- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
i went to a private school for a year and a half it was ok but i liked the public schools better socially however education was better at the private school
TEACHING TRADITIONAL "HISTORY" A NO NO
- Thread starter Angry White Man
- Start date
My school might as well be public because all of the kids from the surounding towns go there.
As for being street smart at my school all you learn is how to be a real redneck. Thestore just a few miles from the school's sign read's
Guns
Wedding Gowns
Cold Beer
You can't get much closer to rednecks then the kids i go to school with so you can't get very "street smart" at school anyway
As for being street smart at my school all you learn is how to be a real redneck. Thestore just a few miles from the school's sign read's
Guns
Wedding Gowns
Cold Beer
You can't get much closer to rednecks then the kids i go to school with so you can't get very "street smart" at school anyway
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
i learned most of my street smarts out of school but with people i met at school
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
in big cities i dont do well however small town streets smarts i got them
G
Guest
Guest
That is one thing I never learned. I think I have a big "S" on my forehead! Everyone sees it but it is invisible to me! LOL
I have all of my aunts conspireing to get me out of Maine and into a city for coledge because "I need to know what it's like outside of Maine." Meanwhle all of their kids are growing up in cities and have no clue what it's like living in the country so i just smile to myself and keep my mouth shut (a good idea around my aunts) So i guess it's very obvious that i totally lack street smarts
painogb said:
I have "Street Smarts", and you know what? Unless you live in the streets, they are more or less useless! Not to mention, the process of getting them is usually not fun! So, you are better off without them!
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
well i did live on the streets for a bit and they were useful to me
spunkey monkey said:
Of course they were spunkey! I would even go so far as to say they are a necessity! But to those fortunate enough to not have to live in that environment, I believe the experience required to get street smarts is unnecessary. I no longer live where I used to, and I don't ever want to go back now that I am where I am.
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
its true unless you are in the situation they are pretty much usless and really if it was a perfect world no one would need them i am thankful that i did have them though when i needed them
Kansas too
Thanks. I don't typically think of myself as liberal but rather closer to libertarian (www.lp.org).
Anyway, the mangled teaching of history is a tragedy to the students. Of course if you want a voting populous who will be easily swayed by the propaganda then you want to make sure they are as ignorant as possible.
Another example of this sort of ignorance can be found in Kansas
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9967813
They have rewritten the definition of "science" to include "intelligent design" but of course that also opens the door to astrology, phrenology and any other idea you want to come up with. I guess colleges in the US are simply going to move Kansas graduates to the bottom of the list.
Thanks. I don't typically think of myself as liberal but rather closer to libertarian (www.lp.org).
Anyway, the mangled teaching of history is a tragedy to the students. Of course if you want a voting populous who will be easily swayed by the propaganda then you want to make sure they are as ignorant as possible.
Another example of this sort of ignorance can be found in Kansas
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9967813
They have rewritten the definition of "science" to include "intelligent design" but of course that also opens the door to astrology, phrenology and any other idea you want to come up with. I guess colleges in the US are simply going to move Kansas graduates to the bottom of the list.
- Messages
- 702
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
Intelligent Design
Science does include Intelligent Design and all the rest. Why not explore that realm as well? The schools are so willing to sacrifice God and embrace Muslim teachings that exposing "intelligent design" to the students is not any more detrimental now is it?
bob_gray said:
Science does include Intelligent Design and all the rest. Why not explore that realm as well? The schools are so willing to sacrifice God and embrace Muslim teachings that exposing "intelligent design" to the students is not any more detrimental now is it?
It could have been aliens
It is unfortunate that Kansas has set their failing educational system back like this. In many ways Intelligent Design is a product of that failed system. People don't learn enough real science in school to distinguish between what is science and what isn't. That is why it is detrimental to the students. If someone wants to teach their children that their particular deity or aliens or whatever has a hand in the evolutionary process that is their business but it certainly doesn't belong in a science class.
Intelligent Design "officially" has very little to do with any organized religion. It also has very little to do with science. The short reason of why ID is not science is because there is nothing to test. It is entirely an argument of "well I don't know how it happened so there must be an intelligent designer." That is a pretty weak argument and certainly not science.SISTER_KATE said:
It is unfortunate that Kansas has set their failing educational system back like this. In many ways Intelligent Design is a product of that failed system. People don't learn enough real science in school to distinguish between what is science and what isn't. That is why it is detrimental to the students. If someone wants to teach their children that their particular deity or aliens or whatever has a hand in the evolutionary process that is their business but it certainly doesn't belong in a science class.
- Messages
- 702
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
I am Catholic yet I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I actually had the pleasure of meeting one of the then "cub reporters" at the Scope Trials, however I digress.
Science embraces many doctrines. Intelligent Design is just one more for the slate.
Science embraces many doctrines. Intelligent Design is just one more for the slate.
bob_gray said:
Bob, I see your point, I just disagree. Suggesting a creator is no more far fetched than saying "we don't know how it got there, it was just there". As it was pointed out in a prior thread by someone, quite a bit of science is theory, and not provable as well, so are you suggesting that we only teach what is definitively proven?
In my opinion, school is for broadening young minds. Teaching Intelligent Design as a possibility is not, in my opinion, detrimental in any way, provided it is not taught as the exclusive explanation as to the origins of human beings. What is so calamitous about saying "Some people believe this, others believe this?" I just don't see the harm, particularly when neither is conclusively true.
- Messages
- 702
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
I agree with you, Nova. Then again it is seldom that I disagree with you. But I am waiting for the day to go head to head in a debate with you. (just pulling your leg! HA! HA!)
Gotta teach 'em all
I think that your idea of what "intelligent design" entails and what is being taught are different. I assume that when you say "it was just there" you are referring to the universe and not the diversity of life. What you are talking about is Deism: the idea that there is a creator of the universe who got the whole thing started (Big Bang, or whatever you want to believe) and then does not get involved after that point. What the proponents of intelligent design are saying is that at some points in history an intelligent designer (who could have been an alien) came to earth and manipulated something through an unexplained and untestable mechanism to create new species. This is _NOT_ science by any stretch of the imagination.
As far as teaching what is definitively proven we do not do that. I would change your sentence to read "...all science is theory, and not provable as well...." All science is tentative and hence a "theory" because the people who developed the structure of science understood that people are fallible and make mistakes. They also understood that there is much we do not know and possibly can't know. Let me give you and example of the tentativeness of science. I am going to assume that you believe in the heliocentric theory of the solar system: this is the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. It is only a theory because no one has ever been to the sun and observed the earth moving around it however the theory does explain all the facts that we know. Is it possible that we may discover something which would change that theory? Sure, but to date nothing has come by to challenge that so the theory stands. Evolution is the same way. Just because there are some details of what pathways particular organisms took to evolve to where they are doesn't mean that the theory is wrong, it just means that we don't know everything. Inserting an intelligent designer in the gaps of our knowledge does nothing for science.
Intelligent design is not science because it proposes no testable mechanism and provides no method for falsification.
GoingNova said:
I think that your idea of what "intelligent design" entails and what is being taught are different. I assume that when you say "it was just there" you are referring to the universe and not the diversity of life. What you are talking about is Deism: the idea that there is a creator of the universe who got the whole thing started (Big Bang, or whatever you want to believe) and then does not get involved after that point. What the proponents of intelligent design are saying is that at some points in history an intelligent designer (who could have been an alien) came to earth and manipulated something through an unexplained and untestable mechanism to create new species. This is _NOT_ science by any stretch of the imagination.
As far as teaching what is definitively proven we do not do that. I would change your sentence to read "...all science is theory, and not provable as well...." All science is tentative and hence a "theory" because the people who developed the structure of science understood that people are fallible and make mistakes. They also understood that there is much we do not know and possibly can't know. Let me give you and example of the tentativeness of science. I am going to assume that you believe in the heliocentric theory of the solar system: this is the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. It is only a theory because no one has ever been to the sun and observed the earth moving around it however the theory does explain all the facts that we know. Is it possible that we may discover something which would change that theory? Sure, but to date nothing has come by to challenge that so the theory stands. Evolution is the same way. Just because there are some details of what pathways particular organisms took to evolve to where they are doesn't mean that the theory is wrong, it just means that we don't know everything. Inserting an intelligent designer in the gaps of our knowledge does nothing for science.
Intelligent design is not science because it proposes no testable mechanism and provides no method for falsification.
If you are proposing a comparative religions class then I am all for that. If you are proposing that we should teach creationism is science class because "some people believe this" then I have to object. Don't forget that when you open the door to your religion in US public schools you have to open it to all. Should all of these ideas be in science classes too? http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
- Messages
- 702
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
Just off topic for a minute ( it's a girl thing so I am allowed). Bob_Gray I must say that I do admire your intelligence. Have you ever considered going into a debating team or something along those lines?
Although I do not agree with some of the things you say, I do respect the way you relate to a topic and the respectable way you convey your thoughts and ideas.
OK enough said. Carry on and I will continue reading whenever I stop by!
Although I do not agree with some of the things you say, I do respect the way you relate to a topic and the respectable way you convey your thoughts and ideas.
OK enough said. Carry on and I will continue reading whenever I stop by!
In my Christian High School we where obviously tought intelligent design. The funny thing is, we were taught evolution too. Neither of them were tought as being true. They were simply tought.
The problem with modern public school text books is that Evolution isnt tought as a theory. It is tought as a fact. There are too many holes in it to call it fact still. I have no problem with it being tought, I have a problem with it being tought as the one and only option and basing all your other lessons off of that.
Did you know you can learn about a skin cell without knowing about evolution? In fact. You could very eisily have 12 years of science and be VERY thorough without ever mentioning any sort of theory about the origins of things.
Lets just teach are kids the meat and potatos of science and let them make thier own decisions later. Just tell them how we know things work. The thing about teaching the origins is we really dont need to. How things came about does not change how they are now. Just teach them how we know things work. Thats all they need to know.
The problem with modern public school text books is that Evolution isnt tought as a theory. It is tought as a fact. There are too many holes in it to call it fact still. I have no problem with it being tought, I have a problem with it being tought as the one and only option and basing all your other lessons off of that.
Did you know you can learn about a skin cell without knowing about evolution? In fact. You could very eisily have 12 years of science and be VERY thorough without ever mentioning any sort of theory about the origins of things.
Lets just teach are kids the meat and potatos of science and let them make thier own decisions later. Just tell them how we know things work. The thing about teaching the origins is we really dont need to. How things came about does not change how they are now. Just teach them how we know things work. Thats all they need to know.
