Re: Frist supports intelligent design - equates fact, science, faith


"brickbat" <brickbat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:brickbat-3222FD.18262421082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <rY2Oe.92$u_6.85@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "MichaelC" <mikecraney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > "brickbat" <brickbat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:brickbat-517BFA.11105421082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > In article <Uk%Ne.15$L77.8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > "MichaelC" <mikecraney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "The Chozen Few" <thechosenfew@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:5eRNe.5746$Us5.5523@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > "brickbat" <brickbat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:brickbat-4999AD.14562420082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > In article
<1124504908.692741.112540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > >
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050819/ap_on_go_co/frist_intelligent_design
> > > > > >>
> > snip for brevity<
> > > >
> > > Roman Catholics, in particular, seem to have a real focus on abortion.
> > > It's a good way for the church to energize its congregations with a
> > > cause that one can get involved with in a suburban setting without any
> > > real sacrifice. Easier than dealing with serious world issues like
world
> > > hunger, over-population, third world warfare or Islamic aggression.
> > > It also comes ready with a group of people to hate, that a religion
> > > based on love always requires.
> >
> > There's some truth to parts that statement. Broadly speaking, the
attitude
> > in Christian social involvement in the US has turned towards writing a
> > check, rather than actually doing something (like spooning up grub at a
> > homeless shelter) that gets your hands dirty. Although your example
breaks
> > down under scrutiny (many RCs write checks to Catholic Charities, which
DOES
> > deal with hunger and such matters) it bothers me (looking in a mirror,
here)
> > that our suburban life styles have separated us so far away from need
that
> > we feel that all we can do is write a check to somebody to act as
proxies
> > for us.
> >
> A man of humility, I see.
>
> > >
> > > I can't help thinking that if more Catholics spent time in the third
> > > world, living among squalor, disease and death, the abortion of early
> > > term cells by a woman in America would tend to pale in importance.
And,
> > > certainly it should be left to the judgment of the person whose cells
> > > you are talking about. For the government to lay claim to these is
> > > ludicrous. Once a fetus can be self-sustaining, I think you can make
an
> > > argument.
> >
> > First point, 94% of all Catholics *are* in the third world, which is why
> > there was so much hype around the possibility of a third world pope who
> > would bring these matters back into focus. As for the abortion
reference, as
> > I said, although I personally don't see that Christian intervention in
the
> > abortion issue is necessarily valid as it's been expressed, there is the
> > very real theological point that IF the fetus is human from conception,
then
> > working in antiabortion efforts is a logical expression of the Christian
> > charge to help those who cannot help themselves.
> >
> I think Catholics might consider changing their view on birth control to
> help solve over population and starvation in the third world. This might
> be a more admirable and useful mission.

It might be admirable, but it would violate what is to them a dogmatic
statement.
>
> > As for the final point, self-sustaning, or capable of survival with
medical
> > help? I read an interesting article some time back that dealt with how,
in
> > the intervening years since the trimester system was established,
medicine
> > has taken about six weeks off the time where a fetus can routinely be
> > brought to term outside the mother's womb. I though it was interesting.
> >
> The only thing that is unchanging is that things change.

In matters regarding scientific frontiers, no question -- and often quickly.
>
> > >
> > > > (3) Christians have a religious obligation (and constitutional
right) to
> > > > raise their children in the Faith. In the US, the public school
system
> > is an
> > > > effective monopoly by virtue of the fact that all citizens pay
school
> > taxes,
> > > > whether or not their children attend public school or not. By
> > (financially)
> > > > inhibiting people from opting out of the school system (vouchers) in
> > order
> > > > to use an alternative system of education, the public school system
> > takes on
> > > > the responsibilty of accomodating a heterogenous group of children
with
> > > > different ethnic and religious imperatives. The schools themselves
have
> > > > tacitly acknowledged this responsibliity by serving kosher meals at
> > schools
> > > > with large Jewish populations.
> > > >
> > > The United States has committed to provide a (secular) education to
all
> > > American children.
> >
> > Where have they done this? I mean, no question this is the status quo
today,
> > but is by no means clear that this is an obligation of government, and
it is
> > even less clear that a public system (or, at least one designed the ours
is)
> > is necessary in an affluent country.
> >
> > > If one wishes a religious education, that is
> > > extraordinary and beyond the commitment to its citizens. Sounds simple
> > > to me.
> >
> > Me too. I'd avoid the entire problem by allowing people to opt out when
they
> > have school age kids. I'd also not financially coerce them to accept the
> > public system by rebating their school taxes during those years.
> >
> >
> > > If you, as Christians, Bhuddists, Muslims, Whatever, decide that
> > > you should not contribute to the public system, then you diminish that
> > > system, both by your lack of participation in a public and community
> > > enterprise, and from the monetary impact on that system. Besides,
there
> > > is no way that you won't create ( or exacerbate, if you like) a class
> > > system for our children. The expansion of the parochial systems
would,
> > > despite the advertisements, leave the public system with a much higher
> > > percentage of low income students.
> >
> > First, "exacerbate" is correct. We are an educational meritocracy. The
OECD
> > statistics already state that the disparity between rich and poor in the
US
> > is about at the same level of China. I doubt if matters can get much
worse
> > by cutting kids loose from the public system. Second, the next time you
> > drive by a new school, ask yourself why the hell they need those kinds
of
> > palaces to teach reading (or, with those kinds of palaces, why CAN'T
they
> > teach reading?)? Public education is a money pit, and a safe one,
because
> > (1) people are afraid to admit that it's already failed -- the kids in
the
> > schools in the rich suburbs will go on to do whatever they wish, while
the
> > kids in the inner city will have no options, and they BOTH came out of
the
> > public system.
> >
> I think it is clear that starting with the Reagan administration, this
> nation has been moving towards a system with increased class definition.
> I see the diminishment of the middle class being a real possibility. The
> education system is probably a part of that movement, either
> purposefully or as a symptom.

I don't think this has squat to do with governmental policy -- in fact,
believing that it does have to do with governmental policy insures that it
will continue, as we will choose incorrect policy based on incorrect
assumptions. Here's an article written a few days ago on just this problem:

August 15, 2005
Is Social Mobility on the Decline?
By Michael Barone

Has a fairer America also become an America with less social mobility? That
is the uncomfortable question raised by John Parker's long American survey
in The Economist last month.

"A decline in social mobility would run counter to Americans' deepest
beliefs about their country," Parker writes. "Unfortunately, that is what
seems to be happening. Class is reappearing in a new form."

This was the conclusion, as well, of a recent series of articles in The New
York Times -- although, as the Times and Parker both note, polls show that
Americans think their chances of moving up are better than a generation ago.
Statistics tell a different story: There is a higher correlation today
between parents' and children's income than in the 1980s, and the income gap
between college graduates and non-graduated doubled between 1979 and 1997.

"America," concludes Parker, "is becoming a stratified society based on
education: a meritocracy."

Parker's view parallels that of another Brit, Ferdinand Mount, former editor
of the Times Literary Supplement, in his 2004 book, "Mind the Gap: The New
Class Divide in Britain." Mount notes that income inequality has been
increasing in Britain, not just during the Thatcherite 1980s, but since Tony
Blair's New Labor government took office in 1997 -- much to the dismay of
many Labor ministers. He notes also that Britons are not converging on one
lifestyle -- Uppers and Downers, as he calls them, still dress differently
and speak with different accents -- and that Britain, more open to upward
mobility in the past than popular legend would have it, is becoming less so.

This he partly blames on the abolition by equality-minded Laborites years
ago of the academically demanding grammar schools that were the routes out
of the working class for so many Labor politicians themselves.

"We cannot help noticing," Mount concludes, "that the old class system has
been reconstituted into a more or less meritocratic upper tier and a lower
tier which is defined principally by its failure to qualify for the upper
tier."

Which is exactly what Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray predicted for
America in their controversial book "The Bell Curve," published 11 years
ago. Herrnstein and Murray noted that intelligence is both measurable and in
some large but unquantifiable part hereditary, an unexceptionable finding
for experimental psychologists but maddening to social engineers. As college
education becomes open to all with the requisite intelligence, graduates
will tend to marry graduates and produce children with similar intelligence,
while others will tend to produce children without it.

"Unchecked, these trends," Herrnstein and Murray wrote, "will lead the U.S.
toward something resembling a caste society, with the underclass mired ever
more firmly at the bottom and the cognitive elite ever more firmly anchored
at the top."

Which leads to the question children ask on long car trips: Are we there
yet? Mount says Britain is and Parker says America may well be. And maybe
so.

Yet should we be so gloomy about this? The British have tended to see their
society as a one-ladder system, with Oxford and Cambridge graduates at the
top and lavatory cleaners at the bottom. Yet in America (and I think in
Britain, too), there are many ladders upward, with many intermediate rungs.
Not everyone has an emotional need to be on top: How many people, if they
thought seriously about it, would really want the burdens of a CEO, however
lavish the pay?

Meritocracy may leave people with no one to blame for failure. But, as
Herrnstein and Murray argued, almost all Americans have the ability "to find
valued places in society."

And that depends not so much on intelligence as on personal behavior. Here,
perhaps, we are coping with meritocracy already. New York Times columnist
David Brooks points out that since 1993, we have seen declines in violent
crime, family violence, teenage births, abortions, child poverty, drunken
driving, teenage sex, teenage suicide and divorce. We are seeing increases
in test scores and, as Parker notes, in membership in voluntary
associations.

As Murray has written, all you need to do to avoid poverty in this country
is to graduate from high school, get and stay married, and take any job. The
intelligence needed to get a place in the cognitive elite may become more
concentrated in a fair meritocratic society, but the personal behaviors
needed to find a valued place in society are available to everyone.

Meritocracy may mean less mobility, but that is bearable if, as Brooks says,
"America is becoming more virtuous."

>
> We should probably worry more about the efficacy of the education system
> throughout all communities, rich and poor than whether we are stepping
> on religious toes (or sandals), wouldn't you say?

Oh, absolutely. All this creationism and intelligent design baloney pales in
comparison to the real problems in education, and distracts from them.
Simply put, the parents whose kids go to upper middle-to-upper class school
districts see no reason to change anything. Their schools are OK (they still
could and should be doing better, in comparison to abroad, but they're
competent). The lower middle to lower class parents, whose kids walk through
metal detectors and are lucky to finish high school, are screaming for help,
but the entrenched establishment keeps saying "what's that? I can't hear
you." So, the gap between rich and poor grows. Smart, successful, driven
parents give birth to smart, successful, driven kids (most of the time). The
reverse is also true, except richer parents have more loser kids than poorer
parents have successful ones. The whole mess is propagated by the fact that
the best teachers and administrators, driven by the fact that life in an
upscale school is generally easier than life in a poorer one, migrate to the
upscale schools, leaving the poorer schools with the lower end of the
competency spectrum. My last stint in teaching was in an inner city school,
and I'd say right around 50% of the teachers were incapable of competently
teaching, either because of personality defects (exploited by the kids), a
bad work ethic, or other personal characteristics that led the kids to run
roughshod over them.

Now, there's NOTHING in that scenario that should make anyone with any
social conscience want to keep it around. If you can't kill the beast (and I
don't think it's possible to actually kill it) then starve it.
>
> > The existence of the current system, brick, depends on well-meaning
folks
> > like you, who refuse to admit that the current system is already the
CAUSE
> > of the rich/poor gap in this country, and thus refuse to consider the
> > possibility that the system requires wholesale modification.
> >
> > > What about older folks and empty nesters? To which system should their
> > > contributions be directed? Or should they be taxed for the educational
> > > system at all? Its all a slippery slope, Mike. I know where I draw the
> > > line, and I think it reflects the majority view and the best interests
> > > of the average American. If you, as a voluntary subset of the
population
> > > want the nation to do what's best for your group at the expense of
> > > others, take your best shot.
> >
> > You're spinning the argument. It cannot be credibly argued that the
> > propagation of the existing system (and its financing) is "what's best
for
> > everyone as a whole." It sucks, plain and simple. If you propagate it,
then
> > the rich (via education) will continue to get richer, and the poor
> > (depending on - ostensibly - the same education) will get poorer. It
appears
> > that your fear, if I can put it that way, WRT vouchers is that what is
> > already happening might continue to happen. I challenge you to rethink,
> > especially regarding the fact that one of the groups interested in
vouchers
> > are low income people, and why they are thusly interested.
> > >
> Bussing didn't work, and vouchers will work only in a very small
> percentage of the lower socio-economic children. It will not do the job.

It won't work for fixing the system in total, but you'd get a better
education for the kids who get them. Even if it's 1%, you may be both saving
kids from a life in hell, and/or creating the next generation of minority
leaders. Fears about vouchers is nothing more than hysteria from the
educational bureaucracy. The private schools couldn't accomodate more than a
tiny number of the kids who would apply for them, and it would take decades
to build up a parallel infrastructure.

That said, there's no reason for penalizing more kids with a public
education than you have to. Although I floated vouchers as a solution to the
religous/ed problem, in reference to the *larger* problem of education, I'd
gladly vote for a voucher program limited to at-risk kids.
>
> How to rebuild the public school system? Wipe out the bureaucracy and
> elevate teachers and teaching. Mostly, find a way to impact the home
> environment - the mores, lifestyle and values of the students. You can't
> start with the schools. They can't correct all the ills of our society.

Sure, but the devil is in the details. How *do* you destroy a complete
industry, along with its ancillary businesses, and build it back up again
without leaving bodies in the streets? The entrenched interests won't go
without a fight.

>
> > > > There are a small number of specific educational issues which
Christians
> > > > react to, as they explicitly replace teachings of the Faith deemed
> > important
> > > > with contradictory teachings and philosophies. The primary two are
> > evolution
> > > > and sexual education, although ad hoc material (remember the
Sacramento
> > kids
> > > > who were expected to go through Ramadan?) appear from time to time.
> > > >
> > > We're going to have to disagree about evolution. Science is science -
> > > the best our (God given, if you like) intellects can extrapolate about
> > > the world we live in and the creatures, including us, who inhabit
same.
> > > If you feel such education affronts your religious beliefs, then you
> > > should question your beliefs of find a way to resolve the two.
> >
> > Quite so.
> > >
> > > If you think the public school system should not participate in sexual
> > > education, then parents are going to have to fill the gap. I believe
> > > that is why the schools got involved in this subject area to start
with.
> >
> > I remember rhetoric to that effect, with parents rejecting the argument.
> > Even if so, there were ways to encourage parents to engage in this
process
> > if they indeed were reticent about it.
> >
> > Mike


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A possible arguement against unschooling (was Re: When even a Republican can see it....)
    ... Are you arguing that by unschooling my kids I ... technical exposure he got at his high school. ... Can you admit that classrooms & lecture type education is not the case ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: OT: Do we need a law?
    ... education so the expense is relatively low. ... school and the school to provide the necessary information. ... There go more jobs for Americans down the toilet. ... And, no, its not the kids of religious ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: OT: "We Dont Want No Education"
    ... Basics are pretty much what my wife teaches. ... educational theorists and e.g. up to 20% of kids can still be ... When they move onto secondary education they are of course ... all kids  im primary school literate - those who weren't didn't even ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: Teachers Unions Continue To Support the Kids
    ... improving education and has the power to prevent it, ... in a public school. ...  They would use results from the TAKS tests that all the kids ... union) and Texas. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: OT: Do we need a law?
    ... So this principle creates a jurisdiction issue. ... :to a school that YOU don't happen to like. ... US kids can be denied basic education required in the US ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)