The dumbing of America

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-dumbing-of-america.530154/page-2#post-1068920869

 

The educational system in the U.S. has been in Democrat hands for at least the last 60 years. Try telling college students the real meaning of "free speech".

 

Fundamentalist Christians believe the Earth is flat? Where did you get that?

 

Link?

(Thanks for the reply, but you pasted the wrong link in your first response.)

 

Quite intentional I assure you. Its called circular linking. I linked back to my post as the source

You don't actually doubt that the % of folks thinking the earth was flat was higher among fundamentalist folk who believe that the entire earth was flooded around 2200 BC .. do you ?

 

What's a "Jhina"?

 

P

Perhaps it's the fact (assuming it is a fact) that the global shape of the earth isn't mentioned in the bible. If it ain't in the holy scriptures, brother, it don't exist!

 

Science as it is always changing/evolving is of course up for "debate". Think of the advancements that would have never happened if your idea of science was correct. No one would challenge current theories.

 

Yeah, that's why Rachel Maddow is so popular among right-wing viewers.

That was sarcasm in case you Lefties didn't understand.

 

?!??

I'm astonished that you would intentionally destroy any credibility you might have had.

Any further assertions of "fact" will be appropriately discounted.

 

Science denial has nothing whatsoever to do with the Dems.

Furthermore the antiscience textbooks are coming out of Texas.

 

Your inability to detect obvious sarcasm is duly noted

 

A literal interpretation of the bible describes a flat earth and fundamentalists believe in the literal interpretation of the bible.

https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

 

When you say something is a fact, it's not a fact; except when it is a fact, then it's not not a fact. The difference between non-fact facts and fact facts are obvious.

I understand now.

I'm too lazy to go through all of that. I'll just do the discounting.

 

Are you saying that no statement in the Bible automatically means "flat"?

 

I am old. In my day we had to eat detergent the old fashioned way, out of the box.

 

And, specifically, what "antiscience" is in those textbooks? I haven't heard what's going on with that.

 

When a poster tells you that the use of the word "Fact" was sarcasm ... and you still think that the poster meant the information to be taken as "Fact" , this tells me that you do not understand the meaning of the word "sarcasm".

 

Well, I had a so-so Christian upbringing, but dropped that a long time ago. I always thought it was interesting that an all-knowing God never bothered to mention to his followers how the Solar System was constructed. But, the Earth being "firm" is hardly "flat".

 

Fake news. Fake survey. Pure nonsense.

 

https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily...ing-language-in-high-school-biology-textbooks

Texas science textbooks are used nationwide and yes, that does explain how creationists are "dumbing down" America to suit their own nefarious agenda.

 

I recommend that you read the entire article to understand the biblical claims of biblical flat earthers.

The problem is that the bible is based upon stone age superstitions but those who take the bible LITERALLY believe that it supercedes scientific facts.

I have no problem with anyone wanting to believe the superstition of their choice but when it comes it imposing those beliefs into public school textbooks that becomes a violation of the 1st amendment.

 

I agree, creationism is denial. I like how the true believers think the Earth is 6,000 years old and fail to explain why there are dinosaur bones all over the place when they are not talked about in religious writings except for some odd references to great beasts or some such. I would think that a T-Rex would have gotten a chapter in the Bible.

 

'Racial' [ perhaps better to say 'tribal', to avoid semantic confusion about the use of the word 'race'] differences in mean IQ are well-established. Anyone who doubts them is simply ignorant of the vast literature on the subject, or under the grip of an emotional/religious commitment to beliefs which are not compatible with unpleasant reality. (This condition is the human norm, of course. You can tell when someone's beliefs about something are quasi-religious by asking them, with respect to the proposition they believe in, 'What evidence would make you change you mind?' If they get indignant about the very possibility of there being contra-indicating evidence, then you've got a religious belief. The race-and-IQ issue is, for most people, a quasi-religious belief.)

Of some interest is, does IQ actually measure anything worth measuring? Answer: yes. Is it simply a measure of one's familiarity with a certain culture? Answer: no.

The really interesting questions are: WHY do these differences exist? One argument is: the differing environments that different tribal groups find themselves in. A counter-explanation is: a differential distribution of the genes that influence IQ. (If you think that genes don't influence IQ, then, again, you are simply ignorant of the large number of studies on this subject.) Of course, these explanations are not mutually exclusive.

If you think it's all genes, ponder on this: the Maya were well on the path to civilization: they had an exponential-positional numbering system, a sophisticated calendar, monumental public buildings ... then something happened (I think the consensus is exhaustion of the soil) and their civilization collapsed. The Incas and Aztecs had similarly-advanced civilizations -- they were following the path trodden in the Middle East and elsewhere from hunter-gathers to primitive agriculturalists/herders to what we call civilization. Then the Spanish hit them, and destroyed everything.

Now, they are not high in the IQ league. But ... did their genes change? Or was it their social environment?

Or think about this: Irish mean IQ increased by between five and ten points over a decade or so. A change in genes, or a change in the environment? (By 'environment' I don't mean only the 'personal' environment that specific individuals live in -- whether they have both a mother and a father at home, whether money is a problem, whether there are books in the home -- but also the 'social' environment, which I'll leave undefined.)

But the most interesting development in IQ, which should at least raise doubts about the 'genes-are-everything' argument, is the so-called 'Flynn Effect'. Mean IQ seems to be going up by about 3 points every decade, surely a result of a changing environment, not some sort of biological selection process.

Anyone interested in learning about this fascinating field should start with Ian Deary's Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction. He prudently skates around the radioactive 'race and IQ' issue, but gives you a good foundation in the subject.

By the way, I don't believe that any significant number of Americans of any generation believe the Earth is flat. Perhaps they were winding up the interviewers.

 

10:1 says they are mostly right wingers.

The right wing has been disparaging science and logic for well over two decades now. So this is hardly surprising.