14 Wacky "Facts" Kids Will Learn in Louisiana's Voucher Schools

[SaintGriff42]

Originally Posted by TechDawg09

So these kids won't learn about the scientifically proven fact of evolution? And the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? And we are just a tiny portion of a solar system that is a tiny portion of one galaxy? Also, there are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and the universe is about 14 billion years old?

The Big Bang is also a factual piece of the history of our universe...

I don't believe any of this contradicts the existence of a god (maybe the words in the Bible, but not a supernatural being), so I don't see why they can't teach actual science in a Christian school.

Everything mentioned above are theories not facts. Theory of evolution, big bang theory etc. As a science teacher Im ok with creation theory being taught as long as other theories are taught also.

[RussTKD]

Originally Posted by SaintGriff42

Everything mentioned above are theories not facts. Theory of evolution, big bang theory etc. As a science teacher Im ok with creation theory being taught as long as other theories are taught also.

Aside from the Book of Genesis, how much evidence is there really for Creation Theory, especially scientific peer-reviewed evidence?

[Brennan77]

I think here that we also need to take care to distinguish between 'creationism' and simply holding the belief that God created all that there is. As a Catholic, I really have no problem with the theory of evolution or the big bang theory in that neither really seeks to answer the underlying philosophy of existence to begin with, just as the theology of creation does not seek to answer scientific questions.

The problem is young earth 'creationists' who seek to dispell scientific theories that conflict with their understanding of the universe. Conversely, there are also narrow minded darwinists who believe the theory of evolution equates to a philosophy on the origins of the earth. They are equally wrong and dense, in my opinion.

[RussTKD]

Originally Posted by Brennan77

I think here that we also need to take care to distinguish between 'creationism' and simply holding the belief that God created all that there is. As a Catholic, I really have no problem with the theory of evolution or the big bang theory in that neither really seeks to answer the underlying philosophy of existence to begin with, just as the theology of creation does not seek to answer scientific questions.

The problem is young earth 'creationists' who seek to dispell scientific theories that conflict with their understanding of the universe. Conversely, there are also narrow minded darwinists who believe the theory of evolution equates to a philosophy on the origins of the earth. They are equally wrong and dense, in my opinion.

Even the Catholic Church (who deemed Galileo as a heretic for publishing his theories about the universe) has shifted position on the origins of life to agree with evolutionary theory. Once we got into fairly heavy science in Catholic School, the Genesis story was taught in religion class more as a fable than as absolute fact.

Like you, I'm pretty much OK with believing in evolution occurring as described in the big bang theory. And I'm OK with God overseeing the process. Even in a very simplified way the Genesis story coincides somewhat loosely with how the planet likely evolved. Just replace each "Day" with a couple million years.

And who knows how fast time passes in Heaven...

[V Chip]

Originally Posted by SaintGriff42

Everything mentioned above are theories not facts. Theory of evolution, big bang theory etc. As a science teacher Im ok with creation theory being taught as long as other theories are taught also.

I'm surprised that as a science teacher you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific concept of a Theory.

[gwballin]

Originally Posted by SaintGriff42

Everything mentioned above are theories not facts. Theory of evolution, big bang theory etc. As a science teacher Im ok with creation theory being taught as long as other theories are taught also.

You forgot that gravity is also just a "theory"....

I am disappointed that a science "teacher" does not understand the term "theory" has a much more consideration scientifically than it does in layman's terms.

I am pleased however that you are in the vast, vast minority when it comes to this topic in the scientific community.

[bearze34]

Originally Posted by gwballin

You forgot that gravity is also just a "theory"....

I am disappointed that a science "teacher" does not understand the term "theory" has a much more consideration scientifically than it does in layman's terms.

I am pleased however that you are in the vast, vast minority when it comes to this topic in the scientific community.

But global warming due to humans is a fact. Just aks any liberal scientist.

[Saintman2884]

Russ, Church censoring Galileo had lot more to do with Galileo's self-centered, elitist attitude than any scientific/religious reasons. While it's true some conservative cardinals, priests, and Jesuits despised Galileo's ideas because of religion, clear majority of Vatican astronomers concurred with Galileo's findings. They'd been allowing Copernican astronomy to be taught at lay universities as well as Acquinas', St. Anselm's natural theology re-vamped from Plato, Aristotle's scholastic materialism. What cost Galileo, and ultimately helped his enemies finally discredit him, was releasing Simplico, a scathing, thinly-veiled attack on Church hierarchy and Pope Urban VIII, ironically, one of his supporters but least of all authority figures you don't insult in late medieval Europe and not expect grave consequences. Maybe It didn't help that Newton's Laws of Motion about overall speed of gravitation and orbital motion of planets in galaxies didn't come out almost 50 years after Galileo died, not only proves Galileo's theories but also discredits his enemies alot sooner.

And also, Genesis Creation story I wouldn't characterize as falling under realms of peer-reviewed science, it's like Flood Myth, Epic of Gilgamesh, or Greek mythology, their etyologies, stories told that explain in supernatural terms about why mountains are so high, explaining differences between good and evil, sky being blue, complex scientific processes broken down into myths to explain more simply to different, large masses who they are, where they came from, and how distinctive certain societies are from one other.

[BHM]

Originally Posted by grunattitude

lesson one: in Brees we trust
no better program!

Seriously, schools are so bad in Louisiana?

Define bad school. Yes, I am sure there are a few "bad" schools. There are a lot of great schools as well.

What we do have is a lot of schools in "bad" areas. Areas comprised of mainly low income groups of students with poor parental involvement. Really not much the school can do is most of these situations. Now if you look at the scores coming out of some of these schools, yes, they are low and therefore could be called a "bad" school.

I like that Jindal has made an attempt at trying to solve the issue but I am afraid I do not like the system he has put in place. Giving kids an opportunity the attend a "better" school where at least they are exposed to a better environment is great.

I know here in Lafayette, if you are a majority student at your designated school, you have the option to be bused to another school where you would be a minority. I do not know if this is a statewide program or how it is working but it would seem to me that this would be a more viable option versus giving kids a check to go to whatever school they want.

The following is just my personal opinions...


I think we are opening a can of worms having publicly funded tuition given to religious schools for the purpose of education.

Some issues I see...


There is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

Mr. and Mrs. Billy are scraping to be able to afford to send little Johnny to a Catholic school. All of a sudden, here comes little Debbie (no relation to the delicious snack cakes) from the hood getting the same education free.

Mr. and Mrs. John would like to send their kids to a good private school but simply can not afford it. Here comes little Debbie with a free ride to the good private school.

Seems to me like we are only going to generate more class warfare. Yes, we want to be fair and make sure little Debbie has the same opportunity as other kids. We want a fair system for all but all of a sudden, John's kids are the ones being short changed. They are stuck in whatever school they are zoned for.

It is a freaking mess.

[Believer-Always]

The Christian school that is accepting vouchers here in Gonzales, Faith Academy (Elementary) / Ascension Christian (High School), are both state and SACS approved. Not sure if they list statistics on their site anymore, but when I was researching schools a few years back, their LEAP scores, ACT scores, and percentage of seniors receiving scholarships for college, were all well above average.

[guidomerkinsrules]

Originally Posted by SaintGriff42

Everything mentioned above are theories not facts. Theory of evolution, big bang theory etc. As a science teacher Im ok with creation theory being taught as long as other theories are taught also.

i feel bad for your students

Originally Posted by Saintman2884

Russ, Church censoring Galileo had lot more to do with Galileo's self-centered, elitist attitude than any scientific/religious reasons. While it's true some conservative cardinals, priests, and Jesuits despised Galileo's ideas because of religion, clear majority of Vatican astronomers concurred with Galileo's findings. They'd been allowing Copernican astronomy to be taught at lay universities as well as Acquinas', St. Anselm's natural theology re-vamped from Plato, Aristotle's scholastic materialism. What cost Galileo, and ultimately helped his enemies finally discredit him, was releasing Simplico, a scathing, thinly-veiled attack on Church hierarchy and Pope Urban VIII, ironically, one of his supporters but least of all authority figures you don't insult in late medieval Europe and not expect grave consequences. Maybe It didn't help that Newton's Laws of Motion about overall speed of gravitation and orbital motion of planets in galaxies didn't come out almost 50 years after Galileo died, not only proves Galileo's theories but also discredits his enemies alot sooner.

eppur si muove

[tjharris]

Not every school in Louisiana is teaching that crap. It's only the Jesus Freak schools and guess what if you don't agree with what they teach you can........wait for it..... send you kid to another school. Ground breaking idea I know. If the parents or the students don't have a problem with creationism they why shouldn't they be able to attend that school. "Because the tax payers are paying for it, wah wah wah" guess what? Louisiana taxes go to Orleans parish public schools and they don't teach those kids jack.

[SaintGriff42]

Originally Posted by RussTKD

Aside from the Book of Genesis, how much evidence is there really for Creation Theory, especially scientific peer-reviewed evidence?

No very little exists and I do not teach it personally but however improbable I cannot say it is not possible. A theory cannot be proven it can only be disproven and creation theory has yet to be disproven so it’s still a plausible explanation. If they want to teach this in Christian based private schools I’m ok with that as long as they also teach the major theories that have withstood more scientific scrutiny along with it. Oh and the only creation theory I know of that’s gaining any traction in the scientific community is the simulation hypothesis.

[V Chip]

Originally Posted by RussTKD

Aside from the Book of Genesis, how much evidence is there really for Creation Theory, especially scientific peer-reviewed evidence?

[SaintGriff42]

Originally Posted by V Chip

I'm surprised that as a science teacher you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific concept of a Theory.

Please explain to me my misunderstanding. My problem is not the posters point but the way he stated these theories as facts. Now the word fact can be used in scientific language but observe is a better word to use. Example: It is a fact that if you hold a ball over a ledge and drop it the ball will fall or it was observed that if you hold a ball over a ledge and drop it the ball will fall. The second sentence used more often because the definition of fact in science and the definition of fact in everyday language are different.
From dictionary.com

Fact- something that actually exists; reality; truth

Scientific Fact -any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

Now I believe the original post I commented on used the word fact in the context of the first definition. So a how can something actually exists if it cannot be proven only disproven. The word fact is commonly used as an absolute and scientists do not deal in absolutes only sith do.
Now the second definition is more flexible because it states that it is accepted as true but could be wrong and if he meant fact as used in the second definition I retract my response but I still don’t like the language because it’s too tricky. Part of the definition of a scientific fact is any scientific observation that has not been refuted. Well creationism is yet to be refuted and measurements have been taken on people praying that show physiological differences. So is it a scientific fact?

I remember in one of my physical science classes at Nicholls a girl saying that you can’t prove that the earth’s core is solid and that hell could be in the center of the earth. I responded by saying that the earth’s core being solid is a fact. My teacher told the girl that she was right we cannot yet prove that the earth’s core is solid but all observations shows that it most likely is. She then told me that I was wrong and that the earth’s core being solid is not a fact it’s a very plausible theory.

Lol after voice texting all of this to prove my point I think I figured out what the real misunderstanding is. The person in the original post I responded to had a poorly written response in the form of an absolute to a subject they strongly disagreed with. In response I also post a poorly written response in the form of an absolute to a subject I strongly disagree with even though I agree with his main point. Because of this everyone else misses my main point of if they teach it fine but also teach the more scientifically back theories. I guess I am a sith.