Why "YEC"/Fundamentalist Creationism is BAD for America

Well, produce some evidence then. I did. You didn't like it but it wasn't just my own opinion, it gave supposedly objective assessments. I suspect they are quite accurate but of course you don't like them. So get your own. I also gave an illustration of what I think really IS wrong with American education. Not just my opinion, a news report. Again, come up with your own source of statistics to buttress your opinion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nope. All you gave was an opinion of a person who's very biased on the subject. So much so that he misleads people in pretending that his articles are 'scientific'. His opinion is worth nothing.

The guy did some research and says it's documented. I could probably find more but who cares unless you come up with some.But obviously there's nothing at all on your and RAZD's side of this.

I don't know or care about this guys journal, but I've never seen any stats demonstrating that home schooling produces worse results than attending public school. This subject has come up here before, and nobody produced anything credible.

Shouldn't it be attributed to the fact that all his other grades were As? Like the article says?

I suppose so. Didn't the Principal explain that they use a formula of some sort, and that half the student body are on the honor roll?You didn't get on the honor roll when I was in school with a D or even a C on your report card. You had to score in the upper upper, not the fiftieth percentile.I'm surprised to find you explaining this away. I would have guessed you had stricter standards for achievement.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks I dont know to what kind of ridicule you speak, but I hope they are doing it from a respectful and purely logical perspective

Perhaps you could elucidate and extrapolate this point. Why does a young earth perspective fall short in teaching what the Bible teachesDawn Bertot

It is very clear what is going on in that case. It has nothing to do with "liberals" or any other rant of Faiths.The rules obviously are: If you have a grade point average of (pick a number but they picked) 3.15 then you are an "honor" student. It never occurred to anyone to think through some scenarios. And that you could get a 3.15 and yet fail a subject or two.Not a big deal at all. Not even newsworthy to me. Just something to fix for the next round of reporting. I.e., A GPA of 3.15 or higher an no single subject less than a GPA of 2 perhaps.Sorry, Dr A, I think that was a long winded way of saying -- I agree with you.

I'm not explaining it away, I'm just explaining it. That's the explanation.In this instance I don't know what my "standards for achievement" should be, since I have only the vaguest idea of what an honor roll is. Also, I have no idea what Homecoming is and why it requires a Queen, and I can never remember if it's a good thing or a bad thing to be on the Dean's list. I was educated somewhere else, remember?

quote:

---

THE court challenge of an Arkansas law that defines creationism as a science has done more than focus on what most scientists consider a silly issue. It has exposed the vulnerability of the public schools to noneducational, political pressures.

​

Scientists point out that acceptance of the creationist ''theory'' would not just contradict everything the schools know and teach about biology but would scrap many other scientific theories, in geology, astronomy, archeology, anthropology, physics and so on. In the December issue of Science '81, for example, Allen Hammond, a geophysicist and mathematician, and Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist, wrote that most stars in our galaxy and in all other observable galaxies are more than 10,000 light-years away. Therefore, they say, ''Either those objects are more than 10,000 years old, or totally new astronomical hypotheses are needed.'' All the accepted and tested methods of measuring time, they add, give an age for the universe of 10 billion to 20 billion years.

​

Why, against so much expert testimony, are the schools nevertheless subjected to such strong pressure to give creationism equal time? Creationist pressures are taken seriously for reasons that tell much about schools and society. In a conservative era, theories that appeal to some vocal conservative groups cannot readily be ignored by elected representatives, even if they fly in the face of scientific and pedagogical knowledge. It is worth noting that the Arkansas law was enacted last year and signed by Governor Frank White, who said later that he had not read all of it.

---

Politics instead of fact. Scientific evidence and theory is not a democratic process that is up to popular vote: science is based on the scientific process.

quote:

---

(further): Since all but the best teachers lean heavily on textbooks, the effect of the controversy on textbooks regardless of any court rulings, becomes vital and for a long time ahead irreversible. In the last 10 years, according to Henry P. Zuidema, a paleontologist and science writer, many textbooks have already been revised, reducing space given to evolution and presenting the subject in more tentative terms. The index of a 1979 text, ''Biology: Living Systems,'' by Charles Merrill, contains only three lines of page references under ''evolution,'' compared to 17 lines in a 1973 edition.

​

Two editions of a text published by Allyn & Bacon in 1974 and 1977 included materials on the Genesis account of creation. Two Harcourt Brace Jovanovich texts, ''Biology: Patterns in Environment'' and ''Biology: Patterns in Living Things,'' omit Charles Darwin entirely.

---

In other words the text books are "dumbed down" to a level acceptable to a vocal fundamentalist level, rather than promoting true education of science.Taking science out of textbooks means that science is not taught and the students suffer by a loss of that education.This affects education for years if not decades.

quote:

---

(further again): Frank Press, president of the National Academy of Sciences, in a letter to the January/February issue of Science '82, writes: ''We simply cannot afford to teach pseudo-science in the guise of science. And creationism, which, arguably, may have a place elsewhere in teaching and comparative religion, is not science. ... I can only hope that in once again confronting this issue, seemingly resolved years ago, we gain by improving both science education and the public's understanding of science.''

---

Seems to me that it is fairly obvious that when we stop teaching actual science in school that the scientific literacy of the students in particular and society in general suffers.Can you learn about math in school if you are not taught math in school?Would not learning math in school affect you for better or for worse in your ability to do math related work after school?It's that simple.Enjoy.

Logical fallacy equivocation

quote:

---

Definition: The same word is used with two different meanings.

​

Proof: Identify the word which is used twice, then show that a definition which is appropriate for one use of the word would not be appropriate for the second use.

---

First you say you "... agree that what YEC's teach about creation is false ... " and then you say everyone believes in creation. What "YEC's teach about creation" is what is defined as creationism, other beliefs -- such as deism and people that "believe in the BBT" -- are not.I'm glad you agree that creationism -- the YEC teaching regarding fundamental acceptance of biblical genesis without question -- is bad.Enjoy.

Hi RAZD, I did not say everyone believed in creation just most poster on EvC.Cavediver is the only exception that comes to my mind.I personally believe and have posted several times that I believe the universe has existed infinitely into the past just not necessarily in the form we see it today. I have found no one that can tell me when 'the beginning' mentioned in Genesis 1:1 occurred.Has the universe existed infinitely into the past?If it has not existed infinitely into the past it had to have a beginning to exist which means it had to be created by something.So do you believe in a created universe some 13 billion years ago or a universe that has existed infinitely into the past?God Bless,

Texas Creationism: Big Shootout Next Week
The Sensuous Curmudgeon

One never knows what creationists will do next, because they don’t understand that their science has been rendered as obsolete as astrology. Due to their ignorance and fanaticism a wicked combination they just keep on coming, like a horde of brain-devouring zombies in some stupid movie. But the current phase of their activism in Texas may be approaching an end.

​

We haven’t been paying much attention to Texas lately. It’s not the same since Don McLeroy, the creationist dentist, lost his re-election bid to remain on the Texas State Board of Education. The last time we wrote about the situation was a couple of months ago: The Great Texas Textbook Hearing. Now we have to start watching again.

​

A long and very informative article appeared in yesterday’s Dallas Observer. It’s worth reading: Creationists’ Last Stand at the State Board of Education. The National Center for Science Education has a good summary here: Creationism’s last stand in Texas?

More

I've explained to you multiple times the exceptions to your false dichotomy.