Reading Politics

I love America. I believe it is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. That's why It's extremely upsetting to see a report which showed that U.S. students' scores on math and science tests were well below those of teens from around the world. U.S. twelfth-graders ranked 19th out of 21 developed nations. Math and science! Ring any bells? These are the subjects that students must master in order to fully utilize computers. The very computers which are essential to virtually every technological advance.

We USED to be great in education. Sadly, that is not the case today.

We hear the phrase, ”Johnny can’t read” a lot these days. The sad and simple truth is that Johnny can’t write either, he can’t do simple math and probably couldn’t tell you what state New York City is in.

America’s SAT scores are among the lowest in the free world and there’s just got to be a reason or reasons, why the most progressive nation the world has ever known can’t educate its children. Of course, there are reasons and for those of you who think that the total cause for the poor academic standards in this country is lack of federal funds you may as well stop reading right now. While I certainly know that there are some soft spots around the country where a little more money would help, this nation spends enough on education to give a college degree to kids in a lot of other countries.

To me the answers to our educational inadequacies can be summated in just a couple words- phonics, discipline & an end to the "psycho-babble" taught in school.

When I say phonics I mean for it to represent a myriad of common sense approaches to teaching returning to the three R's, Reading, Riting and Rithmetic..

No matter how complicated the world becomes two and two will always be four and the simplest way of arriving at that conclusion will always be to add the digits together and you will always come out with the same answer. This country needs to shake off the rotten dregs of the Dewey Decimal System and get back to basics.

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, reading is also a serious problem area. Less than half of children in grades four, eight and twelve read at a proficient level. Only 31% of all fourth-graders, and 12% of black fourth-graders read at their grade level. When you discover that the current system isnt working, don't you change it? I think the system should be "Hooked on Phonics."

But you can’t teach without discipline no matter what the method. Kids who are chronic trouble makers should be transferred to another class where they are forced to behave themselves, then the rest of the class can learn.

I know it’s not politically correct to segregate miscreants and punks but I believe it would bring amazing results.

Children should also not be promoted just because the rest of the class is. You do them no favors when you advance them. They’re not getting what they came to school for and might as well have stayed at home.

And the third problem is the self-esteem hoax in our school's. There needs to be put an end to the feel good teaching/learning done throughout the country's school's. School isn't a petting farm of happy emotions that need to be glorified every minute with spongy & bubbly teaching.

Iv'e experienced this horrid nonsense time & time again while attending the public school system all my life. Instead of teaching, we attend to the students needs with counseling and pat's on the head.

The student is never held accountable, nor is the school system. What do you mean Johnny doesnt know his times table, isnt he in 10th grade? Oh well, they say. It's not the teachers faults or his. I bet he has had some problems at home, or a too relaxed physcological issue that has affected this poor kids dementia, right?

It's all bullshit that needs to be reversed or we are going to have a country full of idiots running around not knowing how to open a can soup or use the map(already true).

Not to mention the crap learning going on in higher education that is along the same lines. Such as an article I read that basically shows how pornography is being taught to students- Pornography 102.

Plus, how bout using teachers that actually have credentials.

It’s time to stop putting federal band-aids on our educational programs and do something meaningful for a change.

I don't know. Maybe this is just more examples of why I'm becoming pro-home school and pro-vouchers everyday. Just more reinforcement for logical thinking- Dont trust the governement or the public school system- for soon or a later we will have Stupid Men Walking.

Then again, maybe thats what they want. A society who cant read, write or think for themsleves. A society that doesnt know the first thing about freedom, the Constitution or the beautiful history of our once great nation. When that day comes, goodbye freedom, rights & democracy.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

A very insightful post, Hardballkid. Furthermore, I understand exactly what you are talking about.

For example, enter my high school Health Class. We were beginning our unit on Mental health, which as I suspected would inevitably include the self-esteem and self-image issues. This was something I had been dreading because I understood and knew about the views they would be pushing.

The teacher handed out a survey. It asked a series of questions, which ultimately would provide a rough estimate of your self-esteem level. Normal was a rating of sixteen or higher. I got a six. I am therefore chronically depressed--so severly, in fact, that the survey suggested seeking special help and counseling to improve myself before disaster should strike (i.e. cutting, suicide).

I was certainly very surprised (and a bit amused) at this, since I consider myself to be extremely happy with my life and grateful that I live in the fortunate circumstances I do. What caused this rating of 'chronic depression' was the nature of the questions asked. To provide a few:

-Do you beleive that other people's views toward you are unimportant?
-Do you believe that conformity to anyone else's standards or wishes is wrong?
-Do you think people are generally good by nature?

These are only three of twenty. And for each of these, I answered 'no', thus lowering my self-esteem score. I believe that the views of others regarding me are very important, because it is common banter these days that all Christians (such as myself) are hypocritical fools. And in seeking to defy this stereotype, the views of others about me become important. Quite simply, I don't want people to see me as a hypocrite, and other people are the most efficient judges.

I said that I didn't feel conformity was wrong. This is because my whole life is one lived in conformity--to my parents will, to the criterias of my friends (criterias which I see as reasonable and approve of), and most importantly for myself--conformity to God. To be honest, I have grown so very sick of the word 'conformity'. It has become something of a swear (in its meaning) to Americans in their freethinking autonomous paradise. And so ultimately, this question assumes that if you think other people's standards are important, or if a higher authority's standards are important, you must be depressed.

Finally, I said that I do not think people are generally good by nature. What angers me so much about this question is that it is forcing the postmodern notion of human nature down our throats and assuming that if we do not happen to agree (a concept that our idea of individual autonomy seeks to protect), we are in need of 'help'. I think people are inclined toward horrific acts of evil if they do not seek guidance in protecting their hearts against it. I think all the ills of society and the world today are caused (directly and indirectly) by the flawed state of human nature. I think that with the help of A Certain Being, I have been forgiven and changed for the better...infinitely for the better. As such, I am 'chronically depressed'.

The public schools are an arena permeated by modern social norms that are ultimately destructive to a learning environment. In a place where deficiencies among pupils are regarded as matters of healthy individualized uniqueness, learning will suffer for anyone who does not work extremely hard. This need to work hard is, of course, not a bad thing. However, fewer students will feel compelled to do so anymore if they accept the absurd and idiotic notion present in our public schools that their ignorance and incapability is actually a sign of their own beautiful individual identities.

-ecthelion-

-Do you beleive that other people's views toward you are unimportant?
-Do you believe that conformity to anyone else's standards or wishes is wrong?
-Do you think people are generally good by nature?

No...
No...
No...

Right there with you ecthelion. I quess we, together, can be horribly depressed and ready to commit suicide. What nonsense they put out. What especially gets me is that last question.

-Do you think people are generally good by nature?

What angers me so much about this question is that it is forcing the postmodern notion of human nature down our throats and assuming that if we do not happen to agree (a concept that our idea of individual autonomy seeks to protect), we are in need of 'help'. I think people are inclined toward horrific acts of evil if they do not seek guidance in protecting their hearts against it. I think all the ills of society and the world today are caused (directly and indirectly) by the flawed state of human nature.

I couldnt agree with you more. You hear that repeatedly on a daily basis. I cant help to shake my head in remorse everytime I hear, "oh yea, humans are basically good." In bogs my mind to think of how lost man kind is to believe that hog-wash. It does take an outer being to incompass our heart to even come close to making us reasonably appropriate.

It's such a fallacy that is being preached to us these days on how good, kind-hearted mankind is. We are all wretched human beings who wouldnt take an instant to do evil if given the chance. It just coorilates with the high self-esteem hoax being pushed against us.

I hate to say it, but its true- Man is inherently evil by nature-nothing else.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

why the most progressive nation the world has ever known can%u2019t educate its children.

Because we're not the "most progressive nation the world has ever known." We were for much of our history, but we have not been a progressive nation (relative to the rest of the "civilized" world) for some time. We spend very little on education and we are the only G8 nation without universal health care. We spend more money than the entire rest of the world on our military, so we have the money--we just choose to spend it on empire instead of education. And why should big business or the government care if the masses are uneducated, they send their kids to elite private schools, and they can exploit an educated Third World labor market for their technical workloads anyway, for a fraction of the cost.

The one thing all these countries that beat us in education have in common is this: they spend more money on education. Period.

I know it’s not politically correct to segregate miscreants and punks but I believe it would bring amazing results.

What would bring amazing results would be a cultural re-thinking on what is of value in this country. This starts with a reevaluation of what constitutes quality and what constitutes success, and as a result, who our role models should be. This also means, more importantly, a reevaluation of how we spend our money. It's our government's abandoned moral imperative to spend to spend our money on things that better our society--military conquest doesn't qualify.

When vocational education and traditional education is underfunded in crime-ravaged (read: underfunded police) poor neighborhoods (read: decaying infrastructure), what hope is there for the youth? If single parents had help rearing their children (day care centers), and if the drug war were dismantled to help in turn dismantle gangs and organized crime in the inner city, and if education were better, we would see fewer thugs and more students. Social change takes work to accomplish, and our country has shown absolutely no commitment to social change.

Home schooling, I've noticed, turns out a lot of disconnected loons into the world who don't know how to interact with the world. I think home schooling also tells you something about a person's parents--that they are fearful and withdrawn. Perhaps that has something to do with the oddness I've noticed in so many home schooled students. I also don't think it's fair to say vouchers are the answer to public schools' failings without looking first at the causes of those failings: the cultural problems and the underfunding aforementioned.

The public school I attended was much like a public university: you could coast through there and learn absolutely nothing, or you could invest some energy and get an excellent education--it was entirely up to you and how much you wanted to put in. There was plenty of gang activity there and even a fatal stabbing--evidence of the cultural issues that must be remedied before or during an overhaul of the public school system. It was entirely too easy to fall in with a dangerous crowd--just like in real life.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Home schooling, I've noticed, turns out a lot of disconnected loons into the world who don't know how to interact with the world. I think home schooling also tells you something about a person's parents--that they are fearful and withdrawn. Perhaps that has something to do with the oddness I've noticed in so many home schooled students.

Wow. I quess you have had extensive association with a bunch of home schooled people. My bad. Because when I run into a homeschooled teen, I find that they are very bright and have the basic's of common sense that many public schooled students lack. It is also a fact that they perfrom & achieve higher standards when rated against those of public school's. They perform better in every area such as reading, language & math.

They also tend to be more decent and unlike many public school delinquents running around.

It is also the fastest growing form of education in America. It seems parents are waking up to the insanity going on in the public schools and see it fit to do homeschooling.

Homeschooling is based on an informed choice that is becoming ever more apparent because of the lack of education pertruding in America's public school's.

And about them all being "loones", well I still have yet to experience that. I, myself, have also come into contact with many and they are anything but. There intelligence is astounding and even their street smarts. And if anything, they have respect for elders/authority like no other.

Studies have shown that children who were homeschooled are as well, or better adjusted socially and emotionally than those who have gone to conventional schools. In experience, it is shown that children who are homeschooled tend to have more confidence and make decisions free of what their peers may think. Moreover, family ties tend to be much stronger.

So, before you go ripping up the homeschooled on notices, look at the facts and what is really being produced in almost every instance: a person well educated with real-world knowledge, a straight head, and morals.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

This post was edited by Hardballkid on Apr 06, 2005.

Wow. I quess you have had extensive association with a bunch of home schooled people. My bad.

I've known seven, all oddballs. Not bad people, but strange and not especially well-adjusted. One of them that I met in college wound up completely collapsing after a semester. He went from being innocent and conscientious to being an alcolholic, sex-crazed dropout. He was well-prepared in terms of academics, but had no preparation for life itself.

I've also seen plenty of home schooled students that appeared to be pretty strange on television. There's no need for you to apologize though.

It is also a fact that they perfrom & achieve higher standards when rated against those of public school's

Yes, but what home schooled students against what public school students? I'll bet they didn't compare them to students attending public school in, say Menlo Park, CA or Princeton, NJ--areas with public school systems whose average SAT acores exceed 1200. Or you could look at two of my classmates that scored over 1500 on the SAT--at a public school. I did OK too (let's just say I did better than the average public school student from Menlo Park or Princeton) and wasn't a good student by any measure. I can't imagine how well-prepared I would have been for college if I'd tried in high schoo.. I also can't imagine how unprepared for life I would have been if I hadn't attended a school.

We've already discussed the failings of the public school system. Comparing home schooling against a crippled system is not good logic. Why don't you compare homeschooled students to graduates of public schools that are properly funded?

Unless a parent is a trained educator, they are unqualified to teach their children anything other than morals, the birds and the bees, and other such material. Every advanced society in the world places the onus of education on their government. It's part of being a modern civilization. The minute we start neglecting education, the minute we start a slide back into the Dark Ages.

If homeschooling were to replace the public school system, we would have a patchwork of loosely regulated (if at all) units of education, and in the long run, the disorganization and lack of authoritative standards would diminish the body of knowledge that is needed to get along in the world. Who's to say some parents wouldn't teach their kids some nonsense like creation "science" instead of evolutionary biology? What happens when the poor kid tries to go to school to study to be a doctor? And what about parents that just don't give a damn and don't even try? By refusing to participate in the school system, you weaken the school system--and the student. That's not a good thing.

Homeschooling is based on an informed choice that is becoming ever more apparent because of the lack of education pertruding in America's public school's.

I went to a public school and I know enough to tell you that "pertruding" is not a word (perhaps you meant "pervasive?"), and that the plural of "school" is "schools." There are some people who have graduated from the same school who cannot even read. My point is, the failings of public school are due more to the failings of parents and politicians than they are to the failings of teachers or administrators (though they share some of the blame). Kids are already homeschooled inasmuch as most of what they learn with regard to language and character is learned from their parents.

For the rest, we need proper schools. Like every other country in the world that keeps whipping us in academics.

Studies have shown that children who were homeschooled are as well, or better adjusted socially and emotionally than those who have gone to conventional schools

Why don't you cite a couple of these studies you keep mentioning?

So, before you go ripping up the homeschooled on notices, look at the facts and what is really being produced in almost every instance: a person well educated with real-world knowledge, a straight head, and morals.

That's a pretty ridiculous claim. Are you intimately familiar with "almost every instance?"

"A straight head" and "morals" are up to the parents.

Reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic are up to schools, public or private.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

I've also seen plenty of home schooled students that appeared to be pretty strange on television.

Yes, televsion is a real driving force backing ideas on the ills of homeschooling. Are you talking about reality or scripted? Either way it doesnt matter. TV doesnt make or break an argument with me.

There's no need for you to apologize though.

You would like that wouldnt you. ;-)

I went to a public school and I know enough to tell you that "pertruding" is not a word (perhaps you meant "pervasive?"), and that the plural of "school" is "schools."

Thanks for the correction on grammer usage & such. Sorry- but Im being kinda lazy being on Spring Break & all. And yea, I know thats not a word, I meant protruding. So, my bad.

Who's to say some parents wouldn't teach their kids some nonsense like creation "science" instead of evolutionary biology?

Not this again, but I need to address it. To think that creation science is not science at all is just plain ignorance. It as much as a science as evolution is, if not more. There are schools, universities, churches, organizations, and scientists themsleves who take up this research and use "scientific methods" to prove themselves. Creation science isnt just about thumping the Bible around and saying look, even though thats pretty adequate enough for me.

So, what if they do teach there son/daughter creation. Evolution is as much as a relgin as creation is, but the only difference is that it is allowed in public schools. Personally, I beleieve they both should be taught or neither.

Afterall, creation science hasnt done any harm like that of the teachings of evoltuion has. Evolution has only fueled ideas such as nazism, abortion, drugs, racism, and even horrible methods and male chauvinism.

Unless a parent is a trained educator, they are unqualified to teach their children anything other than morals, the birds and the bees, and other such material.

Not true. As a matter of fact it is often said that it is easier for a mom/father who is not a certified teacher to homeschool her own children than it is for a mother who is a certified teacher. A qualified teacher runs the risk of “bringing school into the home” thereby missing opportunities to meet the unique needs of her child and failing to allow the child to pursue his or her own interests and aptitudes.

Because no one knows a child better than his/her own mother/father, they are well-suited to instruct and direct their child. It is well known that one-on-one teaching is more effective than teaching a crowd where each learner is at a different level. As well, the parents do not need to know everything but only need to help direct the child on how to find the information being looked for. This can be a very rewarding experience for both parent and child as the whole world opens up before them.

Plus, tutoring is always availible. And from what I hear, the homeschooling communtity is tigh-nit and is there if you run into problems.

Final thoughts:

Major findings: Demographics

• Home school parents have more formal education than parents in the general population; 88% continued their education beyond high school compared to 50% for the nation as a whole.

• The median income for home school families ($52,000) is significantly higher than that of all families with children ($36,000) in the United States.

• Almost all home school students (98%) are in married couple families. Most home school mothers (77%) do not participate in the labor force; almost all home school fathers (98%) do work.

• Home school students watch much less television than students nationwide; 65% of home school students watch one hour or less per day compared to 25% nationally.

• The median amount of money spent annually on educational materials is about $400 per home school student.

• The distribution of home school students by grade in grades 1-6 is consistent with that of all school children. Proportionally fewer home school students are enrolled at the high school level.

Major findings: Achievement

• Almost 25% of home school students are enrolled one or more grades above their age-level peers in public and private schools.

• Home school student achievement test scores are exceptionally high. The median scores for every subtest at every grade (typically in the 70th to 80th percentile) are well above those of public and Catholic/Private school students.

• On average, home school students in grades 1 to 4 perform one grade level above their age-level public/private school peers on achievement tests.

• The achievement test score gap between home school students and public/private school students starts to widen in grade 5.

• Students who have been home schooled their entire academic life have higher scholastic achievement test scores than students who have also attended other educational programs.

• There are no meaningful differences in achievement by gender, whether the student is enrolled in a full-service curriculum, or whether a parent holds a state issued teaching certificate.

• There are significant achievement differences among home school students when classified by amount of money spent on education, family income, parent education, and television viewing.

Heres where you can find that and more on the subject-Source

Having seen Bunk's reply- I pretty much done with the subject at hand.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

Yes, televsion is a real driving force backing ideas on the ills of homeschooling. Are you talking about reality or scripted? Either way it doesnt matter. TV doesnt make or break an argument with me.

Hey, nice bait-and-switch. What about the seven weirdos I mentioned from RL?

You would like that wouldnt you. ;-)

It didn't do anything for me, that's why I said it was unnecessary, but thanks for the gesture anyway.

To think that creation science is not science at all is just plain ignorance. It as much as a science as evolution is, if not more.

(HAH! Tell that to your biology professor!)

On the contrary, to call creation "science" a science at all is just plain ignorant. You obviously haven't been trained in the sciences--you weren't homeschooled, were you?

Creation "science" violates several tenets of the scientific method, including falsifiability, Occam's Razor, the inability to be tested empirically, and a lack of tentativeness, instead professes to be absolute truth. All science is subject to change--that's why evolution, even though we have seen it in action several times and documented it scientifically, and even though we know with almost certainty that it is true, and even though it is the only theory that explains diversity and complecity, is still just a theory. Real science has a rigor that creation "science" cannot approach. And it also has strict peer review. I've never seen a teleological, much less creation "science," paper published in a reputable scientific journal. And, as mentioned in that other thread, Creation "science" puts an assumption at the beginning and tries to justify it, whereas science at most has an hypothesis at the beginning and a conclusion at its logical place--the end.

Therefore, even if you believe creation "science" is true, it is not valid as a science. Sorry, that's just the way it is. That's why the men in white coats will always laugh you out of the room if you bring the topic up--it's not because they're Godless Heathenistic Liberal Conspirators or anything.

Afterall, creation science hasnt done any harm like that of the teachings of evoltuion has.

Ridiculous argument. The truth is the truth, irrespective of what people do with it. Just because a truth is uncomfortable or misinterpreted by some people doesn't mean that it is no longer a truth. You're showing the same crippled reasoning that handicaps creation "scientists" themselves and makes them irrational.

Since I already took this argument apart in the other thread, I'll leave it at this: people have twisted the source text for creation "science" into a tool for hatred, warfare, and subjugation for thousands of years. Two prominent examples are the Crusades and the Inquisition, not to mention more than a few burnings and other forms of torture and murder through the years.

Evolution has also been twisted by warped minds to perform similar acts of cruelty. But it has contributed to all of the life sciences in a profound way, and bettered our understanding in such crucial fields as medicine and genetics, for instance. Creation "science" can make no such claim.

Not true. As a matter of fact it is often said that it is easier for a mom/father who is not a certified teacher to homeschool her own children than it is for a mother who is a certified teacher.

"It is often said?" Are you kidding me? Is that the best you can come up with?

Whether or not it is "easier" first of all is irrelevant. What matters is that the kid gets a well-rounded education that will serve him in the real world.

A qualified teacher runs the risk of “bringing school into the home”

Wait a minute, are we talking about "home" "schooling" here? Isn't "bringing the school into the home" the idea?

thereby missing opportunities to meet the unique needs of her child and failing to allow the child to pursue his or her own interests and aptitudes.

My interests and aptitudes as a child were playing Nintendo and with my GI Joes. I suppose a homeschooling education would have allowed me to develop that skillset a bit more. What a tragedy that I missed out on the experience.

Because no one knows a child better than his/her own mother/father, they are well-suited to instruct and direct their child

Actually, parents are so fond of their children, and often conflate their desires and expectations with the child's desires and skills, that they can be the last person to really understand what their kids' skills and desires really are. Parents force their kids to do things they are uninterested or unskilled at doing all the time (in my case, it was playing the piano).

It is well known that one-on-one teaching is more effective than teaching a crowd where each learner is at a different level.

Perhaps it can be, and certainly if you had a trained teacher doing the instruction, but there is also something to be said for the competition you get only in a school setting.

Some kids bow out of this competition (like me for most of my life). And some kids excel (like I do now). Funny, it seems like the same dynamic applies at work too--that's life.

Home school parents have more formal education than parents in the general population; 88% continued their education beyond high school compared to 50% for the nation as a whole.

The median income for home school families ($52,000) is significantly higher than that of all families with children ($36,000) in the United States.

Almost all home school students (98%) are in married couple families. Most home school mothers (77%) do not participate in the labor force; almost all home school fathers (98%) do work.

Well, duh. Homeschool households by definition have to be financially stable, two-parent households. In a poor family, parents have to work. In a single-parent family, homeschooling is not an option.

This in turn explains the higher achievement scores. People from financially stable, educated families always will score higher as a group than average kids. If you took those same kids and put them in the public school system, they would still score high, in some cases higher, and in some cases lower.

It's a shame you're done with this topic, because you answered so few of my challenges, for instance, the fact that well-funded public schools have extremely high achievement, that homeschooling undermines participation and betterment of the school system, that a homeschooling educational system risks fragmentation of the body of basic knowledge, and an argument that I forgot to raise in my response to you but mentioned elsewhere: that homeschooling allows for the possibility of isolation and consequently the possibility of undetected abuse.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on Apr 06, 2005.

Hey, nice bait-and-switch. What about the seven weirdos I mentioned from RL?

Umm ok. But hey, what can I say? Your going to find weirdos no matter where you are & no matter what their background is.

(HAH! Tell that to your biology professor!)

Well, just because a person who wears a lab coat and professes a "theory" (relgion), that doesnt hold water- I dont tend to go to them & expect a whole lot.

that's why evolution, even though we have seen it in action several times and documented it scientifically, and even though we know with almost certainty that it is true, and even though it is the only theory that explains diversity and complecity, is still just a theory.

Where? Will you please explain Where/When we have seen evoltuion take place & that is documented. I mean not examples of mutations/changes. For we all know that that changes w/i a species is not evolution. Evolution never occurs today.

In any case, I admire your wishfull thinking.

Believing in creation or not (or a Supreme Being or not), I still dont see how evolution is taught in public schools and taken in by the public in large as an ultimate "truth" when one shred of good evidence has been proven.

We have seen time & time again the best examples for evoltion have proven to be all worthless. Let's go down the list with a few shall we:

The peppered moth
Isaac Asimov is the leading writer (fibber) in evolutonary science and he gives the peppered moth as the best leading evidence for evoltuion- sad really. It was noted that these moths (England, mid 1800's) were becoming darker as with the trees (from grim & smoke due to industrialization) thus making it harder for the birds to spot and make them dinner. So, the lighter moths were now being spotten and eaten. It was then noted that almost all the moths were now dark,96-98%, thus prving an evolution. however it is not, it is just a variation within species. Troughout the whle period mind you, the peppered moths continued to produce both dark & light varities. t is simply a color change back and forth within a stable species. So, there can be light & dark peppered moths- but they are still peppered moths and nothing else. Survival of the fittest-yes...evolution- No!

Darwins finches
Darwin, while in the Galapagos Islands found that the finches, while looking similiar, had developed a number of different habits, diet, and litle cross-breeding between them. So Darwin (back in England), knowing nothing of modern genetics and the boundary imposed by DNA to changes across basic types, imagined that perhaps these birds were different types-and evolution across types has indeed occured. Darwin gave many examples of variation w/i species, and tried to use them to prove evolution outside of true species. (All this was before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, the gene, the chromosome, DNA, and the DNA barrier to evolution across basic types.) So, in his ignorance, Darwin wrote down his theory- and evolutionists today cling to it, fearful to abondon it. Once again- its just variation in action.

Useless organs
First of all- You do not have any useless or unnecessary structures inherited from earlier life forms. Vestigial organs are suppose to be human body parts that are no longer needed or fulfill a purpose. However, there are no vestigial organs. No capable biologist today claims that any vestigial organs exist in human beings. In reality, the list of vestigial organs has decreased as knowledge/science has increased. One organ that was once declared useless was the Coccyx. The coccyx however has an important muscle attached to it that hold your pelvic organs in place. W/o it, one coulnt have a bowel, sit or stand upright. To date, not one dedicated evolutionist has been willing to have all his "vestigial organs" removed. But the world's waiting!

Subspecies changes
Evolutionists say that there are instances in which a species has divided into two seperate species. Not true- whatever it is becomes a subspecies such as flies that stopped breeding together. Producing a new subspecies is not evolution. Evolution would require going across the species line, not developing variations within it.

Radiodating & Radiocarbon dating
These dating methods are just out right false and are made on assumptions. Thses dating methods can only have accuracy IF certain assumptions ALWAYS apply to EACH specimen that is tested.

Species evolution never occurs by means of natural selection. Evolutionists have ransacked the plant and animal kingdoms for examples of cross- species evolution and have been unable to find them. What they have found, however, are some interesting examples of variations within species, such as the peppered moth.

Evolution teaches that all organs developed by chance, and that some eventually hapened to have a reason for existence. Later on, quantities of these useless organs tagged along when one species evolved into a new one. Thus, if evolution where true, there ought to bed large numbers of useless organs in our bodu. But scientific research discloses that there is not one.

Godless Heathenistic Liberal Conspirators or anything.

Well, maybe not conspirators as much so.

There are reasons why evolutionists are so concerned to hold on to a theory that has no evidence to support it, one which has repeatedly been disproved. These are important reasons why these men of "knowledge" cling so fanatically to a falsehood:

1. Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions.

2. A way to hide from God

3. Sexual freedom

4. It will help destroy religion

Here are some quotes from real scientists who dont take it as "fact" as the blind others.

"evolution is baselees and quite incredible." - Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement in Science.

"The theory [of evoltuion] is a scientific mistake." - Louis Agassiz [Hardvard University professor]

"To my mind, the theory doen not stand up at all." -H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evoltuion"

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the preogress of science. It is useless." - Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie [Director of Research at the National Center of science Research in France]

Evolution- A theory in Crisis...

"Professing To Be Wise, They Became Fools" - ROMANS 1:21-25

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

This post was edited by Hardballkid on Apr 08, 2005.

You, sir, are grievously misinormed. Let me help you out.

Your going to find weirdos no matter where you are & no matter what their background is.

NaO, for instance...

Well, just because a person who wears a lab coat and professes a "theory" (relgion), that doesnt hold water- I dont tend to go to them & expect a whole lot.

You, and other creation "scientists" are fond of putting the word "theory" in quotation marks, as if that lessens the truth of evolution. What you don't understand is the definition of the word "theory" in scientific jargon is different than the definition of the word outside of the sciences.

In the sciences, a "theory" is a model or a framework for understanding. It is not just a "guess" as to what happened. Evolution is a model and framework for understanding the origin of species.

How can you even try to debunk a theory when you don't even know what a theory is?

*sigh* such ignorance is truly a wonder. Oh well, onward and upward--time to explain one last time why they theory holds water and creation "science" does not.

Where? Will you please explain Where/When we have seen evoltuion take place & that is documented. I mean not examples of mutations/changes. For we all know that that changes w/i a species is not evolution. Evolution never occurs today.

There are plenty of examples. In the last decade, a breed of salmon has evolved and split into two separated species. One species is larger and goes out to sea, the other stays in lakes and is smaller. For such a change to occur, DNA must mutate. This means that genes have changed and we have observed them change--and this isn't the only such case. If genes change, and every living thing must come from another living thing, and fossil records indicate that early organisms were simple, and later ones increasingly complex (with intermediate forms inbetween), then it's pretty difficult to write off evolution. No one has managed to do so, including Ken Ham and the creation "scientists."

In any case, I admire your wishfull thinking.

I'm starting to think you should admire anyone with the capcity to think, period.

I don't want evolution to be true (with regard to the "wishfull" (sic) part). I have no reason to want it to be true. I accept it, not because I want to believe in evolution, but because it's so well-documented and universally explanatory and makes so much sense that as a rational being I have no choice but to accept it as truth.

You, OTOH, have reasons (religious fundamentalism, Biblical literalism) to want evolution not to be true. So it seems to me the burden of proof is on your shoulders--and yet you have no ammunition. Because the truth is utterly defensible in and of itself against all forms of deceit.

Isaac Asimov is the leading writer (fibber) in evolutonary science and he gives the peppered moth as the best leading evidence for evoltuion- sad really.

Aasimov might be the only writer that you understand on the topic of evolution, but he is not the "leading" one. He's not even a scientist, he's a writer.

however it is not, it is just a variation within species.

You just shot yourself down again. What do you think causes this variation? Obviously, a change in DNA. Are you claiming there's some sort of invisible line that disallows such changes over time to result in a new species entirely? If so, then again, the burden of proof is on you.

the boundary imposed by DNA to changes across basic types

Oh, so you do actually believe that. Amazing. Where's your evidence?

(All this was before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, the gene, the chromosome, DNA, and the DNA barrier to evolution across basic types.

Gregor Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin, genius. This "DNA barrier" has not been discovered, because it does not exist.

and evolutionists today cling to it, fearful to abondon it

...and why, pray tell, are they so "fearful to abandon it?" Frankly, this sounds like the raving of a madman.

Evolution would require going across the species line, not developing variations within it.

Variations within species prove variations outside of species until you can prove this mythical "line" to exist.

Useless organs

This entire line of "reasoning" is based on a misinterpretation of what denotes vestigial organs. They are not organs that lack function, they are organs that are clearly inherited from another species--for example, the nubs on a python that used to be legs. All a vestigial organ is is one that used to be a part of another structure.

As for dating things, it's not an exact science, but it's gotten pretty reliable. Carbon-14 dating is reliable to within less than a century's standard deviation up to 50,000 years. There are other isotopes for measuring older materials, but I'm unfamiliar with the specifics on them.

Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions.

A way to hide from God

Sexual freedom

It will help destroy religion

Again, why would it help destroy religion, and why would they want to do that enough to dedicate their entire lives to it? It's a ridiculous argument. What in the heck does evolution have to do with accountability, hiding from God, and sexual freedom? You can believe in evolution and be very religious. You can be an atheist and be very moral. Character is not a product of scientific knowledge or religion.

"evolution is baselees and quite incredible." - Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement in Science.

Boy, is this desparation or what? You're quoting an electrical engineer from the early part of the last century on evolution?! Gimme a break!!

"The theory [of evoltuion] is a scientific mistake." - Louis Agassiz [Hardvard University professor]

Yes, Hardvard (sic) University Professor--in the 1800s!!! Also the son of a preacher who made it his life's work to go after Darwin.

"To my mind, the theory doen not stand up at all." -H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evoltuion"

Yes, a physicist. At least you finally got someone from the past 50 years this time, but wrong discipline.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the preogress of science. It is useless." - Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie [Director of Research at the National Center of science Research in France]

Ah, yes:

Lie #315. E.T. Babinski actually contacted French authorities. They revealed that Louis Bounoure never served as Director or even a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter.

The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but adapted from Jean Rostand, a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy. Rostand also wrote that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190).

The end of Bounoure's quotation is from his book, "Determinism and Finality." It runs, "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."

In other words, Hovind's quote is complete fiction and he is too incompetent and dishonest to correct it or even check up on it.

--from
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/P.html

So, you cited one fabricated quote, two quotes from people in the wrong discipline (one from over a half-century ago), and one quote from a 19th century Christian. Good job.

In any group of people, even scientists, you're going to find delusional nutjobs. But even with this phenomena in effect, you couldn't produce a single relevant or meaningful quote against evolution. Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on Apr 09, 2005.