Religions > Atheism > Do you know what your children are reading in biology class?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
06 May 2006 10:31:13 PM |
| Object: |
Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2005/11/02/lstrongglemgit_s_9_00_a_m_l_emg_do_you_k
It's 9:00 a.m.: Do you know what your children are reading in biology
class?
by Denyse O'Leary, ARN correspondent
What do biology texts bought with tax money teach (or preach) regarding
the origin of life?
Most parents do not bother to read the texts their teens study from.
Many might be surprised if they did. Today, I want to offer a peek into
some of the stuff you can learn from a major US science text about the
much-contested origin of life.
In Chapter 4 of Biology, Sixth Edition, "The Origin and Early History
of Life," we are told that one of the changes from previous editions is
that "The discussion of ideas about the origin of life is now much more
open-ended, stressing competing hypotheses and the key role of
assumptions for which there is little data."
My first thought, of course, was, well - that's a relief. So they are
going to come right out and admit that origin of life is a baffling
problem, as OoL researchers have often admitted. Because I have edited
a book chapter on the origin of life, and therefore read up on some of
this stuff, I know that such observations are mainstream rather than
"pseudo"-science.
Now, how does McGraw-Hill's Biology address the problem? For the most
part, the authors admit the difficulties. However they do something
else, which I think should be a source of concern to
parents/students/taxpayers. In the Concept Outline, we are informed,
There are both religious and scientific views about the origin of life.
This text treats only the latter - only the scientifically testable.
That sounds like a logical approach to me. The mere fact that the
authors are knowledgeable about current science theories, however
unsatisfactory, does not qualify them to address religious theories. So
far so good. Cobbler, stick to thy last.
But the authors promptly break their promise, as we shall see.
Figure 4.1 shows a lightning strike, and the caption reads
The origin of life. The fortuitous mix of physical events and chemical
elements at the right place and time created the first living cells on
earth.
That, of course, is a vague statement of faith in materialism or, as it
is sometimes called, naturalism. Materialism is an old idea that goes
back to the time of Lucretius about two and a half millennia ago, as I
point out in By Design or by Chance?.
It is philosophy, not science. Science asks for evidence, for details,
for specifics, not for statements of faith in the power of physical
events and chemical elements, like this one. And success at explaining
the detailed specifics are precisely what is lacking in the current
origin of life scenarios.
The authors admit that "The first cells are thought to have arisen
spontaneously, but there is little agreement as to the mechanism," and
that "there is very little that we know for sure," and that "there is
as yet no one answer to the question of how life originated on earth,"
Right. But despite all that, we know that materialism is the answer?
How? Is it because the authors' are entitled to promulgate that
philosophy in the public school system, irrespective of evidence,
whereas other philosophies are forbidden? But why? has the United
States established materialism as a religion, in violation of the First
Amendment?
The authors also inform us that "By the time this text is published,
some of the ideas presented here about the origin of life will surely
be obsolete."
I am so sure that they are right about this that I wonder why origin of
life is even a current topic in undergrad science, except as an
optional project for interested students, just as an examination of
"irreducible complexity" should be. But, in fairness to the authors, if
they are required, by an unlucky arrangement of the stars or the
bureaucrats, to teach OoL, then I suppose they must.
But they might have spared us the following, in Section 4:2:
Special Creation. The theory of special creation, that a divine God
created life is at the core of most major religions. The oldest
hypothesis about life's origins, it is also the most widely accepted.
Far more Americans, for example, believe that God created life on earth
than believe in the other two hypotheses. Many take a more extreme
position, accepting the biblical account of life's creation as
factually correct. This viewpoint forms the basis for the very
unscientific "scientific creationism" viewpoint discussed in chapter
21.
(p. 62) (Note: The other two hypotheses referred to above are
extraterrestrial origin and spontaneous origin.)
Later, on the same page, the authors concede that special creation
might even be true:
This is not to say that the first possibility [special creation] is
definitely not the correct one.
But so? I thought we weren't going to get into religion at all. Wasn't
that the idea? If we must get into religion, what does it mean to say
that special creation is "very unscientific" but also possibly correct?
Is science now at war with correctness, in defense of materialism? But
why?
Then, the rest of the chapter speculates as enthusiastically about the
origin of life as the tabloids do about movie idols' affairs,
pregnancies, and breakups.
Students will learn some useful things, but principally they will
learn, I fear, how to build a theoretical castle in the air. If all
this stuff is "scientifically testable", just how eludes me.
In those school systems where texts are bought with public funds, this
is a strange use of public funds. I am glad that no one has sued,
because I think litigation bad in principle. But I am somewhat
surprised that no one has sued.
.
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 11:40:55 AM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in
news:1146972673.913580.310950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Subject: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class?
As long as they're not reading bibles. I mean, the notions something like
that would put in a kid's head. Talking snakes?! Flat earth?! Some naked
chick eating an apple was bad?! Yeah, right. Watching a woman eat a banana
the right way would be more appropriate for psychology or sex ed, not
biology.
--
Doc Smartass
Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up,
at least a little bit.
--Edward R. Murrow
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
10 May 2006 07:03:11 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146972673.913580.310950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2005/11/02/lstrongglemgit_s_9_00_a_m_l_emg_do_you_k
It's 9:00 a.m.: Do you know what your children are reading in biology
class?
Do you know what biology is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
11 May 2006 01:39:34 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 May 2006 17:03:11 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
<Gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146972673.913580.310950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2005/11/02/lstrongglemgit_s_9_00_a_m_l_emg_do_you_k
It's 9:00 a.m.: Do you know what your children are reading in biology
class?
Do you know what biology is?
I don't think Strumpet knows what up is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
11 May 2006 04:22:17 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:eum5621rb190h3gv422s7q7nu7ha8c068f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 May 2006 17:03:11 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
<Gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146972673.913580.310950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2005/11/02/lstrongglemgit_s_9_00_a_m_l_emg_do_you_k
It's 9:00 a.m.: Do you know what your children are reading in biology
class?
Do you know what biology is?
I don't think Strumpet knows what up is.
Ah, there's a great word! Thank gawd for Britcoms...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
06 May 2006 11:06:40 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146972673.913580.310950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
moron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 02:43:01 AM |
|
|
"Tim K." <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> skrev i melding
news:kne7g.229$HA2.207@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146972673.913580.310950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
moron
worse, he's a boron.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 03:18:16 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 May 2006 09:43:01 +0200, "Tron" <tronfuru@frizurf.no> wrote:
"Tim K." <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> skrev i melding
news:kne7g.229$HA2.207@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146972673.913580.310950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
moron
worse, he's a boron.
Nah. Boron actually has uses.
T
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Speaker Monkey" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
09 May 2006 10:23:07 AM |
|
|
Tron wrote:
"Tim K." <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> skrev i melding
news:kne7g.229$HA2.207@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146972673.913580.310950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
moron
worse, he's a boron.
T
Why does not one ever respond in an intelligent manner? I am trying to
to find answers to some of these questions, and there is not a single
person that will ever answer any of these points these guys put out, so
I am forced to think perhaps they are right in all their challenges.
And I even read the entire talk.origins faq. All anyone does is say
Moron. I guess because they don't know how to respond.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of
blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
09 May 2006 10:40:05 AM |
|
|
Speaker Monkey wrote:
Tron wrote:
"Tim K." <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> skrev i melding
news:kne7g.229$HA2.207@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146972673.913580.310950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
moron
worse, he's a boron.
Why does not one ever respond in an intelligent manner? I am trying to
to find answers to some of these questions, and there is not a single
person that will ever answer any of these points these guys put out, so
I am forced to think perhaps they are right in all their challenges.
"Sound of Trumpet" is a notorious drive-by poster - he takes a
screed he read somewhere and posts it everywhere, and *never*
responds to anyone. That's why few people discuss any of the
"points" he brings up, because he himself doesn't really bring
up any, nor does he respond to anyone who treats him like
he had something to offer.
And I even read the entire talk.origins faq. All anyone does is say
Moron. I guess because they don't know how to respond.
It's just that noone has any patience for a drive-by troll.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 01:43:14 AM |
|
|
Idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 01:10:30 AM |
|
|
In article <1146972673.913580.310950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2005/11/02/lstrongglemgit_s_9_00_a_m_l_em
g_do_you_k
It's 9:00 a.m.: Do you know what your children are reading in biology
class?
Biology, I should think.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 03:18:57 AM |
|
|
On 6 May 2006 20:31:13 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2005/11/02/lstrongglemgit_s_9_00_a_m_l_emg_do_you_k
It's 9:00 a.m.: Do you know what your children are reading in biology
class?
Well, she's not reading about your imaginary friend.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 04:15:50 AM |
|
|
On 6 May 2006 20:31:13 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Most parents do not bother to read the texts their teens study from.
Many might be surprised if they did. Today, I want to offer a peek into
some of the stuff you can learn from a major US science text about the
much-contested origin of life.
The only "contest" is between those who want to teach science, and
those who want to pass their religious opinions off as science.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 01:00:58 AM |
|
|
So tell me what is so wrong in this:
No one really knows how life on Earth started, we know better the
theory of evolution. What is wrong in saying that God created the
Universe in such a way that life could arise?
You can't really NOT say anything about God. The best that you can do
is to say that although many religious people believe in a supernatural
being, science deals with what can be observed.
At any rate, kids should learn their religion at home and at
church,synagogue or mosque and they bring THAT understanding with them
as they go to school.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 12:44:00 PM |
|
|
<eddiestardust@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146981658.694587.135520@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So tell me what is so wrong in this:
No one really knows how life on Earth started, we know better the
theory of evolution. What is wrong in saying that God created the
Universe in such a way that life could arise?
Why not say a the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 03:28:06 AM |
|
|
On 6 May 2006 23:00:58 -0700, wrote:
So tell me what is so wrong in this:
No one really knows how life on Earth started, we know better the
theory of evolution. What is wrong in saying that God created the
Universe in such a way that life could arise?
Because you beg the question of its existence in the real world
outside one of the hundereds of different religions, to do that .
Of course evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the unverse.
That is cosmology.
When your kids come home and repeat what a Hindu teacher tells them,
that Krishna created the universe, what will your reaction be?
You can't really NOT say anything about God. The best that you can do
is to say that although many religious people believe in a supernatural
being, science deals with what can be observed.
There is nothing to say about it.
It's merely a relgious belief and is irrelevant to reality.
At any rate, kids should learn their religion at home and at
church,synagogue or mosque and they bring THAT understanding with them
as they go to school.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Q Chung NLAHN" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 03:45:35 AM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2005/11/02/lstrongglemgit_s_9_00_a_m_l_emg_do_you_k
It's 9:00 a.m.: Do you know what your children are reading in biology
class?
Yup. Nothing.
They might teach about the origin of the species, though. They're
entitled to do that because it is science.
What is Genesis? If you do not answer "A cognitive dissonance factory",
you haven't read it properly or at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Q Chung NLAHN" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading about the origin of life in biology class? |
07 May 2006 03:53:00 AM |
|
|
Andrew Q Chung NLAHN wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2005/11/02/lstrongglemgit_s_9_00_a_m_l_emg_do_you_k
It's 9:00 a.m.: Do you know what your children are reading in biology
class?
Yup. Nothing.
About the origin of life that is. Snipped too much of the article for
those who have Raytard killfiled. Sorry.
They might teach about the origin of the species, though. They're
entitled to do that because it is science.
What is Genesis? If you do not answer "A cognitive dissonance factory",
you haven't read it properly or at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 12:45:55 AM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2005/11/02/lstrongglemgit_s_9_00_a_m_l_emg_do_you_k
-- [snip]
But they might have spared us the following, in Section 4:2:
Special Creation. The theory of special creation, that a divine God
created life is at the core of most major religions. The oldest
hypothesis about life's origins, it is also the most widely accepted.
Far more Americans, for example, believe that God created life on earth
than believe in the other two hypotheses. Many take a more extreme
position, accepting the biblical account of life's creation as
factually correct. This viewpoint forms the basis for the very
unscientific "scientific creationism" viewpoint discussed in chapter
21.
(p. 62) (Note: The other two hypotheses referred to above are
extraterrestrial origin and spontaneous origin.)
Later, on the same page, the authors concede that special creation
might even be true:
This is not to say that the first possibility [special creation] is
definitely not the correct one.
But so? I thought we weren't going to get into religion at all. Wasn't
that the idea? If we must get into religion, what does it mean to say
that special creation is "very unscientific" but also possibly correct?
If she does not know, of what value are any of her ramblings about
science, evolution, or abiogenesis?
Science is centered on hypotheses and testable explanations. By
"explanation" (or "theory") I mean an account of why things are one
way, and not some other conceivable way, in terms of causes that, by
their nature, would tend to produce the sort of results we see and not
some other sort of result.
Now, "special creation," as commonly understood, implies that life
arose through processes we can never understand, never duplicate in the
lab, and, most likely, never find acting in the world today. We cannot
hope to understand how a Special Creator either implemented His ideas
for creation, or even why He chose to create life with certain features
and not other imaginable features. For example, common descent
explains the nested hierarchy of life by pointing out that living
things fall into groups that inherited their traits, with modification,
from more or less remote common ancestors. Special creation "explains"
it by saying the Creator wanted it that way; it offers no reason why He
didn't want it any of several other imaginable ways (e.g. non-nested
combinations of features, such as some birds with mammary glands or
some mammals with feathers).
Therefore, there cannot be a scientific theory of creation, or any way
to actually do research on creation (can radiometric dating tell us how
old the Earth is? Not if the Creator in some unknown way for some
unknown reason decided to make it "with the appearance of age"). For
that reason, by the way, the quoted textbook was wrong to refer to
creation as a "hypothesis;" the essence of hypotheses is their
testability.
Of course, one cannot establish from first principles that the origin
of life must be in any respect humanly comprehensible or reducible to a
theory. Special creation, even special creation with the false
appearance of age, naturalistic abiogenesis and common descent with
modification, is conceivable, but there is no way to address that issue
scientifically; it implies no testable hypotheses. If you wish to
believe in omphalism, more power to you, but do not claim that science
supports you, or that it even possibly could.
Now, as a side issue, one could imagine, and test for, a "naturalistic"
Creator. This does not necessarily mean, e.g. space aliens; it simply
implies a Being whose nature is to a great extent humanly discoverable
and predictable, so that scientists could pose hypotheses about His
(Her, Its, Their) methods, motives, and design philosophy. But the
very ability of scientists to do this would imply that, from a
scientific point of view, such a Creator would not be "supernatural."
Is science now at war with correctness, in defense of materialism? But
why?
All manner of things could, in principle, be correct. The classic
example is that the entire universe could have been created, complete
with all records, artifacts, and memories of previous events, last
Tuesday afternoon, and all "evidence" of previous events is misleading
and planted. Or you could be a brain in a vat, and everything outside
your own consciousness could be an elaborate virtual reality created
for you by ... someone. None of these possibilities is testable; they
do not invite theories, but imply that all possible theories are
pointless and false. If any of them, or special creation, is correct
(and, again, any of them logically might be), then science (not merely
as practiced, but any way it might be practiced) is a joke. As a
practical matter, we all ignore the possible truth of "Last Tuesdayism"
or "brain in a vat," but from a scientific point of view, it makes
equal sense to ignore the logical possibility that untestable,
"supernatural" creationism is true and that all evidence regarding the
history of life and the universe is meaningless.
Then, the rest of the chapter speculates as enthusiastically about the
origin of life as the tabloids do about movie idols' affairs,
pregnancies, and breakups.
Students will learn some useful things, but principally they will
learn, I fear, how to build a theoretical castle in the air. If all
this stuff is "scientifically testable", just how eludes me.
I suspect a great many things elude Ms. O'Leary. Obviously, one can
test various scenarios about abiogenesis by actually putting chemicals
together and seeing, not if a dinosaur crawls out of the test tube, but
if they actually produce the sorts of products that some scenario
predicts for them. And, if it does not, one can modify the theory and
test the newly modified theory.
-- [snip]
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 03:50:00 AM |
|
|
Yes, it's indeed disturbing to hear they are even considering creation
instead of staying with scientific facts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 01:22:32 PM |
|
|
re: The model curriculum as suggested by the respected, authoritative,
goody-goody Teacher-Parent Acrimony MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS & DONUTS FOR
SALE Organization
For all
ages: Put teeths
under pillow for tooth fairy reward, after tying that loose
tooth to handle & slamming door.
Toddler: Barney, Ernie and Santa Claus are coming to town or tv set
near you.
Kindergarten: Deity created all; and I was
delivered by a stork of Dr. Smith.
First Grade: Man is an animal too.
Second Grade: "FANTASIA," the 1940s Disney sort of
subversive movie about evolution.
Third Grade: The birds & bees having something to do with making honey,
which I
hardly
get to this day.
Fourth Grade: Us<---Mammals<--amphibians<--reptiles<--pond
scum<--Republicans.
Fifth Grade: State capitals, planets, and Green-witch-mean-time
Sixth: Capital of Pakistan is Rawapindi and so forth, including French
Indo China's name is now something else but of no consequence
nevertheless.
The rest is a confusing blur, but I know I've been brainwashed,
subverted, secularized, and thus the public school is secularized
socialism, a contradiction within a paradox.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
07 May 2006 01:26:00 PM |
|
|
"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1147026151.996899.128790@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
re: The model curriculum as suggested by the respected, authoritative,
goody-goody Teacher-Parent Acrimony MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS & DONUTS FOR
SALE Organization
For all
ages: Put teeths
under pillow for tooth fairy reward, after tying that loose
tooth to handle & slamming door.
Toddler: Barney, Ernie and Santa Claus are coming to town or tv set
near you.
Kindergarten: Deity created all; and I was
delivered by a stork of Dr. Smith.
First Grade: Man is an animal too.
Second Grade: "FANTASIA," the 1940s Disney sort of
subversive movie about evolution.
Third Grade: The birds & bees having something to do with making honey,
which I
hardly
get to this day.
Fourth Grade: Us<---Mammals<--amphibians<--reptiles<--pond
scum<--Republicans.
Fifth Grade: State capitals, planets, and Green-witch-mean-time
Sixth: Capital of Pakistan is Rawapindi and so forth, including French
Indo China's name is now something else but of no consequence
nevertheless.
The rest is a confusing blur, but I know I've been brainwashed,
subverted, secularized, and thus the public school is secularized
socialism, a contradiction within a paradox.
That's the post of the week!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
08 May 2006 10:17:26 AM |
|
|
"Tim K." <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> skrev i melding
news:YYq7g.1942$HA2.1507@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1147026151.996899.128790@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
re: The model curriculum as suggested by the respected, authoritative,
goody-goody Teacher-Parent Acrimony MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS & DONUTS FOR
SALE Organization
For all
ages: Put teeths
under pillow for tooth fairy reward, after tying that loose
tooth to handle & slamming door.
Toddler: Barney, Ernie and Santa Claus are coming to town or tv set
near you.
Kindergarten: Deity created all; and I was
delivered by a stork of Dr. Smith.
First Grade: Man is an animal too.
Second Grade: "FANTASIA," the 1940s Disney sort of
subversive movie about evolution.
Third Grade: The birds & bees having something to do with making honey,
which I
hardly
get to this day.
Fourth Grade: Us<---Mammals<--amphibians<--reptiles<--pond
scum<--Republicans.
Fifth Grade: State capitals, planets, and Green-witch-mean-time
Sixth: Capital of Pakistan is Rawapindi and so forth, including French
Indo China's name is now something else but of no consequence
nevertheless.
The rest is a confusing blur, but I know I've been brainwashed,
subverted, secularized, and thus the public school is secularized
socialism, a contradiction within a paradox.
That's the post of the week!
Seconded - Castigat ridendo mores (Horace, Epistles to Piso, IIRC).
T
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
09 May 2006 08:54:48 AM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
Sixth: Capital of Pakistan is Rawapindi and so forth,
Islamabad actually. Sorry, the pedant in me couldn't resist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you know what your children are reading in biology class? |
10 May 2006 06:25:41 PM |
|
|
Capital of Pakistan is Rawapindi and so forth,
Islamabad actually. Sorry, the pedant in me couldn't resist.
Circa 1956, age 11, 6th grade, I memorized state and country capitals:
Rawapindi is amongst that theoretical/hypothesized ten percent of the
ole fashion "social studies" curriculum which the student supposedly
doesn't forget.
And thus, I had to check-it-out 50 YEARS LATER, and herein is a
Minneapolis--St.Paul twin-city kind of angle-link-clue to our opposing
contentions:
http://www.worldisround.com/browse/Asia/TheSubcontinent/Pakistan/Cities/Rawalpindi/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
