21
   

Miss USA delegates on evolution in schools

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2011 01:20 pm
@Setanta,
I don't have any idea about that.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2011 01:23 pm
@Arella Mae,
Well, neither do i . . . however, given that those are both premiere science education centers, i would suspect that few, if any, of them do. By making a choice such as that for their children, the parents are willfully limiting their chances in the future.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2011 01:31 pm
@Setanta,
I've been looking at some statistics about homeschooling since you asked that. It seems those homeschooled actually do better on SATS, etc. Haven't seen anything about MIT yet. I'll see if I can find something more updated. Here is one site:

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp

Quote:
I. Independent Evaluations of Homeschooling

1. In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored between 86th and 92nd percentile. i


0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2011 01:39 pm
Here is something on how they do in college but I haven't seen a thing about MIT yet.

http://www.brighthub.com/education/homeschooling/articles/87123.aspx

Quote:
How Do Homeschool Students Do At College?

A recent study published in July 2010, by Dr. Michael Cogan, studied homeschool students at one Mid-west college. While this small study won't have the reaching impact as a larger study, here are his findings.

•The homeschool students had a slightly higher retention rate, 88.6% compared to the counterpart at 87.6%.

•There was a higher graduation rate from homeschooled students (66.7% compared to the counterpart at 57.5%).

•The homeschooled students came in with a higher ACT score (25.0 compared to 14.7).

•Slightly higher Grade Point Averages were held through-out the college years by the homeschooled students. (Fourth year previosuly homeschooled college students had a 3.46 average compared to the previously traditionally schooled students at 3.16).


parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2011 01:43 pm
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:

Lots of kids are home-schooled.


And the vast majority are NOT.
This is why the state has a responsibility to educate those children and to educate them based on science.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2011 01:54 pm
@Arella Mae,
Your study claims that 94% of respondants said that they had the same religious views as their parents. If their parents hew to the biblical line, then it's a lead pipe cinch these folks were not in scientific fields--which was my point.

I also find their claims to be dubious because they are vague. Why did they not name the institution from which they selected their survey respondants?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2011 02:00 pm
@Setanta,
One obviously doesn't have to attend either of those two schools to do well in the sciences.

Look, was that a red herring or just a sardine in mustard sauce?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2011 02:07 pm
@Arella Mae,
I've seen similar studies that suggest that home schooled kids do better in a lot of ways. It's certainly not unreasonable to think that they wouldn't. Students often excel with more individual attention. Often home schooled kids lessons are then reinforced/made real by daily activities and chores.

There's a lot of crap in school just to help fill up the required number of baby sitting hours.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2011 02:08 pm
I was only sharing what I had found thus far. I didn't make any claims about the information.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2011 03:56 pm
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:

Those are the only two that I can think of. I'm a Christian. I believe in creationism. Evolution conflicts with my beliefs.
Thanks. That answers my question.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 09:19 pm
@hingehead,
This is terrifying. Especially to me as a man who always defended attractive women against the stereotype that they're stupid.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 09:37 pm
@Thomas,
There's always Miss Vermont . . .
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 10:20 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
What's lacking in these ladies (kids) is that they don't know the difference in science and theology.

I think the root problem is that each of those ladies would lose the competition by giving the correct answer: Evolution is the only game in town, and creationism is a pious fraud. This answer, though true, sounds unladylike. And this competition is all about being ladylike.
Thomas
 
  6  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 10:32 pm
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:
Evolution is still called a theory, isn't it?

Biological evolution is a historical fact, established beyond all reasonable doubt by tons of genetic, geological, and geographical evidence. Darwinism is a theory of how evolution works. There is an exact analogy between evolution and gravity: Gravity is a fact. Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity explain how it works. It's simply ignorant to suggest that either Newton or Einstein or Darwin were promulgating vague hunches just because their works are called "theories".

Arella Mae wrote:
Math is fact so I don't think you can equate them.

Ironically, it's not. Math starts from axioms that are true by fiat, and every other theorem is logically deduced from those axioms. There is no requirement in math that axioms are true as a matter of empirical fact. Math is pure theory.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 10:44 pm
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:
AsI said, it is MERELY my opinion that some things should be left up to the parents as to whether they want their child taught that or not. I don't have anything else to about the issue.

Why? Why is it your opinion that parents should have the option to defraud their children by having them taught creationism? Why is it your opinion that schools should be at those parents' mercy when all teachers do is tell the truth?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 10:52 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
There's always Miss Vermont . . .

Go Vermont!
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 04:03 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
What's lacking in these ladies (kids) is that they don't know the difference in science and theology.

I think the root problem is that each of those ladies would lose the competition by giving the correct answer: Evolution is the only game in town, and creationism is a pious fraud. This answer, though true, sounds unladylike. And this competition is all about being ladylike.

I think that implies unflattering things about what it is to be Ladylike.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 04:05 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Thomas wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
What's lacking in these ladies (kids) is that they don't know the difference in science and theology.
I think the root problem is that each of those ladies would lose the competition by giving the correct answer: Evolution is the only game in town, and creationism is a pious fraud. This answer, though true, sounds unladylike. And this competition is all about being ladylike.
I think that implies unflattering things about what it is to be Ladylike.


I think it gives them credit for a possible intelligence and knowledge there is no evidence they possess.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 05:51 am
You know I'm beginning to tire of the Evolution/Creation debate mostly because it really ain't no hair off of gawd's ass what you or I believe. It really only matters what we practice and the real consequence of the debate is really the benefit of that practice.

If you practice the wrong tenet, then you should be prepared to pay for your error--I think that was demonstrated Lyschenko. The Soviet Union starved because the practice of Lamarck was politically expedient. The same may happen to the US if the practice of politics trumps the practice of science.

From a personal level I'm too old to care--but these pretty little air heads aren't--if they want to pursue the practice of their beliefs, then they are young enough to pay the consequence of a wrong, and in most cases a politically emotional, practice of that tenet.

Rap
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 06:56 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
I think that implies unflattering things about what it is to be Ladylike.

It does. I think those beauty contests propagate an outdated and unattractive ideal of femininity.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/17/2024 at 07:23:21