Well, it was only a matter of time. Spam advertising this book lobbed into the Australian Skeptics in-tray recently. I’d not known that Muslim and Christian creationists - particularly in Turkey - were cooperating in producing similar literature. Leading US Skeptic Dr Ken Miller points out that Muslim creationists recycle the same old US fundamentalist arguments against evolution, but their locus of blame is
rather different.
In the Islamic version, evolution is a satanic Western Christian conspiracy against Muslims. Charles Darwin - at one point - studied to be a clergyman, so therefore he was front and centre in nurturing said conspiracy. The Christian creationists, by contrast, will often ascribe Darwin Marxist ideals while alleging he converted to Christianity on his deathbed. None of this is true, of course - Darwin started out as a Christian but described himself as an agnostic. There was no deathbed conversion.
In any case, Harun Yahya’s book - the subject of the spam email - is a cut above most creationist tomes. Not because of its content, of course, but because of its lavish production. Much Christian fundamentalist/creationist literature is printed on dodgy paper with artwork that might have been done by talented children, but Mr Yahya (above) has clearly got some decent financial backing from somewhere. The flyer enthuses that this book is but volume one of a 5,600 page, 7 volume encyclopedia, and (allegedly) demonstrates that
The fossil record is perhaps the most important evidence that demolishes the theory of evolution’s claims. Fossils reveal that life forms on Earth have never undergone even the slightest change and
have never developed into one another. Examining the fossil record, one can clearly see that living things are exactly the same today as they were hundreds of millions of years ago, in other words, that they never underwent evolution, but were created by God. This book provides its readers with a closer examination of a variety of such fossil specimens revealing this fact.
Likewise, Harun Yahya is
A leading Muslim intellectual from Turkey, Harun Yahya is the author of many books concerning the world of Islam such as the relationship of science and Islam, interfaith dialogue, and the importance of unity among believers of all faiths. Harun Yahya enjoys a wide readership from all nations, languages and religions, and many of his books have been translated into more than 40 languages. His works have also been received with interest by Western scientific circles, and some of his scientific texts have been reviewed in various scientific and popular journals as the most important expositions of Islamic creationism. These journals include The New Scientist, Science, Nature, The Washington Post, NCSE (National Center for Science Education) Reports, National Geographic, The Washington Times, Die Zeit, Bangkok Post.
The fossil spider and horseshoe crab graphics I’ve included are cited as evidence of his propositions from the fossil record (he’s obviously not too keen on some of the seriously weird fossils in evidence thanks to the Cambrian Explosion). He’s got a nice line in citing his critics, too, without revealing what the likes of Nature or the NCSE actually said. Considering that the latter’s raison d’etre is ‘defending the teaching of evolution in public schools’, the question is probably rather moot.
From a libertarian (as opposed to a skeptical) point of view, the question is a bit trickier. For a skeptic,
creationism and intelligent design aren’t science, so therefore can’t be taught in a science classroom. However, for (at least some) libertarians, parental choice is paramount. If parents want their kids educated in schools where creationism and ID are taught as science, that’s their call. Of course, public schools are a different story, which is rather the NCSE’s point. Arguably, a voucher scheme would also permit some degree of state control over the curriculum - it’s still taxpayer’s money - albeit in a system that maximizes individual choice. That said, how much curriculum control is appropriate?
Where do we draw the line on opting for ignorance?
131 Comments
Apologies for the delay on this, I’m still figuring out how to use all the new-fangled gear
That said, how much curriculum control is appropriate? Where do we draw the line on opting for ignorance?
You could safely support both by inserting a history of science and a history of religion into the curriculum. That way you can put both into context.
Personally, I think creationism is a crock and has no business being taught in a science class … but at the same time, science sometimes makes claims it really cannot justify (some of the anthropological theory is based on four tiny bone pieces from one skeleton for example).
Both science and religion share the same failing - an unwillingness to admit that they don’t know everything.
I’ve always thought that - practically - the best way around the conundrum is close to what you say. Leave science for science - that is, natural explanations of observable phenomena - and put anything not capable of falsification into a ’studies in religion’ class.
That said, I do wonder where this need to see the Bible or Koran as literal comes from. The Catholic Church is quite a conservative institution, but they looked at this whole business sensibly and rationally years ago and have managed to accept evolution without diluting their theology. What is everyone else’s problem?
There should be no problem if ID is taught in a private school outside of the science class.
Keynes was taught in economics when in fact it also belongs in religious class.
I see no problem if say Keynes and ID are taught side by side in religion hour as both demand faith.
Classic, JC. If we add Keynes & GE we’re gonna have a bloody big religious ed class, tho…
In state schools obviously whichever government is democratically elected gets to choose what’s taught in science class. And they damned well better keep creationism out!
In private schools, I guess a case could be made for the possibility of creationism being taught in science class, as opposed to a government regulating against that possibility. Then again, parents and kids and unions would be perfectly free to put pressure on the school through protests, letters, etc, to urge them to keep creationism out of science class!
This cannot ever be resolved without getting rid of public schooling.
It precisely like that school uniform caper with the Muslim headgear.
There is just no way to pretend that this stuff isn’t the most grave compulsion. If you look at the American Constitution the ACLU would have it that it means you cannot have any aspect of religion in school. That is untenable taken from a originalist point of view.
And yet if it were taken seriously Federal financing becomes a cultural cleansing machine sucking out all culture in a socialist dream of having no institutions separating the state and the individual. Instead the constitution is very clear and in the historical context it means that federal financing of education itself is unconstitutional.
In the nineteenth century, once the classical liberals in Britain had achieved the repeal of the corn laws and a lot of their other demands were met….. they figured they would throw all their efforts into getting public education going….
It’s like they free things up to that level and seeing that the poor aren’t kicking along quite as quickly as they might have hoped they put their faith into this socialist project.
I know this having read it straight from the horses mouth from Charles Mackay’s memoirs.
Mises points out this trend in Britain and France and he thinks it was just the most terrible and ghastly of mistakes. Because while it didn’t immediately lead to great harm in these two countries… they being mono-lingual….
….once this public education was taken onto the Continent and particularly into the Austro-Hungarian Empire… It started producing an enourmous amount of hatred between ethnic groups and more particularly different linguistic groups.
A hatred, tension and source of conflict that had not been there before. We moderns just do not see the compulsion. Not the full level of it. We have somehow become immune to it.
While public education is a reality and if we go with the anti-creationist way of thinking then we ought to go the whole hog and ban any Muslim teaching in the school and the scarves and all that…..
…… If you disagree with the above then you should clearly see for that one glimpse just how much compulsion is involved here.
And there is just no way around it.
Today in school everything taught is bascially part of the mindless socialist religion. That’s what we’d want to stamp out first if not concurrently. But its a waste of energy and any efforts will have a half-life to them.
Just say no.
Just get rid of the whole mess.
DEM says:
“Both science and religion share the same failing - an unwillingness to admit that they don’t know everything.”
Obviously you don’t bother reading science journals. Research reports are full of equivocation and many end with words like “but more research is needed before we can ….”
You will see the same thing if you look at science body reports, for example Academy of Science reports.
This is the link for America’s Science Academies- http://www.nationalacademies.org/
The site contains links to hundreds of reports. Could you kindly show us just one which conforms to your “unwillingness to admit that they don’t know everything” spiel?
I suppose my skepticism comes down just slightly on the other side of the line, Tim. Education creates so many positive ‘neighbourhood effects’ - particularly science education - than anything that isn’t science has to stay outside of the science classroom, even in a private school.
(I suspect, too, that my experience as an occasional high school biology teacher is coming out here. At one point I had some nice little creationist tell me that God had reserved a special burning seat in Hell for me for teaching the evil doctrine of evolution).
“In state schools obviously whichever government is democratically elected gets to choose what’s taught in science class. And they damned well better keep creationism out!”
But how can you say that?
Keynes is utopian bullshit and exactly like JC says it can fairly be described as sort of religious nutballery.
Its clear that Einsteins system is falling apart and can no longer be considered anything more then a useful model.
We cannot get into the business of always scrapping over what is truth with the kids as hostages in the fight.
And if we did take that approach then we’d wind up with almost civil war conditions.
If we were to get to scrapping over this we’d lose because the socialists are fanatics and because the far more irrational and directly harmful lies of socialism would have to be our first priority to fight.
Creationism isn’t nearly as irrational as current inflation-theory of the early expansion of the universe which is just so bizzare the Genesis story appears to be almost plausible at least by comparison.
So all efforts ought to go into getting rid of the idea of public education itself.
SL says:
“Education creates so many positive ‘neighbourhood effects’ - particularly science education - than anything that isn’t science has to stay outside of the science classroom, even in a private school.”
Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that the State should enact legislation backed by a regime of sanctions to ensure things like “creation science” are kept out of science classes, even in private schools?
What are you talking about MUNN?
Just how ignorant are you?
Science is rife with pseudo-religious-like arguments.
Today moreso then ever.
That lunatic Lambert is the best example of that. All that crap about Industrial release of CO2 supposedly being a problem and not a jot of evidence for it.
And yet they are teaching these lies in the schools as we speak.
You cannot have public education and hope to get these tax-eaters on board with truth.
Are they going to go with what I believe for example?
Or follow the lying filthy DDT holocaust-denier Lambert?
Why pick on the creationists?
They are not the focus of motivated irrationalism in the world today.
The world of ecology could probably make a stronger claim on that score.
Really I cannot see the SPECIAL problem with creationism.
Its just one type of bullshit amongst many.
And just about the least harmful kind.
Bad Boy Birdy says:
“That lunatic Lambert is the best example of that. All that crap about Industrial release of CO2 supposedly being a problem and not a jot of evidence for it.”
Are you aware that the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released a combined report in July last year on ocean acidification and anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions? See http://allocasuarina.blogspot.com/2007/01/global-waming-acid-test.html
Of course this is just a rhetorical question, since a man of your depth and breadth of intellect would have read the report months ago.
Yep. And I’m basing my arguments on Milton Friedman’s discussion of education in his Capitalism and Freedom. Remember under Friedman’s scheme, education is still state funded, but all schools are private. Citizens have vouchers to the value of their tax dollars to spend on any of the competing private schools they like.
I’m a moderate libertarian (although I can sound a bit minarchist on things like gun laws and private conservation, which is why I was so annoyed when government regulation forced Walmsley to go bust, because he had a good, marketable system that was rooted entirely by stupid government meddling).
In my greenie days I knew a bloke called Richard Neilsen; he was my first encounter with a libertarian, small government greenie. I have no idea whether he’s still in the party, but he was a big supporter of Walmsley.
“This is the link for America’s Science Academies- http://www.nationalacademies.org/
The site contains links to hundreds of reports. Could you kindly show us just one which conforms to your “unwillingness to admit that they don’t know everything†spiel?”
Here is an example of why creationism is not the most harmful of lies.
This is typical stupid-ecological fucking nutball behaviour.
The dumb bastard doesn’t begin to toss things the other way.
In fact not one study NOT ONE suggests that they do know everything.
This is like one of these distractions over on Lambert’s nutball site.
Surely Skeptic you can see that modern ecology and the constant stupidity it creates is far more harmful then anything the creationists would come up with.
Look how THAT religion has totally perverted Munn’s brain.
I’m am serious.
There is no reasoning with the loathsome Lambert nor with Munn in all his ecological stupidity.
After leaving aside enough room for nature corridors why is a grown man getting involved with all this silliiness?
Well for one thing he’s been brain-washed into it in your public-financed education.
No, Graeme, in my experience creationism is worse. And if you turn my education thread into a climate science thread, the sooning tool will come out!
Yeah so what’s the big deal with the report you [WONDROUS NATURE WORSHIPPER] Munn?
Spit it out.
Now I tell you the truth.
There is no evidence that the release of [SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF FLYING PIGS] is anything but a great benefit for mankind and terrestial nature.
So what have you got to contradict that?
Don’t hide behind a link [NATURE WORSHIPPER] and victim of tax-eater education.
In your own words….
GO!!!!!
[SOONED BY ADMIN]
You just cannot be serious Skeptic.
Can you not see all around you the harm that nutball ecological thinking has caused.
How does 1-3 million per year dying of Malaria grab you?
Not serious?
How about us shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of energy production for the last twenty years and looking to keep on going with that indefinitely?
Not serious?
It threatens our very survival.
You are going to have to make a better case Skeptic.
This skeptical atheist just isn’t buying it until you put up the evidence.
SL says:
“which is why I was so annoyed when government regulation forced Walmsley to go bust…”
Poppycock. You have been misinformed. I’ve been involved with Earth Sanctuaries for years, particularly at Little River Sanctuary - now Mt Rothwell.
The model Walmsley used failed and Walmsely is on record acknowldeging its failure. Moreover Walmsely was a poor manager and had a shocking temper and a host of other personal failings. I like Dr John and love what he tried to do but he failed and Government cannot be blamed.
I even have a cat hat and kill cats whenever I get the chance
The DDT issue is not really based on bad science, but rather on the contempt that many leftists - Greenies or not - have for people in the third world. Over at the ALS, Yobbo put a link up to a film called Mine your own Business, which pointed out that anti-development acitvists in the third world often had no scientific training at all, but wished to preserve the ‘traditional’ societies they visited, rather like flies trapped in amber.
When closed off from development, these places make cheap holiday destinations for first world lefties to go to and thus show their moral worth. One very telling scene showed an activist showing off his new boat, which he frankly admitted he could never have bought in the USA. Meanwhile, local villagers wanted the mine that he was opposing to go ahead, for reasonably obvious reasons - their school was falling down, no doctor would live in their village because of its poverty, and so on.
“The model Walmsley used failed and Walmsely is on record acknowldeging its failure.”
I’ve not heard a damn thing about these people before. But knowing Munn he’s bullshitting and will not be able to come up with this acknowledgement.
Lets see it then Munn.
This evidence that government didn’t fuck this guy over.
Bit of the old evidence Munn. You ecologist-statists don’t fucking believe in evidence do you?
Is the ‘problem’ that it is taught in science class or that it is taught at all? For example, would you be happy with a school that made no mention of evolution, ID or creationism in its science class, but its RE class taught creationism or intelligent design?
From Landline. The article is dreadfully bitty, but sounds like some pretty silly intervention to me. I used to have one of his bumperstickers, viz ‘Hat your Cat’.
“The DDT issue is not really based on bad science, but rather on the contempt that many leftists - Greenies or not - have for people in the third world.”
I think it’s both.
And the point is that it is just futile to think we can fight out every battle for truth in the schools.
The bullshit just never ends with these people and as soon as we allow this public financing there is no amount of scrapping that will stop them from getting hold of that money and using it for propaganda pursposes.
If anything it would be better to leave the creationists in and so there are these two rival religious nutballs fighting it out with each other.
To put effort into fighting against the creationist influence is a bit like stopping the Iran/Iraq war by fighting one and then the other when you could get them scrapping each other and the result will be a new focus on epistemological method.
I tell you it would be better to fight against the socialists and ally in a sort of neutral way with the creationists.
We have to sort out levels of bullshit.
With Lambert as the absolute standard.
Look up the thread, Amir. I have no problem with creationism in a religious ed class, but it isn’t science, so it shouldn’t be in a science class.
Amir says:
“For example, would you be happy with a school that made no mention of evolution, ID or creationism in its science class, but its RE class taught creationism or intelligent design?”
I think that all children should be compelled to attend Government schools. There should be no such thing as a private school. Moreover we should have complete separation of Church and State and as such “religious education” should only be taught in a social sciences framework.
Parents who want their children to adopt a religion may send them to Christian “Sunday School” and its equivalents for other religions. The State should not be involved.
Well there you are Munn.
Skeptic blew your argument out the window.
That didn’t take long did it?
“I think that all children should be compelled to attend Government schools. There should be no such thing as a private school. ”
Don’t try irony dude. Because you are such a lunatic it’s impossible to tell when you are being ironic.
Now be a good boy and admit Skeptic won that argument.
You see if you don’t its further evidence to my case that Creationism is not the big focus of bullshit in the world today.
So you have a problem with choice, Steve? What if I don’t want to send my kids to a government school? What are you going to do with all the religious parents who suddenly start homeschooling their kids as a consequence? Hire more police to arrest them for wanting to exercise choice?
SL says:
“From Landline. The article is dreadfully bitty, but sounds like some pretty silly intervention to me.”
Walmsley goes in boots first and gets people off side then creates a ruckus. As I said he lacks managfement and people skills. He also exaggerates.
As you are probably aware, Scotia is now run by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy. AWC has a dozen sanctuaries throughout Australia, including many of the old Earth Sanctuaries places and have no problem obtaining animals. http://www.australianwildlife.org/scotia.asp
I did a post on AWC in December last year.
I don’t have a problem with it not being included in science class. However, whether it is included in science or RE, the effect on the child is still the same if evolution is banished from the science class. They are still being provided with the same information albeit in a different classroom and under a different subject.
Can you put up a link to your post, Steve. Ta.
In every state in Australia, science (or one of its constituent strands) is a board subject that is ‘for marks’, and is required for entry to a great number of university courses. The various school based religious ed courses never are, and students - being the savvy consumers they are - by and large take them far less seriously.
So who do you think has more right to decide what and how their children are taught? The state or the parents?
Personally, I think the responsibility for raising children rests solely with the parents. They may outsource elements of that responsibility — i.e. education — to a private or public school. However, neither the school nor the state is anything more than a provider of services to the parent and just as your supermarket doesn’t have the right to tell you what to eat or buy, the school or the state doesn’t have the right to tell parents how their kids should be educated.
“What are you going to do with all the religious parents who suddenly start homeschooling their kids as a consequence?”
Universal Government education would help create social cohesion if done properly, ie if a range of integration, anti-bullying and cultural awareness were on offer.
If my above strategy reduced the risk of terror and riots like those in Cronulla and at the tennis between Serbs and Croats I couldn’t care less about a few religious zealots.
The degree to which police would need to get involved even in the worst case scenario would probably represent no more than a fraction of one per cent of current police involvement in family life anyway. Ever heard of domestics?
What Steve doesn’t realise is that when citizens are deprived of educational choice, the homeschooling movement gains in strength. There is very little homeschooling in Australia. In the US, by contrast, it’s huge, simply because private schools are deliberately priced out of reach of the average citizen (due to strict interpretation of the disestablishment clause).
I still maintain that a strict interpretation of the disestablishment clause is perfectly compatible with a voucher scheme. And with greater choice.
I can meet Munn half-way. As environmentalism is unquestionably a religion, it should absolutely not be taught in schools - nor should environmental organisations receive any government funding whatsoever. Believers in global enwarmification are far crazier than creationists. At least the latter believed it was possible to cope with rising sea levels by building a big boat. Greenies think the best policy is to sign a religious document whose superstitious incantations will ward off the Great Global Drowning. Al Gore is even training thetans to encourage people to switch to greenie light bulbs in the belief that this too will have a Canute-like effect on the GGD. Nobody should be permitted to watch his religious film except at “Sunday School” screenings at old drive-ins - where the faithful can watch it from their Amish gigs.
SL,
The AWC link is here:
http://allocasuarina.blogspot.com/2006/12/australian-wildlife-conservancy.html
Ahh, create social cohesion. Is that the government’s role? What wouldn’t you have them do? We’ll be paying 80% income tax the way you’re going.
CL,
I’m having an intelligent conversation with Amir and SL. I’m not in the mood for sneer and smear, this being the Sabbath.
Sl,
About 45% of Swedish GDP is attributable to Government and the other Nordic countries are similar.
I worship the Nordic Model.
Global warming OT VII, Al Gore, chickens out of a meeting with an actual scientist.
That’s a good piece, Steve. It’s a pity they’ve been forced into a not-for-profit model, but if it’s the only way round the regulations, then you gotta do what you gotta do.
At the risk of this turning into another monster Scandanavian thread, I think we’d best return to the topic
CL, I’d be interested in the Church take on this. Why have you guys managed to be so sensible about this?
Notice how Munn won’t admit that you’ve beaten him in an argument.
His alleged counter-evidence is just a smokescreen.
So you have some ways to go to convince me that its creationism that is the root of the problem here.
Rather then government money in education itself.
To get to the truth we want competing bullshit and cannot waste time on fighting anything but the clear and present danger.
Let the creationists in to fight with the socialists and ecological nutballs while we pull out all the funding.
Particularly let the Catholics in as long as they promise to bring Thomas Aquinas with them.
The model is Ronnie letting Iraq and Iran fight while he stitched up the Soviet Union.
The real issue, Amir, is that the secular nutballs don’t want any religious instruction in school at all, which of course will give them that extra hour to propagandize the kids with green leftist swill. That’s their ultimate objective. The ID issue is crap quite frankly. It’s just bogus bullshit to eventually ban RE altogether. That’s where they want to go.
I saw some total shit that made me really upset the other night. We went to the movies and saw an ad with a bunch of schools kids repeating religious green propaganda fed to them by their commie teachers. These kids were no more than 5 years old yet were informing the audience that the poles were warming and losing ice. Obviously these kids had not been taught that ice turns to liquid above 32 F and last time I looked average temp at the poles was about 30 below, even on a good day.
In any event we have been through science teaching due to our kids and have seen what the syllabus is all about. Bob Brown and his brown shirts have had an obvious effect on the curriculum. Science teaching in the lower grades in fact is not science in the traditional sense at all. It’s hocus pocus feel good leftist shit - no more than propaganda really.
Munn is pretending he supports science, but his support of the green party only lends itself to anti-science. In fact it’s the left trying to sandbag people into believing a tiny fraction of religious people actually believe in creationism. However this slight of hand actually gives them cover for the real crime they are attending to. The anti-science displayed for instance by the green brown shirts’ view of GM crops for example. Now that’s anti-science that is really damaging. Munn to his credit agrees, yet he is too cowardly to actually dump that party for the LDP, which is a sell out.
Look I started my time at a religious school until “we†realized I wasn’t cut out for a place. We were taught RE with creationism and everyone knew and understood the science class was teaching something that was far more credible about the history of the earth and how we got here.
As I said, this ID stuff is just smoke and bulldust being thrown around by leftoids as cover for the bigger damage in science class. They are the ones politicizing science.
Gore pulls out of a meeting with a statistician. Fascinating. Truly fascinating.
Now here’s what some actual fair dinkum climate scientists with a combined tally of over 200 peer-reviewed research papers on climate issues think-
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/calling-all-science-teachers/
This is NOT, repeat NOT, a climate science thread. JC’s comment is okay because it’s (tangentally) related to the topic, but the other stuff isn’t.
SL,
“It’s a pity they’ve been forced into a not-for-profit model, but if it’s the only way round the regulations.”
It has nothing to do with “the regulations”.
One huge problem with being for-profit it that you can’t get Government grants and some people are less willing to make donations. Some of these sanctuaries cost over one million dollars just for the land purchase. You can’t make the money that is needed to buy and maintain these sanctuaries with a few bus loads of backpackers and pensioners. It’s been tried and failed.
If science is the issue, I suggest we also take a look at economics class in high school. The stuff they teach is possibly quite similar to what they taught in commie school.
I couldn’t believe it when I saw a year 11 and 12 syllabus. I would actually go as far as demanding that all economics teachers sign a letter as part of their contract arragements that they have to believe in certain miminum standards in terms of free market economics. You shouldn’t teach or call yourself an economist unless you meet minimum standards.
…..Such as : the marginal productivity theory that eventually leads to free labor markets. Free trade that eventually leads to comparative and absolute advantage. Things like that.
Fair is fair : economics is also a science. It is about time the left learnt a little about it or stayed away.
“I still maintain that a strict interpretation of the disestablishment clause is perfectly compatible with a voucher scheme. And with greater choice.”
I can see that thats just plausible. But we don’t know what problems will arise in that the scheme is still hypothetical.
But yes in the American system public schooling at the Federal level is definitely unconstitutional whereas a voucher system ought just make it under the wire.
But aren’t you thinking of a sort of one-model-only education?
And why get the federal funding in the first place…. As opposed to a tax and money system that is as egalitarian as it can possibly be in the funding of the minimal government side of things.
If you have that then taking peoples money and giving it back as vouchers is just churning.
Don’t forget to factor in much tighter money into this scheme.
Churning into a voucher will stop poorer families cutting costs by going to school less days a week.
There would likely be a small school on every corner and an immense amount of innovation that a voucher system will stifle.
And in a proper market value for money gets better every year but vouchering will hurt all that by putting a cookie-cutter over it all.
I can certainly see it in transition but when the legislation goes through its got to contain within it its own phase-out.
Well, I’ll bow out now, since I have about 4 people asking me questions and commenting on my comments and it is getting late. G’night. Hope the golliwogs don’t bite.
I’d be wary of getting teachers to sign anything stipulating what they should or shouldn’t believe. Apart from being rather illiberal (in the libertarian sense), it’s quite easy to sign something and believe the opposite. I’ve done it myself in various religious schools when teaching.
Munn
The US is the most industrialized country on earth. It is estimated that there are more trees in the continental US than 200 years ago.
re comment 50
Sell the parks. Every single one of them ought to be standing on its own 4 feet or perish.
You may also want to explain how it is that the Green party doesn’t support GM foods seeing it would reduce acreage by a significant amount.
SL
If they don’t believe in economics. Therefore they shouldn’t be teaching the subject. They have totally perverted its teaching to the point where it is nothing more than a Keynsian slogheap of shit.
It might not be a climate science thread but its good to have that stuff on because it makes it implausible to be going after the creationists when these hard-core irrationalists like Munn are about.
This is something you ought to acknowledge here.
Where is the SPECIAL nutballery of the creationists that must command our attention.
I’m not seeing it.
Nothing is more irrational then Lambert.
He is the gold standard and he’s directly harmful.
Yet it strikes me that the influence of his general movement is immensely powerful IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
That’s probably what Beck was so upset about. He really cares about all these children dying.
It’d be impossible to police, JC, tempting as it may be to do something like this. And it also just encourages more silly regulation and - as a corollory - deadweight loss.
The reason we can’t have a climate science thread is because I don’t know enough about it to police it properly. And - believe it or not - I find the whole topic slightly less interesting than naval fluff collecting.
Well but the point is still there.
If we have to police Creationism from the schools where does it end.
And why would it start at creationism when there is just so much out there that is so irrational.
It’s ok to have irrational conclusions in the shools and competing stupidities is ok….. IF IT WERE TO MEAN THE KIDS LEARNT THE METHODOLOGY OF HOW TO SORT IT OUT FOR THEMSELVES.
But they don’t.
They can go all the way from public school to getting a Nobel prize in economics without rejecting Keynesianism.
I know it is SL. But a careful and complete overall of the cirriculum would go some way. If there are those who steer too far away fire them without hesitation and loss of benefits. If there is one thing that scares the shit out of lefties its loss of benefits.
I think we should have a climate thead titled
“Birdy takes on all comers in the AGW wars”
This site has been a bit wussy since the BBP06 and needs to liven up a bit.
Folks if you have a voucher system you still need to have some basic standards which have to be met before the school can be voucher redeemable. You can’t be handing out money willy nilly. The requirement that science courses teach science and not astrology or creationism would be no harder to police than it is now.If someone wants to run a school and not want to abide by this then they don’t have to apply for voucher redeemability. Simple.
Munn putting on his Ted Kazcinski cap says:
“Gore pulls out of a meeting with a statistician. Fascinating. Truly fascinating.”
And what, pray tell is Gore’s formal education? He pulled out of undergrad school from what I recall. Lomborg has far more credentials than does Gore.
Christ you leave yourself open, Ted.
And what Jason said. Thankyou for rescuing my thread from the climate science munsters.
“The frequent picture people seem to have is matter flying outwards from a single point (like an explosion). However, the matter is all actually standing still while space itself expands dragging the matter with it.”
So says someone talking about the alleged creation of the Universe.
Now it looks like really obvious bullshit to me.
“Yes your worship. We weren’t running away from eachother we were standing still. And you see the space before us was being spontaneously created”
Total crap and not much in the way of convergence to it.
But how do we say what should be taught and what ought not?
Since ultimately what we want to teach the kiddies is to run several hyotheses in parallel for subjects that are in doubt and contention……
,,,,,, then having all these bullshit hypotheses in the school can actually be quite useful.
Jason
Accreditation is what you’re talking about. Fine.
Getting back to the original topic…whomever coined the term ‘intelligent’ design obviously never saw a Platypus.
Remember under Friedman’s scheme, education is still state funded, but all schools are private.
That is in the process of being tried here in the UK with run down comps turned into privately sponsored Academies. Three have been funded by a born-again millionaire. In science class they teach evolution … but the teachers (who co-incidentally tend to be of similar religious persuasion as the sponsor) take time out to point out that ‘other’ people think this is wrong and believe in Intelligent Design instead.
They are getting great results, kids behave, OFSTED inspectors are thrilled … no one mentions this might be because non-performers and anti-socials are expelled for whatever grounds they can come up with (one underachiever admitted to a teacher he had smoked outside school grounds and that was used to ban him). Local parents aren’t all thrilled to have what is essentially a faith school forced on them. Not much in the way of choice there.
“Folks if you have a voucher system you still need to have some basic standards which have to be met before the school can be voucher redeemable. You can’t be handing out money willy nilly.”
Right. And thats why the voucher system is no good.
As statist Jason shows we are back to the same problem.
In this case he wants to lock his particular irrationalism in with a refusal to let the person get a voucher if they don’t abide by his ideology.
So the voucher deal is untenable and we have to move to more egalitarian taxation and money instead.
Privately sponsored academies and a voucher system with accreditation are completely different creatures.
And, to be fair, the British system is so busted (disclosure, I taught in some of the worst schools in London for 2 years) that anything is better than what they have now.
I had classrooms full of kids who’d misspell cat (and their own names). If these new schools are producing graduates who are functionally literate and numerate, I don’t much care if they’re also teaching them that the moon is made of green cheese.
Essentially, SL, Catholicism does not subscribe to biblical literalism - to that much-vaunted sola scriptura of the Reformation, in other words, that has led our protestant friends into error on this question. Believing in Tradition - or the living magisterium - the Church holds that Christ gave her authority to teach Revelation throughout the ages; in other words, the Church was empowered to preach the divine and inerrant Word of God in and for the times. The Church, enlightened by the Holy Spirit and guided by the successor of Peter and his brother successors in the episcopate, simply believes that God created everything, material and spiritual. That is a truth of Sacred Scripture. How God did so has always been a mystery but the explanations of science don’t detract from - but render even more luminescent - the divine majesty. Even non-believing scientific cosmologists expound their truths - such as they are - ad maiorem Dei gloriam.
Back in 2005, I noted with others that Christoph Cardinal Schonborn was critical of the suggestion - touted as a verifiable tenet of physics - that modern science had obviated God the Creator. The Church rejects that as hubris and ideology. Which it is.
Related stuff at the Wiki entry on the Church and evolution here.
So what’s your solution Graeme? Let it rip at once? Or throw money around?
Try to be a bit realistic.
“In science class they teach evolution … but the teachers (who co-incidentally tend to be of similar religious persuasion as the sponsor) take time out to point out that ‘other’ people think this is wrong and believe in Intelligent Design instead.”
Right. And so where is the problem except to the extent that it’s still caused by govenment financing.
Without the government financing the smoker would find someone who would take his money.
And creationism is hardly as silly as any other tripe they teach in school.
Still we have but one problem that’s showing up here and it’s state funding.
I told you my solution.
Move to more egalitarian money and taxation.
And let the parents pay for their own kids education or home-school them.
If one parent is working full-time and the other part-time and they have a bigger flat (thanks to taking the height restrictions off buildings) for less rent….
That’s a good enough setup for home-schooling.
From there some families will supplement their income by taking on other kids….
And there you have a dynamic for enormous innovation.
So we must get the money and taxation deal right.
And have a massive campaign to get living costs down.
In other words just do the right thing more generally.
CL wins the prize for Clearest. Comment. Evah.
What’s wrong with the complete deregulation of education in which all schools are private and all curriculum is privately set and standards for admission to tertiary instutitions also managed privately (such as is currently the case with the international baccalaureate system)?
I think Friedman’s ‘neighbourhood effects’ argument puts paid to that suggestion, Amir, as tempting as it might be to some of the sillier Rothbardians out there. I realise that my continued support for Friedman’s ideas marks me as someone on the moderate end of the libertarian spectrum - at least on this issue. I also suspect that the costs will outweigh the benefits pretty dramatically.
“How God did so has always been a mystery but the explanations of science don’t detract from - but render even more luminescent - the divine majesty. Even non-believing scientific cosmologists expound their truths - such as they are - ad maiorem Dei gloriam.”
Right. And the evidence for this contention:
“The Big Bang theory doesn’t say anything about what caused it because, well, it doesn’t need to. Theories don’t try to explain everything, just what evidence is available and pertinent.”
Now Skeptic.
Let’s take two of your own quotes and see how they must push you further in my direction:
Statement (I)
It’d be impossible to police, JC, tempting as it may be to do something like this. And it also just encourages more silly regulation and - as a corollory - deadweight loss.
Statement (II)
I had classrooms full of kids who’d misspell cat (and their own names). If these new schools are producing graduates who are functionally literate and numerate, I don’t much care if they’re also teaching them that the moon is made of green cheese.
Now why would it change if I just changed things to:
“I don’t much care if they’re also teaching them that the moon is made of green cheese….. and was created by the pink elephant GOD!!! precisely 6,008 years ago at three O’Clock on a Wednesday.
Let churches and charities handle a lot of the schooling. It’s the parents’ money.
If there is that much competing bullshit on an equal footing it’s epistemology that gets a leg up and that’s when we win.
“I think Friedman’s ‘neighbourhood effects’ argument puts paid to that suggestion, Amir, as tempting as it might be to some of the sillier Rothbardians out there. ”
I don’t think it does and I don’t think Friedman thought that way.
He was putting it together as a compromise.
There are no neighbourhood effects that public funding brings that couldn’t be brought also under private funding.
If these new schools are producing graduates who are functionally literate and numerate, I don’t much care if they’re also teaching them that the moon is made of green cheese.
Unfortunately they seem to be achieving this by disenfranchising the lower quartile of students, despite replacing the properly (though admittedly shambolic) comprehensive. There’s probably a negative neighbourhood effect there.
What’s wrong with the complete deregulation of education in which all schools are private and all curriculum is privately set and standards for admission to tertiary instutitions also managed privately (such as is currently the case with the international baccalaureate system)?
Two main problems, Amir. First is that (big E) Education has goals other than compulsory education of all the little scrotes regardless of ability (babysitting for example as well as keeping kids out of the workforce and therefore out of the benefits system).
You’d also have employers screaming because they wouldn’t be able to judge who were the most able people to hire due to multiple competing qualification systems.
You might have an argument for improving education by making it a privilege rather than a right but the social costs would be HUGE.
Can’t sleep. Blasted insomnia.
SL in reference to a CL comment says:
“CL wins the prize for Clearest. Comment. Evah.”
Sigh. Mark B over at LP has whipped CL in so many theological stoushes I soon lost interest. The man is a poser who hides behind a moniker. Ignore him.
Talk about hiding one’s light under a bushel.
Mean ex-teacher comment:
Some kids are ineducable. I didn’t use to believe this but six years in classrooms taught me otherwise. The effect of keeping an ineducable student in a classroom where abilities range from good to marginal is huge. Leaving the really appalling cases in impacts most directly on the marginal students, thus increasing the number of kids who don’t get an education.
Mean ex-teacher comment:
Some kids are ineducable. I didn’t used to believe this but six years in classrooms taught me otherwise.
Most realistic people would say that’s a given. But then what do you DO with them? Governments really need to do a thorough shake up and decide what education is and isn’t for … but that’s a rather large philosophical issue I’m not sure our pollies are capable of handling.
CL knows his Catholic doctrine, Steve. He’s a conservative Catholic. Mark’s a liberal Catholic. They’re both followers of Peter’s successor. And CL answered my question with clarity, intelligence and economy.
You keep their numbers as small as possible by devolving as much authority as possible to the local level - that is, teachers and school principals. The problem with the centralized imposition (from on high) of school discipline is that it’s a ‘one size fits all’ approach and does nothing for schools at the coalface.
As for the larger question of ineducable kids - I really don’t know. All any policy can do is keep the numbers down.
“Can’t sleep. Blasted insomnia.”
Ummmm Bi-polar symptoms list included it. See list here:
Increased energy, activity, and restlessness
Excessively “high,” overly good, euphoric mood
Extreme irritability
Racing thoughts and talking very fast, jumping from one idea to another
Distractibility, can’t concentrate well
Little sleep needed
Unrealistic beliefs in one’s abilities and powers
Poor judgment
A lasting period of behavior that is different from usual
Increased sexual drive
Abuse of drugs, particularly cocaine, alcohol, and sleeping medications
Provocative, intrusive, or aggressive behavior
Denial that anything is wrong
“Sigh. Mark B over at LP has whipped CL in so many theological stoushes I soon lost interest.”
Says Mr. Christianity. You ought to know, Ted.
“The man is a poser who hides behind a moniker. Ignore him.”
Says you Ted Kaczynski aka Mel Leuca
SL says:
“As for the larger question of ineducable kids - I really don’t know. All any policy can do is keep the numbers down.”
I don’t agree. We should have early intervention programs that help kids who are from bad homes, have physical or mental disabilities or low inteligence.
I’m a little annoyed that you aren’t a bit mopre caring and compassionate for these kids. Like you I come from a fucked up background with a violent gun totin’ drug dealing dad. Worse than yours I suspect. That experience has made me want to give a hand up to those at the bottom of the social pile. I don’t want to look at kids and see what I was.
As for the larger question of ineducable kids - I really don’t know. All any policy can do is keep the numbers down.
Perhaps a cull?
I’m thinking… Battle Royale?
That experience has made me want to give a hand up to those at the bottom of the social pile. I don’t want to look at kids and see what I was.
Actually Mel, you’ve brought up one of MY personal soapboxes here - adult education.
I firmly believe that some kids just aren’t ready to benefit from academic training in their teens. We should have a much more flexible education system with funding in place so adults can return to school or uni later in life (for the purpose of personal Education, not just employment Training) when they are ready?
DEM,
Yep. And Tech Schools should never have been scrapped as they were here in Victoria. Not sure about the situation in other states.
ps. I went to a Tech School and have the scars to prove it.
“ps. I went to a Tech School and have the scars to prove it.”
I’ll say
That’s not a lack of compassion, Steve. It’s an honest admission I don’t know the answer. And I also don’t pretend to know the answer, or think that various forms of state approved thieving is necessarily the answer, either.
Please do not jump to conclusions about people.
On the contrary, Steve. The tragedy of your psychology and politics is that you see children like you (allegedly) were and want to keep them from transcending your own experience.
A common enough pathology.
You are, I suspect, a naturally jealous, borderline sociopathic personality. The cuddly environmentalism is a narcissistic crutch whose purpose is to convince you - at some deep level where it’s unlikely to be accepted as true and is eventually rejected in a fit of obscenity and self-loathing - that you’re really a nice and generous person. This explains why you can do such a good job pretending to be nice before falling to pieces again.
Mark is to theology what you are to sobriety, Steve. I well recall his wrongheaded notion of where Ratzinger’s papacy was likely to go and told him so a few times. The Pope I predicted has appeared, even as Mark’s former gravatar suddenly vanished without trace.
Some “whipping”.
Finally, I note - and worriedly ask you to recall - that your loyalty to the LP cause has yet to be rewarded with an invitation to join the Scoobydoo gang. Not even as the eponymous mutt.
SL, the DDT issue is all about the science and it’s relevant to the topic of this post. Many right wingers don’t believe in evolution and hence don’t believe that mosquitoes can evolve resistance to it. They don’t understand that DDT is no longer a magic bullet against malaria, and the restrictions on DDT use environmentalists pushed for have saved lives by slowing the development of resistance to DDT.
Oh dear…
Our totalitarian friends are all the same. The Apartheid regime tried this - although they were a bit more subtle. It was called National Christian Education. They bullied the private schools into either closing down or adopting their principles. To their credit the Catholics resisted by not closing down, and by being subversive, maintaining the form but not the substance of the government agenda.
Government control of education quickly amounts to political paedophilia.
“You’d also have employers screaming because they wouldn’t be able to judge who were the most able people to hire due to multiple competing qualification systems.”
Well that’s just silly. What employers want is better educated people and they will do the testing themselves or free enterprise standardised testing would be developed.
That’s about the lamest excuse for statism I’ve seen yet. If it’s not one thing its another with you people. And you think CREATIONISM is a problem.
Time for leftists everywhere to have a good long look in the mirror.
Munn sez:
“I’m a little annoyed that you aren’t a bit mopre caring and compassionate for these kids. Like you I come from a fucked up background with a violent gun totin’ drug dealing dad. ”
The irrationality of the left never bottoms out. Munn what kids do you think you are helpling through this statist action. You dad dealt drugs you say. Free enterprise would mean pharmeceutical departments would sell drugs on the cheap. It means people like your dad would be able to drop-hop with great c