What Creationists Teach Kids.

I don’t know how many times I’ve seen the attached exam actually given to a child linked on the internet.  It sums up so perfectly the alarm the secular world has for what is passed off as “teaching” by Christian zealots.

The children at this and many other schools are taught the universe is about 6,000 years old and the human children played with dinosaurs.  They are taught how to divert discussions with people who challenge them about creationism to something other than science.

The test is much more like a review of propaganda than it is like an academic exam.  Students are expected to know the company explanation, not one established by independent sources.

Teaching creationism is appropriate for courses in religion.  There, all or at least several of the famous creation stories would be presented and the societal setting of them critiqued.

It seems like the religious community itself would feel some guilt at such teaching.  In addition, one would think it would see the benefits of teaching good information to its children.

The good thing about the attached exam is the clarity with which exposes the sham of religion dominated education.  As time goes on, hopefully there will be national recognition of the harm done to children and it will become less popular.

Public education in the U. S. need lots of improvement.  At least public education begins with the goal of providing children with a good education.

The kind of religious education illustrated here has a different goal, religious indoctrination.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/30/blue-ridge-christian-academy-the-school-that-gave-fourth-graders-the-creationism-test-heard-around-the-internet/

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to What Creationists Teach Kids.

  1. Henry says:

    The upper Midwest is blessed with quality public education that equals private education. In many other areas of the country, the source of quality education is in the private school systems. I hear Jon wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Somebody else’s bathwater, too.

    • Brad says:

      The problem with private ed is that not everyone can afford it. Of course that’s the plan, butcher public ed, replace it with private ed, and to hell with anyone who can’t afford it. Just put them in corporate training camps and reinstate slavery for these unfortunates who didn’t have the bank account to pay for private ed.

  2. Michael Ross says:

    Interesting stat: 58% Republicans and 41 % Democrats believe in a young earth and the number of creationists are growing:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

    • Brad says:

      “58% Republicans and 41 % Democrats believe in a young earth”

      All that means is that we have a lot of ignorant fools in this country. If that number is growing, then it means stupidity is spreading.

      Reality is what it is. There is physical proof the earth is several billion years old. The decomposed fossils that make up the fuel you burn in your car is several hundred million years old.

      That’s the thing about reality. It’s true whether you believe it or not.

    • entech says:

      That this is a statistic for the most industrially advanced country is absolutely terrifying.
      That the large Hardon collider is in Cern insrtead of Texas as planned is a sad indictment of the sorry state of science education.

      Just the view of someone outside looking in, pay no attention, just continue your decline.

  3. Avatar of realist realist says:

    Ignorant people do not succeed in the long run. They may make some temporary gains, but ultimately, sanity will prevail. And the importance of the separation of church and state will become clear to all of us.

  4. Michael Ross says:

    Growing list of scientists who consider young earth creationism (YEC) a fact and evolution as bunk:

    http://www.examiner.com/article/growing-list-of-scientists-who-consider-young-earth-creationism-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk

    If the matter of tenure was not an issue this list would be many time longer, I believe. Evolutionary scientists simply will not allow creation to be presented along side their religion of evolution. They are threatened by it, knowing the trade secret of scientists the evidence points to a recent special creation.

    “Teaching creationism is appropriate for courses in religion.”

    Nonsense! Young earth creationism can be taught strictly on a scientific basis.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Michael 1:20 “Growing list of scientists who consider young earth creationism a fact and evolution as bunk”

      Thanks for that reference. I heard there was such a list but had never seen it. A majority on the list had no bio to click. I clicked on about 25 bios to find out who they are. The majority of those I looked up were very old men, if they are still alive. This would lead me to believe the list is growing smaller, not larger. Of the others, some are not technically scientists, some are doctors/dentists. Several are in engineering and mathematics, fields not related to the topic of evolution and who called themselves born again.

      I’ve personally known some born again professors. Just a few years ago the Dean of Engineering at NDSU was one. I don’t deny there are born again professors with legitimate careers in fields related to evolution, I don’t see from this evidence their numbers are growing and they are relatively few in number.

  5. Michael Ross says:

    For you atheistic pinko meatheads:

    Archie Bunker on evolution:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4czdTaUQVg

  6. Brad says:

    Anyone can make up anything to explain the origins of life, because it’s impossible to prove or disprove. But the age of the earth is provable, and even the theory of evolution is based on science, so it isn’t just something made up like creationism.

    • Henry says:

      Spontaneous generation was science as well. In fact, it sounds much like…..evalootion where organisms spontaneously generate.

    • entech says:

      Henry @ 3:39 am I don’t know what to make of you sometimes, you are either misled or you set out to mislead.

      Spontaneous generation was a formalised idea from earlier thinkers by Aristotle at a time when speculation was rife and it was thought that everything could be known by thinking about it. The scientific method of observation and testing started to disprove the idea about 1600 and since Pasteur demolished the idea no one has thought it had any validity, actually it has been in decline since Darwin. The only time it is ever used these days is by insane creationists with jars of peanut butter saying the because there were no germs Darwin was wrong.

      Remember Aristotle he thought that rocks fall to the ground because it was in their nature to do so, because they liked to be near the centre, remember the earth was the centre of everything at that time. Where is the earth these days in your creationist cosmology? still being held up by pillars with a canopy above it? Galileo pretty well put paid to the idea of earth being at the centre and Newton’s theory of gravity.

      To compare evolution, a modern theory with a lot of evidence in its favour with Spontaneous generation for which there is no evidence at all, is either stupid or dishonest. Whatever else you may be Henry you are not stupid. Evolution describes the development and advance of life AFTER self replicating life exists, it has nothing to say about abiogenesis. There was so much that Darwin did not know and apparently he did speculate on the origin of life but his whole work was about the origin of species.

      You know all this but persist in misrepresenting anything at all that does not conform your cretinist ideas. You can dismiss evoolution but don’t lie and compare it to spontaneous generation, You could try a bit of evaaluation, you would be amazed at what might find its way into an open mind.

      • Henry says:

        entech:“speculation was rife and it was thought that everything could be known by thinking about it.”

        There are many scientists thinking about evalootion. Spontaneous generation did involve testing. Don’t fool yourself. Evalootion has testing as well. Has the same level of credibility.

  7. tom says:

    Interesting arguments, but they clearly point to the decline in the scientific literacy of the general public. On the one hand creationism relies on faith in the absence of fact to substantiate their claims and neither present data or collect data. Science on the other hand, collects data to either support or not support a hypothesis. So far, as data continues to accumulate, the idea of a 10,000 year old creationism has produced no new data and continues to lose ground while the evidence in favor of mankind, the earth and a host of other organisms being older than 10,000 years continues to accumulate. One has only to be patient to see when the illogical edifice of creationism collapses on top of its own flimsy underpinnings.

  8. Simple says:

    This test is why we need to stop any form of public dollars being sent to private schools. It is all about religious indoctrination. They now want the taxpayers to fund it.

    • Brad says:

      It’s all part of their agenda of setting up the religious police state.

      • Michael Ross says:

        You are so right Brad. All totalitarian police states taught Scientific
        Creationism to their school kids: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pott, all of them.

        • entech says:

          Michael are you sure you didn’t cut and paste from the wrong list?
          You have named all the evil atheists.

          Surely you meant Iran, Saudi, and Europe when Christianity was in its heyday burning heretics, witches and so on.

    • Henry says:

      Your advocacy will have no negative impact around here. As I said, the public school system around here is pretty good. The drawback is that children will have to be sent to be indoctrinated on evalootion, but in a way, that is good. Let them teach our children how elk climb out of the slimy goo after the substances are struck by lightning. Children can put their critical thinking skills to good use.

  9. entech says:

    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?

    Elk climbing out of slimy goo? I apologise for 5:38 I was wrong. You are both dishonest and stupid.

    remember epicurus? modified it goes:
    If he believes that is what evolution is;
    Then he is stupid.
    If He knows different but denies it;
    then he is dishonest.
    If he is both stupid and dishonest,
    then he is Henry.

    You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you invent things to discredit what you don’t like.

    • Henry says:

      The account is no invention. I am told Elk (and all other organisms) do indeed come from slimy goo struck by lightning. Supposedly, this process has been tested (I am told).

      • entech says:

        You are told? By whom? the same people that tell you that the earth is so very young, that god hates fags, that masturbation makes you go blind, that we are all descended from a single couple a necessarily incestuous descent from the original Adam and Eve.
        If you believe the creation myth then you will believe anything that supports it and anything that you are told by its proponents.
        My 2:59 pm is probably relevant, read the site, it says you can still be a Christian without being a young earth cretinist.

        Actually you probably believe in miracles :)

        • Henry says:

          entech: “By whom?”

          The scientists told me and all the lowly esteemed commoners ((general public); reference tom 3:51).
          http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14966-volcanic-lightning-may-have-sparked-life-on-earth.html

          • tom says:

            henry, an amino acid is not an elk and there is nothing about elk in the article. Try again.

          • entech says:

            The article is full of ifs, buts and maybes, that is the nature of science. IF it seems to work, BUT it can’t be duplicated then MAYBE it is wrong.

            So when you bring out your god and let him explain personally, then I will be told.

          • Henry says:

            tom:“not an elk”

            The article was rather informative on how an elk could crawl out of slimy goo struck by lightning. We were told. The big picture of evalootion getting from point A to point B as presented is not inaccurate. Absurd? Yes.

          • entech says:

            Not only does “Elk” not appear in the article, Evolution does not appear in the body of the article. Evolution only appears on the page as a link to other articles.

            Do try and remember that because someone says something it is not necessarily true. This applies to you (and me) as well as the rest of humanity.

          • Henry says:

            Please, entech, use your critical thinking.

          • Henry says:

            entech:“Do try and remember that because someone says something it is not necessarily true.”

            Ok, uncle. You have convinced me that an elk cannot be created from evalootion.

  10. Michael Ross says:

    “Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of “gaps” in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”

    ~Paleontologist David B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution 28 (1974): 467.

    Over 150 years since Darwin’s “Origin of Species” and not a single transitional life form has been conclusively identified. This the Achilles heel of evolution.

    • Avatar of realist realist says:

      “not a single transitional life form has been …identified”

      Evolution mean we are all transitional life forms. These changes take millions of years in some species, but occur within a short period of time in, for example, viruses. Take the blinders off. The entire biological framework of life is abundant with evolution. Take a college level biology class and see a whole new world. What is hard to believe is that nothing has changed on the earth.

      • Michael Ross says:

        In the world today and the fossil record show only fixed species. Transitional life forms do not exist. That is the trade secret of the scientific community. That is why scientific creationism must be kept out of the public schools. It would expose evolution for the fraud that it is. Face the facts my friend. You and I are created by God and accountable to Him.

        • entech says:

          Him, are you sure it is a him, I was taught that the creator was not a sexual being at all, no gender.
          But, there again, I rejected the possibility that it had any truth in it when I left my religious school.

          • Michael Ross says:

            I am sure. The God of the Bible has always revealed Himself in the masculine gender: Father, Son (Jesus who walked this earth in a male body).

          • entech says:

            Possibly the, dominantly male, writers of the Bible always depicted “HIM” as male, as male as they were.

            You say, I am sure. The God of the Bible has always revealed Himself in the masculine gender:
            Well I am sure that this entity of yours never revealed anything to anyone except in the privacy of their own imagination.

        • tom says:

          my mother and father “created” me. God had nothing to do with it.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Michael 2:33 “Int he world today and the fossil recornd show only fixed species. Tranistional forms of life do not exist.”

          Those two statements are simply not true, Michael. They were made by others on this forum a year or two ago. I made it a point to talk to faculty members at NDSU about this question. I might be able to have one or two of them come on to respond after finals are over. New species are evolving all the time. There are countless examples.

          Some changes within a species are as dramtic as developement of a new species. In addition, all scientists are not in agreement at all times as to whether the results of some addaptation are a new species or a branch of an existing one.

          I’d suggest you treat some of what you find in the anti-evolution pipeline with some skepticism.

          • Michael Ross says:

            Jon, I once believed in evolution also but began reading some creation science literature and decided that it made more sense. This was in the early ’70′s before I was a Christian. I made the choice on a scientific basis but it had a lot to do with
            with my decision to follow Christ. Its kind of like global warming, urr, I mean “climate change”, scientists argue on both sides of the issue. Its not a topic I am much interested in so I’ll let others hash it out. What I have been trying to get across to you and others on your blog is that their are serious, highly respected scientists of the creationist view point and the field of creation science has come a long, long way in the last half century or so. The point is that both sides should be given equal hearing in the public discourse, including public schools. If, like the Meathead says, “that’s a fairy-tale Arch, its Mandrake the Magician time”, then that would be exposed so laypeople could see the truth of Darwinian evolution and the argument would be settled once and for all, would it not? The majority of Americans poled would chose both creation and evolution be given equal time to public school children.

            I think it would be interesting if you got one of your science professor friends from SU. Perhaps a guest post. Great idea!

      • Wolfy32 says:

        I agree realist. I look at our own Body’s ability adapt and see a versatile, diverse, and highly adaptive body in it’s inner workings. The human body adapts to survive. The blind hear better than anyone, if there’s a clogged vein, new ones are formed to allow blood flows throughout the body. The brain adapts to stress and extreme situations the best it can. If our bodies can do this on a daily basis. Who’s to say that with each generation the genes within the body are not adapting, evolving.
        One minor change per generation, could lead to huge changes over a 1000 years let alone a million years. We cannot possibly fathom or comprehend the changes humans will go through the next 1000 years. Our meager 100 years here is nothing compared to a 1000 years. Heck the US is only a country for 200 years and look how much the nation has changed in that timeframe?

        We’re in constant transition. There was a philosophical statement made in philosophy class. Some theorize that a person is a completely different person from second to second because each moment that passes our bodies are in a completely different state. Blood is in a different place, skin and hair has changed, grown, or been lost. Our brains will have changed mental states moment to moment. And therefore, though maybe our Identities do not change and our DNA does not change, but, our existence continuously changes every moment.

        It’s too bad Christianity has to feel science is a threat.. I believe that science reveals (continuously) the very wonders and power of God. Each new discovery reveals new mysteries and new things about him. I love that our quest for knowledge is insatiable and that we continuously learn new things about our universe, our existence, and that there’s no end to it!!!

        • Michael Ross says:

          “It’s too bad Christianity has to feel science is a threat..”

          2:33 above. You have it backwards.

          • Wolfy32 says:

            Oops, my bad. Still applies :)

          • entech says:

            As time goes by, as the ‘message’ is diluted more and more by different denominations, Christianity will become a threat to itself.

            Even the guy from Hippo had something to say about the foolishness of a literal genesis.

    • entech says:

      It is mainly the young earth mob that deny evolution, the fragile ego that goes with that belief system cannot accept that the universe is special with an exceptionally special place for them, that it was not created especially with them in mind. Get over it, the universe is big and awesome and we are so lucky to be here at this particular time in its evolution.

      I won’t give you science sites but a creationist site, one in touch with reality, still wrong on many things but if you look at the young earth viewpoint that is so far from reality that it is not even wrong,.

      http://www.oldearth.org/transitional_fossils.htm

      • Michael Ross says:

        Any form of theistic evolution is as unscientific and unbiblical as atheistic evolution. This site is a compromise of those who reject the biblical account. Theistic evolution would require millions of years of mindless evolution, evolutionary dead ends, and untold suffering and death in the animal kingdom. The Bible says sin and death entered the world through one man, Adam. It was not part of God’s original creation.

        • entech says:

          The Bible is simply a collection of words from very long ago. Not inspired or revealed and in many (possibly most) things not even true.

    • tom says:

      Do you have any references more recent than almost 40 years ago?

  11. Brad says:

    Is there some point at which facts will no longer matter at all? If a religion comes out and declares that 1 + 1 = 3, will we then have alternate teachings of math, the religious version and the real version?

    • Wolfy32 says:

      I’ve had a calculus teacher perform a mathematical proof that 1+1 2.

      Anything can be proved using math. :) possibly that 1+1 = 3!!!

      • entech says:

        I suppose that could be true if you made 1 big enough. :idea:

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        It’s been done. Stephen Hawking, physicist, (mathematician) has concluded that everything indeed did come from nothing.

        • entech says:

          God may move in mysterious ways, but science can create mysterious paradoxes too. Laurence Krause would have it that nothing is not really nothing at all. That nothing, without form and void, has something in it that can pop into existence from this not nothing. In fact it happens all the time it is just that something starts to collapse back into nothing as soon as something comes from nothing. Getting late here so perhaps I am already asleep and dreaming this stuff :roll:

          The thing is that something does not always collapse back to nothing, sometimes something stays around and becomes a universe – the question is what causes it to stay around. Could it be God or perhaps the God Particle? The Higgs boson got to be called the God Particle because it was invisible elusive and so hard to find ( actually the original was supposed to be the god damned particle for it being so elusive etc. but the publishers did not think it suitable for an American publication). :razz:
          The theory is that when a potential universe pops into existence from the nothing that is not really nothing everything has no mass and is moving at the speed of light and so nothing has the chance to coalesce into particles and atoms etc. so it just fades back to nothing. Occasionally the Higgs will live a little longer than usual and cause some of the stuff to form particles and give them mass. The question now resolves to why does the Higgs live long enough to give mass but not always, again could it be God – is it really the God particle.

          It is all getting to complicated and paradoxical for poor little me, perhaps I better join the cretinists and have a nice simple it all happened in seven days from ‘nothing’, and it was all created just for me – nothing left to chance at all. :twisted:

        • entech says:

          The smiley and the rolling eyes were supposed to indicate that I was not proposing a serious interpretation of an idea in cosmology.

          The ear and eyes are intended to be a caricature of mean and evil (you guessed it), a diabolical figure that made me compare my little bit of fun foolishness to the actual foolishness of young earth creation.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Funny, I got the impression the red eyes and “ears” was a caricature of hatered towards anyone who disagrees with you.

          • entech says:

            You should stop reading Henry’s posts, he twists everything as well.

            I don’t hate anyone, I enjoy disagreement, if I didn’t I could just talk to myself.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I haven’t considered Henry. Nor have I twisted. Your icons are easily understood to be so. You of so many words shouldn’t need to use questionable symbols.

          • entech says:

            :evil:
            As our Chinese friends would say a picture paints a thousand words.

            Isn’t envy one of the sins, you who has to spell out ‘smiley face’ :mrgreen:

            Jest kidding, but I really do think we should have an agreed icon for sarcasm.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            A thousand words in Chinese would mean nothing to me. How about the word; “sarcasm”. Works for me.
            Smirking face.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            No red eyes, or ears/horns either.

  12. David says:

    Doesn’t seem to be much free thinking here. We are seeing plenty of things taught in school that have little basis. My well intentioned daughter was out cleaning the streets with a broom trying to save the earth the other day. Earth Day is fine but Creationism is bad. What is bad? Prove to me Creationism is bad. Prove to me Earth Day is bad. This really comes down to what a community believes is important. We cannot prove these sorts of things as atheists so often like to challenge. There are only arguments in favor and against.

    I certainly do not agree to teaching my children to recycle. I believe this is a serious misallocation of resources. That said, if the community deems it important than I can choose to move or try to have the policy in the school changed. Or I can simply teach my child my values at home. I accept that my child gets a free education provided by the local community.

    I find it very dogmatic to proclaim what children in a community, say in Kentucky, should be taught. They should be free to think what they like. Having some super group of elite minds determine what should and should not be taught is not free. I didn’t elect Jon Lindgren to determine if my child is to be taught about creationism. I don’t believe in creationism, but if a community deems it important – so be it. That’s their free choice to think freely about creationism. I can choose to send my child to another school or I can accept the communities’ money and disentangle my child’s learning at home. I do it all the time.

    Freedom includes the ability to be wrong. It includes the ability to believe in something. It includes the right to demand proof and not believe. Freedom does not include a group of autocrats declaring what a free people should be allowed to think. I think the ‘freethinkers’ should change their name to ‘dogmatic Liberal atheists’.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      David 5:15 Welcome and thanks for the first time post.

      “It includes the right to demand proof and not believe.”

      I agree with that and with many other things you wrote. That balance between what should be required to be taught in schools and what should be left to a local community is always in a state of some tension–perhaps always should be. That we should “demand proof” is the very reason creativity is not approved as an explanation for the origin of the earth. People have demanded proof (i. e. evidence) and it has been lacking, if not completely absent.

      You might be surprised to learn I was often arguing against educational “requirements” when I was a professor. That was because various disciplines, schools of business in my case, would set up “standards” uor requirements for schools of business to be accredited by an association of business schools. There were other “standards” included in accreditation for universities’ general degrees. I, and others, would often ask for “proof” (evidence) these requirements gave students some measurable benefits. That isn’t to say there should be no requirements, it’s that fads sweep through education and are adopted for a while without much justification.

      Nevertheless, I think your argument that local communities should have free, or freer hand, in determining what local school teach omits the effect on people outside that community. If a local community is dominated by some religious belief that education is harmful to soul and none of the children go just to hear Bible verses repeated, many of those children will end up on our welfare rolls.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        My wife was a social worker. With the rare exception of someone who had a situation out of their controll, virtually every every one of her “clients” never, I repeat never exhibited any faith of any kind. To the contrary, all of them clearly and forcfully exhibited non-faith, and never darkened the door of a church unless they thought a church would give them something. If they didn’t get something, they would go to the next church untill they ran out of churches. Then they would be back at her desk with a “I did all I could, now help me”, with food shelf, fuel assistance, medicaid. Most of them had 911 on speed dial when fights, fires, or abuse happened. They keep the police and jail busy. And it is generational. Education of any kind is not a priority, be it religious or secular.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          When I say religious, the context is foundational Sunday School, and in many churches that is pretty much watered down to the golden rule with butterflies. That’s OK, but shallow, and won’t carry much weight later in life.

      • David says:

        Jon,

        I think this is certainly a philosophical difference. I think freedom allows one to be wrong. We can never really prove anything. Essentially it is all a matter of arguments. I think creationism has weak arguments. Others find them persuasive. One can think of simple geometry as being beyond reproach, but we know from non-Euclidian Geometry that thinking about what we assume to be safe “provable” theorems in a different way actually creates some useful information.

        Also I reject the notion that teaching something like creationism is bad just because I think the weight of evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates it to be false. I think sometimes there is a notion that every child must become a scientist. We would have a dull world were that the case – nothing against scientists. Practically speaking it is not our collective jobs to make sure that children are atheists, Christians, Hindus, environmentalists, Liberals, Conservatives etc. While I may dispute the value of teaching recycling at the local school, a child “indoctrinated” with the notion that recycling is “good” may make great advances pursuing their passion of preserving natural resources. A child that is taught creationism might have their faith strengthened by this “indoctrination” and as a result become a extremely ethical car salesman.

        I think forcing from afar a campaign to rid creationism from schools will do one thing and that is to reinforce it. A local community or parents themselves are much better suited to determine whether a subject is taught. I would be okay with a community deciding to completely eliminate math as a subject from their school. It is their free choice to decide. Not all kids need math. I can attest that many come out of school with poor math skills as if they had not been taught at all. I think it is much more novel than thinking that math must be taught to all and all kids must be proficient in calculus. I trust most people to do the right thing. Some won’t but that’s a part of freedom.

        I also reject the notion that kids not taught in a subject will end up on welfare rolls. That seems to be a stab in the dark trying to appeal to my libertarian sensibilities. For most kids creationism as well as evolution will likely be irrelevant. They will give it scant notice. I do not think education is what keeps people from the welfare rolls. Lots of uneducated people do very well. Some very educated people have a terrible time in life. Attitudes about work and entitlement are far more relevant.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          David 5:44 “I do not think education is what keeps people from the welfare rolls. Lots of uneducated people do very well. Some educated people have a terrible time in life.”

          I can’t disagree with those sentences. I noticed you did not say, “Educated people statistically earn more and are less likely to be unemployed for long periods than less educated.” It used to be the case college graduates statistically did better on all counts than high school grads and high school grads better than non high school grad. I haven’t looked at numbers for a few years, but I’d be surprised if it were not still the case.

          That said, I would agree these good numbers for more educated people are not always what they know, but who they know and what those who hire decide they want to require.

          • David says:

            More importantly I think whether someone learns creationism as a science class probably has very little bearing on their eventual success in the world.

  13. Personally, I’m dead set against teaching religion in schools. I’m also against maintaining “parochial schools” at the taxpayers’ expense. If any religious organization–Catholic, Protestant or Jewish–wants to get involved in the education of children, they should do so from their own resources and from tuition fees. I’d wager to say that the current enthusiasm for parochial schools in Hungary would wane if parents had to pay for the privilege of sending their children there. I am also a great believer in secular education. If parents want to bring up their children according to the precepts of one of the organized religions they can do so in the parish to which they belong.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Paulette; Like you, I’m against teaching religion in schools, (I assume you mean public schools). All of the parochial schools I am familiar with are not funded by “taxpayers expense”. But are funded partly by churches, private grants, endowments, and the remainder by parents tuition. Not familiar with Hungary. Nor am I fond of or approving of home schooling, except for a situation of “special needs”. Re. “If parents want to bring up their children according to the precepts of one of the organized religions they can do so in the parish to which they belong”. (In addition to secular school). As for me and mine; we can, and we do. It’s called Catechism. After that, growing in the faith and understanding is a life long proposition. No one “graduates” from catechesis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>