; Dr. Keith Wanser, who is Professor of Physics at Cal State Fullerton; and Romanian geologist and world cave authority Dr. Emil Silvestru. And these are only the LIVING ones, without regard to many prominent historical creationists like Sir Isaac Newton; Robert Boyle, founder of modern chemistry; Francis Bacon, originator of the scientific method; John Ray, founder of the study of biology; Johannes Kepler, who successfully analyzed the planets' paths around the sun; Sir William Herschel, founder of modern astronomy; and Nicolaus Steno, founder of modern geology. I found all these in less than half an hour of research; there are many hundreds, perhaps thousands, more.
Can you really say these men are not scientists? If their work really has "no theory, no model, and arguments based on a second grade understanding of science," how could they have achieved such stunning successes?
JE, in answer to your question, "why isn't it sufficient to teach Christ's message?," I don't believe that's possible. Jesus Christ came to take the punishment for our sins in our place; without the first three chapters of Genesis, there IS no sin, thus no need for a Savior. I don't believe it is humanly possible for people to live according to "Christ's message," as you put it, without the redemption He alone provides. Just try, for 24 hours, to really "love your neighbor as you love yourself" - give up your own agenda completely and do exactly and only what is best for every person with whom you come in contact. That's impossible, you say? You're right! (And that's only one command, with no reference to hate or lust or any of his other teachings.) You are a sinner - as am I - and without Jesus Christ we have no power to live as He taught us. (Even with Jesus most of us don't do all that well!)
I find it impossible to teach my children Jesus' "message" without also teaching everything else about Him, including the reason why He came, which is found in Genesis chapters 1 through 3. Jesus Himself quoted from these chapters more than once. I also find it necessary to teach His resurrection, the proof that He really was God, as He claimed to be, and the proof that God was satisfied with Christ's atoning work.
Rev. Dr., as a poster on this blog, I am disappointed in your post. You tell me I should be ashamed of myself, you tell me my credibility is undermined, but you offer no support whatsoever. You don't answer my arguments. I am not at all ashamed of my position nor of the education my children are receiving. My children know more about geology, paleontology, and biology than most children their age. And I DO teach them about evolution, its strengths as well as its weaknesses; I simply do it in a way that acknowledges the truth: that evolution is a THEORY, not a FACT.
Incidentally, I (and all other creationists I know) obviously do not deny MICRO-evolution. Microevolution is a proven fact; species do make changes over time. I know many creationists; I know of no one who does not believe in micro-evolution. What I deny, what I believe the scientific evidence does not support, is MACRO-evolution - the change from one species to another, "molecule to man." I have NEVER seen one shred of evidence that comes close to proving macro-evolution. I've seen some evidence that some have thought proved it; most of that has later been proved either a mistake, a misinterpretation, or a fraud.
As for your suggestion to "Just go see the movie," I'm sorry, but a movie doesn't prove much. If actors were used, a movie proves nothing; a screenplay can be written from any perspective, and if the screenwriter was against this person, it could have badly misrepresented what actually happened. Even if the movie filmed real events, that proves nothing about the majority of evangelical Christians, or the majority of creationists. It only proves there are a handful of really wacky people out there. I'm not one of those, nor do I know anyone who is. I simply believe the Bible and the Constitution of the United States give me the right and the responsibility to teach my children what I believe, just as they give you the right to teach your children what you believe.
I am still very proud to say I am a committed, homeschooling, creationist parent, and I would still put my children up against any child in the country in any area you name - INCLUDING geology, paleontology, and biology.
1:57 PM, October 31, 2006
Denialism.
Plain and simple. No content here. There isn't any need to argue with you Marcy. You don't make valid arguments. They are prima facie false.
2:51 PM, October 31, 2006
I feel I have to back up the Rev on this.
Marcy, you are NOT doing your job concerning your children's education. You cannot honestly believe that by picking and choosing the concepts that fit your magical beliefs your children are better off educationally.
You list a handful of scientists who questionably disbelieve evolution--now try listing the millions who know and accept the facts of evolution. You can pull a wacko out of a hat for anything.
As a side note, science is not governed by popular vote. Just because the general masses believe one thing, it doesn't make it true. Science is governed by careful examination and critical evaluation.
3:59 PM, October 31, 2006
Well, I think Marcy deserves a little more than that, Rev., since she went to all the trouble of writing all that. Even if everything she says has been thoroughly addressed and debunked on talkorigins.
1.) That's nice about Dr. Jones' research, but again I ask, how did the "theory of creationism" inform that work, and what on earth IS the "theory of creationism"?
I by no means wish to belittle Dr. Jones' landmark "feeding things to cows" study, but I fail to see how the basis for it is in any way contradictory to conventional scientific models (ie coadaptation, symbiosis, and evolution), unless maybe Dr. Jones prayed for that microbe to come into existence.
Creationism has no model, no theory, and no research program. There are scientists that are creationists, yes (I wouldn't count a plastic surgeon as a scientist, though; don't be silly), but there is no research program anywhere based on any theory of creation. Why does Walter Veith go around giving the same tired arguments about evolution, when as the head of an academic department he seems like he'd be in a good position to do positive research using the "creation model"? Because it does not exist.
2.) Stephen Jay Gould and the other supposed "dissenters" you mention have no problem with evolution, that is the idea that all species we see today share a common ancestry. Nobody in biology seriously disputes this fact. What we do have, as in any thriving science, is a debate over the details: for example, the relative importance of selection versus neutral mechanisms (genetic drift, etc.), or about the tempo of evolution, which is what puctuated equilibrium addresses.
Debate in science is how science advances; it is not a sign of weakness, and only a dogmatist would think that way.
It's also a gross misrepresentation of Gould's position to state that it was because there is "so little evidence for gradualism." Gould's early research was into the land snail, and the snail fossil record shows an absolutely beautiful gradation of evolution ("Scattered between them were thousands of highly variable shells spanning the full range of form from pure C. excelsior through intermediates of all degrees to C. rubicundum," Gould recalled. "It was difficult to escape the idea that the former had evolved into the latter.") "Rapid" evolution is rapid by geological standards, but not ours, and can still be captured in the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium was a statement about the dynamic nature of the environment and how drastic changes can spur draamtic changes in a species; it was not meant to explain away any deficiencies in the fossil evidence.
Also, many of the historical creationist scientists you mention predated Darwin. They didn't believe in computers either, so you'd best put down the keyboard. On deeper investigation, you might also find interesting facts such as that Newton believed in alchemy. Just another reason why the argument from authority never really works.
3.) The "Just a THEORY" line shows you haven't the slightest clue what the scientific definition of a theory is. Please enlighten yourself before you mislead your children further.
4.) "Macro vs. micro" -- oy. Head to talkorigins again, please.
Again, this is all standard creationist claptrap, addressed on talkorigins.org and elsewhere a thousand times over. When you claim you've read all about evolution, you mean you've just read the creationist pamphlets, and trust them to accurately represent evolution because they (claim to) believe in the same God you do. But they don't.
4:19 PM, October 31, 2006
The Rev's article on denialism really does lay the hammer down on Nance's smokescreen arguments. (and so does the minimalist who just posted while I was writing this)
But, as a part-time philosopher and not a scientist, the argument that Christ is the only mechanism for altruism is unbelievably parochial (get it?!). Who said it was impossible to love your neighbor for 24 hours, or any other period of time? You putting words in my mouth, that's who.
Seriously, I think you'd really benefit from reading a book on Buddhism. In "The Good Heart" by the Dali Lama, he does a side-by-side comparison of the new testament and Buddhist texts with insightful interpretations. You may find it an eye-opener.
-JE
4:23 PM, October 31, 2006
Huzzah for minimalist.. you know the GUB does love ya.
Although I think we'll be at odds about what the stakes are for the nance/marcy kids. I'm not sure these children will suffer that much if they can't have a research career in biology.
The real problem is that this is no way to turn a kid into an reasoning adult-to me-a major goal of education.
How well will they differentiate fact from faith?
Also, do these well meaning folk think they're really giving a fair and balanced presentation of this issue? Are you really asking a 10 year old (?) to choose between evolution and mother love?-Evolution and damnation? Simply asking your child to make this choice is abusive.
5:58 PM, October 31, 2006
Hey minimalist, we love you, but I object to this idea that I have to expend energy arguing against denialism.
The whole point of my snarky denialist link is that I get to avoid doing all that hard work, which you just did. As long as creationists can just pull things out of their ass and force us to expend 10x more effort carefully debunking arguments, getting the facts straight, etc., they win. It's much better to just give up and say, you're the one who's going to raise the misinformed kid you denialist crackpot. And there are two outcomes of that education 1) the kid never learns the truth, stays retarded, and is mocked by all, or 2) the kid learns the truth, resents, or is embarrassed by parents' medieval ideas about science, and a schism results leading to loss of faith, religion and honest relationship with their elders.
I mostly know people from the group 2 category, the group 1 category you don't meet much in scientific circles because creationism isn't science, evolution is fact, etc.
And can you believe Marcy whipped out the "It's just a theory" BS on a freaking scienceblog? To scientists that's like saying, "It's just the truth" because scientists actually understand that theories like evolution, relativity, electromagnetism etc., are the best representations of the truth, and while theories may evolve, the data are never falsified. Evolution, even if modified greatly from its current form, which it may likely be as we learn more about it, will never be falsified. The data are real, even if the interpretation is something we argue over. I just love how in modern parlance, "just a theory" is a way to discredit an idea.
It reminds me of Connor's bumper sticker, "I don't believe in gravity either."
Ha!
6:50 PM, October 31, 2006
Oh, I know it's pretty much against the Give Up ethos to waste effort on people who've already proven closeminded and unwilling to look at evidence. But it didn't take all that long; I'm in a writing zone (a review for BBA), and it was a welcome distraction anyway.
And I'm not too worried about her kids' career prospects; at the very least they can go to Patrick Henry College, go into law and try to stack the courts in favor of theocracy, as the PHC founders were hoping.
But if they do happen to be interested in a career in science, they'll pretty much be hosed when they find they're speaking a different language from everyone else. The errant definition of "theory" is just a start.
Not that they can't be deprogrammed, if they happen to go to a non-theocratic college and graduate school. But it'll be a setback at the very least.
7:19 PM, October 31, 2006
Rev. Dr. wrote:
Nance,
Just go see the movie.
Worst schooling ever.
Me:
Yep, the reviews are in. The hsing community hashed this out earlier. The movie sucks. The teaching sucks.
But how's that relevant? Most people in America believe in some form of creationism. They didn't get those ideas by being homeschooled. Most went to public school.
They still manage to come away with bad thinking on this subject. How does requiring all hsers to do what all public schoolers do (or something equivalent) solve that problem?
Nance
11:06 AM, November 01, 2006
There is a problem here that is running a little deeper Nance.
Yes people end up believing in Creationism despite evolution being taught in school, but thats because schools educate, they don't indoctrinate.
That was what is so creepy about allowing people to essentially do whatever they want to their children. This isn't an education, it's indoctrination.
Kids aren't just chattel, the are people who have a right in this country to receive a good education. When people instead choose to just create little Christian soldiers instead of giving their kdis at least a fair chance at education, this is very disturbing.
I've said it before, it's the homeschoolers that are doing it because public schools suck that should be most disturbed by this behavior.
12:45 PM, November 01, 2006
If I recall correctly, the poll data evened out more at 40 to 50% of Americans believing in 'theistic evolution': that evolution happened pretty much as the scientists describe it (the outward, physical phenomena), but that God guided it and was the invisible, unquantifiable force behind it. Unprovable, but acceptable as long as they represent the science accurately and keep the religion separate.
Only 10% accept a completely secular version of evolution, without divine interference. Given that most religions I know of want humans to be special and separate -- and therefore shoehorn their god into evolution somehow -- that's actually a pretty good showing for atheists/agnostics.
At any rate, my point is, I think the poll numbers reflect more on the religious stance of the respondents than an understanding or acceptance of the science. (Though in the case of the fundamentalists, they neither want to understand nor accept evolution; but again, that's a religiously-spurred decision, not a rational one.)
1:47 PM, November 01, 2006
I'd like to point out, since nobody's done it in this particular conversation, that homeschooling, like private schooling, disinvests parents from the public school system. That is, rather than putting their energy into the system and helping to improve it, they simply take it elsewhere and leave the public schools to rot.
That's part of the problem - those with time, energy and drive who could improve the system are instead selfishly trying to put their kids ahead. Of course, many will fail in at least some aspect. But even if they completely succeeded, what kind of world would you be sending those children into?
4:20 PM, November 01, 2006
Rev. Dr.:
There is a problem here that is running a little deeper Nance.
Me:
Yes. That's what I have been trying to say. Imposition of school-type regulations on hsers will not address the deeper issues. Calling for those regulations as if they would is unreasonable.
Minimalist:
At any rate, my point is, I think the poll numbers reflect more on the religious stance of the respondents than an understanding or acceptance of the science.
Me:
Exactly. Where they went to school, or not, does not seem to have much of an impact on their understanding of how the world works.
Anonymous:
That's part of the problem - those with time, energy and drive who could improve the system are instead selfishly trying to put their kids ahead.
Me:
Yes. That is the choice we make. We carefully weigh the options and some of us choose not to participate in an institution that we find does not serve the needs of our particular children.
Some start off having decided to homeschool or use a private school.
But many of us -- anecdotal evidence only, there are no statistics to back this up, although some school districts are at least beginning to wonder why -- http://tinyurl.com/v629x -- try the public school system and find that it is inflexible and our efforts to work for change from within are ineffectual. And we see the years ticking by as our children fail to thrive. We are pushed into looking for alternatives to the ps system by the ps system, not by some pre-existing objection to ps.
If the ps system were as responsive as you seem to wish, far fewer parents would leave to homeschool.
Nance
9:34 AM, November 02, 2006
Nance you totally avoided my point.
Schools are not meant to indoctrinate. Just because we teach something and everybody doesn't believe it like some kind of litany to be memorized doesn't mean the schools have failed. It's not their job to force people to believe things, but it is their job to expose them to a specific knowledge set necessary to be a good citizen.
Children do not belong to their parents, and as citizens of this country they have a right to an education that will teach them a few simple things that will help them get ahead. Further, the state has a compelling interest that their citizens have a particular education. Just because these things don't always stick, which is your argument, doesn't mean public schools don't work or have something valuable to teach.
Homeschoolers, right now, could just as easily raise their children to be racist little bigots (and they do - just look at the girls of Prussian Blue. Not only is this morally disgusting, this is child abuse. Schools at the very least give the kids option of growing up to be an individual rather than an indoctrinated replica of their parents, and kids who are indoctrinated to disbelieve in science, hate jews, hate blacks, or believe their only purpose in life is to protest abortion have been abused by their parents, and not given the opportunity that every other kid gets to become an individual.
Whatever public schools' problems are, indoctrinating children into being neo nazis or is not one of them.
10:16 AM, November 02, 2006
Hey, maybe things are looking up!
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=707
Are believers declining?
Three years ago, in an identical survey, 79 percent of adults said they believed in God and 66 percent said they were absolutely certain that there is a God. In this new survey, those numbers have declined to 73 percent and 58 percent respectively.
Nance
11:15 AM, November 02, 2006
Rev. Dr., I hear you and I acknowledge your point. The alternative is also true -- the children do not belong to the public school system.
Parents make judgments constantly, we hope, about the care of their children. It is an awesome responsibility. And a joy. But parents do not always end up with the same answers about what the best path is for each child in their care.
Some parents of children in public school continue to indoctrinate their children with ideas I find objectionable. As do some homeschoolers.
This indoctrination seems to be what gets through, for most of the children.
Which, I think, points us to a different direction if we want children to grow up informed about science, for instance. I'm not sure what would actually increase the number of children who end up having a firm grip on the concept of evolution. But neither public school nor homeschooling seem to have much to do with it.
What other paths to enlightenment could there be?
Or is it just a matter of time? The Harris poll is mildly encouraging.
Nance
11:27 AM, November 02, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home