Do We Need the Department of Education?

[boutons_deux]

With a student debt bubble of $1T, the expiring low rate of Federally insured student loans is up to be doubled soon. Let's see if the Repugs vote to block extending the rate cut, while relentlessly pushing hard to cut taxes on UCA and the 1%. The Repugs have already pushed to cut Pell grants.

[xrayzebra]

Education Department. More like advocate for extreme policies, do as I say or you
don't get no Federal dollars.

Once again, people think government has all the experts. They don't. Many up there
in never, never land have a hard time signing the own name and have a hard time
figuring out 2 + 2 = 4.

It is like everything else, somewhere along the way it was determined that
government could do a better job than the local people. They cant! All I have
seen is more breakfast, dinner and supper plans, after school programs and
pre-pre K programs.

Just more of the examples of government taking responsibility for feeding and
caring for the children. Does really contribute to their education.

I love the poorer school district always moaning about how they cant spend as
much money as the rich districts and so their kids are poorly educated. Well
folks the reason the poor districts kids are poorly educated, is not that they don't
get the knowledge, they do. It is because they cant get the parents of these
kids to keep them in school so they can obtain the knowledge. It is pretty well
proven that those that stay in school, whether rich or poor, can go on to college
and get a good solid education in some field and really succeed in life. Poor doesn't
make you dumb. Lack of education is what makes you dumb. Someone needs
to educate the parents to keep their kids in school and that it is their responsibility
to raise these kids, not government.

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Cobra, it is not about what I want to be taught in science class. It is about what the experts want. I defer to scientists on what should be taught in science class, not religious zealots. All I am looking for is federal standards that will assure that every student in the country has the compe ive edge they need in competing in the global economy. It is my opinion that this will not happen if students are wasting time in science class studying religious theories instead of scientific theories. As long as states are still setting the agenda that is bound to happen.

I see... Experts, higher powers, etc. have never been wrong...

[baseline bum]

So you're for teaching about the flying spaghetti monster?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Education Department. More like advocate for extreme policies, do as I say or you
don't get no Federal dollars.

Once again, people think government has all the experts. They don't. Many up there
in never, never land have a hard time signing the own name and have a hard time
figuring out 2 + 2 = 4.

It is like everything else, somewhere along the way it was determined that
government could do a better job than the local people. They cant! All I have
seen is more breakfast, dinner and supper plans, after school programs and
pre-pre K programs.

Just more of the examples of government taking responsibility for feeding and
caring for the children. Does really contribute to their education.

I love the poorer school district always moaning about how they cant spend as
much money as the rich districts and so their kids are poorly educated. Well
folks the reason the poor districts kids are poorly educated, is not that they don't
get the knowledge, they do. It is because they cant get the parents of these
kids to keep them in school so they can obtain the knowledge. It is pretty well
proven that those that stay in school, whether rich or poor, can go on to college
and get a good solid education in some field and really succeed in life. Poor doesn't
make you dumb. Lack of education is what makes you dumb. Someone needs
to educate the parents to keep their kids in school and that it is their responsibility
to raise these kids, not government.

maybe if you paid more attention in public school you'd be able to write in paragraph more

[Wild Cobra]

So you're for teaching about the flying spaghetti monster?

No, but I think people's fear about what their local area may do is allowing a bigger devil in.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I see... Experts, higher powers, etc. have never been wrong...

In science vs. Church debates, science is almost always right

Earth being round vs. Earth being flat

Earth rotating around the Suns vs. the Earth being the center of the universe

[baseline bum]

No, but I think people's fear about what their local area may do is allowing a bigger devil in.

Why not teach the flying spaghetti monster?

[Wild Cobra]

In science vs. Church debates, science is almost always right

Earth being round vs. Earth being flat

Earth rotating around the Suns vs. the Earth being the center of the universe

Yep, the "experts" interpretation of the Bible is often wrong. So are the experts interpretation in other areas.

Keep in mind. Intelligent design does not exclusively mean creationism. I think anyone open minded will agree there are other more plausible possibilities. I don't expect you to understand since you only think within a limited box, but that's OK. It is an explanation that still allows there to be higher powers, but that doesn't mean necessarily God. It could be aliens. It could be more advanced humans of the past that were wiped out somehow. We can only speculate, but to totally dismiss it is completely unscientific.

[baseline bum]

Bull , ID absolutely means biblical creationism as outlined in Genesis, which is why it lost in the courts. The ty textbook the sophist definition of ID comes from had creationism in place of intelligent design almost word for word in its preprint drafts.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

"Intelligent design" was what creationists started calling creationism when they were fighting against evolution being taught to make it sound like a smarter idea and not completely re ed.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Bull , ID absolutely means biblical creationism as outlined in Genesis, which is why it lost in the courts. The ty textbook the sophist definition of ID comes from had creationism in place of intelligent design almost word for word in an earlier edition.

exactly.


It's the same thing.

[Wild Cobra]

Bull , ID absolutely means biblical creationism as outlined in Genesis, which is why it lost in the courts. The ty textbook the sophist definition of ID comes from had creationism in place of intelligent design almost word for word in an earlier edition.

Sorry, maybe it means that to some, but not all of us.

[baseline bum]

No, that's what it means to all neocon republican dittoheads.

[baseline bum]

In science vs. Church debates, science is almost always right

Earth being round vs. Earth being flat

Earth rotating around the Suns vs. the Earth being the center of the universe

Evolution by natural selection or 6 million species on a ship captained by a 900 year old?

[Wild Cobra]

No, that's what it means to all neocon republican dittoheads.

I see...

You're an expert now?

Well, I am not a ditto-head, neocon, or republican.

[baseline bum]

I see...

You're an expert now?

Well, I am not a ditto-head, neocon, or republican.

They don't get any more republican than your ass.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Evolution by natural selection or 6 million species on a ship captained by a 900 year old?

lol Noah's arc

[baseline bum]

lol Noah's arc

indeed

[Wild Cobra]

They don't get any more republican than your ass.

Proving your ignorance again. I'm fine with that. I'm used to it.

[mercos]

I have no problem with anything being tested and examined, including intelligent design. The problem with ID is that it is a hypothesis. For it to be a scientific theory it has to be able to be tested and proven through scientific evidence. The only explanation I have heard for ID is that the universe is simply to complex to happen by chance. That is not scientific. Remember, for something to be a scientific theory is has to be verified. ID has not met this criteria, thus it should not be taught. We should not be teaching a religious hypothesis in school. As someone pointed out you might as well be teaching about the flying spaghetti monster because it has just as much scientific basis as ID.

[Nbadan]

Nothing wrong with an intelligent design versus evolution class, but that is a philosophy class, not science, and that is not a high school level course

[Wild Cobra]

I have no problem with anything being tested and examined, including intelligent design. The problem with ID is that it is a hypothesis. For it to be a scientific theory it has to be able to be tested and proven through scientific evidence. The only explanation I have heard for ID is that the universe is simply to complex to happen by chance. That is not scientific. Remember, for something to be a scientific theory is has to be verified. ID has not met this criteria, thus it should not be taught. We should not be teaching a religious hypothesis in school. As someone pointed out you might as well be teaching about the flying spaghetti monster because it has just as much scientific basis as ID.

So would you have a problem with it being used in scientific discussions as a hypothesis vs. a theory?

[mercos]

I have absolutely no problems with ID being discussed in scientific discussions at all. Scientists should look into any legitimate hypothesis. Scientists do not have a bias against religion, they simply do not accept faith or ancient writings as scientific evidence. Until ID passes through the scientific method there is no basis to teach it in a science class. As Nbadan said, you can make an argument for teaching it in philosophy, but not science.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so you're for teaching about the flying spaghetti monster?

yes please please please!!!