CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Based on how this is worded, I have to say yes. But I do strongly disagree with one way this could be interpreted.
If kids want to be taught creationism, the should be allowed to seek it out with their parents, churches, books, the internet etc. I do not believe in blanket censorship of ideas.
But if the poster had added the words "in schools" at the end of the sentence, I'd be on the "no" side. Seriously, who would think that kids have the right, knowledge or capability to start cherry-picking their own curriculum?
And actually, even then, I would be okay with them learning about creationism in a comparative religions, philosophy or modern issues class. Just not in a science class.
What is the difference between a child choosing to learn about religion on their own outside of school and them choosing to learn about in school in a class? They are still making the same decision, just in a different context.
It is inappropriate to teach creationism in a science class because it cannot be supported by the scientific method.
But I don't feel we should censor ideas or remove people's abilities to investigate concepts independent of school, nor do I think it would be possible to do so.
Ultimately, whether the learn about evolution in school or not appears to be irelevent anyway. Public schools have been teaching evolution in most of the US for several generations now, yet a notable percentage of people in this country who went to public school disbelieve it anyway.
We would be better served by focusing on teaching logic and reason rather than trying to censor subjects that are devoid of either.
It is inappropriate to teach creationism in a science class because it cannot be supported by the scientific method.
Well, I'm not sure that Creationism would be taught in a science class. And if you believe in the Bible, Science isn't supported by the Bible, therefore all believers should disregard science.
Creationism should be taught in schools. What I don't like about this argument is that we are deciding what children should think. In my private school, we were taught both. Religiously, we believed in creation, but scientifically we believed evolution.
They can both be, and are, true. Creationism tells the story of intent. Evolution tells the story of method. I'm not staying that it was intentionally designed this way, but it what we have. There was a time where I stopped believing in God and tried to answer my questions scientifically. Oddly, the science brought be me back to God. I'm a scientist by means of observation, plus I read and dabble in actually science. But I began to see the pattern of religious concepts in nature.
Religion exists. As facts go, that is a fact. And within religion is a concept of a creator.
If there isn't a creator, who created the concept of a creator? Why did this concept come about and why not after almost 17,000 years has it not died? Did "nature" create this idea? If not the creator, then nature did, for it was one or the other. And if Nature created it, couldn't Nature be considered the Creator?
Anti-creationists are quick to point out how man "created the creator." But if there isn't a distinct 3rd party creator, then Nature is the creator. Man is a nature made product. Just like trees, rivers, oil, and pond scum. Many Anti-creationists want to separate man from Nature, as if Man was capable of doing something independent of Nature.
Without God, Man can never transcend Nature. Nothing man ever does will be his achievement, because no matter what he does it will always just be Nature at work.
So when we invent and develop spacecraft to take us to other galaxies, it was just Nature doing it's thing.
I believe there is a creator. I believe I know where he lives.
We would be better served by focusing on teaching logic and reason rather than trying to censor subjects that are devoid of either.
This is very narrow minded. There are so many awesome things that have nothing to do with logic or reasons. Crazy naked parties are just a the beginning. Love isn't logic or reasonable, nor is adventure, football, racing cars, etc. There is more to said about passion and creativity then logic and reason.
Well, I'm not sure that Creationism would be taught in a science class.
Many supporters of creationism wish it to be. Also, I already allowed room for it to be taught in other types of classes.
And if you believe in the Bible, Science isn't supported by the Bible, therefore all believers should disregard science.
More like the Bible isn't supported by science. But it wasn't meant to be since it was written waaay before modern naturalistic science was refined to operate in accordance with the scientific method. That being said, people who believe in the Bible tend to cherry-pick what science they don't believe in. Anything that appears to conflict with the Biblical teachings is disregarded, but science that appears to confirm Biblical teachings is applauded. This seems like very ineffective reasoning to me.
What I don't like about this argument is that we are deciding what children should think.
No, we are deciding that public school science classes should present the arguments that are best supported by lines of evidence in. Since that is how science operates, it is a valid model. Science isn't about opinions, its about observations. On the other hand, those parents who tell their children that evolution is false and not to listen to their teachers, to ignore the evidence, they are the ones telling their children what to think.
And, as my very first post pointed out, there are numerous avenues of learning about creation science outside of school. They aren't being denied the opportunity to investigate the other side, and I seriously doubt there are very many children who are completely unaware of the controversy.
They can both be, and are, true.
This depends on how creationism is defined and presented. If it is thought of as a God designing the first life forms and using or allowing evolution to lead up to the present variety of life over the course of billions of years, then the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Science in general can't really have one opinion or the other about the existence of God, and evolution specifically is only about the method of life's diversification, not its origin.
If, however, creationism is described and defined in the fundamentalist sense that all life was created simultaneously and in its current forms...well that IS mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution and refuted by the same evidence that supports evolution.
There was a time where I stopped believing in God and tried to answer my questions scientifically. Oddly, the science brought be me back to God.
Have you ever considered that this may be an example of confirmation bias?
If there isn't a creator, who created the concept of a creator? Why did this concept come about and why not after almost 17,000 years has it not died? Did "nature" create this idea?
Humans created the "creator" concept because we create things, we manipulate the environment. Ancient man simply anthropomorphized the universe in an attempt to make sense of things and answer the inevitable questions regarding the origins of the universe. After all of these years it hasn't died because a lot of people simply fear that they couldn't be happy or moral if there was no God, or are unwilling or unable to investigate the more complicated naturalistic explanations.
But if there isn't a distinct 3rd party creator, then Nature is the creator.
Yes. Now let's go back to something you said earlier:
Creationism tells the story of intent. Evolution tells the story of method.
The biggest difference here is just that. A naturalist argues that this all happened without specific intent, a creationist says that this was all done by intelligent intent and design. The naturalist gains an advantage every time we discover something that happened naturally. As our understanding of our natural world increases, the need for an intelligence behind it decreases. This doesn't rule out such an intelligence, but the claims of the existence of such a being have never been properly substantiated. It is not impossible, but also not necessary, and Occam's Razor inclines us to not add unnecessary steps that are not observed.
Nothing man ever does will be his achievement, because no matter what he does it will always just be Nature at work.
Even if this was true, so what? If that is how it really is, so be it. Naturalistic accomplishment can still be awe-inspiring and worthy of a pat on the back.
This is very narrow minded. There are so many awesome things that have nothing to do with logic or reasons.
I'm not saying logic and rationality are the end-all-be-all of human existence. I do irrational things all of the time because they are fun or exciting. But I feel we are best served by also sharpening our ability to arrive at objective truth and analyze the data we are presented with.
And, as my very first post pointed out, there are numerous avenues of learning about creation science outside of school.
Though exactly a rock solid argument: Many years ago, when the Greek mythology was real, or rather popular, people would come from far away to watch the drama. Greek plays were most often done in light. Even though the audience knew the stories were fairy tales, they wanted them for very important reasons.
In a couple of the stories, perhaps a father or mother went mad and killed their child. The audience would cry and realize that it could be them. And they could see in their neighbor same horror they felt. And these reaffirmed their need to be strong and good.
My point: At one time, it was more important to teach emotional intelligence then science. Developing character is still more important the learning science and logic.
Science in general can't really have one opinion or the other about the existence of God, and evolution specifically is only about the method of life's diversification, not its origin.
I was part of the Scientology cult for a little while. When I first started, they claimed that they were non-denominational. They assured me that being a Scientology would not conflict with my other religious beliefs. That was just to suck you in. Later on they can calling Jesus a pedophile and such and he was the incarnation of their devil, more or less.
The Science Community is a little the same. They claim they don't have a stance, but once you are in, their stance is very clear. If you cannot validate it, its not real. As a validation specialist myself, I found that a lot of religious belief can be validated, you just have to try. Science is like politics, it is funded by people with an agenda. They will not take a stance on God because they know they cannot hold it, but God doesn't serve the political agenda. The idea that there is some great intelligence out there that has our best interests at heart would divert precious attention away from their power and influence.
Even if this was true, so what? If that is how it really is, so be it. Naturalistic accomplishment can still be awe-inspiring and worthy of a pat on the back.
I love Nature. To me, it's God made manifest. It follows the laws and truth and choice.
------
I would love to respond to all of your points, but my post tend to a get very long. I enjoy you point of view, as it pretty well thought out, but I still dispute. I can't help it, Nature made me this way. : )
At one time, it was more important to teach emotional intelligence then science.
Actually, if you look at the old-school Greek teaching methods, you will see that logic and philosophy were compulsory for a good education, mathematics was more heavily emphasized and respected, public debate was how professional scholars built their reputations and how bright young students proved themselves. It wasn't all one or the other.
My complaint is that modern education isn't vary well focused on developing clear thought. Emotions are great and natural for what they are, but they cloud rational judgement and allow us to be manipulated by smooth talkers who ramp up the pathos and ignore the logos. Having debated with a wide variety of people and silently observing "average folk" in the real world, I am frankly disgusted by the counter-intellectual culture being promoted and implicitly championed in our culture.
They claim they don't have a stance, but once you are in, their stance is very clear. If you cannot validate it, its not real.
First, there is a difference between science itself and the scientific community. What a scientist believes personally is not of much concern to me. But if they use their scientific practice to push their personal agendas, then the are stepping beyond the bounds of science. I would argue that a truly good scientist, and the majority of the working scientific community can leave their own biases at the door when they put on their lab coats.
Science is like politics, it is funded by people with an agenda. They will not take a stance on God because they know they cannot hold it, but God doesn't serve the political agenda. The idea that there is some great intelligence out there that has our best interests at heart would divert precious attention away from their power and influence.
No, it would subvert the scientific method itself. God is both supernatural and unfalsifiable, so there are two reasons why the concept cannot be a part of hypothesis formation process. If we bent this rule for God, we would have to bend it for any number of supernatural and/or unfalsifiable entities or processes and potentially move away from a naturalistic cause without even looking for it. If we made that a common practice, science would lose its ability to be objective and accurate. As far as politics and funding, sure, that is unavoidable. But the scientific methods also mitigates that as much as it can due to peer review. The reviewers are independent of the main group, they aren't affected by the funding issues (at least they aren't ALL affected by them) and often may be initially hostile towards the concept. But their job is to look at it objectively and rationally, and their very reputation within the scientific community depends on it. If a premise is submitted to this kind of scrutiny and comes out well validated, it doesn't matter who is funding it, its good science.
I would love to respond to all of your points, but my post tend to a get very long. I enjoy you point of view, as it pretty well thought out, but I still dispute. I can't help it, Nature made me this way. : )
Understandable. My own get pretty long quite fast, and I won't always have the free time I do now. Overall though, you are a great sparring partner, and I hope to have many more debates with you :)
Actually, if you look at the old-school Greek teaching methods, you will see that logic and philosophy were compulsory for a good education,
I can take a little correction on this subject. I'm not an expert on Greek history. Greeks had their fingers in many pies.
Emotions are great and natural for what they are, but they cloud rational judgement and allow us to be manipulated by smooth talkers who ramp up the pathos and ignore the logos.
Emotions are actually more real then thoughts. We cannot directly control how we feel. Our feelings can be taught and trained, but it takes time. The power of our thoughts is strongly rooted our ability to change our perspective. For example: Perhaps some horrible event happens to us as kids, and for years we feel bitter or hurt. Then one day you realize that the event make you into a person that you are proud to be. Without the event, maybe you would a beer drinking, couch sitting, TV watching, Arm Chair Quarter Back. Suddenly you are a grate for the experience.
Suddenly, you change your perspective and you feelings follow. You can think you are logical, but your emotions tell the truth about how your "reality" is working.
You feelings are more closely tried to the reality of the laws of nature. If someone is able to manipulate you, that is the reality of the your base consciousness.
For example: You crave friends and recognition. You might not be consciousness aware of it, but you might find yourself doing illogical things to impress people. That is because some part of your subconscious has a desire that might not fit into your model of logic and reason.
However, in your subconscious is the history and code of billions of years worth of survival, success, and happiness.
The reason things are how they are is because we are what survived.
There is consciousness in humans that is beyond them. For some reason, the inner consciousness doesn't humans. The sex drive, the need for happiness, the need for companionship, the need for home, etc, are driven by something deeper then logic and reason.
This one of the reasons I believe in Great God and greater beings. There is another life force within us and not allowing us access to the root consciousness. It's sort of like the Borg.
There is something in side of us, creating us, and we don't have access to it. At least, not directly.
Our emotions are sort of like the connection between the base human code and our personal perspective of the world.
Even if I bought that concept, which I do not, emotions would still not be more real than the facts in the external world.
For example: Perhaps some horrible event happens to us as kids, and for years we feel bitter or hurt. Then one day you realize that the event make you into a person that you are proud to be. Without the event, maybe you would a beer drinking, couch sitting, TV watching, Arm Chair Quarter Back. Suddenly you are a grate for the experience.
The exact opposite can and does happen too though. A single event can take a once happy person who is well on their way to greatness and turn them into a shell of themselves. Emotion is a double-edged sword.
You feelings are more closely tried to the reality of the laws of nature.
Yes and no. On the one hand I totally agree with how they are deeply wired into us as humans, carried on for many generations and refined into our present existence. But they still operate independently of reality. They give us impulses that don't really have anything to do with reality. Disliking poverty does not change the reality of poverty. Liking how a meal tastes does not make in necessarily healthy to eat the meal.
The sex drive, the need for happiness, the need for companionship, the need for home, etc, are driven by something deeper then logic and reason.
Deeper? Maybe. More realistic or helpful, almost certainly not, at least not always. The sex drive helps keep the species going, but it can also lead to a lot of trouble that could be avoided if people were just more careful and restrained about it.
Our emotions are sort of like the connection between the base human code and our personal perspective of the world.
But the personal perspective is inherently limited to our observations and capabilities to process them. Virtually all of the universe goes by without us knowing about it...
Even if I bought that concept, which I do not, emotions would still not be more real than the facts in the external world.
I dispute thee.
Facts aren't exactly real, excluding mathematical facts. 1+1=2 and that's a fact.
Facts lack depth and relational factors. We could say 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples. But what is an apple? Is the apple rotting, or growing still? How long is the apple going to be a apple? How long has the apple been an apple?
Nothing in form is permanent. Nothing moves in form where trillions of relationships aren't affected. Maybe the fact is: "I went to the store." That doesn't describe anything that really happened. The list of things that actually happened could be trillions upon trillions of items. There is no small radius of influence. I am affecting everything from the heat and air quality, noise pollution, earth vibration, air displacement, I'm sure I killed a number of bugs on the way, and I put money in the hands of people pumping gas that oppress and kill their people, and I supported all of the machinery involved with that. Just by driving to the store, I have put things in motive that may last for millions of years.
I'm not thinking highly of myself, I'm just trying to point out the chain reaction that every action can have. If you try to take just ONE FACT and totally define it, you simply couldn't. "John coughed." It seems like a fact. But he also propelled germs into the air and got Susie infected, who went home to her young son who caught the germs and died. He was going to grow up and achieve world peace, but John coughed.
Facts are just snippets of an event. Facts don't consider all of the facts. Emotions tell us about a deeper reality. It might be a "fact" that if you don't pay the rent you won't have a home. But maybe your emotions start to mess with you. Maybe you start to skip out of work early, risking your job. You're not sure why, just can't stand it anymore. Your emotions are telling you something.
There are some elements that were "created in humans." (Did you see that? I used the word "created." >: )) The formula for life is sort of like this. 1) Survival. 2) Obtain desires. 3) Seek perfection. 4) Need for stimulation or pleasure. 5) Be Happy.
That is just a rough guess. These things are requirements for life. Life will withdraw it's support of your efforts if you do not comply with these things. It can be patient. But if you suppress or denial any of these things, you subconscious will start to mess with you and can twist you up in ways you wish had never been.
Psycho killers, for example: There are some that are just born that way, but others that are made that way. Some of the most "at risk kids" are those that are taught to suppress their pleasure. They are taught the sex is a sin, that "touching themselves" will send them to hell. That loud laughter is a sin. Idol hands are the devils work shop, etc. The need for pleasure and stimulation grows within. One day, maybe a boy kills a fly and thinks, "wow, that felt sort of good." He begins to hide his methods of obtaining pleasure and it also take a sinister twist.
If you look in to the spiritual forensic of it, it makes perfect sense.
Emotions are more real than facts. They don't care that killing might be murder. They don't care that stealing might be illegal. They don't care that careless sex gets someone pregnant. They have their job, they are going to get it done.
With logic, we can plan around some the emotional outbursts. Maybe we keep a condom in our wallet. Maybe give the ice cream to the neighbors before we eat it all. But even so, the emotions tell us about the reality deep down.
Someone once told me to "trust my feelings." (sort of like use the force, Luke) and I was like, "are you out of your cotton picking mind?" I would kill at least a dozen people, impregnate this half of the city (I was younger) and lot of other stuff. So i didn't trust my feeling. Later, I realized that trusting my feeling meant that they were trying to tell me something. If I'm happy, I'm good with God, so to speak. If I'm not, then somewhere my feelings are at odds with my reality.
In your first several paragraphs you didn't show me how facts are wrong, just how they are incomplete. There is always something going on outside of our vision and understanding. I don't dispute that. There is no better place to get this realization than to study science, and I've done a little bit of that. But it doesn't work against objectivity, unless the goal is to know everything, and that certainly is not a realistic goal, nor one that has to be satisfied to get to the truth of most issues. Sure, countless things occured when "John coughed"...but it doesn't change the fact that yes, John coughed. And how we feel about him coughing doesn't do much about the fact of him coughing.
Worse, feelings can lead us astray. When you are addicted to, say, tobacco, it is hard to feel good without ingesting it. Once you do light up a smoke after having been deprived or going through a stressful situation, you feel better, more complete. Life is right now. But when you are lying on the deathbed from cancer, all those hundreds of hours of good feelings are shown for what they are.
Or women who feel that they are in love with someone who beats them, cheats on them. Their partner regularly makes them feel miserable, yet they put up with it for those fleeting moments when the partner makes them feel good, even though they should logically know that with all of the men out there there should be at least a few who can make them feel good without having to make them miserable.
If I'm happy, I'm good with God, so to speak. If I'm not, then somewhere my feelings are at odds with my reality.
Which means that somewhere your feelings are failing you. Objectivity and rationality can help you identify where the disconnect is coming from, and more importantly, what to do about it and maybe ways to avoid it in the future.
I had to scroll to the top and see what we were debating. >: )
Worse, feelings can lead us astray.
Feeling do not lead us astray. Feelings divert and demand attention because what the person thinks is reality is wrong. Emotions do something that would drive the mind insane. Emotions keep track of the trillions of microscopic life forms and millions of virtual systems of the body. We do not give proper respect to the complexity and structure of, say, identity.
The identity is a virtual creation. Almost like a computer program, it is coded. But the identity isn't solid, it's not a mass. It's virtual and easily hurt or damaged. If an event happens, say, someone calls you a liar, your logic side should be able to reject the statement as false. But deep inside of you, something has been hurt and the emotions tell us about that. You may launch into defense, (in the old days, might even kill someone.)
As you mention, if someone is a craving a smoke, the emotions become involved. The mind doesn't care, that shit is bad for you anyway. But the body is in distress, the emotions are going to 'demand' your attention. We make it a habit to ignore the emotions when we can, but that can usually lead to trouble, and so can following them. Understanding them is a good thing.
Emotions tell us of the condition of systems within us, that mind and logic would rather ignore.
And this next part is pure speculation:
Recently, there was evidence found of what has been dubbed the Temple of Eden. It is a temple found in the East, I don't remember where but maybe Iran or Iraq. The technology and design of this temple was very shocking to me and many others. It was dated back to about 17,000 years ago. About the same time some people believe the original Sphinx was, was dismissed merely because it was impossible.
But one of the things that was very disturbing about this is the thousands and thousands of skulls piled up. These are thought to be sacrifices. I have pondered that perhaps humans were smarter then we think, but lacked good emotions. Much of the religion's message focuses on good behavior and love.
Many want to blame religion for all of the "killing" and what not. But what if the killing and callous nature of man came before that? I don't think the Churches have actually incited people to kill. I think that people have killed in the name of the church. But the Crusades were not so much about religion as they were about spices. And the King's just used religion as means to rally the people.
But is that any different then today? The new God is democracy. We invade other countries because of their unholy ways and we are going to bring "democracy" to them. Nothing but the names have changed.
Emotions tell us of the condition of systems within us, that mind and logic would rather ignore.
They point us in a very vague direction. That is about it. Besides, there is a lot more to this universe than our own systems.
The point is though, our emotions aren't going to teach us math, show us the shape of the earth or help us learn a foreign language. And giving into them fully is often a recipe for disaster.
And giving into them fully is often a recipe for disaster.
This is just because we don't understand them. The direction they is not vague at all. Our understanding of them is. Emotions are the true power. Our bodies were not built by the brain. Evolution is not about who is smartest, but rather who is the most adaptable. Emotions become rigid if the mind is rigid but usually because they must stay the course.
And another thing: And I want to deeply and profoundly thank you for inspiring this in me. The emotions are massively powerful. People can wake up one morning speaking a different language. Savants that are sometime unable to speak can crank out math like a 600hp wood chipper.
The limits of the mind are not truly educational, they are emotional. In my own mind, can see where evolution/creator intentionally shut down the mental powers. But, we probably are not going to agree on this.
This is just because we don't understand them. The direction they is not vague at all. Our understanding of them is.
Possible, but hard to support. It certainly isn't obvious to me.
Our bodies were not built by the brain.
Nor were they built by the heart. What is your point?
Evolution is not about who is smartest, but rather who is the most adaptable.
Intelligence increases adaptability. In our case, it may be the biggest thing we have going for us (along with social behavior and thumbs). Aside from being big and relatively strong, we don't have a whole lot going for us physically. Many potential predators and prey can out run us, out climb us, jump over us. We have no claws, our teeth aren't too sharp. Our senses are dreadful compared to most other animals. Yet we've emerged as one of the most successful and dominent creatures the world has ever known. Since our biggest advantage by far is our capacity for abstract thought, which allows for advanced learning, planning and manipulation of the environment, it stands to reason that that capcity for thought is why we stand so tall.
People can wake up one morning speaking a different language.
You are going to have to show me a verified example to get me to put stock in that. And what does that have to do with emotion anyway?
Same with savants. Those folks tend to be emotional stunted often, but their brain wiring enables them to rock out certain skill-sets. This almost seems like an argument against your case to me.
The limits of the mind are not truly educational, they are emotional.
They are both. Both need to be developed and used properly. In the case of emotion, this leads to diminishing its effect on your decision making and analytical abilities.
Nor were they built by the heart. What is your point?
Oh, I always for that points. Our Bodies were more or less built by stomachs, or rather the consuming and converting of energy.
.
You are going to have to show me a verified example to get me to put stock in that.
Ah, no I don't. I can quote it because seen the article in news and TV shows. However, I don't know the people personally. I accept things as a possibility and look for understanding. I have found, some times when you are looking for something that isn't there. . . . . you find other cool stuff. I love to riffle though stuff.
.
Intelligence increases adaptability.
Emotional Intelligence does. But IQ makes most people stubborn as hell. I can tell most people are pretty smart, or at least think they are. The is why I post here, I don't risk actually convincing anybody of anything.
.
It certainly isn't obvious to me.
Yeah. . Ummmm, I'm just not going to touch that one.
.
In the case of emotion, this leads to diminishing its effect on your decision making and analytical abilities.
Contrar, Monfrar. Emotional intelligent is far more likely to help analytical ability. Having poor emotion control in times of crisis is what gets you killed. And good analytical abilities do not over ride your emotions in times of need.
If you are a creationist a legitimate science class will likely offend your views. If you are a socialist a legitimate economics or history class will be offensive to your views. If you are fat and think your healthy and legitimate health class will be offensive to your views.
The only reason I think they should have the option is because I don't think the government should be involved in education.
I was pointing out that it's not even study, it has no backing so it shouldn't be taught in schools. It's also impossible as a subject, there are thousands different creation myths most of them are very different from each other.
If a private school wishes to teach it, that is their choice, not ours. Do I think it should be taught? Of course not. Will I use force to stop them, no, that's just wrong.
Creationist teaches that "scientist" lie and are cursed by devil. Kids area intentionally leaded to be fanatical Christian refusing anything non biblical as a lie. Those kids will never be open minded.
Most creationist believe in the story of creation (book book Genesis) it has nothing to do with the devil cursing science. And allow to explain something to you: having a different theory on how the Earth was created does not make you close minded, there are billions, actually, Trillions of other topics and ideas and concepts that they may have different opinions on.
A Christians who kills non-Christian is a fanatic, a Christian who believes the Earth isn't billions of years old is not.
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God.
I often get a good laugh from Creationism. And likewise from what people call science.
The God of Abraham is not the only creator.
The Gods and Creators of cultures often reflect their understanding of the world.
We are down the line about 2+ billion years of successful life. To laugh at how the previous generation survived is not only disrespectful, it is extremely arrogant.
Truth Happens. By whatever path we got to where we are, is the path that works.
The concept of evolution is that the "success life forms survive." All major cultures have a strong religious base, whether it be Greek, Egyptian, Chinese, Christian, Muslims, Native Americans, etc. I cannot think of a single great culture that did not have Gods and Creators.
The Russians and Chinese treated to ban them, but people wanted it back.
You cannot really have Gods without a Creator. And in the end, people really want Gods. For thousands of years, people have tried to throw off the yoke of God. And where are those people now? What people? Exactly? What people. People's without God don't survive long.
Whether God is a fable or not, evolution has declared it a necessary one. God is our moral compass. I know that people can be moral without God, but A PEOPLE cannot. If you want history, culture, etc, you need God.
"All major cultures have a strong religious base, whether it be Greek, Egyptian, Chinese, Christian, Muslims, Native Americans"
They also believed in Sun spinning around flat earth, that ill people are cursed, thunder meant that god/s were angry and many other funny stuff...
In countries with the highest living standard are very few believers, countries like Sweden, Norway, Czech, Finland, Japan... has the number of believer bellow 15% and it's decreasing.
Only poor and uneducated people want's gods. It's also supported by governments because poor farmer who beliefs in some sort of awesome afterlife is much less likely to riot than farmer aware of reality that he is what he is ...and he does not like it.
" People's without God don't survive long." it used to be true, because they were simply massacred by religious people for not following their fallacy. ...like philosophers in Alexandria massacred by early Christians.
Because of Christianity we had 1500 years of "dark age" so without it now would be year 3513, I would be in a spaceship heading to distant galaxies but instead of that I'm arguing against story that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree....
In countries with the highest living standard are very few believers, countries like Sweden, Norway, Czech, Finland, Japan... has the number of believer bellow 15% and it's decreasing.
I didn't say that believers have the highest standard of living, only that they keep on living. As I said, Evolution is about the "successful path." Sweden and some of those other countries are living an illusion. Much of their money is made from other countries taking advantage of their banking laws.
God is often found in the "fox hole" so to speak. When you are living large, independent, living more or less disaster free, God is quickly forgotten. But when the shit hits the fan, people find God. It is a Biblical Statute that only the humble find God. I'm not very humble, so maybe I haven't really found God. But even so, what you are saying doesn't prove me wrong. Higher standard of living sort of means more to lose. And another thing about these places (I think) is that they don't have a strong military.
War sucks, but is an age old reality. If serious war ever broke out, there is no promise neutrality would be honored.
There are a number of counties that have decided that military was simply too expensive, like Costa Rica, that have gotten rich by dumping their military. Peace is awesome, but if it broken, where do you stand.
As I have said before, Evolution is about the successful path. So far, the successful path included religion.
Oh, and don't get me wrong. I grieve at many of the actions of religion. The Spanish Inquisition makes me angry. As a Mormon from Southern UT, my culture massacred a wagon train of innocent people. Many white people came to America and killed Native American en-mass with bio-warfare, usually claiming right in God. And especially, I grieve for the scholars of Alexandra. I loved the idea of the Library. An opportunity came up for me a few years back and I was able to work on the New Library of Alexandria in the rebuilding of it. It was one of the greatest honors of my life. Who knows where we would be if some of those things hadn't happened. And then again, we don't know where we would be if those things hadn't happened.
One point that I sometimes bring up in this discussion is Testosterone. The levels of Testosterone have dropped drastically in American Males. Men in their 20's have lower levels then men in their 80's. Young men are getting their levels checked and taking supplements.
Humans have survived as we are for about 150,000 years. But what if our lack of warring and killings lower our levels of Testosterone and we all turn into pancake flipping pansies and the race dies off except the "barbaric ones?"
We cannot separate ourselves from the history of success that got us here. It's a little bit like killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
I believe in a higher being. I some times look at these "Idiot Savants" and wonder why I don't have that kind of ability. The human mind is obviously capable of incredible things. Why am I such an idiot without the Savant?
Why hasn't science taken off in the past? Plato and Hermies were incredible. Sometimes I read stuff and think "wow, that is amazing" and come to find out it was Hermies idea. (My older brother used to call me Hermies without knowing what it meant. I was flattered.)
But why? Why did evolution decide to kill and crush the "thinkers?" Why we are almost intentionally disconnected from our awesome abilities? I'm a basic idiot, and discovered quite by accident that I can play the piano. It just comes out and I love to play. I compose stuff on the fly, learn new patterns and make new songs. I don't know where that stuff comes from.
What I am trying to suggest here: is that man isn't ready for their awesome abilities. It's just one of the "Creator legends" but there is a story that Atlantis was sort of like what you suggest. Smart, high standard of living, etc, but they did something stupid and destroyed their culture.
There is myth that the knowledge was intentionally buried. Maybe the "survivor gene" decided that we could not handle being smart. I mean, look at us now. We smart, we also on the verge of killing ourselves.
It has a place there. In government funded public school, not so much....particularly not in a science class. It amuses me that people get so worried about whether or not creationism is getting taught in schools when it is plastered all around their children's lives in church, at home online, etc. They don't just want to argue with evolution, they want to erase it entirely.
I understand why religion had to be taken out of school. But I think that I could be a serious science.
I have a regret.
In the old days, we had witches and such for our medicine. They were actually quite effective. They used principles such as divining and such to determine the life force of food. Then sugar came along. The Holy Crusades were really about sugar and spices. The Knights went into Jerusalem and quickly became addicted to it. Sugar was extracted from Sugar Beats at the time. The Knights took it back to England and France where people there also got addicted to it.
The poor white folk of Europe were not used to the sugar and had to concept of "moderation" with it. People would go into sugar shock and/or basically go crazy. Of course, they would call for the local "medicine woman" to help. She would quickly realize what was wrong and basically say there wasn't anything she could do, it just had to wear off.
Soon the women were being accused of "bewitching people." The church also became involved in the sugar trade. The Witches condemned Sugar as "dead food" and forbid anyone to use it. The powers that be didn't like that and forbid women from practicing medicine and actually made crime punishable by death.
About the same time, cats were considered to be the Witch's Companions were also condemned to death. This allowed an over growth of rats that brought the plague.
The schools and universities couldn't do much about the plague. Many of the doctors actually died.
Medical Science then became based upon digging up freshly dead bodies and cutting them up. Now those people are called heroes. If I did that even today, I would be locked up a lunatic.
I say that "truth happens." And thus, we have what we have. I cannot justify in my feelings changing history. But I wonder what would have happened if natural healing was given the same attention.
Much of university education was about "prestige."
Natural Healing was based a lot upon eating right, faith, and herbal medicine.
Allopathic Medicine tries to imply that all disease is somehow a germ, disorder, genetic, or something else can be explained with a "scientific discovery."
Natural Medicine says "eat right, exercise, take time to rest and play, and occasionally smoke. . . . er, I mean take herb."
Modern Science says, "it is foolish to assume herb is going to heal cancer." And I agree. But many of the disease exist because we ignore the rules of natural medicine. Insanity is almost directly tied to sugar and processed foods. Sugar is a drug, not unlike heroine. It modifies behavior in children and adults.
And what the hell does this have to do with Creationism?. . . . . . I'm thinking, I'm thinking.
Natural Medicine is strongly tied to the idea that we were created in such a way. There is a belief that God created a herb or cure for any aliment. Creationism tries all things together, as if there was purpose and relationship between all things. (I'm doing good here.) Creationism implies that we all tried together and that we are not just of the same species, but of the same family.
They don't just want to argue with evolution, they want to erase it entirely.
I don't need to argue with evolution. But evolutionists obviously want to erase creationism. Which is suspicious to me. Creationism is part of history, part of culture, part of who we are. Even if don't believe it, we disrespect it so? I don't believe in Blood Letting, or using Mercury to heal people, but I am not offended hearing about it. It's what "modern medicine" used to do. . . . . ignorant bastards.
LOL. Yes you are. I certainly appreciate all of the thought you put into this all, and I learned a few things along the way.
From my perspective though, this doesn't really say anything about creation, but more about our ability to adapt to changing times. Perhaps God did create a cure for every ailment (although re-growing limbs is still impossible for us despite the fact that other animals can do it). But it seems just as likely to me, more so actually, that this is all an effect of everything coming into being within the same set of parameters. The same universal laws effect everything differently, yet still play their role. I want to go on more into depth on this, but later. We've both been typing a lot at each other lately. One last thing though.
But evolutionists obviously want to erase creationism. Which is suspicious to me.
This is not universal. It seems to describe Banana Slug, but not me. For the most part, we are just saying that Creationism (and in this case I am specifically referring to the Biblical Literalist approach) is demonstrably wrong and should not be taught as the truth. For me it is no more than that, and I don't really want it erased or even ridiculed. I just want people to look at it realistically and recognize that the evidence for it just isn't there. The less specific you get with it, the less I battle against it. Really, that is how my approach to all spiritual matters basically goes.
I just want people to look at it realistically and recognize that the evidence for it just isn't there. The less specific you get with it, the less I battle against it. Really, that is how my approach to all spiritual matters basically goes.
We have talked a little bit about the "Placebo Effect." Some things exist, not for themselves, but rather for the effect that they cause. Jesus said, "There is no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven." Marriage unto its self is nothing. Yet the effect of it has massive benefits to the structure and stability of a culture. In heaven, relationships are based strictly on what they are. If you love someone, you do. If you don't, you don't. Marriage doesn't mean shit. However, it does provide a context and frame work to work within to develop love, patience, tolerance, respect, etc. These things the fruit of marriage (if you are so lucky) and worth their weight in gold, (in spite of them being weightless.)
Faith has pretty much been crushed in this generation. I don't really consider some of the Born Again folks to be particularly faithful. Folks in AA have more faith then just about anyone. The concept of accountability I think has a positive benefit. I think that belief in God has a positive benefit.
According to many scriptures, when people get wealthy they forget about God. But God has a powerful influence in struggling communities that are fighting poverty and crime. When people are struggling with alcohol and drugs, one of the most powerful aids is spirituality and God. God can pull people out of the crap, but doesn't seem to be good enough for the smart, rich folk.
If you take the time to study God, without the burden of desperation, it can be extremely fascinating.
Many people still rely on some of the old ideas. Some people still want to blame Eve for the Garden of Eden issue. So many cultures oppress their women because of this. They use this as a reason to rule over women. Trust me, I have major issues with this. I am very excited to see women stepping up in the world. When I was 14, I challenged my elders with the idea that, "If God cursed women, and we love our women, why are we not trying to get God to lift the curse?" They claimed that it was an "order" thing.
Even though I am promoting Creationism, I have to point out the "facts." (I hate facts, BTW.) The path to where we are is what happened. It "was the successful path."
Truth Happens. I don't know "why" it happens, but it does. The Chaos Factor says that even the slightest deviation from what "did happen" could have totally changed things, and perhaps even ruined things.
Man is a little bit like the universe and dark energy. Without dark energy, the universe would have collapsed a long time again. But it hasn't. In a sense, Dark Energy is supernatural (oops, wrong debate.) How do we know if man would have survived if not for some underlying "dark energy" the keep him in check and in balance?
Man has evolved in a such a way that "doesn't seem natural" for the precedence set by history. Why are we not making treatises with whales and elephants? They are obviously intelligent beings. Dogs have senses and intelligence that can surpass humans in certain environments. So it isn't just about be smart. We are somehow different then what was "going" to happen. Something created us.
According to many scriptures, when people get wealthy they forget about God. But God has a powerful influence in struggling communities that are fighting poverty and crime. When people are struggling with alcohol and drugs, one of the most powerful aids is spirituality and God. God can pull people out of the crap, but doesn't seem to be good enough for the smart, rich folk.
Really, I think its a matter of trying to place their hope in something when there is none immediately present, not unlike the cliche "there are no atheists in foxholes". Many people just have a really hard time accepting that life is really crappy, that we might actually just be worm food when we die, that there might not really be a meaning for us or the events that happen to us. To me, this shouldn't be applauded. Religion just becomes a crutch. There maybe is something to the placebo affect sure. But is it worth it. If people could just accept reality, work their best to improve their situations and become at peace with death before they face it, I think they would normally be better off. And faith in these things rarely stops at that, it often becomes entwined in these spurious histories and this denial of science and logic in favor of...feeling better. Is it not used in much the same ways that drugs are?
So many cultures oppress their women because of this.
I think you've got your cause and effect backwards on this. The reason that story was written might have been to keep women down. You see this all around the world, throughout history, supported by most religions. It has, historically, been at least as much a part of human nature as religion has. And both misogyny and most religious practices get shown to have no real use upon logical inspection.
Why are we not making treatises with whales and elephants?
Lots of reasons, including the inability to communicate deeply with them. I don't see how this lends any credibility towards creation with intent.
Yeah, I am on the same page with you on this. Purely because I think that, at least where education is concerned, giving students more choice as to what they can study is better.
We have to remember two things, though:
1. No everyone who wants to learn about creationism necessarily have to agree with creationism.
2. Creationism has no place in a science classroom, unless the sources and teachings are backed up with peer-reviewed scientific theories, experiments and pieces of evidence.
1. No everyone who wants to learn about creationism necessarily have to agree with creationism.
Yeah just like evolution which I am currently studying in biology and the whole thing is so confusing. And I don't agree on it.
2. Creationism has no place in a science classroom, unless the sources and teachings are backed up with peer-reviewed scientific theories, experiments and pieces of evidence.
Actually it can be because I have a book that explains about creationism in scientific terms and they aren't using the Bible and they are using eternal sources. If you want to read in on it the book is called : I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Hey, the guy came to my school and I asked him a question about Intelligent Design that he completely dodged and didn't allow for me to rebuttal.
Seriously, the book uses old arguments that have been debunked. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not support Intelligent Design what-so-ever, especially since once you put the other two laws into motion intelligent design has no place in Thermodynamics.
My question was: If it takes someone intelligent to design a watch, and that intelligent person was formed through natural means, does this mean that the intelligent designer that formed nature also came from nature?
He answered "well, it's a HIGHER intelligence" and moved onto the next question. Even if there was a good answer for my question, his answer sucked and he knew that he couldn't actually form one for my question so he dodged me.
Yeah just like evolution which I am currently studying in biology and the whole thing is so confusing. And I don't agree on it.
Just because a topic is confusing that is why you shove it under a rug and/or completely dismiss it as untrue or illogical? That is academic dishonesty. When some one wants to make a stand on whether he/she agrees or disagrees with an academic theory, he/she must necessarily give sufficient logical, sound, valid and binding reasons to justify their opinion.
explains about creationism in scientific terms and they aren't using the Bible and they are using eternal sources
Really? Enlighten me. Give me concrete, peer-reviewed pieces of evidence.
I did a brief search of quotes by Norman L. Geisler, the author of the book that you've raised.
One of the quotes I found is this. Norman said, “A skeptic once said to me, 'I don't believe the Bible because it has miracles.' I said, 'Name one.' He said, 'Turning water into wine. Do you believe that?' I said, 'Yeah, it happens all the time.' He said, 'What do you mean?' I said, 'Well, rain goes through the grapevine up into the grape, and the grape turns into wine. All Jesus did was speed it up a little bit.”
Well, all I can say that there is absolutely no credible evidence that supports the ability of Jesus, or anyone, to "speed it (turning water from rain into wine) a little bit", to the rate that Jesus did (i.e. immediate transformation).
There never were and never will be any evidence for bronze age mythology.
This way deformed children may want for they children(if they survive for so long to have any) ...for example cut out mathematics ...or physics ...what is it even good for?... Yeah?
Does it sounds good?
Whole world is advancing but US goes back into the dark age...
Kids can learn about mythology just fine. I was taught and read a lot about the greek gods when i was a kid (Hercules was one of my favorite movies, even though know i know it was nothing like the original tales) and yet I never thought those stories to be anything other than stories.
you don't even have to go into great detail about creationalsim. A simple definition would suffice. Even though students will recognize evolution as the most likely theory, it doesn't help to completely sensor outdated theories like creationalsim. If we still teach that there was theory that the world was flat, why can't we tell students what creationalism is?
I've read Greeks myths as a kid too, problem is that Creationism suppose to taught as a real thing as an alternative to science and it's trying to piss on science.
It does not have to, just teach the definition of creationalism is in a history class, along with all the other outdated beliefs like the earth being flat, the sun revoling around the earth, or the internal pulleys of the human body.
That is not the point. I am not saying we should replace evolution in textbooks, I just think we should not be trying to censor educatation. By fighting so hard against that one paragraph as you put it, you are acting as stubborn as the creationalist you are fighting against. Don't censor a simple definition just to make a point.
All schools should be private so parents can pick and choose the appropriate curriculum.
Public schools are beholden to the government for funding, not to the parents. Therefore they have little or no incentive to accede to the parents' wishes, when those wishes conflict with the wishes of the government. If Parents were the direct source of funding (or for choosing funding, such as with voucher programs) the schools would be beholden to the parents, not the government.
Students and parents should be able to choose their curriculum.
So, there would be a free market of ideas, right? So long as we make sure we have a free society and let faulty ideas fail on their own merit, the best, and most accurate, ideas will prosper, and foster prosperity.
The children of these parents may not go into certain sciences.
Maybe they do not prosper and they change their values, choosing differently for their children?
At any rate, I would much prefer that parents (including myself) be at liberty to choose those subjects which they believe will benefit their children the most, than the government indoctrinate the children into whatever value system it believes will make good, little worker drones or "entitlement" votes for the state.
You support a free market of ideas, right? Okay, let's look at what you say.
I would much prefer that parents (including myself) be at liberty to choose those subjects which they believe will benefit their children the most
Wait, in a free market, the market forces of demand and supply decide which are the best theories and ideas based on their own value. What you are saying here is that parents should decide which ideas are more valuable. That is absolutely hypocritical.
than the government indoctrinate the children into whatever value system it believes will make good, little worker drones or "entitlement" votes for the state.
Right. If the government choosing what children study is indoctrination, then what does that make parents choosing the subjects their children study? I would think that that is extremely close to indoctrination as well. Again, a conflicting, at least, and hypocritical, at worst, statement.
Wait, in a free market, the market forces of demand and supply decide which are the best theories and ideas based on their own value. What you are saying here is that parents should decide which ideas are more valuable. That is absolutely hypocritical.
The parents are the consumers. The product is the education of the child. The ends which the parents wish to achieve is the success of the child.
The consumer expresses a demand for a particular type of product, and the market delivers the various demanded products, to the various consumers. The quality of the various products has an effect on the utility of that product to achieve the ends of the consumer. A superior quality (more useful) product will eventually gain more market share.
This is completely consistent with a free market.
Right. If the government choosing what children study is indoctrination, then what does that make parents choosing the subjects their children study? I would think that that is extremely close to indoctrination as well. Again, a conflicting, at least, and hypocritical, at worst, statement.
"The doctrine of obedience to the State was the prime goal of the father of the public school system in North Carolina, Archibald D. Murphey. In 1816, Murphey planned a system of state schools as follows:
'all children will be taught in them...in these schools the precepts of morality and religion should be inculcated, and habits of subordination and obedience be formed....The state, in the warmth of her solicitude for their welfare, must take charge of those children, and place them in school where their minds can be enlightened and their hearts can be trained to virtue.' 15-- Rothbard, 'EducationFree & Compulsory' (p.43-44) link above
The parent has a personal and emotional interest in and incentive toward the good of the child. The state has no emotional interest, and an incentive toward the good of the state, not the child.
The parents are the consumers. The product is the education of the child. The ends which the parents wish to achieve is the success of the child.
But what you are doing is using the children's education merely as a means to an end (i.e. your personal feeling of achievement in having a successful child). You are not respecting the child as an end in themselves. In such a free market set up, all you are concerned with the motive of the parents, since they are the consumers, and completely neglecting the children's interests.
A superior quality (more useful) product will eventually gain more market share.
How is "superior quality" necessarily equivalent to "more useful"?
You quoting Murphey does not answer my question. If you were even suggesting that indoctrination by the government (via choosing what the children should and must study) is bad, then isn't it a fact that parents choosing what their children should and must study is also indoctrination, and therefore bad?
The parent has a personal and emotional interest in and incentive toward the good of the child. The state has no emotional interest, and an incentive toward the good of the state, not the child.
Now, you may say this. But look at your prior statement on the free market. The only form of consumer welfare that your free market was concerned with was that of the parents', when in actual fact, the children are the more direct consumers of the service provided, education.
Furthermore, whether or not a "parent has a personal and emotional interest in and incentive toward the good of the child", is utterly inconsequential because this is merely an argument from emotion. Just because you have a vested emotional interest in and toward the good of the child does not mean you necessarily (1) should make decisions for the child and/or (2) make the best decisions for the child.
You are not respecting the child as an end in themselves. In such a free market set up, all you are concerned with the motive of the parents, since they are the consumers, and completely neglecting the children's interests.
And who has (or is most likely to have) the child's best interests at heart? The parents, or the government?
How is "superior quality" necessarily equivalent to "more useful"?
A market good that has a higher marginal utility (is more useful) is a better available means to achieve the ends desired than some other means. That is an economic definition of superior quality.
You quoting Murphey does not answer my question.
Not quoting Murphy. Just explaining the way a market works.
If you were even suggesting that indoctrination by the government (via choosing what the children should and must study) is bad, then isn't it a fact that parents choosing what their children should and must study is also indoctrination, and therefore bad?
It is the parents' responsibility to see to the education of the child. Doing that in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of the child is not bad. The government doing that in a manner that is in the best interest of the state, and not the child, is a bad thing. I stand by my statement.
Now, you may say this. But look at your prior statement on the free market. The only form of consumer welfare that your free market was concerned with was that of the parents', when in actual fact, the children are the more direct consumers of the service provided, education.
The parents are acting as a proxy for the child, in the absence of the legal right to choose their own education and the child's inability to make a rational decision as to what sort of education is in his own self interest.
Furthermore, whether or not a "parent has a personal and emotional interest in and incentive toward the good of the child", is utterly inconsequential because this is merely an argument from emotion.
No, it is a criteria for choosing the child's proxy.
Just because you have a vested emotional interest in and toward the good of the child does not mean you necessarily (1) should make decisions for the child and/or (2) make the best decisions for the child.
Bearing in mind that the government will always make decisions based upon what is good for the government and that no third party would be any more likely to protect the interests of the child, what criteria would you use to choose the child's proxy for deciding what is best for that child?
In the free market, how do you prevent all the rich kids from getting a good education and the poor kids getting a sub-par one? Kids should not be "destined to fail" just because their parents did not inherit tons of money?
And who has (or is most likely to have) the child's best interests at heart? The parents, or the government?
You have to admin that many, many parents in fact don't have their child's best interest at heart. I mean if you did a study what percentage of parents are making overall good decisions for their children (obese children, latch-key kids, disrespectful children, etc)? How many "Walmart shoppers" are going to put their child's education high on the priority list when they can barely put food on the table? You can argue that adults should be a allowed to bring about their own demise, but the demise of innocent children? That's a harder sell.
So who will make better education decisions for children, a group of the best education experts in the country, or the half of the parents out there who are not educated themselves, have no resources or time, etc?
In a mixed market the rich can still send their children to any school they want. Why create free market for education when clearly one group looses big time (the poor and the middle class to some extent) while the other group (the rich) is in the same good position it was before?
In the free market, how do you prevent all the rich kids from getting a good education and the poor kids getting a sub-par one? Kids should not be "destined to fail" just because their parents did not inherit tons of money?
This assumes that an education is a right. It is not.
This also assumes that people are unable to educate themselves, they can.
You have to admin that many, many parents in fact don't have their child's best interest at heart. I mean if you did a study what percentage of parents are making overall good decisions for their children (obese children, latch-key kids, disrespectful children, etc)? How many "Walmart shoppers" are going to put their child's education high on the priority list when they can barely put food on the table? You can argue that adults should be a allowed to bring about their own demise, but the demise of innocent children? That's a harder sell.
Argument from emotion: "for the kids". Also beginning the "people are too stupid to know what is best and must have self-styled "experts" to tell them" argument. People have a right to conduct their own affairs, not have others (including and especially government) conduct their affairs for them.
So who will make better education decisions for children, a group of the best education experts in the country, or the half of the parents out there who are not educated themselves, have no resources or time, etc?
Continuation of the "experts" argument. I say that the parents know the children's needs better than the state. Additionally they would wish better for their children, whereas the state would wish what is better for the state.
In a mixed market the rich can still send their children to any school they want. Why create free market for education when clearly one group looses big time (the poor and the middle class to some extent) while the other group (the rich) is in the same good position it was before?
Partially true. What would you say to this:
-Public school continues as-is.
-We continue a mixed market, but...
-No compulsory attendance (public or private)
-Private schools completely choose their own curriculum and standards, with no mandatory requirements from government.
-Middle class parents who choose to send their kids to private school get a tax deduction for the money they spend on private school.
This assumes that an education is a right. It is not.
Lets not go down that path again. You have a different view of rights than most people. People in most civil societies do think children do have a right to a decent education. They are wiling to sacrifice some of their individual wealth to preserve that group right.
Argument from emotion: "for the kids". Also beginning the "people are too stupid to know what is best and must have self-styled "experts" to tell them" argument. People have a right to conduct their own affairs, not have others (including and especially government) conduct their affairs for them.
In a mixed market people are free to home school their children if they think they can do a better job than the experts.
You can argue about the expertise of a particular expert, but it seems like you think the very idea of the existence of "an expert body" does not exist? What decisions would you leave to yourself over an expert body? Please limit the argument to large important decisions, not which candy bar you want to buy.
I say that the parents know the children's needs better than the state. Additionally they would wish better for their children, whereas the state would wish what is better for the state.
Can you offer any proof of this in the worse case scenario (poor single mom)? Present a reasonable argument that the when it comes to education, the state somehow is more concerned with itself than educating children.
Partially true. What would you say to this:...
- I think children should be forced to go to school
- Curriculum: As far as I know in most states the only "requirement" for private schools is they produce students that can pass basic standardized tests. I think this is a good idea.
- Tax deduction: this is an interesting topic. I'm for that idea, as long as it does not lead to the destruction of decent schools for disadvantaged children. I think what will happen is there will be an economic line drawn. Those which can afford the good private school (which is more expensive than the deduction alone) and those that can't. When you remove half the money for the "disadvantaged schools" they will get worse.
School boards and parents have a lot of say in local schools. One of the reasons is the parents with school aged children are the ones doing voting on school issues so this concentrates the knowledge/will of those involved. If it's easy to design a "good school" in the free market, why don't we just do it once and have everyone go to that school?
In a business, you don't let every branch of the company create it's own ethics training, you get a few experts to design the ethics training classes for the entire company then "share" those classes. This is obviously the right way to do things. Why is that not the right way to do things for public education? Schools are a place to learn the basics (reading, writing, etc). There is plenty of time and mechanisms for special interest groups to get their own niche ideas in to children outside of the "core" education process.
They are wiling to sacrifice some of their individual wealth to preserve that group right.
This is an interesting statement. If it actually worked like this, then it would be charity. How it really works, is:
"They are wiling to sacrifice some of someone else's individual wealth to preserve that group right."
There is a world of difference between the two statements. One involves voluntary action. The other involves coercion.
In a mixed market people are free to home school their children if they think they can do a better job than the experts.
True. Can they also get back the money they pay in taxes for educating someone else's children, to use to see to the education of their own children? If not, then this is a "you can pay for your own, as long as you pay for mine too" argument.
Additionally, in many states, it is much more difficult than that. Parents have to jump through legal loopholes just to homeschool their kids.
"
In New York, for instance, homeschools must submit a notice of intent, maintain attendance records, file quarterly reports, and submit Individualized Home Instruction Plans for state approval. Additionally, students must successfully complete an annual assessment, including mandatory yearly standardized testing for grades nine and above. Perhaps most problematic, however, is its mandate that instruction given to a child must be "at least substantially equivalent to minors of like age or attainments at public schools," an edict clearly susceptible to abuse by state officials. This forces parents to comply with the belief systems of distant regulators who are free to define "substantially equivalent" as they see fit."-- Aaron Smith The Costs of Compulsory Educationhttp://mises.org/daily/5384
You can argue about the expertise of a particular expert, but it seems like you think the very idea of the existence of "an expert body" does not exist? What decisions would you leave to yourself over an expert body? Please limit the argument to large important decisions, not which candy bar you want to buy.
My point is that an "expert" should be determined by the degree to which others in the market have chosen his advice to be valuable enough to trade for. You go to a mechanic, because a mechanic has shown aptitude at working on cars, to a butcher because he is familiar with meats and a teacher because he is good at teaching. If the mechanic or the butcher prove to be less able than you imagined, you go to another of his competitors. With public schooling, many people do not have the legal ability to choose another teacher or school. The education system is a government supported, virtual monopoly. The parent cannot even stop supporting the offending school, by withholding funds, because the funds are taken without their permission. And they can't refuse to send their kids, because attendance is compulsory. The school system is the very picture of the giant, coercive monopoly that some say [ ;) ] is the tendency within a free market.
I say let individuals choose who is an expert by the value of his advice. "Judge them by their fruits." If you judge the current education "experts" by their "fruits" they leave much to be desired. They cost much, and the quality is poor.
School boards and parents have a lot of say in local schools. One of the reasons is the parents with school aged children are the ones doing voting on school issues so this concentrates the knowledge/will of those involved. If it's easy to design a "good school" in the free market, why don't we just do it once and have everyone go to that school?
Our local school instituted a dress code that is a uniform, in all but name. The reason they did this was so that the kids of poor parents would not feel bad about not having the same name-brand clothes as the children of better off parents. People went to the meetings and spoke against the uniform. They instituted it anyway. This school board is appointed, not elected. Now, the well off parents have to buy 2 wardrobes for their kids. The poor kids have to wear their uniforms as street clothes (they can't afford to buy 2 wardrobes), and one of the local businesses is selling the heck out of uniforms (the REAL reason they instituted the uniform).
My family and I are in the middle, we can buy a few clothes that are non uniform, for my child. But I would rather spend that money on something else.
The school board members are appointed. The parents had very little say in the matter, because they had no other choice in schooling.
Additionally, there is no one "good school" for everyone. Children are different and have different needs. the Parents are in a better position to judge the needs of their children.
In a business, you don't let every branch of the company create it's own ethics training, you get a few experts to design the ethics training classes for the entire company then "share" those classes.
Yes, but you choose, on the market, the best class designer. Additionally, you tailor the class to the specific location.
The goal of the progressives is a one size fits all system for literally the entire country, regardless of the individual needs of the kids.
This is obviously the right way to do things. Why is that not the right way to do things for public education?
Even as adults, people have different learning styles. I have to have my hands and eyes "distracted" while listening to a lecture. If someone does this in a grammar school, they get in trouble for "not paying attention", whereas if I "look" like I am paying attention, I cannot concentrate on the lesson. One size does not fit all. As to reading and writing, the current system has the entire class "learning" at the speed of the dullest student in the class.
Schools are a place to learn the basics (reading, writing, etc).
True, and schools should concentrate on these.
There is plenty of time and mechanisms for special interest groups to get their own niche ideas in to children outside of the "core" education process.
Do you mean that the special interest groups should be given authority to insert their niche ideas into the peripheral curriculum, or that they should learn these ideas outside school?
The former is dangerous, and tantamount to indoctrination. the latter, I'm ok with so long as the groups pay for their own means of exposing kids to these ideas, and the exposure is an "opt in" not and "opt out" situation. THAT is the free market of ideas.
"They are wiling to sacrifice some of someone else's individual wealth to preserve that group right."
Right, so lets put an even finer point on it:
"They are wiling to sacrifice some of their own individual wealth and some of someone else's individual wealth to preserve that group right." Absolutely. Keep in mind that the middle class majority feels much more pain paying 15% than the wealthy does when paying 30% so the feedback mechanism to keep taxes low is pushing down on the majority very hard.
Only a small percentage of the population sees taxes as involuntary. Secondly, coercion is not by definition a bad thing. Almost any action humans make in a society is because of coercion if varying degrees.
Can they also get back the money they pay in taxes for educating someone else's children, to use to see to the education of their own children?
I think it varies by state. I think they should be able to get some tax credit. I was in this situation for 8 years.
I agree with New York in most of those cases. Seems like NOT a lot of work to make sure your kids are going to be able compete with the rest of the kids in society. What parent would not want to make sure their home schooled child could read and write near the same level as other children? I think the problem is that before they put all these restrictions in place, home schooled children were great at the niche their parents taught (bible studies) but they failed miserably at basic math reading and writing. The free market works great when everyone is well educated with good intentions but what happens to all the other people? They fail and their children pay the price.
My point is that an "expert" should be determined by the degree to which others in the market have chosen his advice to be valuable enough to trade for....
Same old arguments... I (literally) have no good way of finding a good mechanic in the market we have. There are not many of them where I live, I have very little knowledge about modern auto mechanics, they all seem to "find something wrong" with my car which is usually very expensive. I only have one butcher (that I know of) and again know very little about butchering. How does one shop for schools? You cant just move kids around until you find the best one? You have to rely on experts or "consensus" from the community (basically a group of experts). I would much rather have a group of experts just tell me which auto mechanic or butcher or school was the best. I still have the ability to ignore them, but it sure would be helpful to start with the one the experts think is the best.
I say let individuals choose who is an expert by the value of his advice.
I agree but it seems like there are better ways to choose then to try everything over and over and eventually settle on the one that "cheated you the least".
Our local school instituted a dress code that is a uniform, in all but name.
It's hard for me to comment on this specific case. If it's actually an "expensive uniform", then maybe the citizens should vote to provide uniforms for the poor children? If it's just tan pants and white shirt then the "second wardrobe" seems overblown. Walmart.com sells school uniforms (shirt and pants) for about $24.
Democracy is not perfect, but the nice thing is it can be corrected based on simple common sense. When the free markets go off the rails you basically have to form a government on the spot (hopefully a democracy and not simply the will of the richest oligarchy) before you can even start to fix the problem in a controlled way. I can't imagine a population putting themselves in that situation in the first place.
Yes, but you choose, on the market, the best class designer.
Democracy is a form of free market. They do choose the best class designer (as good as any other form of choosing) as far as I can tell.
Even as adults, people have different learning styles.
I don't know many public schools that don't recognize and tread ADD. Hey are forced to by law. However, there are many private schools who don't have to and wont accept students with ADD ("Billy is too frigidity for our school."). Public education would be much better all around, except there are people in society undercutting it because they don't understand the ADD issues, etc. There is a strong argument that the only problem with public education is we don't put enough money in to it. I don't see why public schools would be any worse than private schools if public schools got the same money/student as private schools and private schools had to take the disadvantaged children as well as the "smart" ones.
Do you mean that the special interest groups should be given authority to insert their niche ideas into the peripheral curriculum, or that they should learn these ideas outside school?
"They are wiling to sacrifice some of their own individual wealth and some of someone else's individual wealth to preserve that group right." Absolutely. Keep in mind that the middle class majority feels much more pain paying 15% than the wealthy does when paying 30% so the feedback mechanism to keep taxes low is pushing down on the majority very hard.
Saying that another isn't burdened by a policy, is all well and good, IF you are not one of those others. People are people, and have equal rights to keep the property they earn. Need, or relative wealth is irrelevant. The only proper role of government is to protect rights. Additionally, the most productive individuals pay more absolutely, even if the percentage of tax is the same. What is the rationale that says that they must pay both absolutely more, and more of a percentage? What of justice?
Keep in mind that the individual has already produced more wealth for society's use, than he has accumulated (Say's Law)
"Only a small percentage of the population sees taxes as involuntary.
And a great proportion of the people who do not see it as involuntary, do not pay net taxes.
Secondly, coercion is not by definition a bad thing.
Yes, it is.
Almost any action humans make in a society is because of coercion if varying degrees.
Name a coercive action one takes, that is not directly related to government grant of special privilege.
Seems like NOT a lot of work to make sure your kids are going to be able compete with the rest of the kids in society.
Who is one person to judge, for another, what amount of jumping through hoops is "not a lot".
I could as easily say that those who recieve welfare should have to do 4 hours of job training per day, have to pass a drug test, and be barred from purchasing alcohol or cigarettes, even with their own money. I don't see that as "too much work" to receive free support, but I daresay you might disagree.
The point is that the parent should have say, not the state. But notice the language 'equivalent" not "to the same level". It can be used to impose particular ideas and curriculum.
Homeschoolers and private school students tend to do no worse, and more often do better than their publilc school counterparts, even students from the same households where one was able to get into a private charter school, by random draw.
but they failed miserably at basic math reading and writing.
citation?
I (literally) have no good way of finding a good mechanic in the market we have.
The best will, generally, be the most successful. He will get the most word of mouth advertizing, and the most repeat business.
How does one shop for schools? You cant just move kids around until you find the best one?
Why not? if there are more in your area (not shut out by monopoly) then you wouldn't even have to change address. It is better than HAVING to move, because the government tells you that your kid HAS to go to this school if you live where you do.
I would much rather have a group of experts just tell me which auto mechanic or butcher or school was the best.
Just because you wish not to have to do research, does not give you the right to restrict the choices of others who would rather do the research themselves. With schools, supporting the education monopoly is doing just that.
You have to rely on experts or "consensus" from the community (basically a group of experts).
Who decides that an expert is an expert?
What makes the "consensus" of people who have not "put their money where their mouth is" better than those who have risked their own resources in the search for good advice?
Democracy is a form of free market. They do choose the best class designer (as good as any other form of choosing) as far as I can tell.
No, because the choosing in a democracy is done by risking the resources of others, not yourself. If I had access to your money, It would be much easier for me to choose to gamble it away, than if I only had access to my own.
I don't know many public schools that don't recognize and tread ADD. Hey are forced to by law.
What is the treatment?
What is the effect on the individual child?
What is the effect on the rest of the class?
What is the cost? (note: cost is related to the effect on the other students, taking resources away from them, in favor of the ADD child. More sacrificing the interests of some students for the sake of others?)
However, there are many private schools who don't have to and wont accept students with ADD ("Billy is too frigidity for our school.").
I will take your word for it, but I'm sure there are some who would like to harness the ADD potential. If harnessed correctly, ADD can be used to drive students to very high achievements in fields in which the student is interested. Having a high achieving student as an alumnus is a good selling point for a private school.
Outside of school.
I'm fine with this. Schools should concentrate on the "3 'R's", and leave sensitivity training, Watermelon environmentalism and sex ed (beyond the biology), to the parents.
OK, this debate has grown too big. If there is an important point form the last post feel free to bring it up again but I think were boiling down to the same "value system differences". So:
You keep using the idea of "individual right" as if it has no common sense limit. Is there any case in a society (baby dumped on the street, mentally ill person with no family, old senial person with no family, stopping a rape or murder, etc) that you think individuals should be required to "help" another member of that society? Surely there must be something so heinous that basic "membership in the society" requires dues to try and prevent/help it?
You keep using the idea of "individual right" as if it has no common sense limit.
The only limit is the rights of another.
"My right to swing my fist, ends where your nose begins."
Is there any case in a society (baby dumped on the street, mentally ill person with no family, old senial person with no family, stopping a rape or murder, etc) that you think individuals should be required to "help" another member of that society?
Required? No. That is where compassion, charity, and basic human decency come in (moral obligation, not legal). You have a right to be as unfeeling an ass as you choose, just don't expect that others will go out of their way to help you, or to treat you with anything but contempt.
Would I help, if I could? Yes. Should anyone have the authority to compel another to do so? no. Bearing that in mind, I do believe that each has a right to protect the rights of others, just as they have a right to protect their own rights. I cannot justify this, logically, but it just seems right, morally.
another aside, requiring no answer:
I'm reading Atlas Shrugged again. The first chapters, where the businessmen were meeting in the bar, reminded me of some of your posts. Just an observation. :)
Required? No. That is where compassion, charity, and basic human decency come in (moral obligation, not legal). You have a right to be as unfeeling an ass as you choose, just don't expect that others will go out of their way to help you, or to treat you with anything but contempt.
I think this is probably the "bottom line" in many of our debates. Society is not stable with "good will" alone. The pillars of society require X dollars whether you "feel" you can contribute at the moment or not. Every modern civilized society has required "dues" and they always will because the point of society is collective good which costs "collective money".
Lets say you make your society and there is not enough charity to prevent the worst of the worst from happening to people? What happens to those people?
I don't think you have answered any of my questions along the way about how you would feel when you or your loved ones are "crushed" financially, emotionally and physically when, through no fault of your own, you fail to compete at a high enough level in the free market?
The pillars of society require X dollars whether you "feel" you can contribute at the moment or not.
I think that much of our disagreement is in what constitutes the "pillars of society" and how much they should cost. The US had an agreement (the constitution) and some continue to stretch the boundaries of that agreement, beyond the stated limits of those who set those boundaries.
"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. --Jefferson"
They also set out a way to legitimately expand or contract the boundaries of what government can do, that being the amendment process. But much of the programs and policies you advocate rely on an interpretation of the constitution that flies in the face of the "common sense" you keep citing.
Wickard vs. Filburn is a very good example. It is the rationale for most of the use, by the government, to interfere in states' affairs, under the aegis of "interstate commerce". In this case, the federal government fined a man for growing wheat to feed his chickens. He did not sell the wheat and he grew it on his own land, which was all in one state.
Without looking it up, can you guess the stretch of logic that the government had to go through to prove that this man's actions (growing his own food) fell under interstate commerce? Their reasoning is absolutely sound for many who believe that the good of the group should supersede the rights of the individual (progressives) and that the ends justify whatever means are necessary to achieve those ends.
Now, keep in mind that this is the same time that administration was destroying food and food animals, and limiting food production while Americans were starving in the streets, because food was not available, or too expensive to buy.
Lets say you make your society and there is not enough charity to prevent the worst of the worst from happening to people? What happens to those people?
Someone voluntarily supports them, or they die.
I don't think you have answered any of my questions along the way about how you would feel when you or your loved ones are "crushed" financially, emotionally and physically when, through no fault of your own, you fail to compete at a high enough level in the free market?
It really sucks. But my feelings or needs have no bearing on the rights of others.
I have not answered because it is an appeal to emotion, not logic.
It is the same argument used to implement LBJ's "Great Society" that was supposed to eliminate poverty. The effect of the program was greater poverty.
I think that much of our disagreement is in what constitutes the "pillars of society" and how much they should cost.
Agreed.
Wickard vs. Filburn
Just skimming the wikipedia, it seems like the government had a case. The point was to drive up wheat prices and he was growing his own so he did not have to pay the inflated price. He was cheating, regardless of his intention to sell it or not. I'm not saying I agree with the government in this case, I'm just making the argument.
Even so, one bad case (even 100's of bad cases) does not mean you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think the intellectually honest person can also come up with the same number of cases (actually many more in my opinion) where the government did the right thing.
Someone voluntarily supports them, or they die.
Fair enough. Now what if it's your child starving to death in the worst depravity.... It's very easy to have a steely, logical view on the world as long as you have convinced yourself that you won't end up on the wrong side of the equation. You do realize that it's partially just "luck" that your not that starving child right?
It really sucks. But my feelings or needs have no bearing on the rights of others. I have not answered because it is an appeal to emotion, not logic.
Society is not an emotionless thing? Are you saying that when you build a society, you should ignore emotion? Every single human action is in part driven driven by human emotion.
I think it would be hard to prove that welfare programs caused greater poverty than if we had done nothing. Maybe you can? Maybe if we did nothing a large portion of people in poverty would have died off (social Darwinism) and poverty would have gone down as a result. Is that success? Even if you could prove scientifically that the program was "not that great" then by definition you must have also discovered what it did wrong so why not fix it instead of throw it out?
Lets say it's proven that, all things being equal, generous unemployment befits cause unemployment to rise by 30%. Lets also assume that some unemployment benefit is beneficial (statistically) in preventing an otherwise productive person from falling in to poverty or resorting to crime (helps 1% say). So the societal cost benefit may not be worth it. All you have to do is adjust the program until unemployed only goes up by 1% but preventing poverty and crime in the target group goes up to 30%. Now you have a working program. Why not learn and improve instead of start over? There is nothing "inherently wrong" with medicare or social security, just adjust the levels (politically difficult). Problem solved.
Just skimming the wikipedia, it seems like the government had a case. The point was to drive up wheat prices and he was growing his own so he did not have to pay the inflated price. He was cheating, regardless of his intention to sell it or not.
The federal government had no jurisdiction, without MAJOR stretching of logic for the commerce clause to include ANYTHING that ANYONE does. He was not engaging in commerce, nor did he act across state lines.
where the government did the right thing.
Again, disagreement on rights, and if it is ok to sacrifice the rights of one, in favor of another.
The government acted where it had no jurisdiction. This set a precedent where more action by government , where it has no jurisdiction, was considered legal. It is the definition of the slippery slope. It is the justification for the drug war (alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment). The latest try was forcing commerce with Obamacare, under the same clause, with the same rationale. Gladly, it failed , under that aegis, but not (in the SCOTUS opinion) under the taxing power.
Fair enough. Now what if it's your child starving to death in the worst depravity....
Appeal to emotion. Irrelevant in a logical discussion.
It's very easy to have a steely, logical view on the world as long as you have convinced yourself that you won't end up on the wrong side of the equation.
It's very easy to say "we must sacrifice" as long as you are never the one who has to sacrifice anything you value.
You do realize that it's partially just "luck" that your not that starving child right?
This is the big fallacy. It is not "luck". This is why I don't use the phrase "less fortunate". It is a scam. It is whether you wish to do what it takes (and the thing you do that others value) to succeed, that greatly determines your success, not luck.
Luck is the cop-out of the lazy and the rally-cry of the looter.
Society is not an emotionless thing? Are you saying that when you build a society, you should ignore emotion?
Using your premise, yes. But I disagree that we "build" society. Society grows from the actions of the individuals within that society.
Every single human action is in part driven driven by human emotion.
True, which is why we should keep as much emotion as possible OUT of government.
I think it would be hard to prove that welfare programs caused greater poverty than if we had done nothing. Maybe you can?
Maybe if we did nothing a large portion of people in poverty would have died off (social Darwinism) and poverty would have gone down as a result. Is that success?
This assumes that people will just sit and starve, instead of attempting to find some productive activity to support their life.
"Social darwinism" implies that the competition is for existing wealth, instead of competing to create new wealth.
Even if you could prove scientifically that the program was "not that great" then by definition you must have also discovered what it did wrong so why not fix it instead of throw it out?
The intervention is the problem.
Lets say it's proven that, all things being equal, generous unemployment befits cause unemployment to rise by 30%. Lets also assume that some unemployment benefit is beneficial (statistically) in preventing an otherwise productive person from falling in to poverty or resorting to crime (helps 1% say). So the societal cost benefit may not be worth it. All you have to do is adjust the program until unemployed only goes up by 1% but preventing poverty and crime in the target group goes up to 30%. Now you have a working program. Why not learn and improve instead of start over?
This is the "scientism" of economics. It tries to apply only equations to economics, ignoring the incentives of the people acting within the economy, and the possible unintended consequences of interfering in the economy.
There is nothing "inherently wrong" with medicare or social security, ...
...aside from the fact that it violates the property rights of some, to fund a ponzi scheme that marginally benefits others, to a lesser degree than if the money had stayed in the economy, instead of going to the government.
This also ignores the fact that money taken out of the economy, in the form of taxes to pay for unemployment benefits, causes more unemployment (broken window fallacy). leave the money in the economy, there is less unemployment and less need for benefits.
This also implies that the government is the only way to help people from starving to death. It is not.
"Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society. And so, every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it concludes that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of education by the State — then we are against education altogether. We object to a State religion — then we would have no religion at all. We object to an equality which is brought about by the State then we are against equality, etc., etc. They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State."--Bastiat, The Law
You really should read some of the arguments (rationalizations) made by the statists in "Atlas Shrugged".
It is a good book, if you ignore the BDSM/rape-fantasy fetish Rand apparently had.
The federal government had no jurisdiction, without MAJOR stretching of logic for the commerce clause to include ANYTHING that ANYONE does. He was not engaging in commerce, nor did he act across state lines.
Again, playing devils advocate:
- He was cheating the "intent" of the governmental efforts to raise wheat prices.
- Technically, this was interstate commerce because it was all states where they were trying to get the price of wheat up.
Here is what I think this is, a guy tries to cheat the system so the government pushed the boundaries of what the court would allow to shut him down. The government is allowed to push the boundaries as far as it can (just like any capitalist would in the free market). If the citizens don't like it, they will vote against it. If the interstate commerce laws were such a bad thing, Why doesn't a candidate run and win on a platform of changing those laws?
I don't know enough details about the war on drugs. Again it's easy to say it did not work when we have no idea what would have happened if we did not wage that war. What if Crack usage would have been 10 times as high without the war? Personally, I think much of the war on drugs was a mistake (at least for things like pot), but again, I don't know enough on the subject to be sure. Even so, if it was a mistake, it was not a "fundamental problem" with government, it was a bad idea supported by voters at the time. Simply a mistake. Alcohol prohibition was a mistake that was fixed.
Appeal to emotion. Irrelevant in a logical discussion.
You might be able to have a logical debate about the size of the earth but how can you possibly not use emotions when trying to decide how civilization should work? The free market advocate must think about emotions very, very hard because it's not a "game". If you make a wrong choice when structuring civilization, you and your family can die.
It's very easy to say "we must sacrifice" as long as you are never the one who has to sacrifice anything you value.
But I am sacrificing. I give about 30% of all my earnings to the government each year. Its a huge sacrifice. I'm already on the loosing side of your equation and I still support it! Maybe someday the government (and the majority of people) will take away a right that I think I should have, but I can't think of a realistic case right now.
Now back to my equation "It's very easy to have a steely, logical view on the world as long as you have convinced yourself that you won't end up on the wrong side of the equation." How sure are you your going to end up on the right side of it?
Luck is the cop-out of the lazy and the rally-cry of the looter.
I said "partially luck" which is absolutely true (when I say luck I mean chance). The only reason I'm not physically debilitated right now from disease, car crash, knife attack is "chance". I was born in to an upper middle class family through NO effort of my own. It was chance! I liked computers when a was young, and now it turns out computers are running the world. I do work hard, but the fact that I happen to like doing something that can earn a good living in today's market is pure chance!!
Of course there are lazy people and we should fix all systems where lazy people take advantage, but to say everyone without resources or the means to collect them is lazy is absolutely not true. I think you said yourself your son is not a good test taker. Wouldn't it be a shame if he was labeled lazy when in fact he is just not good at tests?
Using your premise, yes. But I disagree that we "build" society. Society grows from the actions of the individuals within that society.
Yes. And what you see in the US, most of Europe and Asia is what those individuals built over time.
True, which is why we should keep as much emotion as possible OUT of government.
Not sure. Humans are emotional animals. To leave that out of the equation seems like a bad idea...
(took <5 minutes on Google)
Are you sure these prove anything? All you need is cost of living or medical expenses to rise at a faster rate. Were are in the middle of one of the worst recessions in history, you can't use today's number and say look, it's not working. What if nothing was done, how many would be dead? How much higher might poverty be?
This assumes that people will just sit and starve, instead of attempting to find some productive activity to support their life.
This theme is coming up a lot. We can argue at what level you should support people, but not everyone "fails" in life because they are lazy.
The intervention is the problem.
So you think that by definition, intervention makes things worse?
This is the "scientism" of economics. It tries to apply only equations to economics, ignoring the incentives of the people acting within the economy, and the possible unintended consequences of interfering in the economy.
I only included the analytic side of the argument, but yes, there is also a human side which should be factored in as well. The argument still stands: "If we did not get something right, lets figure out what went wrong and fix it".
...aside from the fact that it violates the property rights of some, to fund a ponzi scheme that marginally benefits others, to a lesser degree than if the money had stayed in the economy, instead of going to the government.(rest of argument)
I agree that you can look at almost any government program and make it better. But
I reject the idea that it's impossible, using common sense, logic, sociology, empathy, etc to come up with a "good system". For many of your arguments to be right, there would have to be something fundamentally wrong with the operation of government that can't be fixed for some reason OR a theorem and proof that says "in case X its impossible to do better because of Y". Maybe you could turn me to the dark side if you could convince me of one or both of these.
I don't reject the idea that there are other perhaps better ways we could run society, I simply have not heard convincing arguments that there is anything better.
He was cheating the "intent" of the governmental efforts to raise wheat prices.
Doesn't matter. a cobb county sheriff can't arrest you for a crime in another county. A TN court can't try you for violation of an IL crime. It is outside their jurisdiction. The Federal government has no jurisdiction to outlaw activities which occur purely within the boundaries of a single state. That power is reserves to the state government, by the 10th amendment.
- Technically, this was interstate commerce because it was all states where they were trying to get the price of wheat up.
Interstate: Adjective
Existing or carried on between states : "interstate travel".
commerce: Noun
The activity of buying and selling, esp. on a large scale.
The man was neither buying, nor selling. Indeed, the government's case rested upon the fact that he was not buying or selling.
The man's activities were completely contained within his state of residence, not between his state and another state.
The government claimed the authority to regulate his growing of wheat, under a clause in ART1 SEC 8 of the Constitution.
*"The Congress shall have Power ...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.."
Among the states, not within the states.
What if nothing was done, how many would be dead? How much higher might poverty be?
The trend , for decades, was that poverty was falling, as efficiency of resource use, climbed (because of capitalism). They decided to have a "war on poverty" and the decline stopped. That's pretty conclusive.
"It would have been worse", is not an argument, unless you give evidence that it would actually have been worse. it is a gratuitous assertion. I could just as easily say that If I hadn't shot that puppy, he could have grown up to maul children. The logic is the same.
as far as the drug war, what would have happened, is irrelevant. The Federal government claims authority to put a blanket prohibition on "drugs" with "interstate commerce" as the justification. Wickard v. Filburn, and a couple of other bad cases allow them to do it. The government violated one man's rights, and uses that as a precedent to violate the rights of other men.
-----------------------
I don't reject the idea that there are other perhaps better ways we could run society, I simply have not heard convincing arguments that there is anything better.
No one should "run" society. Society should run itself, through the individual, voluntary interactions of the individuals within that society. Not through coerced adherence to the will of the majority.
That power is reserves to the state government, by the 10th amendment.
Maybe? I'm not a legal expert in general or in this specific case. However, it seems the experts don't agree with you in most cases?
Existing or carried on between states : "interstate travel".
Why does "between states" have to mean travel? Are bank transfers between states "travel".
Again, not a legal expert, but it seems to me the "intent" of the government was to raise wheat prices. This guy wanted cheap wheat (regardless of the reason) so he "cheated". The government push the boundary of the laws to achieve it's goal.
Please respond to this common sense argument as It's hard to debate the minutia of these laws without spending days researching the case, related cases, and laws, etc. I'm trying to understand if your arguing legal technicalities or if you really think he was not cheating the "intent" of what the government was trying to do.
"It would have been worse", is not an argument, unless you give evidence that it would actually have been worse. it is a gratuitous assertion. I could just as easily say that If I hadn't shot that puppy, he could have grown up to maul children. The logic is the same.
This is true. The problem with charts and opinion pieces is they are not conclusive. It would take an incredible amount of analysis is "prove" the causation here one way or the other. Where do you think that graph was headed? Zero? Probably not. Seems like it was doing well 2001...
What is the mechanism that destines human "interference" to make things worse when governing, but in every other case better? There must be one in your mind?
I think were back to the old stalemate. You believe the rights of the individual, in all cases, are more important than the group. I can't argue with that belief.
No one should "run" society. Society should run itself, through the individual, voluntary interactions of the individuals within that society.
That would be great and I understand that you believe that could work. I don't.
To summarize:
- You feel individual rights are more important than group rights
- You are only logical, not emotional or empathetic when forming your world views
- You feel that you and everyone you love will "land" on the winning side of the equation because nothing in life is chance.
I would not say I'm at the "opposite" end of those 3 views but maybe "opposite with moderation".
Maybe? I'm not a legal expert in general or in this specific case. However, it seems the experts don't agree with you in most cases?
You don't have to be an expert to read the 10th amendment.
Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Why does "between states" have to mean travel? Are bank transfers between states "travel".
Travel was an example given by the dictionary. Travel between states, is interstate travel. Commerce between states, is interstate commerce.
Again, not a legal expert, but it seems to me the "intent" of the government was to raise wheat prices.
The intent is irrelevant. The man did not break any law that was within the authority of the Federal government to enforce.
This guy wanted cheap wheat (regardless of the reason) so he "cheated".
The guy exercised his right to feed his family, by the sweat of his (and no one else's) brow.
The government push the boundary of the laws to achieve it's goal.
The ends justify the means? :)
What is the purpose of setting forth a law, if the government may break that law, at whim?
I'm trying to understand if your arguing legal technicalities or if you really think he was not cheating the "intent" of what the government was trying to do.
Common sense:
A man has a right to grow as much food, on his own land, for his own consumption, as he wishes.
The intent of the government cap on production, was to force him to buy wheat on the market, to raise the price of wheat, at a time when people were starving, because they could not afford bread.
The government had no jurisdiction, either to force him to buy anything (engage in commerce), or to prevent him from growing food for his own consumption.
--------------------------------
What is the mechanism that destines human "interference" to make things worse when governing, but in every other case better? There must be one in your mind?
When have I mentioned interference, other than by government?
What sort of interference (not by government) in other cases?
Government is the only entity which can "interfere", because government has a monopoly on the initiation of force and coercion.
I can get more detailed, but these are good summaries.
-------
- You feel that you and everyone you love will "land" on the winning side of the equation because nothing in life is chance.
Not necessarily. I believe that it is irrelevant where you "land", so long as you are at liberty to improve your position, and that there is much less chance for anyone to "land" in a bad place, because a society that is more free, is more prosperous. There is more wealth, and a higher standard of living.
You don't have to be an expert to read the 10th amendment.
Many experts think the 10th amendment has no teeth. It just says the feds can do what the constitution says it can do. It's too open in my opinion.
Is it "true" the government broke the law or do you think it broke the law? The supreme court sided with the government? If anything it's "not clear".
Lets say the government did break the law and the supreme court made a mistake. Isn't that all this is is a mistake? If this is an issue the voters will make the law more or less specific to limit future mistakes. Why have they not done so?
Again, your in favor of individual rights over group rights. We have been over that. You appeal that the man should be able to do what he wants over what the "group" wants is falling on def ears here. ;)
We can argue the merits of the governments original intent, but the point is this: one mans actions, multiplied by "all men" can have huge consequences for the group. The government needs to be able to regulate that.
When have I mentioned interference, other than by government?
OK, so you think there is something specific to government that makes it's "interference" always do the wrong thing. What do you think that is?
The videos are good but they don't prove anything. We can both drag out hundreds of videos, reports, blog posts, etc. Until there is a consensus (like 90/10, not 50/50) then maybe we are getting closer to a proof. If you want to talk about one specific items we can try and drill down in to it. But again, I'm more interested in the specific mechanisms at play. What would make government fail at everything where other large organization don't seem to?
I'm more interested in the specific mechanisms at play.
The primary mechanisms are contained within the Austrian theory of the business cycle (Mises/Rothbard) and the broken window fallacy (Bastiat/Hazlitt).
The business cycle theory explains the role that prices and interest rates play as a communication system in the structure of production, and in the incentive to produce.
The Broken window fallacy explains the destructive nature of diverting resources to purposes other than those which the producer of those resources intended.
Hazlitt's "The Failure of the 'New Economics'" is a point by point refutation of Keynes's 'General Theory'.
Keynes's theory is the basis for our current failing monetary/economic system, and is the primary cause of the boom/bust cycle.
Most government interference relates to interference in the economic system, because it involves the diversion of resources from the role of production as a means to the ends of the individual to production as a means to the ends of the government. The entire incentive to increased production is diminished if there is little or no perceived increase in benefit to the one producing. This makes for less wealth, and a lower standard of living, over the entire society.
Please describe the mechanisms (or give references) and incentives associated with government intervention making things better. Please avoid phrases such as "I feel" or "it seems to me".
We have a voucher program where parents get a voucher for each child, to spend at any school they wish, public or private. This would be the only source of revenue for public schools, so they would have to compete, in quality, with private schools. It would also allow poor parents to send their children to better private schools.
I'm not totally apposed to vouchers, however, it would undermine the public schools forcing poorer children in to "the only option they can afford". There is no inherent reason that I can think of that private schools would be better than public schools IF you force private schools to take in all the disadvantaged children like public schools have too. Maybe you know of one?
Those who have abusive parents, low incomes, mental and physical handicaps, behavioral problems, lower IQs, less book smarts, etc.
As long as the student's follow the rules of the school, I see no problem with a private school teaching them.
There is one thing, though.
What is the rationale for lumping children of different abilities into the same sort of classes.
Take the IQ example. Let's say there are 2 kids in the same class. with greatly different speed and potential for learning. At what speed should the class proceed, and how far? Should it advance at the speed of the bright student, removing any ability of the dull student to keep up? Or should it advance at the speed of the dull student, slowing the advancement and wasting precious learning potential of the bright student?
Another example. What if there is a disruptive student in a class with average and bright students? Should all the other students have their ability and potential to learn, diminished because of the disruptions and the less time and instruction due to the teacher's extra attention diverted to dealing with the disruptive student?
Should the bright and able students sacrifice their potential, for the good of the dull or disruptive students?
If there is less choice in the system, one or more of these students will be wronged, to some degree.
Well we could argue the minutia of how you run a school and I'm sure some schools systems (private and pubic) go either way on these specific cases. Also, by no means am I saying the US public school system is perfect. The nice thing about the public school system is when a good new common sense method is discovered or agreed upon, it can be implemented quickly and everywhere. Assuming all your ideas are good ones (the experts agree) the only reason I can think of that they are not implemented is because of lack of money. We need more money in education, not less.
My overarching point is I think society should try and give all children, regardless of "disability" or "luck of the draw" a good education. Free market education is great until, through not fault of your own (some random accident), your child has to go to the cheapest school around. Then how do you feel?
My child has been 2 to public schools. One was terrible for him, one is great. The bad one was in a small poor community, the good one is in a larger wealthy community. Not sure if there is a causal link, but I do think that there is still too much "free market" in our public education system.
The nice thing about the public school system is when a good new common sense method is discovered or agreed upon, it can be implemented quickly and everywhere.
But there is also little to stop bad policy from being implemented, and little way to test the effects of a policy before it is implemented.
Assuming all your ideas are good ones (the experts agree) the only reason I can think of that they are not implemented is because of lack of money. We need more money in education, not less.
I have less faith in the opinions of experts than you do. Additionally, the budget for public education has risen dramatically since the early 70s with little to show for it.
But there is also little to stop bad policy from being implemented, and little way to test the effects of a policy before it is implemented.
Is there "little to stop bad policy" or is a better phrase "bad policy can happen". I think the latter is more accurate. Look at what happened when the Koch Brothers decided they wanted to be "education experts" in the Wake County schools system. They threw in tons of money, got a bad policy implemented, then it was quickly overturned once the voting population realized what happened. In the free market the Koch Brothers could have just subsidized the bad policy forever. In the free market money controls things not ideas.
The effects can be tested using standard scientific methods, test groups, etc. Either way, "little way to test the effects" would be true for any education system as far as I know. In a free market education system there is nothing to stop bad policy besides moving kids around and sloooooowly starving the "policy" financially.
I have less faith in the opinions of experts than you do. Additionally, the budget for public education has risen dramatically since the early 70s with little to show for it.
Of course experts can be wrong, but statistically they are correct more often than the non expert right?
Your right on the budget thing, but there seems to be some debate on why that's the case. We should get some experts to study what the "good" schools are doing and do that everywhere ;)
Look at what happened when the Koch Brothers decided they wanted to be "education experts" in the Wake County schools system.
Nothing about them wanting to be "education experts". they promoted a system that would "eliminate class, and subsequently race, as a factor for student school assignments".
If someone were to use race, or income, as a criteria for barring access to a public resource, the policy would be called discriminatory, and rightly so. Any policy which uses race, or income as a determining factor, is discriminatory , by definition. No government has the authority to implement discriminatory policies, under the 14th amendment "equal protection" clause.
How is preventing a government from implementing discriminatory policies bad?
The school board was elected democratically, right?
We should get some experts to study what the "good" schools are doing and do that everywhere ;)
What works for one school (or student) doesn't work for all schools or students. :/
---------------------------
As a complete aside, I'm thinking of a couple of debates and/or a possible experiment in economics. I would like to see two experiments set up, one with a more statist society, and one with a more libertarian society. We have equal numbers of people participate in each.The libertarians set up the rules and limits of government in the libertarian society, the statists, likewise, for their society. The twist is, the libertarians participate in the statist society, and vice versa. Each side tries to "break" the other's society, following the rules, set down by the other side. :)
I may actually put this up as a debate and see if anyone has an idea as to how to implement it online.
If someone were to use race, or income, as a criteria for barring access to a public resource, the policy would be called discriminatory, and rightly so. Any policy which uses race, or income as a determining factor, is discriminatory , by definition. No government has the authority to implement discriminatory policies, under the 14th amendment "equal protection" clause.
Your trying to use your interpretation of the laws over the common sense interpretation of the situation (I think).
Lets say poor neighborhood schools are "worse" because the "wealthy" schools attract more resources and better teachers. Should those poor children be given the same "good" education as their neighbors or not?
I think poor children should be given the same good education. If not, like in the free market, wealth and power will concentrate (my old argument). If it turned out the government was "breaking the law" by doing this, common sense (if you agree with the premise) says you change the law, not "do nothing".
The school board was elected, and quickly re-elected. While momentarily subverted by money, democracy worked. PS. Too much money is used to subvert our democracy in general. The voters should (and will) fix that.
What works for one school (or student) doesn't work for all schools or students. :/
Individual students, yes, but whats a good example of something that works good for one school but not another?
As a complete aside...
Yeah, I was thinking about that as well (I'm a software engineer). The problem is the "game" has to be very complex. As soon as the society "failed" the "looser" would say "It's because the game does not have X". This will go on forever... "It failed because the game did not have X, Y, X....." Maybe you can come up with the minimal number of "things" a free market game would have to have to be realistic. I'm thinking resources, businesses, entrepreneurs, laborers, insurance, some sort of contract and arbitration system, property, etc...
I think most game theory supports my ideas about the free market. Look at most of the games out there where there is a "free market" and the object of the game is to collect resources. The person who is lucky enough to get the most resources in the begging of the game (maybe even on the first turn), has a huge advantage (Risk, Monopoly, etc). Eventually the wealth concreteness until the "winner" has all the resources. Having a game (society) where the object is to "collect resources", is a very very bad idea. Smart energetic people WILL collect all the resources eventually.
Should those poor children be given the same "good" education as their neighbors or not?
What about allocating resources equally, on a per student basis?
For example: (small numbers, easy math)
for example, allocate $10 per student
school A has 100 students
school B has 50 students
A gets $1000
B gets $500
that's fair, right?
Individual students, yes, but whats a good example of something that works good for one school but not another?
I cannot find the information, but there was an all-black high school (in harlem I think) before desegregation, that consistently turned out high achieving college students and eventual graduates. When the school was forced to integrate (admit whites), the quality of education dropped significantly. Desegregation did not work for this school.
What about allocating resources equally, on a per student basis?
That might be better than what we are doing know, but obviously this would not produce equally well prepared students at the end of the day. You have to spend more money on a poor child or child with ADD than another child without those disabilities. Remember the goal is to produce good and equally educated children at the end of the day not to "be fair" to the taxpayers. That said I realize you can't get it "perfect" and probably should not try.
I cannot find the information, but there was an all-black high school (in harlem I think) before desegregation, that consistently turned out high achieving college students and eventual graduates.
Yeah, but who knows what else went on at the same time (teacher union, teacher changes, rule changes, etc). Lets say the cause was only due to adding white faces what would the lesson be? Should the workplace be segregated so workers are more productive? Should we teach our children that "segregation is good"? I think the "education" of learning to live with different people is more valuable that a few points on a standardized test.
Oh, I just found this. "Experts" brought in for anti-bullying training for school kids.
"Please note: this class teaching moment was brought to you under the "it's not ok to bully." They decided to teach students that it's ok for boys to be girls and girls to be boys.
"Like a handful of other countries, including Germany and Denmark, Iceland has official rules about what a baby can be named. In a country comfortable with a firm state role, most people don't question the Personal Names Register, a list of 1,712 male names and 1,853 female names that fit Icelandic grammar and pronunciation rules and that officials maintain will protect children from embarrassment. Parents can take from the list or apply to a special committee that has the power to say yea or nay."
There are people who literally have both sex equipment. This is not a "normal" thing, it is a condition. Equating it with fish who change sex due to environmental pressures, is intellectually dishonest. It is the equivalent of saying that since some animals must subdue their mates before mating, it is a natural state of affairs for people to rape.
But that's not even my point. They used a bullying program to promote a "gay is normal" agenda. This is promotion of a particular morality. If you allow the active promotion of a particular morality, you run the risk of allowing a morality to be promoted, with which you disagree.
The program was supposed to be anti-bullying. Bullying is about violation of rights. The theme should be "if you bully, you will be punished, because people have a right to be free from bullying". It should not be "anything another person does (or is) is normal, and should be understood and embraced as normal". There is a difference.
I consider homosexuality to be wrong, and I teach my kids that it is wrong. I also teach them that to actively bully anyone for any reason is wrong. People have a right to do whatever they are comfortable doing, as long as they hurt no one else. Homosexuality (if there is harm) only harms the participants.
I don't see the harm, but the list of benefits is quite long.
What benefits are there to potentially undermining the moral teaching of parents? I see much harm.
And who has (or is most likely to have) the child's best interests at heart? The parents, or the government?
Whether or not which party has the best interests of the child should have little influence whether or not the child should be given the choice of being taught creationism or not. Just because one has the child's best interests at heart does not necessarily imply that one always will make the best decisions for the child or even tend to make the best decisions for the child.
A market good that has a higher marginal utility (is more useful) is a better available means to achieve the ends desired than some other means. That is an economic definition of superior quality.
I should have re-phrased and first ask you the question, "More useful, to who?" Yes, I do not doubt that your economic definition is true when we are speaking about economic goods. However, just as you argue that education is not necessarily a right, I would argue that there are no sufficient reasons to suggest that education is necessarily an economic good or should be analysed as an economic good. That is because education has such a large disparity in terms of variety and it's impact on people that it cannot be analysed as a whole. What is important is not completely cutting out the possibility of giving the widest and most sensible range of education options to students to choose from, which is what this debate is about.
It is the parents' responsibility to see to the education of the child. Doing that in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of the child is not bad. The government doing that in a manner that is in the best interest of the state, and not the child, is a bad thing. I stand by my statement.
Even if I were to agree with your statement (and I don't), the outcome of one's education is not determined by what type of education one receives or who the education provider/s is/are. It is very much a determinate of the individual student's attitude and what he/she chooses to, ultimately, make out of their education. All the parents and government can do is to help them make informed choices. But to be able to make informed choices, one must necessarily have sufficient choices in the first place. Sufficient in terms of appropriate scope and depth of education. And I would argue that creationism is appropriate, when doing studies in comparative religion and theology. One might not agree with theological concepts, theories or arguments, but that does not mean that one should not study them or that one should not have the choice to study them.
The parents are acting as a proxy for the child, in the absence of the legal right to choose their own education and the child's inability to make a rational decision as to what sort of education is in his own self interest.
Why should you have a legal right to choose their own education? I'm afraid you'll run the risk of going down a very slippery slope because at what level do you think a child has the right to choose what they study?
Furthermore, if it is in the child's own self interest, shouldn't the child be the the ultimate decision maker? In a free market economic model, that is always the case in a specific market.
No, it is a criteria for choosing the child's proxy.
And are parents the best choice of the child's proxy in all cases? Or does it stop when the parents have no further personal and emotional interest in the child? And then what? Will you make the child's education entirely arbitrary?
(1) Bearing in mind that the government will always make decisions based upon what is good for the government and (2) no third party would be any more likely to protect the interests of the child
On what basis do make these claims?
what criteria would you use to choose the child's proxy for deciding what is best for that child?
Are you assuming that I think a child needs a proxy in terms of choosing what subjects they study in schools?
I would argue that there are no sufficient reasons to suggest that education is necessarily an economic good or should be analysed as an economic good.
Any scarce resource, which is traded, is an economic good. Unless educators want to start working for free, and all the other resources that go to educating people start appearing out of thin air, it will be an economic good.
Even if I were to agree with your statement (and I don't), the outcome of one's education is not determined by what type of education one receives or who the education provider/s is/are. It is very much a determinate of the individual student's attitude and what he/she chooses to, ultimately, make out of their education. All the parents and government can do is to help them make informed choices. But to be able to make informed choices, one must necessarily have sufficient choices in the first place. Sufficient in terms of appropriate scope and depth of education. And I would argue that creationism is appropriate, when doing studies in comparative religion and theology. One might not agree with theological concepts, theories or arguments, but that does not mean that one should not study them or that one should not have the choice to study them.
This is a good argument.
I stand by my statement that the parent wants the child to succeed, and that the state wants the state to succeed. This will have a great effect on the range of choices that are offered to the child.
Why should you have a legal right to choose their own education? I'm afraid you'll run the risk of going down a very slippery slope because at what level do you think a child has the right to choose what they study?
The child choosing, as opposed to the parent, choosing, or the child as opposed to anyone else?
parent: to the extent that the educational choices mirror both the future material interests (the child can succeed in the world) and the child's moral education (which the state is not, and should not be responsible for).
anyone, other than the child: The same reason that we do not allow minors to enter into contracts, or (most of the time) charge them with adult crimes. They are not (legally) mature enough to be held responsible for their own decisions.
Furthermore, if it is in the child's own self interest, shouldn't the child be the the ultimate decision maker? In a free market economic model, that is always the case in a specific market.
If they were culpable, yes.
And are parents the best choice of the child's proxy in all cases? Or does it stop when the parents have no further personal and emotional interest in the child? And then what? Will you make the child's education entirely arbitrary?
Whoever is responsible (may be held legally liable) for the child's actions; whoever is the child's legal guardian (including himself, if emancipated) is the best choice. They have the most interest in the success of the child.
On what basis do make these claims?
Name one policy any government has ever put into place which did not have the effect of strengthening the government's position (power) in relation to those which it governs.
There are many parents who will make great sacrifices, up to and including risking their lives with no other reward than to guarantee the welfare of their children. There are very few 3rd parties who will do so.
Are you assuming that I think a child needs a proxy in terms of choosing what subjects they study in schools?
Yes, I am.
What subjects do you imagine would be taught, if you were to allow suggestions and a vote among the students of a typical grammar school? A typical High school? :)
aside: Kudos on your writing. The writing style and the structure of arguments are excellent.
Any scarce resource, which is traded, is an economic good. Unless educators want to start working for free, and all the other resources that go to educating people start appearing out of thin air, it will be an economic good.
Again, I have to apologise for my gross statement, which did not reflect what I was meaning to say. I do not think that education should only be treated as an economic good, which is all you have portrayed your position to be.
This is a good argument.
I stand by my statement that the parent wants the child to succeed, and that the state wants the state to succeed.
Thank you for the compliment. I am assuming that you would tend to agree with the argument.
I also agree with your statement that the parent wants the child to succeed. However, I think that this is not enough reason to say that a child should not be allowed the choice to learn about creationism in school.
The child choosing, as opposed to the parent, choosing, or the child as opposed to anyone else?
parent: to the extent that the educational choices mirror both the future material interests (the child can succeed in the world) and the child's moral education (which the state is not, and should not be responsible for).
anyone, other than the child: The same reason that we do not allow minors to enter into contracts, or (most of the time) charge them with adult crimes. They are not (legally) mature enough to be held responsible for their own decisions.
But look, with regards to choice of subjects/topics being taught in schools, this would be greatly irrelevant. The child may not have the legal right of consent in cases that relate to contracts, but with regards to choosing what they study in school, I would think that they very much have a legal right to do so. For example, should one ban children or anyone under the legal age of consent from choosing to study Chemistry over Biology? This is where I think you'll go down a very slippery slope.
If they were culpable, yes.
Of course they are! Children can still be legally charged for committing crimes. But how do you think the question of culpability has any bearing on whether they should be allowed to make a choice as to whether they want to learn about creationism?
Whoever is responsible (may be held legally liable) for the child's actions; whoever is the child's legal guardian (including himself, if emancipated) is the best choice. They have the most interest in the success of the child.
Again, I do not see that such a person would necessarily make the best choice for the child. This is simply a false appeal to authority.
Yes, I am.
What subjects do you imagine would be taught, if you were to allow suggestions and a vote among the students of a typical grammar school? A typical High school? :)
Well, are you saying that we should entirely disregard the child's choices? As I have said, to make informed choices, one must have choices in the first place. And I think that students should at least have the choice to study creationism as a topic, which is what this entire debate is about.
I would not limit myself to suggesting a specific list. But, I would think that theology (which the topic of creationism should be taught under, in my opinion) should be on that list.
aside: Kudos on your writing. The writing style and the structure of arguments are excellent.
Haha. Thanks for the compliment. I still find my writings very convoluted at times, which is why I have had to rephrase my arguments when I am debating with you and I sincerely apologise for that.
LOL, i think i got tangled up. I have no problem with a child choosing to learn about creationism or "intelligent design" in school, as a theory. We may actually be on the same side of this argument. :D
Haha. I think so too. I was always writing to answer the motion. That was why I was confused as to why you seemed to have a similar point of view as mine.
You don't have to know where a person came from, to understand chemistry, or to study practical biology or physics.
Most of the history we study is covered, relatively accurately, in many religious texts, if you read them from a secular viewpoint. Anything pre-history, that would fall under creation, is of limited practical use. The only thing is geography (or geology) which has pre-historic roots linked to practical applications.
So, you have children of "secular education" parents doing better in those fields.
So what? The competition for the best ideas will improve the system, much more than "creationist" students would diminish it.
So we should censore science classes to make it fit into various myths instead dismissing those myths as a nonsense?
Do you know why some some history in religious stories fits with reality? becase they were copmared to already known secular sources, so they do not even brigh any new valuable info.
Creationism means teaching children that world was created i 7 days by magic, women made from rib, talking animals, magical trees, earth is flat, impossible floods, 700 years old Noah and many other idiotic blobs as an actual things, telling them that houdreds of thousands highly educated exepers says differently because they are possed by devil and that their "professor" with Ph.D in Chrisian truthology from online degree mill knows the truth.
This will completely destroy US in just two generation.
No one said it would be taught in science class, or that it would be mandatory. Only that the students (or imho parents) should be able to choose, for their own child.
In your opinion, the "evolutionist" children would do more poorly. Not all children would do as poorly. And in a free society, the less "sophisticated" students could not prevent the more sophisticated students from excelling.
The better philosophy would win out, and those who clung to the inferior one could choose to educate themselves in the other, or continue in their failure/ignorance.
They can treat it like my phy sci professor did. He said that this is our best scientific evidence. It did not diminish the quality or the relevance of the material.
lol, are you arguing against liberal arts degrees?
I don't see much use for "early cambodian literature", or "OWS studies", but there are classes for that. Not to mention all the "Green" nonsense. "Gay" history? Ebonics??? Shold parents have the choice whether their child is exposed to these, including "Intelligent Design"?
Liberal arts are useless but do no harm. Creatards tents to spread they BS on children and that does harm. Well brainwashed kids will start refusing standard science, that will lead to decrease in science research, in other word primitivization.
Check for Westboro Baptist Church, these are how it will look like.
"Furthermore, it is inevitable that the State would impose uniformity on the teaching of charges. Not only is uniformity more congenial to the bureaucratic temper and easier to enforce; this would be almost inevitable where collectivism has supplanted individualism. With collective State ownership of the children replacing individual ownership and rights, it is clear that the collective principle would be enforced in teaching as well. Above all, what would be taught is the doctrine of obedience to the State itself. For tyranny is not really congenial to the spirit of man, who requires freedom for his full development." --Rothbard "Education: Free and Compulsory"
What kids are "offered" should be decided by the parents, whose interests are the good of the child and not by the state, whose interests are the good of the state.
The main point of school is to prepare people for their future careers. Learning creationism does not help anyone for their career except future priests and theologians.
Theology is a hobby, it has no rational backing and relevant use, Evolution is core part of biology, it's applied in Pharmacology, agriculture and many other real life discipline.
And evolution only helps you if you want to go into gene mapping or archeology or genealogy. Im going to be a cop tell me how knowing the theory of evolution is going to help me with that.
Although creationism isn't really something that I believe, it should be part of the freely flowing ideas circulating all curriculum because people should be able to choose as to what they wish to believe. This is why government should get out of education and allow the market to determine where money should be allocated, so if creationists want to teach, learn and research creationism, the market of ideas will provide the funding, the same goes for evolution.
What about Islamic Sunday schools? Teaching boys that how to cut off leg to thief, that they should hate non Muslims, teaching girls that they are not equal to men... are these things OK too?
Congratulations on pointing out the extreme nonsensical irrelevant to the debate.
As for the outlandish statement, Islamic religion is a peaceful religion except for the extreme. Why would that be tolerated anyway, they can go to a different school or establish new one.
As for the outlandish statement, Islamic religion is a peaceful religion except for the extreme.
I'm actually with Slug on this one. Islam is not an inherently peaceful religion. It can be used peacefully, it can be used violently, but when you examine the religious texts, from the Quran to the Hadith to Sharia Law, you see you don't have to stretch or alter the meanings of anything to support or justify religious violence. Jainism is a religion of peace. Islam is not. Islam is a religion of violence in certain circumstances, and thus you cannot make the claim Islam is a religion of peace, even if many or most of the followers practice it peacefully. You could make the claim most Muslims are peaceful, but that's not because Islam itself is peaceful.
But come on. You know there is violence in the Quran as surely as you know there is violence in the Bible or the Torah; sometimes acted out by god, sometimes condoned, supported, or called on by god or his prophets, sometimes just stories of violence. These are books that came out of a violent and primitive culture; I would be surprised if these books weren't barbaric in nature.
The key term is potential, violence is not required in Islam or Christianity as a means for act of passage. Nothing says violence must be acted upon.
True, religion can be violent with barbaric notations, plus these books were written in response to other religions and their hatred to others' beliefs.
The key term is potential, violence is not required in Islam or Christianity as a means for act of passage. Nothing says violence must be acted upon.
Ahahahaha did you read the site I linked? If "nothing says violence must be acted upon" in the Quran, the Quran says nothing at all, because it's prescriptions for violence are laid out as clearly as it's tenants or stories on anything else. I know there's something to be said for verses being vague and ambiguous enough to interpret pretty much any way you want, but if we can play word games to the point where the Quran doesn't condone violence, words kind of cease to have any meaning, at all.
It should also be noted that when it comes to the religious interpreting scripture they need very little substance to make comprehensive moral judgements. Homosexuality, for example, is mentioned once as being bad in the Bible, and that's enough for the whole religion to base it's position on the social issue of homosexuality. Abortion is never technically mentioned, but Christians still manage to pull verses to support the "Christian" pro-life position. Scripture is flexible; scripture it versatile.
But notice how little we have to warp or bend or misinterpret verses like, Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." Bukhari (52:177) to glean violent intent from them. Pretty much not at all. It's not a matter of reading some verse about life or slavery and finding some way to make that fit in with the religious morality against abortion; violence is explicitly commanded and condoned regularly and in plain English.
True, religion can be violent with barbaric notations, plus these books were written in response to other religions and their hatred to others' beliefs.
Right, so why wouldn't you expect to see violence described, condoned, and commanded in these books?
As much as I hate creationism, I think it should be a basic right that people can choose to be taught it or choose not the be taught it. However, I would also argue that everyone should be taught about evolution. That should be mandatory.
There's Evolution vs. thousands of different stone/bronze age myths...
It's like forcing into studies about horses made up study about unicorns, simply because there is no evidence for them BUT they were mentioned in many myths...
Children should have an option be taught about religions in general to help them become more tolerant, accepting, and generally knowledgable. They should not be taught creationism in lieu of evolution, however, and not in a science class but in a religions class. Teaching these things to older students, in a high school or junior high school setting, would probably be more appropriate than elementary. Students should have the freedom to choose whether or not to believe these things.
I personally believe that creationism and evolution should be separate classes from science and should be taken as a choice a one or the other kind of deal also we could add to that list the theory of intelligent design also called divine intervention.
If it is in a religion class than i have no problem with them being taught it, in a science class they should not because it is not science.Also students shouldn't be taught it is a theory on how life came about because it has no evidence for it and by calling it a theory it makes it seem as if it is on equal footing with evolution and other scientific theories which it is not.
As far as they choose any other course to study in school, absolutely.
But, as far as evolution vss. creation is concerned, that should be up to the parents what they want their children to know. Just like sex education. When it comes to crossing swords with the morals and religious beliefs I want my kids to have, hands off!
Kids aren't stupid, so don't underestimate them. Four-year-olds ask endless 'whys' for a reason--they want to know why. I do, too. If I'm told to believe something there had better be a good reason to.
Evolution is every bit as much a religion as creation is, but its purpose is selfish, and not at all altruistic.
Creation can't be taught in school since there is no actual information to discuss. You can't fill a five minute lecture with the amount of unified information on Creation. The lecture would be "Some time ago God created everything. We aren't sure how long ago because people can't agree on that. We are also not sure how long it took God to do it, since there is no consensus on that. But, we know God created everything. Um, well that's all we know about creation for sure, next subject".
There is nothing to decide. Creation is not based on facts. Evolution is not atheism. Evolution explains the facts on how life proliferated on this planet. Only a retard would think that means God had no hand in it, especially if that person was religious. You are arguing that God created everything but was not responsible for how life proliferated. Do you know how dumb it is to be a theist and say that?
Do you understand why things taught in science class need to be scientifically verified before being taught?
If so, can't you see why teaching a particular religion's origin story not only is unfair to other religions, but also fails the standard of scientific rigor for a science class?
If you want a Comparative Religion's class, however, I'm all for that being a part of standard curriculum.
Atheism is a belief system, and their agenda is to make others believe what they believe. So then what's the difference between having both a Creator and a Nothing.
Both are beliefs, but 1 atheism and from nothing actually forcefully imposes their beliefs. Where as Intelligent design gives kids choices to choose, and parents ability to be in control of the values and beliefs of their families and children. Which should never be given to any belief system, including atheism.
I've actually said the opposite. I think God as the Creator established every principal of science. And a good bit of it is found in the written Word of God.
I think God uses everything in science for us, and at times against us.
I think He who created science knows science better then any ever will
Many doctrinal beliefs are accepted as truth without looking beyond teaching of men to what is actually said. God doesn't want any words added or taken away for a reason, and basically doctrines of men have ignored that verse.
And its traditions of men passed down, as opposed to letting the Bible be the doctrine.
Sorry, but your beliefs involve ignoring the truth by not looking beyond the teachings of the Bible which were invented by man. Evolutionists are the ones who investigated the truth instead of accepting the "truth" that people like you fight for.
You say that evolution was not because of God. Evolution is science. Therefore, you are saying there are parts of science that God is not responsible for.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Respecting establishment of religion
Selective State for a Doctrine of Belief
Elevating a Solid Standard for all of a System of Belief
So where is separation of church and state.
The establishment clause was meant to protect beliefs of all by not forcing one of the many beliefs over all other beliefs.
Free exercise ensures all to be equally free to believe and act according to beliefs, as long as it is within law, such as you can't cut off someones head because you believe you can.
I'm not taking a side, I have a question. Do you believe in separation or church or state? Ie...do you believe churches should be tax exempt? If you do you must then concede that the separation must also exist in the schools that are operated at state level or have government assistance. There are schools that have options for both teachings but they are few and far between. Parents have the right in most school systems to opt their child out of classes that teach evolution (at least mine did way back when) but I think if you want a school that is all about Creationism then you need to look towards schools run by the religious community.
Times have changed, there is a heavy infiltration of government and atheism in school.
They are programming kids to be what they want, and it is not a moral good citizen.
Every agenda is nesting in public school, but the Christian values they are targeted. They call it "freedom from religion"
But really it's just another religion absent of a deity.
I guess the founding fathers should have defined religion.
BLM - a religion
LGBT - a religion
Every special interest group is a religion
It one belief favored over another.
Religion was never supposed to be forced behind doors.
The Establishment clause is simple, state shall not elevate 1 belief over another, it was never meant to remove religion from the public eye. That's actually a communist agenda.
If you take away religion you can control their minds, because if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything
Jesus said we are light, and not to hide it under a bushel
He said we are salt, without salt food is bad and spoiled
So when salt and light are removed, God help us in those days, and these are those days.
We are in the final days. I have no doubt.
The earth is tired 6000 years, it's ready for its rest Day 7
The earth is throwing up its so tired, earthquakes terrorism, floods destruction lead filled water nuclear poisoned water in Japan. The earth is sick and its tired it has met it's final phase
Parents have the right in most school systems to opt their child out of classes that teach evolution (at least mine did way back when) but I think if you want a school that is all about Creationism then you need to look towards schools run by the religious community.
.
A Creator isn't religion it's an option of individual explanation.
You would have to homeschooling to avoid atheist indoctrination at this point.
Watch God is not Dead 2
And God is not Dead 1
They may be on Netflix or Amazon Prime
It's a bigger issue the preaching religion, it's even whispering religion, it's living religion, Christianity is the top threat.
While real threats are minimized, and discussed like a punishment of stand in the corner will suffice, while Christianity is a top threat that will expell you for any sign of light.
The lights should close their eyes, because light offends so emmensely. It's the rule of Atheism, the national religion we must all now obey, or else consequences are severe.
Look at the posts when discussing religion in politics.
We all are what we believe, can you imagine all atheist or all who can set religion aside from their leadership only, how pleasant would that be?
Isn't it odd that an outcry against Christianity is more of a threat than terrorism? I find it very odd!
I'm sorry I just want to verify, are you thinking that not teaching religion in public schools or creationism is a sign of Atheism?
To me that's not a sign of it at all. There are multiple beliefs and many different religions, if you teach one you should teach them all. While I think that would be an interesting idea, it is in no way feasible. Not having Christianity or the worship of God as we know Him doesn't mean we are teaching a "religion of Atheism", just that there are too many beliefs to study and that should be up to the individual, not the teacher or school.
In the terms of what is often cried "Not allowing God in school" or the much worse "These shootings are happening because God isn't allowed in school".....I sincerely hate those remarks. God isn't stopped by mortar and brick. He's in your heart, you can pray to him any time, even on the toilet. It's when someone stops you from using your own time to pray, whether it be by yourself or in a group that also wishes to, that I think there is a problem.
I never said shootings were happening because God isn't taught in school.
And atheism is taught, it's caught and taught.
I'm going to step on toes, LGBT honestly I don't care if the government let's gays marry.
But that's not what the ruling did, it literally gave cart blanc permission, even a mandate that insisted where a heterosexual family is shown in school, the gay couple and family should be shown equally. So every child should see it as though it's 50/50
So what does that do to people who have morals and values, this is the response, " we are not aloud to!" Our kids! Yet they tell us what sexual values are acceptable.
Now that's a moral overstep. To have a first grade reader sowing Mr and Mr as a "normal" option for children is confusing and a force of values and beliefs over parents.
There is less than 1 % of children live in a gay household, so why would my granddaughter have to learn this value in opposition to us and her parents ?
Yet we can't even mention a possibility of Intelligent Design, which is also a science theory because much of the science community thinks that over nothing the rest of science community thinks.
No, I'm sorry I know you didn't, I was using that as a vent for an argument I hear many people argue about and didn't mean to imply that you said it.
Now which ruling is it that you are referring to where a mandate that insisted a gay family MUST be shown along side a "normal" one?
Kids are naturally inquisitive, they will point out and question differences with the innocence only a child can get away with. Letting them know that there are other types of families out there isn't a bad thing, nor is teaching children tolerance and accepting the differences in others.
Make your curriculum LGBT-inclusive AND meet Common Core Standards!
Explore the lesson plans below and find what works best for your classroom. Want to help your students learn about respect? Check out GLSEN’s lessons on Bullying, Bias and Diversity.
Heather Has Two Mommies
Heather Still Has Two Mommies: And We Still Love Her
They are taking kids from their parents by influence and discussions that do not belong in the hands of teachers or schools or government.
Do you realize a teacher can preach it, mix it in math, and have whatever class discussions they want about lgbt, but can't even mention a peep about a generic Creator or Intelligent Designer.
Imagine if the discussion had a moral value component that promoted abstinence - not even religious, just abstinence.
We are letting them harm our kids and make them want to hide, how strong will our kids need to be now?
During the class, the students, ages 14 and 15, were instructed to stand in a circle. Then, they were grilled about their personal beliefs and their parents’ beliefs on homosexuality, PJI alleges.
“The QSA had students step forward to demonstrate whether they believed that being gay was a choice and whether their parents would be accepting if they came out as gay,” PJI attorney Matthew McReynolds said. “Students who did not step forward were ridiculed and humiliated.”
It is also intelligence from nothing. So, not any more sensible. You can call it gold and all it on the corner, but "Intelligent Design" doesn't have any information actually associated with it to be taught in class. Your complete lack of a counter argument proves that.
That movie was horrible. It is the worst possible representation of the atheist argument. I have never once been in a science class where the professor even mentioned God. Not one single science professor ever said anything close to the idea that you have to decide God doesn't exist. Plus, Hercules' motivation for being an atheist was utter garbage.
Atheism is on the rise because theists think science doesn't exist and God does.
I do not believe that students should be allowed to opt into a class about creationism since there is no scientific grounding behind it. The only thing children should learn about in schools are things that have significant evidence to support them.
There's no scientific grounding for evolution or philosophy, either.
Kids should be taught how to manipulate their financial and working life once they are out of school. They should be taught exactly how they are manipulated themselves by the powers that be and how to deal with it. They should learn their multiplication tables, and how to do math on paper and not with a machine. Machines are okay until they break down and render their user unable to think for himself.
Evolution is not science, it's a preferred philosophical model for most people who do not want to believe God rules over them, and should not be taught as science in public schools. There is no need to teach Creation or Evolution in the general curriculum. They should just stick to observational and applied science, math, and technology, language skills, history...evolution has no real value in education and should not be paid for my taxes. It's government controlled religion force in the public schools and should be completely purged from all textbooks except maybe for philosophical/religion studies and I really don't think those things should be taxpayer funded either. It's a waste of time and money.
Who has proven Creationism false. Creationism is a concept, not a specific story. Everything has their different ideas of what it was. Christians use Adam, Egyptians Ra, Nut, Osiris, Iris, Seth, and Neffie.
I find truth in all of them. There is a Mother Eve, though the timing is a little off from the Bible. All living humans can be traced back to Mother Eve. She was a woman who developed the Mitochondria DNA. All though there were other women in her tribe, all of their DNA has been breed out. Eve had two daughter from whom the rest of the human race came from.
There is a story that the Creator of Man had a dream, (we won't get into how) and had the desire to create man. He tried several times, but each time he failed, they were all like the other animals and lacked the animation of independent thinking.
(Alright, we'll get into a that stuff I wasn't going to get into.) The story says that creator was like a Child God and isolated (for reasons we won't get into) and thought he was the only God. Thus the phrase "I am the Only God." The mother sent in a couple of members of her team to help him. The mother sent the dream to the creator of the Eternal Race of Man. The Creator found them to be beautiful and tied to create them. Anyway, every time he tried, the creation fell short but he kept trying.
On the last attempt the Creator was sent another dream and this time it told him to "Breathe Life into Man." And so the Creator did so. Immediately it became apparent He had made a mistake. Man suddenly had the power of creation and was like unto the Gods.
The Story says that when God breathed Life in Man, God was concerned. This new found power enable men to do things not before available to them. The agent sent by the "Mother" approached Eve and convinced her to partake of the forbidden fruit. Which she, and then see things that made her afraid, she convinced Adam to as well. Adam did, and when the forbidden knowledge Adam, the Creator saw it and wanted it. He tried to remove the power from Adam. The power left Adam and entered Eve. Thus the story that God took Adams Rib to create Eve.
And while these stories couldn't have happened in real time, they do tell a story that can be found in the science. While I don't see God as a bad guy, as I once did, there was a time that people "worshiped in fear" and they knew why. Also, Adam and Eve were placed into a "deep sleep" there is no evidence that we have woken up.
I think we agree that Creationism is not taught is science class. I mean you can mention it in a few sentences but that's about it.
So if science class is out, where do you teach it? It does not seem to fit in a history class or a literature class. Seems like the only place it could fit is in a "religions studies" class. Such a class would explore all religions in a historical and social context, but even there it seems like overkill to go in to great detail about one theory from one religion? There is only so much time in a semester and "Creationism" is just a tiny tiny blip when looking at the entire history of religion.
There is one problem with what you suggest. (Well, actually there are a lot, but we won't get into them.)
Theology (I think) is the study of God. I'm not sure if Catholic Theology Universities teach the Egyptian God story.
But lets use me as an example: I have studied many different religions. I have my own opinions about God. I believe in God, but I don't believe in any of the religions. I used to fantasize about getting all of the people from the different religions and showing how they weren't so different and such.
But now I realized how wrong that would be. The Intent of Creator is to develops souls with personalities. God has all of the power he could possibly need. What he wants more of is independent souls.
Religions and cults give a person a sense of feeling special, feeling right, feeling righteous, and feeling like God's chosen people. This sense of identity is important to the soul. God is like any other parent to some degree. I tell my little girl she is a princess, that she is the most beautiful, smartest, best runner, etc. (And she is) She has a lot of confidence, as least if I'm there. I think I'm little over protective. (But what parent and afford not to be these days?) I have a grand daughter, about the same age, (don't ask) and when my daughter isn't near, my granddaughter hears the same thing.
Feeling special is important for developing consciousness. Religions can give this, not only to kids, but to adults. It also gives them something to fight for.
Religions has many benefits that not really noticed. And granted, even the priests don't see what is actually important, but are just trying to fill the seats any way they can.
Anyway, if a person learns about all of the religions, it sort of kills the benefit of them. While I promote religion, I cannot think of a single one that I would want to join.
Creationism is the idea that humans were created out of nothing. This is false. It doesn't matter which version one talks about. That is a dishonest argument though because you know that it is the Christian version which Christians wish to indoctrinate, and it is meant to replace the proven theory of evolution. Your dishonesty aside, you are still incorrect. Creationism is false, and I did not say as much, but yes, a waste of time if it is taken seriously.
Wow, David, you are calling me a liar. That's sort of new. I thought it was just assume everyone on the Internet was falsely representing themselves. Like I don't believe your name is IAM. Anyway.
So if humans weren't created out of nothing, what created them? How has evolution proven creationism wrong?
Sure. You are presenting an argument from an angle which is not in line with the ultimate goal of that thing being promoted within your argument. In this case teaching creationism. The goal is not and never was another "option" or just teaching it like we teach about Greek gods. It is religion trying to increase its power within the state, to indoctrinate not only their own children but the children of anyone no matter their religion or lack of religion. Its religious hubris "we know better so we should teach all kids." They do not and they should not. So yes, sorry, but you are being dishonest in your representation. If you are not make it clear from what angle you would like that this silly story be taught.
So if humans weren't created out of nothing, what created them? How has evolution proven creationism wrong?
I am glad you asked. Over millions and millions of years cells split and multiplied making all of the life on earth. Nothing was created though. All of the ingredients were there. It is a matter of consuming what is around these cells, changing, growing by consuming what is already there, changing again, etc. No thing that was not there suddenly appeared.
Nothing has ever been created I believe, and I, unlike creationists, have observable examples. Plants grow, animals like us are born and develop, but it requires oxygen, food etc. Stuff that is there that is changed, into part of us, into part of plants, etc.
You cannot point to a single thing coming from nothing, but every single thing in the Universe we see is the result of changing, shifting, the addition of and the subtraction of stuff that is already there.
So why then assume that something must have been created? Why, when we see nothing created?
Creation is a myth we made up because our conscious has a beginning and an end. But it is false. There is no beginning and end to stuff. We die, the stuff that has made us doesn't disappear but turns into something else. Likewise nothing is created. Stuff that is already there changes and becomes something else.
Nothing was created though. All of the ingredients were there.
This is the 3rd incarnation of the sun. Each time the Sun dies, it creates elements such as iron, lead, gold, platinum, etc. These things are created.
But the Sun ever formed, there was nothing, emptiness. And God said, "Let there be Light." And there was light. Some people call this the Big Bang. There is debate over what created the Big Bang. The old theory is that all of the matter in the universe had some collected into one spot and that the pressure was so great, it created a huge explosion. Something about this idea has never sat with me. When a sun dies, it either explodes, goes Super Nova, or collapses into a black hole. If all of the matter even got close the pressure would create explosion or black holes. Black holes are more likely to create white holes then explode.
But on top of that, the idea that matter had gathered in one placed was based upon the idea that the universe would collapse after awhile. However, recent discoveries in the last 40 years have showed that the universe is accelerating in its expansion which blow up the idea that universe would collapse, or for that matter, had every collapsed.
About the same time, it was discovered that we are not alone. If given what we thought about the universe was true, the SHOULD HAVE collapsed a long time ago. But it hadn't, but was rather accelerating in it's expansion. I don't remember who it was, but some one discovered and proposed the idea of "Dark Energy and Matter." 97% of our universe was missing.
And new data was also coming for about the Big Bang that was contradicting to what we thought. We have matter and energy in the universe. But there is a rather odd "fact" (I hate that word) that we didn't know. In order for there to be "matter" there must be Anti-Matter, Anti-Energy, Anti-Space, and even Anti-Time. Of course, these things cannot exist in this universe because they would destroy it. So somewhere, (and we don't know where) is an universe that is sort of the evil twin of this one.
During the Big Bang, (and we don't know what blew up) there was both Matter and Anti-Matter. 99.99 percent of the Matter and Anti-Matter instantly consumed each other. Meaning, that whatever state they were in, they were not Matter and Anti-Matter before the explosion. Whatever exploded had to contain both Matter and Anti-Matter in Stable Form.
And what could possibly contain matter and anti-matter at the same time? Nothing!! No, No, I'm serious, "Nothing." Even when the Explosion happened, 99.99% of the matter was instantly consumed. Of that 0.01% left, the energy was so hot, many have speculated that 97% of the matter and energy instantly ascended to another dimension, that is now being dubbed the "4th dimension."
We don't really have a flipping clue what the 4th dimension is. But some people have begun to make some interesting observations. There are 3 main forces in the Universe. Basically, exploding shit like supernova, electromagnetic, and gravity. Oddly, gravity is much, much weaker then the others. And at add an exact kick in the head to gravity, some people have begun to talk that it is just and illusion anyway.
An number of creative people trying to make sense came up with a very weird idea. It seems, that Gravity might actually be coming from the 4th dimension. Perhaps the 4th dimension is still expanding and pulling our universe all with it. And somehow, by means that we don't understand, that gravity is somehow being "transmitted from the darkside of moon, eer, ah, universe."
And now, before I have to clean my kitchen. How does this support creationism. As I read the evidence, the universe was created out of nothing. If you put matter and anti-matter together, you get. . . . Nothing. Therefore, it had to be divided from Nothing. God figured out how to divide the Zero.
But how does this work, making something out of nothing? Well, it wasn't really nothing. It was Pure Mathematical Truth and a really cool by-product of Pure Mathematical Truth and the Consciousness. Yip, I'm saying that Pure Truth creates consciousness without physical substance.
How can I claim this? God makes the claim that he is the "Living Truth." To me, this means Truth that Lives.
With evolution, "something" has always had to be there. Yet, we are pretty sure that out side of the universe is a Void and "Nothing" can exist in the void. For the Void has neither space nor time, so matter cannot exist there.
There are perhaps an infinite number of universes, and how could the possible if there was a finite about of matter. Many physicists, mathematicians, and other insane people have concluded that the foundation is pure mathematics. I have come to the same conclusion. But I also conclude that perhaps the first product of that mathematical truth is consciousness. Truth is eternal and infinite and cannot change. It has always been and will always be, from everlasting to everlasting. (the preachy tone is for effect.)
Infinite truth is like "sum zero." Every action has a reaction. If you follow the lineage of every action back you will eventually get to Zero. Also like an perfect electronic circuit board it will add up to ZERO. And one more truth. Only consciousness can experience illusion. And in a technically sense, only consciousness can relate to another object.
This seems like a technicality, but relationships require consciousness. It has been proven, more or less, that everything has a 'vibration' to it. Everything sort of fits in the "octave" system. Much like the rainbow, which has 7 major color and 5 minor colors. Harmonies also work on the "octave" system. For example. Two radio waves of the same frequency will clash into each other and even cancel each other. But two different frequencies could pass each other and barely touch. The vibratory aspect of the Universe easily converts to the "Word of God." John (In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the Word was God.) Christ is called "The Light." The Rainbow is a called the "Bow of God." The rainbow splits out of White Light. But that is just the color spectrum. All frequencies work in a octave of 12, (7 major and 5 minor.) There are the 12 Twelve Tribes, the 12 Archangels, the 12 Elders, the Apostles/Disciples, etc.
Although this type of consciousness might not actually be "intelligent" objects still have to aware of each other. In order for two objects to clash, they must have influence on each other.
My argument for this based on the stimuli and response model.
My first position would be: "What is life?" According to the Evolution model, life started by some sort of Amino Acids getting together. Stimuli and reaction was happening long before life ever began. And really, all life basically boils down to stimuli and reaction. So technically, nothing more exists now then it did before the "Acid Trip." All that is happening now is systemic and unconscious reaction to stimuli. Life technically would not exist, because we are still stimuli and response.
Objects can "phased" so that they technically disappear from our universe, so to speak. This was done by accident in the "Philadelphia Experiment" when the Navy was messing with some of Tesla's Theories. (Oddly, no follow studies on that one.)
So the 12 disciples of Christ also depict the 12 rays of White Light. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . I've been working on this for a while and realize I'm really sort of wasting my time.
.
.
.
I admit, I'm not that smart. I never graduated high-school or anything like that. But, I have tried to educate myself a little bit. I know enough that if you don't study science with diligence it will not much sense to you.
I suspect most of you don't know what I am talking about and aren't going to take the time to figure it out. I'm not the "knock-em dead" writer that I wish I was. Sharing my mystic visions would also be a waste of time. None of you really understand reality is your head, so you'll just use the excuse that all of this is in my head, which of course it is.
This is part of my best shot but I'm going to take the time to reference everything. Most of what I say can be backed up by other philosophers and thinkers.
.
The one leap of faith that is my own idea is that pure truth, which exists anywhere and everywhere actually creates consciousness. All things are relative. In the beginning, the first relationship was Matter and Anti-Matter, but the relationship was created purely consciousness deciding to take one role while other consciousness took another role. An "intelligence" was ripped apart, but mostly joined back together, but part of it wasn't. The is depicted in many of the "Son's of God" stories, especially with Jesus, with the "wound."
The story is inside of us, if you care to look for it.
I'm going to stop at This is the 3rd incarnation of the sun. Each time the Sun dies, it creates elements such as iron, lead, gold, platinum, etc. These things are created.
Because it means your entire premise is incorrect and you are not understanding my point.
iron, lead, gold, platinum, etc. are not created at all. Creation is from nothing. The "stuff" needed for iron, lead, gold, platinum, etc is already there, has always been there, and will forever be there.
If you're talking about the creationism of the Bible, it does not hold that humans or any other life form were created out of nothing. Your statement is false.
When was creationism proven incorrect? You need to define your definition of what qualifies something to be "proven incorrect". Regardless, your logic is flawed. Based on your logic, no scientific theories should be taught in school either.
Creationism is the idea that humans were created from nothing. We know for a fact that we were not created from nothing. Therefore my claims are sufficient and there is a valid explanation on why said belief has been disproved.
Your incorrect again, the bible doesn't say God created man from nothing. In fact, the bible says this...
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
He just says he made man, he doesn't say what from, what process or how. He doesn't even mention HOW LONG it took to make man. The origonal hebrew word used was "yowm" which can be translated to mean two things literal day, or as a figurative day for a period of time to be defined by associated words.
This is supported with other verses that state ""... that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day."
So the truth of the matter is that God did not explain how he made man, or how long it took him. Evolution, could very well be the manner in which he created.
To a God who lives out side the laws of time, creating something with a process that takes a million years, is the same as creating it in an instant.
Because humans are confinded by the rules of time, you commit a fallacy of anthropomorphism if you project that human qualitity onto a God and force him to be concerned with time as well.
1. Okay assuming you take the position that god "creating" man just means he set in motion evolution, I'm sure you as vehemently argue against your religion's proclivity to deny science in this respect.
2. Let's look at your position then, that man was a planned creation and in god's image. So then you accept that god is a 1-celled organism that lives in the sea I assume, since that is what man was? Or was he man when we had fins and swam around in the ocean? Or when we were hairy and had a mind of a chimp? Or did he have the forethought to create something which would eventually be in his image? If so then are we there now or do we still need to evolve more before we are in his image?
At what point in evolution are we "in his image"?
but uhoh, you accept evolution and in such must know it is not a finite process. So then for something to be in the image of something which evolves, it would have to evolve If god evolves then he cannot be infallible though because evolution is a series of mutations and random passing of genes. Okay, let's move away from that paradox. I mean, there are enough god paradoxes to go around, it doesn't seem to slow your ilk down a bit.
3. The subject of this debate is whether creationism should be taught. Tell me if creationism is evolution, what would be taught in this case? Do you teach the whole of evolution, then with an asterisk say "But god did stuff too, and stuff. But we don't know what or how since all of evolution is pretty much known, but just remember to include god on all test answers"? How is your version of creationism to be taught?
4. More to the point; if god used what was present to create humans without the literal definition of creation, if he used evolution, then why is he necessary? If the the stuff was there, if it were possible to evolve anyway as you yourself are claiming (since god used evolution to do such), then what is god's role?
This god you describe is an unnecessary and unobserved, inexplicable in fact, addition to an equation which works fine on its own. Why do you include an unknown force if you accept that all of the essential ingredients are still there without a god?
---
So what you would like is of all of the infinite possibilities imaginable, that what you have imagined, a god in this case, is the one thing taught next to known fact.
Why not teach, say 5+5 = 10 but then also that "someone may believe that 5+5=11."
I mean, if enough people believe it, and you cannot prove that is not the case, your logic deems it should be taught.
If something which has no backing but the faith of a group of people must be taught next to science, which does not require faith, you introduce an endless black hole of stupidity where nothing is ever learned because every crackhead idea must be taught equally.
I have an idea instead. Let's keep church and faith separate from school. That way we don't devolve into a bunch of primitive cave-dwelling zealots who hate knowledge and advancement.
Christians want it both ways. When you're at your cult meetings god made stuff from nothing. When the absurdity of it is brought to light outside of your cult meetings you change your mind.
Creationism taught in school is an obvious and dumb tactic Christians support which has the sole goal of indoctrinating kids at a young age into a ridiculous notion.
What is the idea of education? It is to make the population more intelligent and able people. Does the current subject matter do this? Yes, it does. The average person in the United States is more knowledgeable than the average person in most other times. What is creationism? It is the idea that existence is God's creation. How can understanding this theory and it's implications make a student more intelligent and more able? Perhaps you would say that understanding such an abstract concept could yield positive results for the all around intelligence of the student. To this I say that if we want our future to be more familiar with abstract ideas we may as well give them a well rounded curriculum of it so Philosophy would probably be a more appropriate subject. This subject has no reason in American education, so students should not even have the choice. If they want to learn about it they can and will look it up themselves.
There is no scientific basis for creationism, while there is a large amount of evidence for evolution. All of the evidence we have points to the earth being 4.5 billion years old, and forming from natural processes.
Most issues that people have with evolution have been explained, and I have never seen a person who actually understands evolution argue against it. Evloution is accepted as a fact by the vast majority of biologists, while 46% of the American public believes that the earth was created by God some time in the last 10000 years as described by Genesis.
Finally, there are simply too many creation myths to teach. It seems hypocritical to me to only teach the Christian/Jewish/Muslim Genesis story. Even if only the top 10 religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Sikhism, Baha'i, Jainism, and Shinto) were taught, there would still be six creation myths to teach: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Baiha'i all share a creation story, and there is none in Buddhism.
This question is whether a student can opt in to learning creationism. That should also not be allowed, because I do not think that children should learn anything other than objective, scientifically supported facts, and creationism is neither of those.
No since it is just for the sake of informing them of religious beliefs. It is not necessary that they will believe it or not. Plus creationism is not about facts but relies on faith. Men are given the right to be informed.
But it is taking up time which need to be used for other content. If someone is interested in religion, they have their priest to go to (and he would be far better imformed than a "mere" teacher).
Just ignore "Lordchallen", lol, he is new and hasn't learn to make valid and sounds arguments based on reason or logic. He just rants, to even respond to him would only encourage him.
Like, "prayerfails" talked about leaving the site the other day, I feel like the people who are very obnoxious and rude r chasing away all the really good debaters that we all can learn from.
Well, Whatever it is, I wouldn't encourage it, lol. I did the the same thing at first, as well. However, not to that extent and I wasn't as rude either. A lot of people have put a lot of work into trying to keep the site cordial, just trying to help... I may be wrong, just my opinion.
No, students should not be able to choose to be taught creationism, this is assuming that you mean specific classes on creationism. Creationism comes from religious roots and religious teachings should not be taught in public schools. If students are interested in creationism they can certainly study it on their own time, the internet is a wonderful tool for self-teaching. It is also certainly wrong to teach creationism as fact, since there is clearly no evidence to support that it actually happened.
When we say "students" I assume we are discussing the primary and secondary education of youth. That being the case when we say "students" should be allowed to choose their class I think we have to account for the weight of influence that parents have, and the likelihood that students with religious parents who want their kids to believe in creationism would pressure their kids to take those classes. Effectively, it becomes a moderately clever loophole by the conservative right to thwart attempts to keep theology out of our public schools.
The only place creationism has in public schools is alongside coursework in mythology and fiction. I have never seen any scientific evidence whatsoever to merit its placement anywhere else in curriculum.
There was a creationist article besides evolution in my y8 biology textbook. I would have been mad, but someone had drawn dicks all over it, so it was just plain hilarious, to a 13 yr-old anyway.
Science is fact observation and analysis, not mythology.
Students should NOT be taught creationism AT ALL. The bible should only be taught as literature, since much of western culture is influenced by it, but kids have less of a developed mind and can lack maturity to make proper decisions, which make them more gullible to whatever and whoever influences their mind. If parents want to make them believe in it at home, then fine- but anything to be taught in an educational system must be backed up by hard evidence. Something creationism does not have.
I don't see reason why they should be taught that some African good puked out whole world and made fist generation of people without knees... or similar stories...
Although I mind a lot less now that so many others have upvoted. Now "yes" is the leading view, and even though I supported it due to linguistic technicalities, I was not hoping it would win...
Never expected an essentially middle-ground stance to get that many votes up. But the initial point was, if you dispute my argument, provide a retort. Don't just hide behind a downvote like a coward.