Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 9
Is the US hostile to science?
Topic Started: Oct 28 2005, 08:26 PM (2,858 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
If I'm not mistaken, it was not uncommon for religion (Christian) to be taught in public schools in the 19th century. If one compares the writings of sixth graders from that era to the current crop of sixth graders today, would anyone care to defend the modern era as superior?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
***musical princess***
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Well i wouldn't exactlly defend the modern era as superior but i think it's unfair to make a generalisation like that.

x
x Caroline x
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
***musical princess***
Oct 30 2005, 08:31 AM
Well i wouldn't exactlly defend the modern era as superior but i think it's unfair to make a generalisation like that.

x

I think it would be hard to make the case that the study of religion made the 19th century children better writers. However, I think it fairly easy to make the case that the study of religion did not make them inferior to current students.

And is that not the implication of this thread? That those who are skeptical of some things scientific are somehow intellectually inferior? Or somewhat scientifically inept?

I went to a small Southern Baptist college. Deep water baptist.

91% acceptance of all medical school applicants. 100% acceptance of all law school applicants. 93% acceptance of all dental school applicants. 100% acceptance of all science majors into pHD programs. These were the 10 year averages when I was in school (admittedly several moons ago).

Can any of you boast of like 10 year percentages from your alma mater?

Those poor, dumb religious nuts....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
***musical princess***
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I can't really say in the scope of PhD's (i'm only 16!!!) but the school I go to has impecible records.

In the year just gone, the school had 99.5% A* to C pass rate at GCSE and 100% pass rate at A-level.

Now - i know this is not common amongst the rest of the country (national average pass rate for GCSE is about 54% and A-level 62%) so you may well be right - it is however - in my experience - contrary.

The school i go to is Catholic and yet also *VERY* science driven. Our religious upbringing within school is rigerous yet at the same time we are encouraged and supported to further pursue in fields of science. The balance seems spot on to me and i think it plays a major part in how succesful the school is.

x
x Caroline x
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Until now, I had no idea that religious studies were not offered or taught in US public schools.


I don't think the ID debate centers around teaching about religion in schools, such as a religion overview class which covers the basic tenets of each faith, its history, etc. It centers around offering an article of religion in the context of a science class.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 09:30 AM
If I'm not mistaken, it was not uncommon for religion (Christian) to be taught in public schools in the 19th century. If one compares the writings of sixth graders from that era to the current crop of sixth graders today, would anyone care to defend the modern era as superior?

Yes, I would. The education today is far superor to the 19th century. I can't believe you would actually think that what children were taught then is anywhere near what they are taught now.

As for the religion taught then, itr was almost exclusively sectarian -- not even Christian in the broad sense of the word.

The religion that was taught in public schools in the 18th century was vehemently anti-Catholic, spoke of tghe evil Pope and the nasty papists.

It was also fuly anti-semitic.

Hardly Christian in nature.

If such a curriculum were in place today, one can only imaginw what it would do to Islam, Hinduism and others.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
in time, there *will* be a religion taught in schools. You just have to decide if it's going to be one that allows you the freedom to reject it, or if it's going to be one you are forced to accept.


Whether you are right or wrong on the first point ... and I think you're wrong, but never mind that for now ... to teach a religion that everyone is "forced to accept" would require changing the First Amendment. That's not going to happen in the lifetime of anyone participating on this board.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Larry
Oct 30 2005, 09:15 AM
Here's something for you secularist liberals to smoke over - in time, there *will* be a religion taught in schools. You just have to decide if it's going to be one that allows you the freedom to reject it, or if it's going to be one you are forced to accept.

And it's going to frost everyone's cookies when that religion turns out to be Confucianism or Buddhism! :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 09:40 AM

(snip)
And is that not the implication of this thread? That those who are skeptical of some things scientific are somehow intellectually inferior? Or somewhat scientifically inept?
(snip)

I'm surprised that you have drawn that conclusion.

Skepticism is very consistent with science... if not required.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 09:40 AM
91% acceptance of all medical school applicants. 100% acceptance of all law school applicants. 93% acceptance of all dental school applicants. 100% acceptance of all science majors into pHD programs. These were the 10 year averages when I was in school (admittedly several moons ago).


The question then becomes whether the school is successful because of their religious affiliation...

..or in spite of it...
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
i am so involved in this discussion in Kansas.. have been for years. I am very adament about science not being compromised.. onthe other hand i know elementary school teachers who lament not being able to easily present a morality to school children..
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quirt:
to teach a religion that everyone is "forced to accept" would require changing the First Amendment. That's not going to happen in the lifetime of anyone participating on this board.

Nina:
And it's going to frost everyone's cookies when that religion turns out to be Confucianism or Buddhism!

My point is that if we continue to follow down the path that has been laid out by the Left, including their goals of removing religion from society and their idiotic pacifist stance and "defense by appeasement", you will be wearing burkhas and your children (as will you) will be forced to accept and be taught the religion of Islam. There won't be a First Amendment anymore.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Steve Miller
Oct 30 2005, 09:42 AM
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 09:40 AM
91% acceptance of all medical school applicants. 100% acceptance of all law school applicants. 93% acceptance of all dental school applicants. 100% acceptance of all science majors into pHD programs. These were the 10 year averages when I was in school (admittedly several moons ago).


The question then becomes whether the school is successful because of their religious affiliation...

..or in spite of it...

I asked for somebody, anybody, to match those numbers.

I assume we have people on this board from some pretty good undergrad programs...many entirely sectarian.

If you can match those numbers - good. If you can't, then you are nothing more than a religious gadfly without a clue.

Sarcasm without a point is kinda like a beautiful woman with bad breath...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Nina
Oct 30 2005, 09:34 AM
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 09:40 AM

(snip)
And is that not the implication of this thread? That those who are skeptical of some things scientific are somehow intellectually inferior? Or somewhat scientifically inept?
(snip)

I'm surprised that you have drawn that conclusion.

Skepticism is very consistent with science... if not required.

Faith is as much a part of good science as skepticism.

If not, Einstein would still be a Patent Clerk....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
***musical princess***
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Well my figures may not have been for a grad programme but i think they express the point just as effectively.

x
x Caroline x
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Sarcasm without a point is kinda like a beautiful woman with bad breath...

You can fix that with a pillow case........


:D
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
***musical princess***
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Oct 30 2005, 07:56 PM
Sarcasm without a point is kinda like a beautiful woman with bad breath...

You can fix that with a pillow case........


:D

Works for ugly women too.

:P

x
x Caroline x
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 12:42 PM
Nina
Oct 30 2005, 09:34 AM
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 09:40 AM

(snip)
And is that not the implication of this thread? That those who are skeptical of some things scientific are somehow intellectually inferior? Or somewhat scientifically inept?
(snip)

I'm surprised that you have drawn that conclusion.

Skepticism is very consistent with science... if not required.

Faith is as much a part of good science as skepticism.

If not, Einstein would still be a Patent Clerk....

I'm not sure I follow you.

Religious faith seems somewhat akin to saying "I believe in God and His divine works. I know I will never be able to prove it, but I have faith that it's true."

Scientific "faith" seems like saying, "I believe in this scientific theory. I will take it on faith that it's the best explanation, but I'll keep trying to disprove it or find more and more things that could only occur if the theory were true."

It's the part where scientists actively try to disprove things that I see missing from most (though not all) religious faith.

And scientists have their egos, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you. There are hundreds of people in any field trying their darndest to shoot holes in the most well-accepted theories. It's the route to fame!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Phelbas: "If that's what you think faith is, then you have a simplistic notion of it. There is an emotional aspect to faith, but that's just part of it. There is much more, and it mostly has nothing to do with "feeling good.""

I've seen people use the word "faith" as a cop out often enough on these forums and elsewhere as a way for someone to shut down the argument and refuse to look at evidence so they can keep believing their views, even when proven wrong beyond any reasonable doubt, to be very comfortable with my characterization. If you prefer "emotionally self-satisfied" or "desire to be intellectualy lazy" to "feeling good", I won't quibble with you. Of course, I don't doubt that people who use the word "faith" as I have described it think many fancy and high-falutin' things about it, but my description is correct.

As for your comment that forcing "Christian values" down innocent children's throats in public schools would make America better, one reason for America's success is that we don't do any such thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Nina
Oct 30 2005, 12:41 PM
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 12:42 PM

Faith is as much a part of good science as skepticism.

If not, Einstein would still be a Patent Clerk....

I'm not sure I follow you.

Religious faith seems somewhat akin to saying "I believe in God and His divine works. I know I will never be able to prove it, but I have faith that it's true."

Scientific "faith" seems like saying, "I believe in this scientific theory. I will take it on faith that it's the best explanation, but I'll keep trying to disprove it or find more and more things that could only occur if the theory were true."

It's the part where scientists actively try to disprove things that I see missing from most (though not all) religious faith.

I think one can accurately characterize science as the process by which truth is pursued using as little "faith" as possible. When someone equates that faith, actively avoided and minimized, to the faith employed by believers in religion... you know you're not talking to someone to whom reasoning is going to be persuasive.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
My point is that if we continue to follow down the path that has been laid out by the Left, including their goals of removing religion from society and their idiotic pacifist stance and "defense by appeasement", you will be wearing burkhas and your children (as will you) will be forced to accept and be taught the religion of Islam. There won't be a First Amendment anymore.


That's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes, either.

Quote:
 
I asked for somebody, anybody, to match those numbers.

I assume we have people on this board from some pretty good undergrad programs...many entirely sectarian.

If you can match those numbers - good. If you can't, then you are nothing more than a religious gadfly without a clue.


Very Reaganesque of you, Jolly, extrapolating from a single example to draw a society-wide conclusion. You work in something associated with the field of science, so you should know about the dangers of extrapolating a conclusion from a sample size of one. Have you isolated the variables? Is it possible that there's more than one factor involved? Is it possible that, if our sample size was greater than one, we might get a slightly different result? For example (and this is just a hypothetical example), is it possible that many students at your school applied to lesser law schools in the great state of Louisiana, which has a system of code law, unlike the civil law in the other 49 states ... and therefore that they didn't have a heckuva lot of competition from students from other states? And how many schools did they apply to, and what was their overall acceptance percentage? If they each applied to 50 law schools, maybe each was rejected from 49 law schools and each got accepted to one unaccredited law school that had a 100% acceptance rate. That might change your conclusion, hmmm? I'm not saying it's so, but looking at those sorts of numbers from a single (probably small) college in a somewhat quirky state really doesn't prove much of anything.

As for what the numbers were from my undergrad program ... I haven't the slightest frickin' clue. That said, considering that my school was almost 20,000 strong, I'm willing to bet that the percentages weren't as good as yours. You can take that as an assumption, because I don't think it helps your point one little bit, for the reasons I've given above.

Oh, and one of the schools I was considering, back in the day, was .... Tulane.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
Faith is as much a part of good science as skepticism.

If not, Einstein would still be a Patent Clerk....


I'm not sure I follow that argument. Einstein was a true sceptic. His great strength was that he managed to approach a problem with the open mind of a child, but apply the skills of a scientist. In addition, his at the time more controversial theories took some time to be accepted. He won the Nobel prize for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, not for relativity.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
By not teaching religion in schools, you're placing reliance on the church to provide all religious instruction and information. Clearly the church is by definition going to give a one-sided explanation, since the people who teach will themselves be more likely to be devout followers.

I think this whole separation of church and state is taken too far. It doesn't actually stop religious discrimination, it just outlaws it. Wouldn't it be just as easy to pass a law outlawing religious descrimination? In addition, the constitution was written when religious discrimination was rampant in the UK and elsewhere. I think this is pretty much not the case in the Western world. In fact the U.S. is probably the only country in 'the West' where this kind of debate occurs. I suspect most people from outside the US would be surprised to learn of religious teaching not being permitted.

A bit of a strange argument for an atheist liberal to be making, but there you go.

Oh, I would absolutely not agree with teaching a religion that 'everybody is forced to accept' as Quirt put it. That would be positively medieval. And yes, I agree that people should be taught about atheism, buddhism, hinduism, etc. Why wouldn't you?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
I believe the "forced to accept" language started with Larry, not me.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Oh, OK, sorry. It becomes too difficult to check after a while.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 9