She brings up the controversy...by correctly answering the man's silly question?

If you have children, you absolutely have a dog in the fight. By homeschooling them, you, statistically (and the few statistics available are heavily biased FOR home schooled children, comparing volunteered home school test scores with the entire public school population), are giving them a better grasp of English, but worse understanding of math, and certainly aren't doing well teaching science. You also leave them with absolutely no real life education on interpersonal relationships, which are almost as important, since you can't use your knowledge if no one will work with you because you are a spoiled narcissist incapable of listening to others.

After 25+ years of education at 13+ different schools, I've NEVER heard the lesson, that you can ONLY learn through formal schooling, taught in any school, and I know of no one who thinks that way, from pre-school teachers to the many Stanford professors I know. Based on my excessive experience, this is absolutely NOT a lesson taught in average schools. You are simply mistaken about that.

For those who don't wish to ignore the sacred honor of teaching one's own child how to work in a group, how to have a reasoned discussion with others, about subjects the parent is not an expert in, or how to delegate responsibility, all without being the sole focus of all attention, school is a great institution. If you wish to relegate them to a life of having problems dealing with others and (statistically) having even worse math and science skills than average, home school works great.

I still have a dog in this fight, even though I have no children, because I live in a society where I have to deal with others. Those I've dealt with that have a home schooling background have been far more difficult to work with than others, being both less competent and less congenial on top of having a misplaced sense of superiority, both moral and educational.

Its an important message, but one that needs to be done carefully.....cause it runs the risk of telling people dont bother being interested in science also.

If you get excited about a subject, you want to tell others....but scientific results that are presented in lay, to the public, and discussed by politicians as footballs for their next election cycle, are not the same as the scientific work, reporting and actual interpretation of those results.

So on some level I agree....dont teach science if you dont understand it, but at the same time, the population needs to understand it....we need to make a more concerted effort to show our younger generations what science ACTUALLY is, how its ACTUALLY done at an academic level, how we ACTUALLY interpret things.

I think they would be very surprised to see that very little of whats in these reports are claims of absolute certainty, they are mostly comprised of analytical results showing stastical probabilities based on prior observations and models, and that difference is very fucking important, yet glossed over all too often.

Bobknight33...not to be rude, but did you go to school? Did they teach science there? You seem to not understand the terms you are using in the least....
Evolution is a biology term, describing the changes in biology over time due to environmental pressures.
Multiple dimensions is theoretical physics, attempting to describe how reality works....not biology, no evolution here.
Quantum physics is a different, somewhat theoretical, physics, attempting to describe how reality works at the mico level (which oddly is completely different from how it works on the macro level)....again, not biology, no evolution.
There are no clear, accepted theories about what happened before the big bang...yet. Normal physics breaks down at the beginning/bang, so anything said about what happened before is a guess, an educated guess at best. This is also a physics issue, not biology, so evolution doesn't enter into it.
Do you truly not understand this? If so, I blame your education, and suggest you go to night school and learn some science, especially if you intend to comment publicly about it and don't want to look a fool.

EDIT: Your questions are analogous to a person asking why the Old Testament doesn't explain the works of Muhammad, or really closer to asking why Shinto doesn't explain the life of Jebus. They aren't related except loosely in the 'religion' category, just like your post mixed up ideas from the 'science' category to imply it's all the same and related directly and one should describe and explain the other...that's just not right.

there's a big difference between believing in some religious myth, and quite another to reject reality and scientific FACTS because you are part of a certain religious belief system.

edit: what I mean is, it's fine to be religious and teach science, it wouldn't be fine on the other hand, if you taught science, and wedged in your ignorance in the middle of your teaching, by saying evolution doesn't exit, and creationism is somehow a valid point.

This point doesn't really have anything to do with the newsletter ordeal. I just think the man is an idiot.

He also states that his personal beliefs are his alone and not to be forced onto others. I am taught by professors at a state university where I have been told point blank that they have religious beliefs, yet they still teach Science. The two are not incompatible or exclusive. I suggest this article by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow about the subject. I assume you will accept Dr Hawking's conclusions. PDF


I'm voting for Obama because he is the man right now, but I'm finding it surprisingly easy to play devils advocate for Ron Paul.

I don't find Ron Paul's rhetoric or discourse frightening or crazy.

Obama says he is a Christian, which by default means he denies evolution de facto, and I am a biological sciences major.... and you know why I don't care? Because Obama believes in everyones rights, and doesn't deny science where science is the leader.

Why is it so hard to conceive that an active conspiracy to hide the newsletters from Paul was successful, when the outcome would be exactly the same as the one we're debating? The one where NO ONE has heard Ron Paul ever, EVER say anything like the things in the newsletters?

Ever. Not even HEARD him say it.

Look how the fucking GOP candidates cant go ONE DAY without saying something so incendiary... they cant possibly believe such things ... and expect more than 48% of the vote...

Bluntly put: If Ron Paul was a racist, it would probably HELP his campaign the way the world is. Consider that.

Well the man does have experience with teaching science to children. >> ^DerHasisttot:

Bill Nye has giant balls, trying to teach Fox-Viewers. It's fun to see how he has to force himself to talk slowly and simple.

>> ^demon_ix:

You sort of have to be a geek to want to dress up and spend an afternoon teaching science to juggalos

or the most patient *humanitarian in the world

You sort of have to be a *geek to want to dress up and spend an afternoon teaching science to juggalos

Creationism IS a myth. There is absolutely no basis that it is scientific fact. It was in a BIOLOGY book. You know, the science of life. Schools teach science. Churches teach myth.

Religion isn't Science.
Teach science in science class, (based on fact).
Teach religion at church, (based on dogma).

School is about learning and discovering. (with proof)
Church is about faith and believing. (without proof)

The two just arn't connected in any way and truely shouldn't be compared against each other...

On this whole risk assessment topic: Is the guy doing the video taking a totally unnecessary risk in relation to the benefit of teaching science? Even though he kept his hand, was he foolish for even attempting such a stunt and putting his trust into science? Would a smarter/better trained person not have done what he did?

hmmm. I get the impression she would like religion taught in every class. How about science class being used to teach science?

Oh my god, please tell me that someone didn't just attribute car/lightning safety to their rubber tires. Tell me you are still in grade school please. It's the metal cage of the car that diverts the electricity around its occupants, has nothing to do whatsoever with the tires, rubber can actually conduct electricity, albeit very poorly. Seriously, are schools teaching science anymore?

Plus, if you've seen an electrical burn, it looks nothing like the picture. Like someone said when you are struck by lightning there is an entrance point and an exit point, both of which are burns, but lightning doesn't "roast" a person. That picture looks more like an acid burn of some sort.
Again, is science not in schools anymore?

It takes 5 minutes to explain than Creationism isn't a science but a propaganda tool for nutjobs and fundies. Then you can go back to teaching science.

Don't forget the "Science : it works, b!tches" poster.