Posted on 12/28/2005 3:49:52 AM PST by PatrickHenry
US. District Judge John E. Jones III's decision to bar the teaching of ''intelligent design'' in the Dover, Pa., public school district on grounds that it is a thinly veiled effort to introduce a religious view of the world's origins is welcome for at least two reasons.
First, it exposes the sham attempt to take through the back door what proponents have no chance of getting through the front door. Jones rebuked advocates of ''intelligent design,'' saying they repeatedly lied about their true intentions. He noted that many of them had said publicly that their intent was to introduce into the schools a biblical account of creation. Jones properly wondered how people who claim to have such strong religious convictions could lie, thus violating prohibitions in the book that they proclaim as their source of truth and standard for living.
Culture has long passed by advocates of intelligent design, school prayer and numerous other beliefs and practices that were once tolerated, even promoted, in public education. People who think that they can reclaim the past have been watching too many repeats of Leave it to Beaver on cable television. Those days are not coming back anytime soon, if at all.
Culture, including the culture of education, now opposes what it once promoted or at least tolerated. The secular left, which resists censorship in all its forms when it comes to sex, library books and assigned materials that teach the ''evils'' of capitalism and ''evil America,'' is happy to censor any belief that can be tagged ``religious.''
Jones' ruling will be appealed and after it is eventually and predictably upheld by a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees (Jones was named to the federal bench by President Bush, who has advocated the teaching of creation), those who have tried to make the state do its job for them will have yet another opportunity to wise up.
This leads to the second reason for welcoming Jones' ruling. It should awaken religious conservatives to the futility of trying to make a secular state reflect their beliefs. Too many people have wasted too much time and money since the 1960s, when prayer and Bible reading were outlawed in public schools, trying to get these and a lot of other things restored. The modern secular state should not be expected to teach Genesis 1, or any other book of the Bible, or any other religious text.
That the state once did such things, or at least did not undermine what parents taught their children, is irrelevant. The culture in which we now live no longer reflects the beliefs of our grandparents' generation.
For better, or for worse (and a strong case can be made that things are much worse), people who cling to the beliefs of previous generations have been given another chance to do what they should have been doing all along.
Religious parents should exercise the opportunity that has always been theirs. They should remove their children from state schools with their ''instruction manuals'' for turning them into secular liberals and place them in private schools -- or home school them -- where they will be taught the truth, according to their parents' beliefs. Too many parents who would never send their children to a church on Sunday that taught doctrines they believed to be wrong have had no problem placing them in state schools five days a week where they are taught conflicting doctrines and ideas.
Private schools or home schooling costs extra money (another reason to favor school choice) and extra time, but what is a child worth? Surely, a child is more valuable than material possessions.
Our children are our letters to the future. It's up to parents to decide whether they want to send them ''first class'' or ``postage due.''
Rulings such as this should persuade parents who've been waffling to take their kids and join the growing exodus from state schools into educational environments more conducive to their beliefs.
My case on lack of real world socialization in home schooling stands. Are you any worse for having to put up with the real world while you grew up?
There's a non-response. I have no idea what you mean by your case stands. You got nothing out of what I referred you to ?
You think everyone should put up with the crap that passes for socialization in schools for 12/13 years ? In your working life are you forced by law to sit in a room with 25 other people your own age and denied the ability to go to the bathroom w/o permission, for example ? If you encounter crap in your work life are you forced by law to endure it until the end of the year or can you quit any time you want ?
It doesn't matter whether I am better or worse off for having put up with it. The question remains, why should anyone have to ?
This is silly and has nothing to do with socialization, there are labor laws involved here.
Check this out. This is the environment that you more than likely grew up in. By protecting homeschoolers from the real world, they are going to be deprived of growing up in a similar culture today, however today's culture has evolved. Think about it.
Umm... proof?
Umm... proof?
No science deals in proof. Try again please.
I dunno. If I lived with kids in downtown DC or Baltimore, and couldn't afford to send them to private school for 13 years, I would probably consider homeschooling. I agree it's not the optimal choice, though.
The thing is, you probably wouldn't live in downtown DC or Baltimore. But that said, I've heard parents that send their kids to inner city schools for this particular unique type of experience.
Homeschooling has just too many inbred qualities with all the implications of inbreeding. This might be inflammatory, but it is almost incestuous to live with and teach your own kids 24/7. Yuck! Kids need more influence from outside sources so they can make they own choices in life. Almost similar to the way a gene pool thrives. I know, I know, this opens the door to so many objections!!!!!!!!! Take it for what it is worth!
The Alliance for the Separation of School & State looks like a terrific organization, and they have the only real answer to today's education crisis; whether you approach the problem from a Christian perspective, (as they apparently do) or not.
While I certainly think that "Intelligent Design Theory" is nonscience, and doesn't belong in Biology class, if it and its proponents could spark a revolt against the government school system it would have done a great service to education and our nation's future.
"No science deals in proof."
How interesting. I'll be sure to pass on this info to my Physicist hubby. So good of you to enlighten us.
Wrong it has been tested and tested with multiple peer reviews and continues to be tested in a scientific way. The scientific theories are solid.
How interesting. I'll be sure to pass on this info to my Physicist hubby. So good of you to enlighten us.
Proof is more appropriate to photography, coinage, mathematics, and fine Irish whiskey.
Science deals with data, hypotheses, and theories. A list of definitions is attached. Please have your husband take a look and let me know what he thinks.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Presumably you are being sarcastic, in which case it should be easy for you to make us look foolish, simply by posting a proof of any physical theory or law of your choice. That should be a cinch for your physicist husband if (as your snide comment implies) such things exist.
It's usually an uncle.
Based on your own view of these couples, would you want them to have children? And what is wrong with being childless if it is a concious choice?
You should hear the seniors in FL howl when property tax hikes are proposed for schools. They typically complain tha they already paid for their kids and grand kids to go to school [in another state] before retiring in FL and that it isn't fair to have to pay again. But these are the same ones that drink the AARP cool-aid, too.
Ah, I get it. Funny, but your post proves my point. No where in your post does it say a blessed thing about schools. In fact, kids have no time for any of the things listed in your reference, even if some of them were still popular, because their time is so regulated between school and organized activities led by adults.
Homeschooled kids, by contrast, have time for those things such as riding bikes with (homeschooled) friends simply because their schoolwork is accomplished in a much shorter amount of time than 6-7 hours a day locked away in a school plus a few hours of homework.
My kid, for example, spends her mornings from 8 to 11 doing her schoolwork. At 1PM she heads to the barn and spends the rest of the day outside with all types of people her own age and older, training horses, helping run the barn, mucking out stalls, assisting veterinarians and farriers, assisting clients of her trainer's, assisting her trainer, etc etc. On most weekends from April thru November she competes her horse along with a hundred or so others. In January and February she moves to Florida with her trainer and does the same thing there. She's active in the local Pony Club, plays flute in an ensemble, volunteers at a local natural science museum and the library, and works for neighbors doing odd jobs like weeding, walking dogs, and the like.
She's not the only homeschooled kid with such a schedule, altho the activies are usually very different. And you think kids like her are deprived of "real world socialization" ? She's living a real life, not the artificial one created in an institution (school).
She has a friend who went back to school this year, a friend with some of the same interests. The friend can now only spend one week in Florida, can't take her horse, and can only get to the barn on weekends or a few evenings when homework permits. Oh right, but she deals with cliques, has a few more "friends", and does her activities at school with the same kids in which she sits in class all day. And she says while her school day is longer, the amount she's learning is much less than what she did at home.
Who do you think gets more real world socialization ? Or, who gets a more useful education to prepare them for the future ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.