Conservapedia

[natty dread]

Okay, so again, what's the big deal? Humor me. Child X is taught creationism and that evolution is scary liberal propaganda. What happens to Child X? What happens to society?

So you think it's of no consequence that people are given misinformation and they willl live their lives, make decisions etc. based on that misinformation?

If enough people believe in misinformation, that misinformation has a political influence. How would you feel if 90% of your country believed all the stuff in Conservapedia to be true?

[Doc_Brown]

B. You generally have to PAY for those jackass's education. A lot are now using cyberschooling. Cyberschools bill the district not based on their own costs, but a rate based on the cost of educating that student in the home district. Special education kids get a much higher rate. BUT.. worse yet, the home district is held responsible if the student is found truant. The home public school district, however, has no say in the quality of the education. They are held responsible, but are constrained from really taking responsibility.

This is incorrect. Online schools charge fees directly to the parents (I was homeschooled growing up, and I was a private school teacher a couple years ago where a number of the kids were required to take online classes during the summer if they failed to complete their work in certain core classes during the school year). There may be publicly-funded online classes in certain states, but those are always subject to state education requirements.

[Phatscotty]

Okay, so again, what's the big deal? Humor me. Child X is taught creationism and that evolution is scary liberal propaganda. What happens to Child X? What happens to society?

So you think it's of no consequence that people are given misinformation and they willl live their lives, make decisions etc. based on that misinformation?

If enough people believe in misinformation, that misinformation has a political influence. How would you feel if 90% of your country believed all the stuff in Conservapedia to be true?

I think people should try to stop thinking they know everything, and certainly stop bashing people based on it

To each their own, and what people believe is nobody elses business

[jonesthecurl]

I thought we were talking about evolution vs. creationism.

I thought we were talking about the guy using Conservapedia as one of his reference sources for homeschooling kids.

In that case one of you is lacking an active knowledge base.

[Doc_Brown]

Okay, so again, what's the big deal? Humor me. Child X is taught creationism and that evolution is scary liberal propaganda. What happens to Child X? What happens to society?

So you think it's of no consequence that people are given misinformation and they willl live their lives, make decisions etc. based on that misinformation?

If enough people believe in misinformation, that misinformation has a political influence. How would you feel if 90% of your country believed all the stuff in Conservapedia to be true?

I grew up in a conservative religious homeschool environment. Most of the stuff I grew up learning wasn't anywhere close to being as crazy as that site, but some might consider it to be so. People's perception of what types of teaching are acceptable vs. detrimental are quite varied. It's really a continuum of ideas and interpretations, in part because our perceptions cloud our interpretations of facts, and our perceptions are based on our worldviews and beliefs. But that's a whole other discussion.

Back on topic, I was taught (not necessarily all by my parents) creationism, that liberals were communists bent on destroying the religious foundations of our country, that rock music was of the devil, and so on (okay, so they were right on the second one... ). Yet I went on to graduate Suma Cum Laude from a state university with a degree in physics and math (also honored as the top College of Science student in my year) and later earned a PhD in Optics. I'm more of a libertarian now (a lot of my friends would probably call me a moderate in some areas), and I often have an easier time conversing with people on the left then those on the right, but maybe it's just that the lefties I get a chance to talk to are pretty open-minded and willing to discuss things from a rational point of view (which by no means is a good description of a majority of folks from either side, even as it relates to internet forums such as this one) while a lot of my right-wing friends happen to be the more dogmatic mind-numbing types for whatever reason.

I think I'm drifting off-topic again. People will form their own ideas. Reading goofball things like is present in Conservapedia, even when it's being taught as fact by some misinformed teacher isn't going to destroy people and will certainly not be the downfall of our country. I think an argument could be made that a much more dangerous teaching is one that tells people that the job of government is to take care of them or that it's unfair that some people make much more than others. The conservapedia crap just fills heads with falsehoods and possibly some religious dogmatism. The second set of teachings encourage dependency and class warfare while depressing a sense of self-reliance and responsibility.

I'm not trying to start a whole new debate here. I'm just illustrating the flip side of this discussion.

[Woodruff]

Okay, so again, what's the big deal? Humor me. Child X is taught creationism and that evolution is scary liberal propaganda. What happens to Child X? What happens to society?

So you think it's of no consequence that people are given misinformation and they willl live their lives, make decisions etc. based on that misinformation?

If enough people believe in misinformation, that misinformation has a political influence. How would you feel if 90% of your country believed all the stuff in Conservapedia to be true?

I think people should try to stop thinking they know everything, and certainly stop bashing people based on it
To each their own, and what people believe is nobody elses business

Says the guy that wants to drug test people for no reason other than that they are poor.

[Woodruff]

I thought we were talking about evolution vs. creationism.

I thought we were talking about the guy using Conservapedia as one of his reference sources for homeschooling kids.

In that case one of you is lacking an active knowledge base.

Or not effectively dealing with each other.

[Woodruff]

Okay, so again, what's the big deal? Humor me. Child X is taught creationism and that evolution is scary liberal propaganda. What happens to Child X? What happens to society?

So you think it's of no consequence that people are given misinformation and they willl live their lives, make decisions etc. based on that misinformation?

If enough people believe in misinformation, that misinformation has a political influence. How would you feel if 90% of your country believed all the stuff in Conservapedia to be true?

I grew up in a conservative religious homeschool environment. Most of the stuff I grew up learning wasn't anywhere close to being as crazy as that site, but some might consider it to be so. People's perception of what types of teaching are acceptable vs. detrimental are quite varied. It's really a continuum of ideas and interpretations, in part because our perceptions cloud our interpretations of facts, and our perceptions are based on our worldviews and beliefs. But that's a whole other discussion.

Back on topic, I was taught (not necessarily all by my parents) creationism, that liberals were communists bent on destroying the religious foundations of our country, that rock music was of the devil, and so on (okay, so they were right on the second one... ). Yet I went on to graduate Suma Cum Laude from a state university with a degree in physics and math (also honored as the top College of Science student in my year) and later earned a PhD in Optics. I'm more of a libertarian now (a lot of my friends would probably call me a moderate in some areas), and I often have an easier time conversing with people on the left then those on the right, but maybe it's just that the lefties I get a chance to talk to are pretty open-minded and willing to discuss things from a rational point of view (which by no means is a good description of a majority of folks from either side, even as it relates to internet forums such as this one) while a lot of my right-wing friends happen to be the more dogmatic mind-numbing types for whatever reason.

I think I'm drifting off-topic again. People will form their own ideas. Reading goofball things like is present in Conservapedia, even when it's being taught as fact by some misinformed teacher isn't going to destroy people and will certainly not be the downfall of our country. I think an argument could be made that a much more dangerous teaching is one that tells people that the job of government is to take care of them or that it's unfair that some people make much more than others. The conservapedia crap just fills heads with falsehoods and possibly some religious dogmatism. The second set of teachings encourage dependency and class warfare while depressing a sense of self-reliance and responsibility.

I'm not trying to start a whole new debate here. I'm just illustrating the flip side of this discussion.

So what I'm hearing from yourself, Phatscotty and thegreekdog here is...it makes no difference at all what is taught in school. Do I have that right?

[Doc_Brown]

So what I'm hearing from yourself, Phatscotty and thegreekdog here is...it makes no difference at all what is taught in school. Do I have that right?

No, what you're hearing is that things like this don't amount to much, that a person's education is much more than one jackass teacher (even if said jackass is one's parent), and that there are much bigger concerns than this.

[Woodruff]

So what I'm hearing from yourself, Phatscotty and thegreekdog here is...it makes no difference at all what is taught in school. Do I have that right?

No, what you're hearing is that things like this don't amount to much, that a person's education is much more than one jackass teacher (even if said jackass is one's parent), and that there are much bigger concerns than this.

Certainly, there are much bigger concerns than this...no question at all. But if it doesn't matter what a homeschooled kid learns from his only teacher, then why does it matter what a public school kid learns from the teacher in conglomeration? Why the distinction?

[Phatscotty]

Okay, so again, what's the big deal? Humor me. Child X is taught creationism and that evolution is scary liberal propaganda. What happens to Child X? What happens to society?

So you think it's of no consequence that people are given misinformation and they willl live their lives, make decisions etc. based on that misinformation?

If enough people believe in misinformation, that misinformation has a political influence. How would you feel if 90% of your country believed all the stuff in Conservapedia to be true?

I grew up in a conservative religious homeschool environment. Most of the stuff I grew up learning wasn't anywhere close to being as crazy as that site, but some might consider it to be so. People's perception of what types of teaching are acceptable vs. detrimental are quite varied. It's really a continuum of ideas and interpretations, in part because our perceptions cloud our interpretations of facts, and our perceptions are based on our worldviews and beliefs. But that's a whole other discussion.

Back on topic, I was taught (not necessarily all by my parents) creationism, that liberals were communists bent on destroying the religious foundations of our country, that rock music was of the devil, and so on (okay, so they were right on the second one... ). Yet I went on to graduate Suma Cum Laude from a state university with a degree in physics and math (also honored as the top College of Science student in my year) and later earned a PhD in Optics. I'm more of a libertarian now (a lot of my friends would probably call me a moderate in some areas), and I often have an easier time conversing with people on the left then those on the right, but maybe it's just that the lefties I get a chance to talk to are pretty open-minded and willing to discuss things from a rational point of view (which by no means is a good description of a majority of folks from either side, even as it relates to internet forums such as this one) while a lot of my right-wing friends happen to be the more dogmatic mind-numbing types for whatever reason.

I think I'm drifting off-topic again. People will form their own ideas. Reading goofball things like is present in Conservapedia, even when it's being taught as fact by some misinformed teacher isn't going to destroy people and will certainly not be the downfall of our country. I think an argument could be made that a much more dangerous teaching is one that tells people that the job of government is to take care of them or that it's unfair that some people make much more than others. The conservapedia crap just fills heads with falsehoods and possibly some religious dogmatism. The second set of teachings encourage dependency and class warfare while depressing a sense of self-reliance and responsibility.

I'm not trying to start a whole new debate here. I'm just illustrating the flip side of this discussion.

This is just a bash thread for people to express their bigotry, and laugh at a bunch of Conservative stuff and stroke their own ego's about how smart they are and how dumb Conservatives are. No worries

[Woodruff]

This is just a bash thread for people to express their bigotry, and laugh at a bunch of Conservative stuff and stroke their own ego's about how smart they are and how dumb Conservatives are. No worries

It is no such thing, Phatscotty. Do you feel picked on because Conservapedia is your primary reference source or something?

[Maugena]

The scariest thing about Conservapedia is that some people actually let their children to be taught by the guy behind that site.

Yes, he's a homeschool teacher who teaches other people's kids. Using conservapedia as teaching material.

How the f*ck is that even allowed... I thought raving lunatics weren't allowed to be school teachers in most civilized countries...

Again, the question is who cares. I figure it like this: if some jackass was homeschooled into believing something that isn't true at the expense of something that is true, that person will do poorly in college or university and will thus be less prepared than me (or someone that was educated correctly). Thus, that person will not be able to compete with me (or the better educated person) for good jobs. They are not receiving the best tools to succeed in life. That's fine with me.

It's like the guy who wants to be an accountant, but refuses to use a calculator, prefering to use an abacus instead. Go ahead dude.

I care.
Despite having no faith in humanity, what-so-ever, it's for the benefit of all to have a proper education.
Sure, a select few may benefit by the ignorance of many, but that road, if you will, is dangerous and may be the causation of a system's own demise if little or no action is taken for improvement. (Call it ignorance left unchecked.)

I tend to think that there may be an actually conspiracy in which the elites perpetuate their supremacy over the general population by not providing the same top-notch education system-wide. I do understand the argument for motivation regarding pursuing an education and actually achieving success, but, at the very least, I think the standards could be exceptionally higher.

[Symmetry]

For what it's worth, the guy in charge of Conservapedia is the son of Phyllis Schafly, recently inserted into the Texan school system's US history curriculum, at the expense of Thomas Jefferson.

[thegreekdog]

So what I'm hearing from yourself, Phatscotty and thegreekdog here is...it makes no difference at all what is taught in school. Do I have that right?

No, what you're hearing is that things like this don't amount to much, that a person's education is much more than one jackass teacher (even if said jackass is one's parent), and that there are much bigger concerns than this.

Certainly, there are much bigger concerns than this...no question at all. But if it doesn't matter what a homeschooled kid learns from his only teacher, then why does it matter what a public school kid learns from the teacher in conglomeration? Why the distinction?

There are a couple of reasons to make a distinction (that I can think of right now at 7:04 AM eastern standard time):

(1) There are a whole lot more people getting publicly educated than home schooled.
(2) There are studies showing that home schooled children are more prepared for the rigors of college and work life than publicly educated children (yes, I will find the studies), regardless of whether they learn about evolution or creationism.

Again, the question here is whether indocrination into conservative doctrine or creationism harms the child. I don't see a whole lot of evidence for this other than the "Well, he/she is not learning the real stuff."

[thegreekdog]

Okay, so again, what's the big deal? Humor me. Child X is taught creationism and that evolution is scary liberal propaganda. What happens to Child X? What happens to society?

So you think it's of no consequence that people are given misinformation and they willl live their lives, make decisions etc. based on that misinformation?

If enough people believe in misinformation, that misinformation has a political influence. How would you feel if 90% of your country believed all the stuff in Conservapedia to be true?

What decisions are you making on a daily basis because you were taught evolution?

[jonesthecurl]

What decisions are you amking on a daily basis because you learnt about WWII? Or Geometry? Or That the sun doesn't go round the Earth?

[thegreekdog]

What decisions are you amking on a daily basis because you learnt about WWII? Or Geometry? Or That the sun doesn't go round the Earth?

None.

Do I feel sorry for children that are not taught evolution or are not taught about World War II or who aren't required to read Charles Dickens? Yes (except for Dickens). Do I think they are receiving a less than stellar education? Yes. Do I think they won't succeed in life because of it? Of course not. They can absolutely succeed in life and often do.

The question I've been driving at is how much time and effort should I put into a child being homeschooled and brainwashed into believing in creationism or that the president is a Muslim or whatever, when there are much more important schooling matters happening in two cities right near where I live (Philadelphia and Camden) where children not only don't get a good education (although I suspect they learn evolution) but where they have a very low chance of succeeding in the real world.

[PLAYER57832]

Okay, so again, what's the big deal? Humor me. Child X is taught creationism and that evolution is scary liberal propaganda. What happens to Child X? What happens to society?

So you think it's of no consequence that people are given misinformation and they willl live their lives, make decisions etc. based on that misinformation?

If enough people believe in misinformation, that misinformation has a political influence. How would you feel if 90% of your country believed all the stuff in Conservapedia to be true?

I grew up in a conservative religious homeschool environment. Most of the stuff I grew up learning wasn't anywhere close to being as crazy as that site, but some might consider it to be so. People's perception of what types of teaching are acceptable vs. detrimental are quite varied. It's really a continuum of ideas and interpretations, in part because our perceptions cloud our interpretations of facts, and our perceptions are based on our worldviews and beliefs. But that's a whole other discussion.

Back on topic, I was taught (not necessarily all by my parents) creationism, that liberals were communists bent on destroying the religious foundations of our country, that rock music was of the devil, and so on (okay, so they were right on the second one... ). Yet I went on to graduate Suma Cum Laude from a state university with a degree in physics and math (also honored as the top College of Science student in my year) and later earned a PhD in Optics. I'm more of a libertarian now (a lot of my friends would probably call me a moderate in some areas), and I often have an easier time conversing with people on the left then those on the right, but maybe it's just that the lefties I get a chance to talk to are pretty open-minded and willing to discuss things from a rational point of view (which by no means is a good description of a majority of folks from either side, even as it relates to internet forums such as this one) while a lot of my right-wing friends happen to be the more dogmatic mind-numbing types for whatever reason.

I think I'm drifting off-topic again. People will form their own ideas. Reading goofball things like is present in Conservapedia, even when it's being taught as fact by some misinformed teacher isn't going to destroy people and will certainly not be the downfall of our country. I think an argument could be made that a much more dangerous teaching is one that tells people that the job of government is to take care of them or that it's unfair that some people make much more than others. The conservapedia crap just fills heads with falsehoods and possibly some religious dogmatism. The second set of teachings encourage dependency and class warfare while depressing a sense of self-reliance and responsibility.

I'm not trying to start a whole new debate here. I'm just illustrating the flip side of this discussion.

Not really "your side", more like verifying the problem.

If ALL you are concerned about is getting a decent job, then sure. Home-schooling is fine. But if you are interested in a generation of kids who actually understand a bit about how the world works and who therefore are able to make decent decisions, then its a big "no". Sorry, but there it is.

The problem with a so-called religious based education such as home-schooling is supposed to provide is that it fundamentally teaches kids NOT to question, NOT to examine a whole realm of things. You don't know what you missed, becuase, plain and simply .. you missed it.

Science is not about Evolution, knowing that the Earth's Climate is changing, that vaccines work, that AIDS is passed by a virus and not drug use or other behaviors, is not based on any of the other supposedly controversial subjects religiously based creationist home-schooling families often actively seek to avoid (with the caveat that home-schooling is extremely varied). Science is about distinguishing truth from fiction, FACTS from theories and plain untruths.

If you disagree with something in science, there is a specific framework/process you need to follow. You come up wiht your own ideas, and look at the evidence. You don't just say "hey, I think you are wrong..... so I will ignore everything you say". You find WHY the evidence they present is wrong, you find true alternate evidence. Creationists never do that. They, instead take small portions of truth and distort it. They flat out lie, though sometimes by presenting part of the truth. For example, they may claim that any pattern "disproves" the idea of randomness in evolution... ignoring that mathematical randomness is not any real and true part of evolution. That is, biologists refer to "random" events in two ways. In sampling regimes, etc they do use true randomness -- as much as anyone can, at least (there is no perfect algorythm for randomness, of course). HOWEVER, when referring more generally to things like what brought life on Earth where we are, the term "random" is more of a short-jhand for "all sorts of processes, many of which we cannot identify, never mind quantify". If you think of the mathematical algorythm and what happens when you have more than just a few variables, then you begin to understand that to actually truly quantify anything biological in a mathematical way is very difficult. (Chaos math gets close in some cases, though). As knowledge grows, or as references are more specific, you see that term used less and less. In casual talk, you may hear about "random mutations", but amongst genetecists, they will refer to certain drifts, factors that influence.

BUT.. and this is very key, to get kids to think that fossils don't really represent the record of life that they do represent, requires that you give them a different set of "facts". You have to teach kids that scientists are basically a bunch of liars, who instead of looking at things objectively and openly, as IS the truth, (with room for human fallibility, of course, but that is where proper procedures, peer review, etc come into play), you teach them that there is this big conspiracy to defeat religion and destroy real truth.

WHY? Why is this happening? We have seen what happens all too often when religion is put in the fore. It never fails that some human being gets into power and turns that "thou shalt not question God" or "thou shalt not reject the church" becomes "though shalt not question MY Ideas of what God says".. and that is a very, very VERY different tale indeed! Just look at what is happening, right now, in the Roman Catholic Church. A whole order of nuns, well respected, very faith-based, is being reprimanded for "not following the dictates" of the church.. make that "not following the dictates of men who have spent their lives mostly emersed with other men and never really going outside to talk to real people".. and you get closer to the truth. I believe in God, I believe in the Bible, but I do NOT believe in the infallibility of ANY human to pass on God's words without fail today. Even the great leaders of the Bible all had points of great failures.

Science stands apart. It is not based on any human opinion or beliefs at its fundament. Science is based on the idea that yes, people can absolutely be wrong, but if you follow these procedures, this methodology, then we move closer and closer to truth. It ALSO is built upon the understanding that there are always questions out there that cannot be answered by science, that likely never WILL be truly answered.

Ironically, for all their harping on the "evils of evolutionary theory", the real truth is that scientists are very unsure about the basic origin of life and, even when they understand WHAT happened, the results, they do not understand the very fundamentals of "why". They know that some genes survive over others, that some characteristics might have allowed x species to survive, but that is seen looking back. They cannot really look at any species today and truly know what characteristics will allow that species to survive in the future. Folks try, particularly in agriculture. But that is a very narrow and focused effort. Ultimately, saying "God did it" really IS as good an answer as any other, as long as you don't insist that God means "no logical explanation is possible". (which, sadly, a lot on both sides do). God is not anti-science. The processes that Scientists study were laid out by God.

BUT... unless you have even the basic knowledge of science and its real workings.. not a bunch of memorized facts and ideas, then you don't get most of that. You can readily believe that science is a big conspiracy against the church or just that science got a lot of things very wrong. The biggest irony is that yes, scientists have and do often get things wrong, but they get them wrong in specific ways that are corrected within the bounds of science when it is used correctly. Subverting that process, those processes just leaves people without a foundation and therefore open to any ideas that some wacko wants to insert... and insert they absolutely have.

[PLAYER57832]

Okay, so again, what's the big deal? Humor me. Child X is taught creationism and that evolution is scary liberal propaganda. What happens to Child X? What happens to society?

So you think it's of no consequence that people are given misinformation and they willl live their lives, make decisions etc. based on that misinformation?

If enough people believe in misinformation, that misinformation has a political influence. How would you feel if 90% of your country believed all the stuff in Conservapedia to be true?

What decisions are you making on a daily basis because you were taught evolution?

Its not JUST evolution, that's the problem. Its that in order to say that the Earth was created in 6000 years .. or 200K, whatever, means distrusting almost everything that science has discovered in the past century. It means that you, fundamentally distrust science and scientists.. not as in "any scientist can be wrong/misguided/make errors", but as in "why should I even bother to pay attention.. they are all just biased" or, "(insert tone of dripping disdain) Oh, I see.. the experts say that".


What decisions are made every day?

Among the keys are simply deciding that big business tends to know what is best, tends to drive society in beneficial directions and that any harm they create can just be fixed... later, when the economy is better. AND, deciding that everyday decisions as wide rangins as what basic medicines you take on a daily basis and how you dispose of them and even what happens to the excess in your urine/feces, that the chemicals you use every day -- none of those are really big deals. "Someone" "out there" is looking over it all and eventually it will all just "fix itself". The decision that we are just paying too much in taxes, so why not just cut out parks, cut out all this environmental enforcement (mostly gets in the way of business), these are luxuries we cannot afford in a bad economy.

There is, in short a basic lack of understanding that everything we do truly does impact the world around, that everyone has the ability to make decisions that will make life better or worse for future generations, and that if you ignore science, you ignore a big part of what you need to make those decisions.

[PLAYER57832]

What decisions are you amking on a daily basis because you learnt about WWII? Or Geometry? Or That the sun doesn't go round the Earth?

They can absolutely succeed in life and often do.

People succeeded in life quite well even while all life in big portions of the rivers were being killed off, hundreds were being poisoned with chemicals and dangerous working conditions.


In fact, those things are happening right now, today. But hey, who cares to what happens to someone if its not your own child.
Your child may not suffer because there are no passenger pigeons. Your child may not suffer because a dam blocked the habitat of some obscure darter. Your child like won't come to immediate harm because we are no longer sending rockets to the moon.

But, your child's life will be a lot harder than yours because we no longer have access to abundantly cheap gasoline or even coal or natural gas. Your child's life will be impacted because water is about to become the new scarce resource.. many aquifers are being drained so that huge communities and vast areas of irrigated agricultural land will be dry. Your child's life will be seriously impacted because so many antibiotics have been spread and used, including in our food supply, that many diseases will no longer have treatments. Your child's life will be impacted because we have allowed subdivisions to be built up on prime agricultural land and so more and more food has to be imported. Your child's life will be impacted because the basic systems that give us our clean air, that make the ocean currents run the way they do, and that fundamentally cleans the water in streams have all been disrupted, are being disrupted fundamentally even more.

I could go on ... and on... but the truth is, without a basic understanding that scientists provide a process to get all these answers, to provide real truth.. then you will just dismiss it all as more liberal poppycock.

[PLAYER57832]

So what I'm hearing from yourself, Phatscotty and thegreekdog here is...it makes no difference at all what is taught in school. Do I have that right?

No, what you're hearing is that things like this don't amount to much, that a person's education is much more than one jackass teacher (even if said jackass is one's parent), and that there are much bigger concerns than this.

Certainly, there are much bigger concerns than this...no question at all. But if it doesn't matter what a homeschooled kid learns from his only teacher, then why does it matter what a public school kid learns from the teacher in conglomeration? Why the distinction?

There are a couple of reasons to make a distinction (that I can think of right now at 7:04 AM eastern standard time):

(1) There are a whole lot more people getting publicly educated than home schooled.
(2) There are studies showing that home schooled children are more prepared for the rigors of college and work life than publicly educated children (yes, I will find the studies), regardless of whether they learn about evolution or creationism.

Again, the question here is whether indocrination into conservative doctrine or creationism harms the child. I don't see a whole lot of evidence for this other than the "Well, he/she is not learning the real stuff."

First, it is hard to make broad assertions about home-schooling because they fundamentally vary so much. Home schoolers can have a lot of advantages, not the least of which is that they have teachers who fundamentally care a great deal about them and who are generally highly motivated to try and do well. That, alone provides for a great deal of success, particularly in the early years.

BUT... you continue to just look at "college" and "jobs" as if they were all equal, as if the kind of jobs or college education doesn't matter. I understand that we need attorneys. I also understand that unless we all have some basic understanding of the law, we are lost. Maybe its just as basic as knowing "hey, if there is a sign with a speed limit and I go beyond that, I might get a ticket.. endanger myself and others if conditions are less than perfect, etc.". Or maybe its knowing "if I have a problem with my neighbor, I go to xyz, if I have a problem with social security, I go to edf, if I have a problem with ..., etc". If hte ONLY people who understood the basics of law were attorneys, would we all still be able to go out and get jobs? Absolutely! Would we also be rife for disaster? Yes! Maybe you are content to let attorneys be the only ones who even begin to understand the law, but I am not. I don't expect to have their knowledge.. part of knowing about law is recognizing when I need to consult an attorney for help.

In science, it is similar. But, by setting up the paradigm that scientists are fundamentally wrong and biased against Christianity, they set up a system whereby conservative talk hosts can bring in all kinds of "experts" who promote the idea that range from AIDS is not passed on by a virus, to anyone talking about climate change is just trying to impede big business and ignoring God, to Obama was not born in the US and is subverting Christianity. (and I am very serious about EACH of those things!).

People who truly think like that get to vote. They get to have a say in what the local school board does, even if their kids don't attend school. (More and more, they may well be ON that school board!)

And yes, your taxes pay for it all!

[huamulan]

People who truly think like that get to vote.

That's how democracy works. People are allowed to vote whether or not their views are the same as yours.

[PLAYER57832]

People who truly think like that get to vote.

That's how democracy works. People are allowed to vote whether or not their views are the same as yours.

Yes, which is why real education is fundamental to functioning democracy.

Else, what you get, in time, is dictating by manipulating the truth available.

[Doc_Brown]

Player,
I'm not going to respond point by point to your last several posts except to say that a completely accurate response to all of it is "Bullshit." There's a reason I posted the personal details a few posts back. I am a scientist through and through. I've been recognized as a good one by two different public universities, and my doctoral committee members really wanted me to stay in academia and find a professorship position. Sorry. That doesn't happen if I lie about results, refuse to acknowledge facts, or fail to think for myself.

Greekdog was completely right in his post. Homeschooled students, in general, have been shown time and again to be better prepared for college, better able to think for themselves, and more capable of fully and honestly analyzing arguments.

It's also a misnomer to claim that the parents are the only source of information. BS. Homeschoolers use published curricula. Information comes from books. Most homeschoolers use a mixture of secular and religious curricula. Let me ask this: How many public school students actually read "Origin of the Species" in biology? How many read the works of the Greek mathematicians as part of their math curriculum? How many write essays comparing "The Wealth of Nations" to "Das Kapital" in history? How many read and contrast the Federalist Papers with the Antifederalist Papers? (What fraction of public school students could actually identify all of those works?) None of these are atypical for homeschoolers, and I contend that the students that are reading and analyzing these types of works are the ones that are best able to break down arguments and think clearly and honestly about the world around them.