That's ridiculous. It's a private, Christian school; of course they're going to study the bible. If the voucher recipient objects, he can choose another school! That's the point of school choice - duh!Originally Posted by odysseus
|
|
|
|
|
That's ridiculous. It's a private, Christian school; of course they're going to study the bible. If the voucher recipient objects, he can choose another school! That's the point of school choice - duh!
I agree. Parents should be careful in making their choices if they do not want religious instruction. I just hope parents who are desperate to leave a failing school don't feel forced to "choose" a school that looks better only to learn it simply is not judged in an appropriate manner.
On another note, Ms. Hodges' comments are embarrassing...and they've been quoted nationally. I hope her constituents take notice.
Agreed. Although to be fair, in many parts of Louisiana and the Bible Belt, "religious schools" equals "Christian schools". I can see her line of thinking, but it's another case of an elected representative who neglects to read or study proposed legislation very carefully. It's an unintended consequence that few people thought of until after the fact.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/2...ns-impropriety
It just keeps getting better.....yet nothing is done about it.
Is any of this really surprising?
I called BS on this education reform months ago when it was being heralded as a change that would spur economic development.
...which would be fine if there were ample choices, but there are not. Did you know some of these schools teach that the Loch Ness monster disproves evolution? [LINK] You're tax dollars are now paying to for this type of thing to be taught as fact.
And this is worse than public school teaching that man-made global warming is a fact, or that life spontaneously sprang from non-living elements, or that it is fact that evolution is an unbroken continuum from single cells to human beings?
If people don't like the nearby private school choices, they still have the choice of attending local public schools or driving longer distances to attend a private school whose curricula they approve. I personally know several families that daily drive more than 30 miles one-way to attend a particular school. In addition, just because one disagrees with the content of instruction for a particular subject doesn't mean that one disagrees with all course teachings. I shutter to think of all of the objectionable, wrong, and wrong-headed teaching that has been spewed at public schools.
So where's the beef?
Last edited by LookingForResults; 07-31-2012 at 05:53 AM.
In a science class, it is much worse. At least the items you mentioned are BASED on science. In a comparative religion class, it is fair to teach young earth creationism or whatever other lunacy religion currently or historically has taught. But that stuff does not belong in a science class.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Actually, I disagree. The problem with teaching man-made global warming (for example) in a science class is the same problem that teaching any idea that can't follow the scientific method presents. Anytime you cannot directly test your hypothesis you are required to take a stance of belief. You can say it is based on scientific theory, but in the end you are still choosing to hold a belief based on something that cannot be directly proven through experimentation. You can through around words like "lunacy" to try and make your belief system sound superior; but until you can prove your beliefs through experimentation, not deduction or extrapolation, then you are still operating in a belief system.In a science class, it is much worse. At least the items you mentioned are BASED on science. In a comparative religion class
As far as what should be taught in a K-12 science class, there are plenty of actual scientific facts that can be taught as fact: the laws of motion, the conservation laws, Kreb's cycle, the scientific method . . .
I agree that man-made global warming is not proven, but it is BASED on science. A good teacher should also teach the scientific-based criticisms of the theory, but the theory is based on data and application of scientific principles. Young earth creationism has absolutely no basis in science. Evolution has a solid scientific basis. If someone had a scientific criticism of evolution, it is fair to teach that in science class as well.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Did you miss the part about the Loch Ness monster? It's a perfect example of the thought process of certain creationists. They start with a conclusion and grasp frantically at whatever might support that conclusion, even if that means using mythical creatures as "evidence." This type of thinking has no place in a science classroom anywhere.
The scientific method and global warming get along just fine. [LINK]
"Global warming theory comes from climate scientists who have employed the scientific method using observations that many of us are witnessing. They will continue to collect data regarding changes around the world in an effort to gain more and more insight to tackle the problem. The results will produce as with all things new in science a constant evolution of facts and predictions. The face of global warming will continue to change."
Today I witnessed two girls wearing red shirts, and a guy with long hair in a black hat in the WalMart. Since I used "observation" I can therefore conclude that every WalMart across the nation also had two girls in red shirts and a guy.......
Right, using observations of recent events to draw conclusions that reach back thousands and thousands of years is good science.....NOT!
"....a constant evolution of facts and predictions." That is NOT science. Science is rooted in real facts, and real facts are not subject to a constant evolution. They simply are.
Also, the scientific method requires isolating variables, such that any hypothesis is tested one variable at a time, all other factors held constant. Anything other than that is mere conjecture. It is not science.
Thesis→antithesis→synthesis.
What utter tripe. Further, if how science is taught at any school is your determinant for attendance and you dislike how it is taught at a particular school, DON'T ATTEND THERE! That's why it's called school CHOICE.
Last edited by LookingForResults; 07-31-2012 at 10:41 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
