The rise of faith schools

We are at each others' throats and we're on the same side (for the most part)!The most frustrating thing on this forum is the inability to come up with a simple convincing case (to Creos, not Evos) that Creationists are wrong and Evolution is right. A lot of this has to do with how folks like Faith think.Similarly, the schools don't seem to have a good curriculum, because the teachers in many cases don't understand and miscommunicate fundamental principles. This is verified by the polls that show that most kids don't buy it. If we can't get the public schools to teach this right, then how can you expect the Faith-based schools to teach a fact-based course?Maybe should outsource the teaching to another country and save money to boot.

Yes, Michael Savage is better.
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" - M.SavageIt's not so much what talk show or host is telling lies, but rather what your general philosophy is. In some ways, it's how you administer compassion for others. In other ways, it's how money is managed. In yet other other ways, it's how much personal freedom versus society dictation is balanced.

Sure a Faith Based school can get it right when teaching about Evolution or any other subject. I know that I went to a Faith Based Christian school, and they did a great job of teaching not only about Evolution, but of things like the age of the universe and age of the earth. They did a great job of teaching how to learn and helping us put together the toolkit needed for Critical Thinking.The issue is not whether a Faith Based school can do a good job teaching, whether it's a Faith Based school is not the issue. The real issue IMHO is whether the purpose of the school is teaching, or avoidance.All too often, Faith Based schools, particularly Christian Faith Based schools were established not to teach, but to avoid exposing kids to learning. Whether is was the herd of Christian Faith Based schools that sprang up in the 50's and 60's to avoid integration, or the move today to create Ghettos of Holy Ignorance where Evolution, Old Earth and respect for the rights of all peoples are to be avoided at all costs, the goals of too many Faith Based schools, particularly Christian Schools, is not expanding education but wilfull ignorance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If the fundamentals of ToE and OE can be included in standardized national testing, then at least we have a measure that reveal substandard teaching, whether public or private.Christian fundamentalists that I dealt with did not avoid the issues. They just completely misunderstood the theories, and did not critique Creationism for pseudo-science. They held seminars (I attended two), but it was falsehoods (even outdated arguments) throughout. The attendees were looking for (and found) comfort in their beliefs and solidified their opposition to Evo. There is no curiosity on their part to even question their positions.I could not follow-up on all of Faith's arguments on testing, and where that led (probably nowhere). For what I was able to read, it was good insight into her (his?) head, though. If you followed all of that, can you summarize her way of thinking on evidence/testing?

Where did I talk about evidence/testing that you are referring to? In this thread?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Where private schools look better, it is often because they get to cherry-pick their students.

---

Actually, that is a good practice.

---

Thats a laugh. Cherry picking can be overly abused and it can lead to a dangerous homogenity in population. This in itself is a bad propogation because its homogenizes a group in an incredibly diverse society. Outside of their little homogenous group they have no idea of the social norms and values nor any concrete understanding of how to interact with other people.I feel this is why mental states like white guilt exist. White guilt exists partially because white people have no idea how to interact with groups of people outside their normal experience. Being told they have oppressed a group and must bear the sins of their fathers. But never ever give them the tools to overcome the guilt.Diversity is a powerful tool i feel because, put a diverse population together like in the UC system. You get one of the most powerful university systems in the world. A group is made stronger by its diversity because it is forced to handle its diversity and incorporating a multitude of ideas.This is also why Stanford is an incredibly powerful university I feel it is because it has been able to balance its cherry picking with the needs of fostering diversity. Privates are good , imo, if they can maintain a strong value of diversity in ideas and cultures their failing comes when inbreeding occurs and exclusion occurs.K-12 level schools, I feel, are there to give kids a education and FORCE interaction with diverse groups so that groups of people don't isolate each other, so that you don't have in groups and out groups, racial divisions and ethnic politics. This obviously breaks down in homogenous areas but diversity is needed to be respected especially in America.

quote:

---

Where did I talk about evidence/testing that you are referring to?

---

I don't recall the thread, but the discussion centered around what was considered evidence for old Earth. Your basic argument seemed to be that a geologic formation could get that way by at least two ways: (a) as geologists claim, or (b) from Flood event (and/or Creation). The reasoning you put forth was that the geologists claims were "untestable" because those were historical events. This was a long back-and-forth thread trying to determine what you meant by "testable", and I did not log-in to see how it ended. It was very interesting, though, because it gave some insight in how you think. It is a different "weighting" of proclaimed evidence that you have versus what science-oriented people have. I would like to find that thread and see how it ended. Do you remember now?Another interesting facet of "how people think differently" is a liberal view versus conservative view. The same set of facts can lead to conclusions that are 180 degrees apart.

There have been too many threads where I've pursued that line of reasoning to track down a particular one, but thanks for the answer.Basically what I mean is that you can use the geological data to support either the creationist or the evolutionist scenario, or at least most of the data can be used either way, because there is no way to test the past, that is, to know anything for sure about the past. All you have is your conjectures from the way things look in the present. You can't set up an experiment to test whether or not your conjectures are right.

Faith, I know you probably don't want to dive into this again, but I'll try to be brief. I really would like to understand your chain of logic on things (without my giving any insulting remarks... an unusual approach on this forum, eh?).The following are not "testable", but seem to indicate that you can conclude some things even if you don't know the exact history and means of how it was achieved:1. So, if there are 3 clearly different layers of rock in a geologic formation, would you concede that the middle layer was not placed first?2. Do you agree that lava is sometimes recognizable in a sedimentary layers? (example: the composition, the ripples & bubbles)

I consider the questions insulting TC, although I'm sure you don't intend it. In any case I've answered this sort of thing many times already and you're right, I'd rather not get into it again right now. If I can remember where I posted on similar questions I'll post you a link.

I did not mean to be insulting, and I'm not how you interpreted that, but no need to dwell on this.No need for you to look in your archives.I found the links (using Search with "testable"), the last one from you was:
EvC Forum: Comparitive delusionsUnder Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution ’ Comparitive delusions

The questions are so elementary and obvious it's insulting you'd think I'd need to be asked. I hope the link you found makes my position clearer.

I was trying to understand if your stance on "testable" was an absolute, or just how much you would grant towards deductive logic based on some degree of observation.
Obviously, you will go futher than just everything must be "testable". So, I am trying figure out the boundaries of just where you draw the line. I will review the previous threads and see if I can determine that.

The order of the placement of rocks and the characteristics of volcanic rock are "testable." Anything observable is testable. You can compare the rocks with others of known origin if you are in doubt.What you can't test is an entire scenario that occurred millions of years ago. You can point to this or that kind of rock and discuss its composition which suggests a certain type of origin, but you cannot say how it got there or when.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-12-2006 12:29 PM

Why not?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion