snakeblitz33
Well-Known Member
I listed more than one reason. Different circumstances in different areas.
You hypothesize.
You hypothesize.
Private Schools and evolutionary theory
- Thread starter snakeblitz33
- Start date
darthtang aw
Active Member
I listed more than one reason. Different circumstances in different areas.
You hypothesize.
The cultural idea of society embracing stupidity and celebrating it (celebrities and such) i disagree with. As i pointed out our higher education system is still number one. And college kids know more about celebrities than any demograph.
I do tend to agree on the testing. As that was instituted back in the early sixties before our slide began.
You hypothesize.
The cultural idea of society embracing stupidity and celebrating it (celebrities and such) i disagree with. As i pointed out our higher education system is still number one. And college kids know more about celebrities than any demograph.
I do tend to agree on the testing. As that was instituted back in the early sixties before our slide began.
snakeblitz33
Well-Known Member
Something that my wife runs across a lot, being a first grade teacher, is that parents don't want their kids to struggle. I feel like the struggling process is a way for kids to learn from their mistakes. All too often I see parents AND teachers GIVE kids answers. When it starts getting harder in high school many kids just give up and think that they can be the next rags to riches millionaire, since that's what's taught in history classes and glorified on television.
snakeblitz33
Well-Known Member
Also, I graduated from a public school my senior year of high school with many kids that could barely read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/140#post_3531584
I wouldn't argue that. Most had faith, they just thought of religion and government as being in two separate spheres and that one particular faith shouldn't be lorded over another though the power of the state. They were a mixed bunch but in the end I think that the majority had firm beliefs in Jesus Christ, which IMO had to have had some influence in their political affairs. The forefathers gave us the blue print (born from christian beliefs), the founders erected the framework. One could even argue that the American Revolution was actually a religious war.
You are only hoping or guessing about their personal beliefs whereas most, at least the most prominent, seemed to have a strong desire to leave religion out of what they were charged with--which was to create a new government. Myself, I am not a Christian, yet I do embrace many Judeo-Christian golden rules and moralities. If we are raised within a given society then we usually embrace much of what that society says about right and wrong--regardless of what is personally believed regarding faith.
And while some peoples from Europe immigrated to the USA due to religious persecutions in Europe, the American Revolution had nothing to do with a religious war--far from it. The United States is a land of religious tolerance, it is not a Christian nation. We are a democratic republic, not a theocracy. An example of a theocracy is Iran, not the USA.
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/140#post_3531584
I wouldn't argue that. Most had faith, they just thought of religion and government as being in two separate spheres and that one particular faith shouldn't be lorded over another though the power of the state. They were a mixed bunch but in the end I think that the majority had firm beliefs in Jesus Christ, which IMO had to have had some influence in their political affairs. The forefathers gave us the blue print (born from christian beliefs), the founders erected the framework. One could even argue that the American Revolution was actually a religious war.
You are only hoping or guessing about their personal beliefs whereas most, at least the most prominent, seemed to have a strong desire to leave religion out of what they were charged with--which was to create a new government. Myself, I am not a Christian, yet I do embrace many Judeo-Christian golden rules and moralities. If we are raised within a given society then we usually embrace much of what that society says about right and wrong--regardless of what is personally believed regarding faith.
And while some peoples from Europe immigrated to the USA due to religious persecutions in Europe, the American Revolution had nothing to do with a religious war--far from it. The United States is a land of religious tolerance, it is not a Christian nation. We are a democratic republic, not a theocracy. An example of a theocracy is Iran, not the USA.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Quills is using the wrong term. Not a christian belief. A belief in god. There is a difference. Problem is many that do not adhere to christianity tie a belief in god to christianity. And many that believe in god make the assumption it is due to christianity.
Diests believe in a god still.
Diests believe in a god still.
2quills
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth tang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/160#post_3531621
Quills is using the wrong term. Not a christian belief. A belief in god. There is a difference. Problem is many that do not adhere to Christianity tie a belief in god to Christianity. And many that believe in god make the assumption it is due to Christianity.
Deists believe in a god still.
I don't know where you get the from, Darth but that is not my agenda. Further more, belief in God existed before Christianity. All I'm saying is that there was a huge Christian influence in the building of this nation. By the time the founders began laying out the frame work there were two main influences of Christianity that dominated the colonies. One of which was heavily influenced by Old English ways. This is where the colonist christians that evolved from the separatist puritans parted ways and ideas from the tyranny that dominated the old country. Ultimately there were many sects (forgive my lack of terminology) that had spun off of those.
The founders in their enlightened minds understood that if freedom was going to work that there had to be a separation between religious beliefs and the matters of state regardless of their own personal beliefs. They knew that history always shows that one will try to rise and dominate the planet thus oppressing everyone else. And that's not freedom. This is why we went to war over these ideals. History being taught today in public schools doesn't tell the whole story because we're not supposed to discuss religion. Therefore, we don't end up with a 3 dimensional picture of the past. In all cases I don't think you'll find many atheists in government back then.
Originally Posted by Darth tang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/160#post_3531621
Quills is using the wrong term. Not a christian belief. A belief in god. There is a difference. Problem is many that do not adhere to Christianity tie a belief in god to Christianity. And many that believe in god make the assumption it is due to Christianity.
Deists believe in a god still.
I don't know where you get the from, Darth but that is not my agenda. Further more, belief in God existed before Christianity. All I'm saying is that there was a huge Christian influence in the building of this nation. By the time the founders began laying out the frame work there were two main influences of Christianity that dominated the colonies. One of which was heavily influenced by Old English ways. This is where the colonist christians that evolved from the separatist puritans parted ways and ideas from the tyranny that dominated the old country. Ultimately there were many sects (forgive my lack of terminology) that had spun off of those.
The founders in their enlightened minds understood that if freedom was going to work that there had to be a separation between religious beliefs and the matters of state regardless of their own personal beliefs. They knew that history always shows that one will try to rise and dominate the planet thus oppressing everyone else. And that's not freedom. This is why we went to war over these ideals. History being taught today in public schools doesn't tell the whole story because we're not supposed to discuss religion. Therefore, we don't end up with a 3 dimensional picture of the past. In all cases I don't think you'll find many atheists in government back then.
darthtang aw
Active Member
I know that isnt your agenda. However i am just correcting what i believe to be a wrong use of terminology. Christianity has changed. So mich so it includes the catholic church now. It didn't back then. The term christianity is the wrong term to use. A faith in god is a better term.
2quills
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/160#post_3531628
I know that isnt your agenda. However i am just correcting what i believe to be a wrong use of terminology. Christianity has changed. So mich so it includes the catholic church now. It didn't back then. The term christianity is the wrong term to use. A faith in god is a better term.
I appreciate that. However I don't think that Christianity is the wrong term to use if we start at the beginning. I did however correct myself a page or two back when I talked about the divergance from particular faiths and not God by the time the founders came around. The moralistic views that our country is based on started with the Separatists that first came here. Ever here of the Mayflower Compact? These ideals were the seeds that birthed a free nation. And they came from a Christian moral view point. And of corse they have been evolving ever since.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/160#post_3531628
I know that isnt your agenda. However i am just correcting what i believe to be a wrong use of terminology. Christianity has changed. So mich so it includes the catholic church now. It didn't back then. The term christianity is the wrong term to use. A faith in god is a better term.
I appreciate that. However I don't think that Christianity is the wrong term to use if we start at the beginning. I did however correct myself a page or two back when I talked about the divergance from particular faiths and not God by the time the founders came around. The moralistic views that our country is based on started with the Separatists that first came here. Ever here of the Mayflower Compact? These ideals were the seeds that birthed a free nation. And they came from a Christian moral view point. And of corse they have been evolving ever since.
mantisman51
Active Member
Having serious issues with my computer and/or interwebs. Much more to write, but borrowing internet/computer from friend. The main point I was making, however, and no evolutionist has answered(and it has been demonstrated carbon dating, even if accurate, can't prove evolution), so WHY DO SCIENTISTS TODAY USE THE UNPROVEN AND SPECULATIVE TIME FRAME AND THEORIES BY AN AVOWED ANTI-CHRISTIAN CHARLATAN?
pezenfuego
Active Member
Does anybody else absolutely love The Book of Mormon the Musical?
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/140#post_3531604
Testing. The government is too concerned about testing students, that teachers don't get to teach essential knowledge and skills. 30 days a year are reserved for government testing. That's not including weekly tests administered by teachers. Our kids are tested to death, and the students have no results to learn from it.
It's also a major lack of funding. It's not because there aren't highly qualified teachers out there to do a job, but for the most part, in order to do a good job, supplies necessary to teach are not being provided by schools. Most teachers now have to rely upon what a video screen says or what is written in a text book. There is hardly any hands on learning and brain to paper connections being made anymore.
Also, it's the culture that we live in. A lot of the time, society celebrates ignorance and stupidity by giving them TV shows or clothing brands - and then our young people look up to it and want to emulate it. Smart students want to fit in as well, and therefore act like their peers.
Yes, and no. Testing is a red herring, IMHO. The core of the problem is culture. Ask any high school student who has studied for a year abroad how it was different where they were. In the countries that educate their students better they take school seriously, not as an interruption in a fun life. The school year is commonly a year, not 8 months or so, the day is longer, and it is filled with serious courses that place serious expectations on students. I think that the Common Core is a step in the right direction because it places greater demands on students to learn more. I am always reminded of a newspaper article I read in Florida last year that reported on the results of achievement tests given by the state to 8th graders. The passing rate had fallen from previous years, and there was great consternation about this. The leading solution being offered was to reduce the grade necessary in order to pass the test. That attitude is emblematic of what is wrong with our education system.
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/140#post_3531604
Testing. The government is too concerned about testing students, that teachers don't get to teach essential knowledge and skills. 30 days a year are reserved for government testing. That's not including weekly tests administered by teachers. Our kids are tested to death, and the students have no results to learn from it.
It's also a major lack of funding. It's not because there aren't highly qualified teachers out there to do a job, but for the most part, in order to do a good job, supplies necessary to teach are not being provided by schools. Most teachers now have to rely upon what a video screen says or what is written in a text book. There is hardly any hands on learning and brain to paper connections being made anymore.
Also, it's the culture that we live in. A lot of the time, society celebrates ignorance and stupidity by giving them TV shows or clothing brands - and then our young people look up to it and want to emulate it. Smart students want to fit in as well, and therefore act like their peers.
Yes, and no. Testing is a red herring, IMHO. The core of the problem is culture. Ask any high school student who has studied for a year abroad how it was different where they were. In the countries that educate their students better they take school seriously, not as an interruption in a fun life. The school year is commonly a year, not 8 months or so, the day is longer, and it is filled with serious courses that place serious expectations on students. I think that the Common Core is a step in the right direction because it places greater demands on students to learn more. I am always reminded of a newspaper article I read in Florida last year that reported on the results of achievement tests given by the state to 8th graders. The passing rate had fallen from previous years, and there was great consternation about this. The leading solution being offered was to reduce the grade necessary in order to pass the test. That attitude is emblematic of what is wrong with our education system.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/160#post_3531632
Having serious issues with my computer and/or interwebs. Much more to write, but borrowing internet/computer from friend. The main point I was making, however, and no evolutionist has answered(and it has been demonstrated carbon dating, even if accurate, can't prove evolution), so WHY DO SCIENTISTS TODAY USE THE UNPROVEN AND SPECULATIVE TIME FRAME AND THEORIES BY AN AVOWED ANTI-CHRISTIAN CHARLATAN?
OK, I suppose you would call me an "evolutionist", so here goes. Carbon dating is only useful to about 50,000 years ago, which is too short a time to date evolutionary events, which typically take longer to manifest themselves. The carbon dating thing is just a straw-man. And, just for the sake of good logic, it is actually impossible to prove the theory of evolution, only to disprove it, and nobody has done so. In the years since Darwin, as biological, chemical and geological sciences have progressed and subjected the predictions of Darwin's theory to ever advancing analysis, some of his ideas have not held up, and have been set aside as the theory has been refined and clarified, but the core observations and ideas remain. In particular, the time-frame is extensive (multi-millions of years), all life is derived from previously existing life through a process of diversification and adaptation produced by a variety of conditions (isolation, environmental challenge, etc.) Everything we have learned from the scientific examination of evolutionary processes is consistent with these ideas. Evolutionary theory has survived and developed not for lack of trying, but precisely because scientists have tried mightily to prove it false. Believe me, if I could disprove even one of the core ideas of evolution, I would, because in that direction lies fame, fortune and a preferred parking spot on campus!
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/160#post_3531632
Having serious issues with my computer and/or interwebs. Much more to write, but borrowing internet/computer from friend. The main point I was making, however, and no evolutionist has answered(and it has been demonstrated carbon dating, even if accurate, can't prove evolution), so WHY DO SCIENTISTS TODAY USE THE UNPROVEN AND SPECULATIVE TIME FRAME AND THEORIES BY AN AVOWED ANTI-CHRISTIAN CHARLATAN?
OK, I suppose you would call me an "evolutionist", so here goes. Carbon dating is only useful to about 50,000 years ago, which is too short a time to date evolutionary events, which typically take longer to manifest themselves. The carbon dating thing is just a straw-man. And, just for the sake of good logic, it is actually impossible to prove the theory of evolution, only to disprove it, and nobody has done so. In the years since Darwin, as biological, chemical and geological sciences have progressed and subjected the predictions of Darwin's theory to ever advancing analysis, some of his ideas have not held up, and have been set aside as the theory has been refined and clarified, but the core observations and ideas remain. In particular, the time-frame is extensive (multi-millions of years), all life is derived from previously existing life through a process of diversification and adaptation produced by a variety of conditions (isolation, environmental challenge, etc.) Everything we have learned from the scientific examination of evolutionary processes is consistent with these ideas. Evolutionary theory has survived and developed not for lack of trying, but precisely because scientists have tried mightily to prove it false. Believe me, if I could disprove even one of the core ideas of evolution, I would, because in that direction lies fame, fortune and a preferred parking spot on campus!
pezenfuego
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/160#post_3531644
OK, I suppose you would call me an "evolutionist", so here goes. Carbon dating is only useful to about 50,000 years ago, which is too short a time to date evolutionary events, which typically take longer to manifest themselves. The carbon dating thing is just a straw-man. And, just for the sake of good logic, it is actually impossible to prove the theory of evolution, only to disprove it, and nobody has done so. In the years since Darwin, as biological, chemical and geological sciences have progressed and subjected the predictions of Darwin's theory to ever advancing analysis, some of his ideas have not held up, and have been set aside as the theory has been refined and clarified, but the core observations and ideas remain. In particular, the time-frame is extensive (multi-millions of years), all life is derived from previously existing life through a process of diversification and adaptation produced by a variety of conditions (isolation, environmental challenge, etc.) Everything we have learned from the scientific examination of evolutionary processes is consistent with these ideas. Evolutionary theory has survived and developed not for lack of trying, but precisely because scientists have tried mightily to prove it false. Believe me, if I could disprove even one of the core ideas of evolution, I would, because in that direction lies fame, fortune and a preferred parking spot on campus!
I would argue that you cannot disprove it either, perhaps I'm being a little nit-picky rather than actually disagreeing with you. But I see your point. If we find human fossils alongside dinosaur fossils, then that would really hurt the theory of evolution to the point that we would probably stop taking it seriously. That's what scientists do, though. If a new theory is presented, it gets berated very harshly. So the fact that it is till here is a good testament to the probability that it is true.
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/160#post_3531644
OK, I suppose you would call me an "evolutionist", so here goes. Carbon dating is only useful to about 50,000 years ago, which is too short a time to date evolutionary events, which typically take longer to manifest themselves. The carbon dating thing is just a straw-man. And, just for the sake of good logic, it is actually impossible to prove the theory of evolution, only to disprove it, and nobody has done so. In the years since Darwin, as biological, chemical and geological sciences have progressed and subjected the predictions of Darwin's theory to ever advancing analysis, some of his ideas have not held up, and have been set aside as the theory has been refined and clarified, but the core observations and ideas remain. In particular, the time-frame is extensive (multi-millions of years), all life is derived from previously existing life through a process of diversification and adaptation produced by a variety of conditions (isolation, environmental challenge, etc.) Everything we have learned from the scientific examination of evolutionary processes is consistent with these ideas. Evolutionary theory has survived and developed not for lack of trying, but precisely because scientists have tried mightily to prove it false. Believe me, if I could disprove even one of the core ideas of evolution, I would, because in that direction lies fame, fortune and a preferred parking spot on campus!
I would argue that you cannot disprove it either, perhaps I'm being a little nit-picky rather than actually disagreeing with you. But I see your point. If we find human fossils alongside dinosaur fossils, then that would really hurt the theory of evolution to the point that we would probably stop taking it seriously. That's what scientists do, though. If a new theory is presented, it gets berated very harshly. So the fact that it is till here is a good testament to the probability that it is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/140#post_3531598
In a private institution not funded by government or tax payer money, does anyone else have the right to dictate what and how anything is taught in that institution but the institution themselves. See the problem is you are placing an education you deem fit over someone elses freedoms. Which is how this country was founded. These institutions recieve no government funding, and therefore can teach that which they want. Even that a nose is really a penis.
Would you sacrifice freedoms of this country?
If they are accredited then they do have to meet certain educational standards. And, I believe they do need to be accredited otherwise it would not be considered a legitimate school and parents would run in to problems for not sending their kids to school by sending them to a non-school.
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/regprivschl/index.html
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/140#post_3531598
In a private institution not funded by government or tax payer money, does anyone else have the right to dictate what and how anything is taught in that institution but the institution themselves. See the problem is you are placing an education you deem fit over someone elses freedoms. Which is how this country was founded. These institutions recieve no government funding, and therefore can teach that which they want. Even that a nose is really a penis.
Would you sacrifice freedoms of this country?
If they are accredited then they do have to meet certain educational standards. And, I believe they do need to be accredited otherwise it would not be considered a legitimate school and parents would run in to problems for not sending their kids to school by sending them to a non-school.
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/regprivschl/index.html
darthtang aw
Active Member
True. But in the class seth sat in evolution may not be a required course due to testing.
snakeblitz33
Well-Known Member
PEZ, you really are a math geek. Probabilities. lol. That's awesome though, I'm happy that we have people like you who are willing and able to do such work.
Mantis, I think you need to take a Biology course and a Geology course at your local university. MAYBE, just maybe, you will not be so closed minded that you won't learn anything. I can't answer your question any better then GeriDoc can, and even then I know you won't come to some terms with it. So, instead of arguing with a brick wall, I will politely bow out.
GeriDoc, I think you're on the right track as well, but I think there are many, many factors that have come into play in the decline of the American Education system. The one that you mentioned about lowering standards to meet goals is an absolutely horrible line of thinking. I'm really no smarter then the next guy, but I was pushed hard in my education and I succeeded. As I said before, parents now days don't want their children to struggle. I feel like if you let children and young adults struggle, they learn from their mistakes... the key word is LEARN. If you never make mistakes, then you never learn anything. For example, an exam. So, you made a bad grade on an exam - Why? What did you do wrong and what can you improve on? Why was the answer wrong and why was the other answer right? Too often, those types of reviews are never done in classrooms. We have a system that is built to compound upon itself, and if a student doesn't learn a concept this week, then the concept is constantly being used in the weeks following it. Doc, I also agree with you that it's the culture we live in.
Someone asked why are our highschools failing us but our colleges are still number one? Well, you have that top 10% of students that actually want to be in school to learn and understand the value of an education, and they usually have good support systems and are taught great time management skills growing up. The best students get to go to college, even though less exceptional students have the CHANCE to go to school through government funding. These types of students usually will not graduate. I think it's something like 70% of freshmen drop out? Colleges are top notch because they have a much larger selection of students that they know who are going to succeed, while highschools have to deal with the general public with compulsory education.
In some areas, the drop out rate is directly correlated to the poverty rate in the area. If mom is working two jobs to pay rent and food and dad is out of the picture and the student comes to school hungry and in the same cloths every day, and has to go home to take care of the younger brothers and sisters because the mom is always working, sometimes the only choice is to drop out to work to let your family have a better quality of living. If you want more students to do better in school, improve the neighborhoods. Cut down on drugs, prostitution and violence on the streets. Community supported programs in the area to help people find work, provide free daycare services with qualified individuals. It starts with improving society.
Question: Is the media and advertising a reflection of societies values or is it what the media and advertising believe our values and morals should be so that they can sell products and services?
Mantis, I think you need to take a Biology course and a Geology course at your local university. MAYBE, just maybe, you will not be so closed minded that you won't learn anything. I can't answer your question any better then GeriDoc can, and even then I know you won't come to some terms with it. So, instead of arguing with a brick wall, I will politely bow out.
GeriDoc, I think you're on the right track as well, but I think there are many, many factors that have come into play in the decline of the American Education system. The one that you mentioned about lowering standards to meet goals is an absolutely horrible line of thinking. I'm really no smarter then the next guy, but I was pushed hard in my education and I succeeded. As I said before, parents now days don't want their children to struggle. I feel like if you let children and young adults struggle, they learn from their mistakes... the key word is LEARN. If you never make mistakes, then you never learn anything. For example, an exam. So, you made a bad grade on an exam - Why? What did you do wrong and what can you improve on? Why was the answer wrong and why was the other answer right? Too often, those types of reviews are never done in classrooms. We have a system that is built to compound upon itself, and if a student doesn't learn a concept this week, then the concept is constantly being used in the weeks following it. Doc, I also agree with you that it's the culture we live in.
Someone asked why are our highschools failing us but our colleges are still number one? Well, you have that top 10% of students that actually want to be in school to learn and understand the value of an education, and they usually have good support systems and are taught great time management skills growing up. The best students get to go to college, even though less exceptional students have the CHANCE to go to school through government funding. These types of students usually will not graduate. I think it's something like 70% of freshmen drop out? Colleges are top notch because they have a much larger selection of students that they know who are going to succeed, while highschools have to deal with the general public with compulsory education.
In some areas, the drop out rate is directly correlated to the poverty rate in the area. If mom is working two jobs to pay rent and food and dad is out of the picture and the student comes to school hungry and in the same cloths every day, and has to go home to take care of the younger brothers and sisters because the mom is always working, sometimes the only choice is to drop out to work to let your family have a better quality of living. If you want more students to do better in school, improve the neighborhoods. Cut down on drugs, prostitution and violence on the streets. Community supported programs in the area to help people find work, provide free daycare services with qualified individuals. It starts with improving society.
Question: Is the media and advertising a reflection of societies values or is it what the media and advertising believe our values and morals should be so that they can sell products and services?
snakeblitz33
Well-Known Member
Darth,
To answer your question, the school that I am observing is accredited AND currently on Common Core standards.
To answer your question, the school that I am observing is accredited AND currently on Common Core standards.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Common core standards stress English/ Language arts and mathematics only, i believe.
Leaving history and science classes to the schools discretion.
Leaving history and science classes to the schools discretion.