Republicanism’s anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future

[Soul Crusher]

Is a state's education of its citizenry the province of the federal gov or the state?

I believe the federal loan program is a resounding success.  How did you pay for your education?

Why do you think that spending on education is 'throwing money' at a problem?  Isn't your statement a non-analytical prejudice?

Do we throw money at crime only to see that we still have crimes committed?  We're we throwing money at the Iraq rebuilding process (trick question b/c the answer here is yes...it's gotta be when 9 billion just vanishes).

You liberals are amazing.  Why do you think that the cost of higher education is growing faster than the rate of inflation???

Federal Funding.  I have two relatives that work for a major university and both told me that the tuition is so high, 45k per year, because they know that the students can borrow said amount.  Its insane and there is abolsutely no controlls or incentive for these schools to keep their costs down.

Its a complete rip off.

Were I to do everything again, I would go to community college for two years, transfer the credits over to a four year state school, and then focus on a major and grauduate from the state school.

   

[Dan-O]

Many schools have such huge endowments (Harvard and Yale are >$10B, Princeton's is $8.7B) that they could easily afford FREE tuition, if not very low tuition.  It's bullshit.

[headhuntersix]

I think thats what many kids will do. Why pay 4 years for a piece of paper instead of 2. Colleges never cut prices, tuition has risen 400% since the early 80's.

[Soul Crusher]

I think thats what many kids will do. Why pay 4 years for a piece of paper instead of 2. Colleges never cut prices, tuition has risen 400% since the early 80's.

College has become another liberal welfare mess not subject tot he free market.

If kids were smart they we would go to community college and then transfer to a 4 year public school. 

Private schools charging 40k per year to study women's arts, minority studies, and marxism, are a complete ripoff 

[headhuntersix]

I agree...look at some of the degree's out there, as well as some of the ridiculous classes u can take. I took one weird  class  on science fiction films. It was a seminar class. The Prof had taught a seminar on Shakespeare, which I needed for my major, the previous semester. I did well so I figured I'd take another course with her. But some of the crap out there, golf....gay and lesbian studies...what the hell is that. How does that help the economy, get u a job etc.

[Decker]

You liberals are amazing.  Why do you think that the cost of higher education is growing faster than the rate of inflation???

Federal Funding.  I have two relatives that work for a major university and both told me that the tuition is so high, 45k per year, because they know that the students can borrow said amount.  Its insane and there is abolsutely no controlls or incentive for these schools to keep their costs down.

Its a complete rip off.

Were I to do everything again, I would go to community college for two years, transfer the credits over to a four year state school, and then focus on a major and grauduate from the state school.

   

No one has a gun to your head making you go to college.  Is it the fault of USDOE that you chose an expensive private school for your education?

When people like you stop patronizing these high priced private schools, you just might see the tuition become a little more reasonable.

[MCWAY]

intellectualism and education go hand in glove.  Don't they?  Aren't the republicans all about teaching creationism as a viable alternative to science?  Don't republicans want to dismantle the Dept. of Ed.?

More earning and less learning...the Republican credo.

You are mistakenly interchanging the theory of evolution with “science”. As far as operational science goes (i.e. finding cures for disease, developing technology to improve quality of life, etc.), the advancement of such has absolutely NOTHING to do with how a doctor/scientist believes life began on this planet.

Several weeks ago, I posted a thread about BabyTooth Technologies, run by Dr. Robin Crossman. His company does research, based on extracting stem cells from baby teeth, instead of using embryonic stem cells. Dr. Crossman is a Creationist. If his findings help find cure to medical ailments, does his research lose its value, simply because he believes that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"?

As I've said on previous occasions, too many kids in public schools can barely spell creationism or evolution.

[Decker]

You are mistakenly interchanging the theory of evolution with “science”. As far as operational science goes (i.e. finding cures for disease, developing technology to improve quality of life, etc.), the advancement of such has absolutely NOTHING to do with how a doctor/scientist believes life began on this planet.

Several weeks ago, I posted a thread about BabyTooth Technologies, run by Dr. Robin Crossman. His company does research, based on extracting stem cells from baby teeth, instead of using embryonic stem cells. Dr. Crossman is a Creationist. If his findings help find cure to medical ailments, does his research lose its value, simply because he believes that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"?

As I've said on previous occasions, too many kids in public schools can barely spell creationism or evolution.

That's b/c we have creationist hucksters teaching our children.  Evolution is science. Creationism is not science.  The separate religious beliefs of practicing scientists should have nothing to do with the scientific method...unless of course you're a snake oil creationist.
In the beginning...nobody knows what happened in the beginning.  Nobody.

That includes pre-scientific biblical stories of conjecture and speculation.

[Dan-O]

That's b/c we have creationist hucksters teaching our children.  Evolution is science. Creationism is not science.  The separate religious beliefs of practicing scientists should have nothing to do with the scientific method...unless of course you're a snake oil creationist.
In the beginning...nobody knows what happened in the beginning.  Nobody.

That includes pre-scientific biblical stories of conjecture and speculation.

Anyway...  WTH do you know about creationism that would qualify you to say the actual creation was not done in a manner consistent with natural laws (i.e. science)?  I believe in the creation but I don't believe God just magically waved his hand and everything appeared.  There's way more to it than that.

Let's suppose, just for a minute for the sake of argument, that there is a God who created everything.  Then true, valid faith and proven science should go hand-in-hand.  And I am firmly convinced that they do.  And if some religious notion really flies in the face of science then it probably isn't true.  But that's another debate for another forum.

[Soul Crusher]

No one has a gun to your head making you go to college.  Is it the fault of USDOE that you chose an expensive private school for your education?

When people like you stop patronizing these high priced private schools, you just might see the tuition become a little more reasonable.

I did not go to one of these rip off schools.

Note, SUNY schools are getting very hard to get into because more students are realizing $$$$ wise it does not make sense to spend 45k per year to get a job paying 35k per year.

I hope more students wake up to this rip off.

[Decker]

Anyway...  WTH do you know about creationism that would qualify you to say the actual creation was not done in a manner consistent with natural laws (i.e. science)?  I believe in the creation but I don't believe God just magically waved his hand and everything appeared.  There's way more to it than that.

Let's suppose, just for a minute for the sake of argument, that there is a God who created everything.  Then true, valid faith and proven science should go hand-in-hand.  And I am firmly convinced that they do.  And if some religious notion really flies in the face of science then it probably isn't true.  But that's another debate for another forum.

Here's what the hell I know about creationism--we don't know how we got here--agnostics are the winners in this debate.  That's the best we can do at the moment.

Stephen Hawking put out a paper that describes how something came from nothing.

Why is that different than the pre-scientific biblical creation fables?

B/c Hawking uses a scientific analysis of how things could have been at the time.  That means everything.  It's the difference btn rational inquiry and fervent belief.

[Decker]

I did not go to one of these rip off schools.

Note, SUNY schools are getting very hard to get into because more students are realizing $$$$ wise it does not make sense to spend 45k per year to get a job paying 35k per year.

I hope more students wake up to this rip off.

I don't disagree with you.  The only students that seem to get a bang for their college buck are those in the top 10% gradewise.  Everyone else has to scramble for a good job.

[OzmO]

Interesting and i agree,

Huckabee was on a Armsrtong and Getty this morning (radio talk show in northern cali) and he said that when ever republicans stick to their ideals they get elected.  But when they drift towards the middle and stand for nothing that's when they don't.

He also added that his campaign spent 1 dime to every dollar the others spent and he came close to winning.  He said that if he could have spent 50 cents for every dollar he probably would have won the nomination.

[MCWAY]

That's b/c we have creationist hucksters teaching our children.  Evolution is science. Creationism is not science.  The separate religious beliefs of practicing scientists should have nothing to do with the scientific method...unless of course you're a snake oil creationist.
In the beginning...nobody knows what happened in the beginning.  Nobody.

That includes pre-scientific biblical stories of conjecture and speculation.

I’m sorry! Last time I checked, evolutionists were teaching kids in public schools, particularly in the science classes. So, why are they still sucking in the science departments?


As I said, I went to private school most of my early years. But, I transferred from a private school to a public school in 10th grade. Since I took Creation-based biology the first half of my sophomore year, by your logic, I should have bombed biology class when I went to public school. However, I had little trouble getting through biology class. I did pretty well, actually. In fact, I had the second best GPA of all 10th graders in that school (My buddy, Keisha, who used to go to the same private school that I attended, beat me for top honors).

Again, you make no sense, Decker. If "we don't know how we got here", then you CANNOT (with any certainty) that we came from non-living matter or DID NOT come from a sentient supernatural being.

Blaming Creationists for American kids lagging in the science departments is utterly ridiculous. It looks to me as if you're simply looking for a scapegoat.

[Dan-O]

Here's what the hell I know about creationism--we don't know how we got here--agnostics are the winners in this debate.  That's the best we can do at the moment.

Stephen Hawking put out a paper that describes how something came from nothing.

Why is that different than the pre-scientific biblical creation fables?

B/c Hawking uses a scientific analysis of how things could have been at the time.  That means everything.  It's the difference btn rational inquiry and fervent belief.

Fair enough.  We don't know.  And the Biblical account obviously does not couch the whole saga in scientific language because as you point out, it's pre-scientific.  But not necessarily any less valid.  I've attended a couple of lectures by Hawking over the years.  There's no reason why Moses' account (the book of Genesis) and Hawking's theories couldn't be describing the same events using (vastly) different language.

[Dan-O]

Interesting and i agree,

Huckabee was on a Armsrtong and Getty this morning (radio talk show in northern cali) and he said that when ever republicans stick to their ideals they get elected.  But when they drift towards the middle and stand for nothing that's when they don't.

He also added that his campaign spent 1 dime to every dollar the others spent and he came close to winning.  He said that if he could have spent 50 cents for every dollar he probably would have won the nomination.

True.  When McCain tried to be Obama Lite, people didn't respect that and he paid the price.

EDIT:  But I really think no Republican stood a chance of winning after the last 8 years of GWB.  Anybody with a brain could have seen that a backlash was inevitable and that's exactly what happened.

[Soul Crusher]

I don't disagree with you.  The only students that seem to get a bang for their college buck are those in the top 10% gradewise.  Everyone else has to scramble for a good job.

If I had a kid today, I would tell him to do the following:

1.  Graduate HS.
2.  Learn a trade like electrician
3.  Go to community college and fisinsh at a four year focusing on accounting, writing, and business.
4.  Open own business in the trade learned.   

[Decker]

I’m sorry! Last time I checked, evolutionists were teaching kids in public schools, particularly in the science classes. So, why are they still sucking in the science departments?

I wasn't aware that was the case.  And to think this nonsensical scientific method is to blame for such shortfalls.

What we need in education is more stories about how our physical world came to be and operates.  For instance, clouds make the wind blow.  Thunder is the result of gnomes bowling.  And let's not forget, in the beginning, God created....everything.

As I said, I went to private school most of my early years. But, I transferred from a private school to a public school in 10th grade. Since I took Creation-based biology the first half of my sophomore year, by your logic, I should have bombed biology class when I went to public school. However, I had little trouble getting through biology class. I did pretty well, actually. In fact, I had the second best GPA of all 10th graders in that school (My buddy, Keisha, who used to go to the same private school that I attended, beat me for top honors).

I offer nothing predictive about your performance in school.  Creationism is not science.  Simply b/c you were able to grasp the scientific method and apply it on a test is a testimony to your intellect and not to the merit of creationist nonsense.

Again, you make no sense, Decker. If "we don't know how we got here", then you CANNOT (with any certainty) that we came from non-living matter or DID NOT come from a sentient supernatural being.

Here's why science is better than religion at making scientific arguments (esp re our origins):    Science tries to explain things in a manner consistent with materialism.  To import a supernatural god as the cause is just the 'god of gaps' making the rounds.  It goes like this:  we don't know the origins of life, then god must have done it.  Analysis is over.

Which god would that be?

The only honest answer to the question of what brought life about on our planet is, "I don't know."  Now science, in time, may be able to develop a rational explanation of that mystery.  Religion is not so predisposed.

Blaming Creationists for American kids lagging in the science departments is utterly ridiculous. It looks to me as if you're simply looking for a scapegoat.

Of course I was.  I'm not-so-subtley insulting the idea of creationism for the hell of it.  I hate its pretensions.

[Decker]

Fair enough.  We don't know.  And the Biblical account obviously does not couch the whole saga in scientific language because as you point out, it's pre-scientific.  But not necessarily any less valid.  I've attended a couple of lectures by Hawking over the years.  There's no reason why Moses' account (the book of Genesis) and Hawking's theories couldn't be describing the same events using (vastly) different language.

Science uses rational, quantifiable analysis and, sometimes, reasonable assumptions to explain phenomena.

Religion is just stories.

Science develops.

Religious stories are dead.