Get Schooled

By Jeff

February 16, 2007 09:04 AM | Link to this

I’m going out on a limb shared by Mr. Liberty and SET (though I don’t think I’m going quite as far out on it as either one of them… no offense guys!)

Why SHOULD government teach religious beliefs? Whether those beliefs are in secular humanism/atheism (ie science) or another religion (creationism).

Government tyranny of ANY form is STILL government tyranny. Even if you happen to agree with it… if you give the government power now, what happens when it does something you DON’T agree with?

By KA

February 16, 2007 09:06 AM | Link to this

AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!

By mmm

February 16, 2007 09:15 AM | Link to this

Jeff—why then should we have public schools at all?

or any type of school? Since all traditional learning that is not directly experienced only amounts to some other entity’s views, whether government, parent, religious tradition etc.

Let’s just leave our children by the roadside and let them directly develop their own direct knowledge. My “scientific and therefore suspect education” leads me to believe that only about half of them will walk into the roadway and be killed, leaving the other half to indirectly but authentically observe that they shouldn’t walk in that direction.

By abc

February 16, 2007 09:28 AM | Link to this

This has also created quite a stir in Texas, where a state legislator has sent around a memo that includes Mr. Bridges’ template for legislation that would seek to ban evolution from being taught because of evolution’s basis in religion. Bridges purports that ancient Pharisees, such as Kabballa and subscribing to Judaeism, accounts for evolution’s basis as describing the 1st day of creation as having lasted 4 billion of our years, with the other 5 days of creation lasting various amounts of time, that total up to the Earth’s approximately 16 billion years of age. What a crackpot, and what a waste of taxpayer’s money, taking up legislative time with such claptrap, and all over a stupid disclaimer on a sticker in a textbook.

By Jeff

February 16, 2007 09:32 AM | Link to this

Some views can be proven. Those should be allowed to be taught. Origins of life has no objective proof, therefore teaching it amounts to teaching of religion no matter which way you bend.

By abc

February 16, 2007 09:34 AM | Link to this

…not to mention the anti-Semitism that such nonsense represents. Why isn’t the Anti-Defamation League raising dust about this nutjob?

By KA

February 16, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this

abc, They are.

By decaturparent

February 16, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

OK, so Bridges claims that the theory evolution is a creation of the Jews (specifically the Pharisees) so it should be rejected.

Last I checked the Jews also are responsible for the creation story. So I guess he likes some Jews better than other Jews.

Given the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supporting evolution, I think I’ll go with those Jews.

BTW, Jesus was a Jew too, right?

By mmm

February 16, 2007 09:54 AM | Link to this

Jeff—the nature of scientific discovery is that it is alway open to experiments that might cause one to either discredit or refine a theory.

It is a matter of what preponderance of the evidence lead a thoughtful person to accept a theory as being predictive often enough that we trust it. It is still called the THEORY of Gravity even though I suspect you trust it enough not to walk off a cliff hoping that this time you will disprove it.

I presume that because you disbelieve in evolution—you believe that the flu shot you were given when you were 10 will also protect you if avarian flu causes a pandemic. If so, being a reasonable person—I would like to be given your dose of vaccine. I presume that you also oppose government involvement in funding something like the CDC on the basis of the same logic since study of disease is a never ending battle with the forces of evolution.

By Jeff

February 16, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

The CDC’s battles with MICRO evolution and the schools teaching of the religion of MACRO evolution are two completely separate things, mmm.

I will agree with you that MICRO evolution - the belief that organisms adapt to their environment - is well documented and settled. MACRO evolution - origins of life, the belief that animals can “evolve” into other types of animals, etc- , on the other hand, is a religion that has no available proof other than the same faith it takes to believe in creationism.

For example, the fact that bacteria - to use a simple and readily observable case - do in fact change over time it true. What is NOT true is that a bacteria - E.coli, to name a specific example - will ever become ANYTHING other than another strain of E. coli.

By abc

February 16, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

decaturparent, Jesus was King of the Jews.

Now, any thinking person will read Genesis and realize immediately that in describing the 6 days of creation, there was not at first a planet nor a sun for it to orbit, so the concept of how long a ‘day’ lasted is completely up in the air. But to say that’s represents any foundation for religious basis of evolution is hogwash, and the motivation to do so having basis in simply being put out about the textbook sticker controversy is transparent.

By jc

February 16, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

the only book I need is the that strats off..In the Beginning….

By decaturparent

February 16, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

abc, I know Jesus was the King of the Jews, I was being facetious. I was just making a point that it is pretty stupid to reject anything because it is based in Judaism because Christianity itself is based in Judaism.

Jeff, the fact that bacteria evolve is further proof of macro-evolution. Cells mutate, including reproductive cells (eggs and sperm). These mutations create mostly nonviable changes. However some of them are viable and actually can create new species over time. That is the basis of evolution.

If you don’t believe in macro-evolution, how do you explain situation on the Galapagos Islands?

By Jeff

February 16, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

New forms of life were not created on Galapagos. Only modifications of existing forms.

Show me ONE CASE of a dog mutating into anything other than a dog… or take ANY animal. It can’t be done. It has NEVER happened.

By jc

February 16, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

why do we still have apes and monkeys?

By jc

February 16, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Why do we still have apes & monkeys?

By abc

February 16, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

There are still apes and monkeys because, while we evolved from a common ancestor, we did so in different environments, with different causes and effects. Among all animal species there are different levels of intelligence: among apes, some types are closer to monkeys, some are closer to humans; among dogs, some have intellect that approximates a human 2 or 3 year old, while coyotes seem to demonstrate quite a lot more — how much is intellect, how much instinct? We don’t know.

By jc

February 16, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

all you evolusionists are whacked

By decaturparent

February 16, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

jc, just because a species evolves into another species does not mean that the prior form is obsolete or cannot survive in the given ecosystem.

Why do we have dogs and cats? Why do we have fish and birds? Why do we have horses and cows? Why do we have lizards and salamanders? Why do we have ducks and geese?

By decaturparent

February 16, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

We may be whacked, but at least we can spell evolution.

By jc

February 16, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

decaturparent……..you need to get right with the lord

By abc

February 16, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Even the Bible makes it clear that man evolved: From Adam through Abraham, men lived well over 900 years, with Methusela the winner at 973. After Abraham, lifespans gradually decreased in years, getting down to near 100 over the next 15 generations or so.

If you subscribe to a religion, and you can’t acknowledge that our scientific knowledge (such as it is) is a description of our understanding of God’s creation (such as it is), you’re just not even trying to think about it.

I think half the adults in the country can’t read well enough to read and understand the Bible for themselves; it seems to rationalize why so many Christians seem to be so close-minded. They only get a tiny piece of the message, whatever their pastor wants them to hear. Teach religion in public schools? Gimme a break… how about teaching everyone to read well enough so they can read their Bible?

By mmm

February 16, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

jc-I have no problem with believing both in evolution and the bible. My 2nd grade son asked me on the way home from school the other day if scientists could believe in both evolution and the bible or did they have to pick one?

I told him that there is no conflict he needs to worry about because science attempts to figure out “how” and the bible tells us “why”. They are different questions, so we should expect them to have different answers. Steven saw the logic of that answer, and I’m sure will continue to pay attention both in Sunday and Weekday school.

Why can’t more adults follow such logic?

By Jim in Marietta

February 16, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Jeff, Your 10:01 post is right on. Unfortunately, those who rule in the scientific peer reviewed literature arena rule the day, but nobody has yet to prove that dogs will someday evolve into elephants, or that ferret like creatures evolved into apes further evolving into humans.

By Jeff

February 16, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

abc:

I’m not belittling science. I am, in fact, a scientist myself. What I AM saying is that on questions where science cannot know the answer, we MUST acknowledge that science cannot know the answer. Specifically in regards to origins of life.

By HB

February 16, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

“Show me ONE CASE of a dog mutating into anything other than a dog… or take ANY animal. It can’t be done.”

How about fish to reptile? Here you go, Jeff:

http://www.ansp.org/press/archive/2006/release/limbedfish4306.doc

Science is not a religion. Here’s the difference: religion is based on faith, not evidence. Nothing wrong with that, but it should not be taught in public schools because beliefs are not universal and cannot be tested in an objective manner.

Science is not merely about facts as proven through evidence. It is also about ideas (hypotheses and theories) that can be tested through observation and collection of evidence. One cannot test through observation the existance of God. Those of us who believe in God, do so on faith. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, can, has been, and will continue to be thoroughly tested through observation of current species (including macro organisms — fruit flies are great for this) and study of past evidence (fossils).

There are lots of facts to support evolution. Are there gaps? Yes. Does that mean the theory is fundamentally flawed? No. Are they enough reason to doubt the scientific validity of evolution? No. There has been enough scientific evidence to conclude that fish evolved into reptiles for many, many years without specific evidence of the species that bridged that gap. And as you can see in the above link, gaps are constantly being filled in as scientists continue to study and make new discoveries.

You don’t throw away a field of study and refuse to teach it because not everything is known as of yet. Do we have documented evidence of every detail taught in history class? No. Historians build their theories based on what evidence we do have and gaps are filled in by educated guesses and often supported by later discoveries of letters, journals, artifacts, etc. Do new discoveries sometimes prove older theories to be false? Yes. The same is true in science, but when there is overwhelming evidence in hand, we don’t refuse to teach it because, hey, you never know, despite all odds, something could pop up and prove we were wrong. We all think we know how the Civil War went down based on mountains of evidence, but it is possible, that it was really a giant conspiracy between Lincoln, Grant, Davis, and Lee to throw the country into chaos. Given that such an unlikely possibility cannot be ruled out entirely, should we stop teaching the Civil War all together?

By abc

February 16, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

We don’t know the specific origin of mathematics either. The earliest known artifacts are tokens, from approximately 8000 B.C. Writing hadn’t been invented; development of math into what the ancient Greeks utilized is unknown. People have theories about it; since that is unknown, should mathematics not be taught in public schools?

We don’t know the specific origin of life on this planet, nor of the planet itself, nor the universe. We have as much scientific analysis of data about it as there currently is, some representing conclusive proof, some not. People refer to that as ‘evolution’. We simply know as much about it as we know; that it’s an incomplete analysis of records that haven’t yet been discovered or don’t exist doesn’t invalidate it.

By KA

February 16, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

Jim in Marietta, actually, from my knowledge of my kids classmates, the kids who didn’t perform well in their AP classes ususally didn’t take the end of year AP exams.

By KA

February 16, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

IMO evolution doesn’t explain HOW the Universe started, rather it explains the process of change in organisms over the millenia. Therefore, evolution does not contradict any scripture or creation stories, nor does it prove or disprove the existence of God, or whatever you call the higher power that started it all.

By jim d

February 16, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

I’m afraid we disagree today, well actually we have everyday this topic has been raised. I believe we are all out of our depth when we approach the subject of life.

Just out of curiosity though, Why do you have a problem with considering the possability that life is a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law? That evolution may have been God’s devine plan?

By abc

February 16, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

KA, I agree; in my mind, evolution and the Bible co-exist. To me, anything unexplained by evolution is simply Godly things we don’t understand, and there are plenty of those. God said, ‘Let there be light’, and that’s all that’s said about that. Our light comes from the Sun, so somehow, ‘Let there be light’ created it, and who knows what else that pertains to… God was ‘moving upon the face of the waters’ when he made light, where did the waters come from, or does that actually mean something else? The Bible tells us things in terms that we, as humans, can understand. We apply what we know as science to understand it as well as we’re able.

Any suggestion by a politician such as Bridges that any particular science shouldn’t be taught in public schools because of a fabricated or actual basis in religion is being destructively contrarian.

By high school teacher

February 16, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

As a Christian, I think that the theory of evolution needs to be presented in school. It does not need to be taught as fact, but students need to know all of the main theories of how the Earth began. The objecive of public education is to educate out students, right? Educating them about the creation debate only strenghens their knowledge base. They don’t have to be told that evolution is truth, but they do need to be informed.

By jim d

February 16, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

Jim in Marietta

“nobody has yet to prove that dogs will someday evolve into elephants, or that ferret like creatures evolved into apes further evolving into humans.”

Well Jim, I have faith that God has the ability to make that happen. I need no proof.

Your demand for proof would indicate that you fully understand the workings of God. Which would make you as knowledgeable as he.

Uhm, isn’t that what got us in trouble in the first place according to your bible?

By Penguinmom

February 16, 2007 02:03 PM | Link to this

HB As far as your ‘proof’, the coelacanth has the same kind of lobe fins as Tiktaalik. These fins are not used for supporting weight (as a reptile does) because they are attached to muscle not to the spine. They are used for greater mobility. This ‘transitional’ fish seems to be just a relative of the coelacanth, a previous member of the ‘transitional’ family until it was found alive and well and swimming.

I don’t have a problem with the Theory of evolution being taught. I teach it to my children along with teaching creation. I make sure they are aware of the holes in the theory and I make sure they are not presented with false images such as the embryo fakes or the peppered moths. I want my kids to be knowledgeable about the theory in a way that makes sure they are totally aware that it is a theory and not a very well supported one at that.

btw, bacteria and viruses reproduce asexually through cell division. This is microevolution and certainly it’s obvoius that if a single cell changes, those changes will be passed directly on to its offspring. This does not in any way relate to how a multi-celled organism could mate and reproduce an offspring that was similar enough to its parent to survive and reproduce but different enough to pass those difference on to the offspring it creates with a mate.

By Mike K.

February 16, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

So for those who don’t “believe” in the “theory” of evoution, do you also not believe that we’re made up of atoms (atomic theory) or that disease is spread by germs (germ theory), or that the earth revolves around the sun (heliocentric theory)? Based on the evidence of proof for evolution demanded by those who are anti-evolution, none of these scientific theories would stand up to scrutiny either.

By HB

February 16, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

Penguinmom, while it is true that Answers in Genesis put out a statement from a “creation anatomist” claiming the discovery of Tiktaalik is not evidence of transition from fish to amphibian (I said reptile earlier — sorry about that — brain slip), the scientific community at large recognizes this as the discovery of a specific transitional species. Its fin is one of several features that indicate this transition.

By Mike K

February 16, 2007 02:47 PM | Link to this

“Show me ONE CASE of a dog mutating into anything other than a dog… or take ANY animal. It can’t be done. It has NEVER happened”

There has been observed speciation in fruit flies, mice, and fish. There is also evidence for non-animal (i.e. plant) speciation, like fireweed for example.

By abc

February 16, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

I think it’s plain to see, and has been illustrated by the blog today, that anyone who would claim to not believe in the Theory of Evolution to the extent that they believe it shouldn’t be taught in schools do so in a misguided effort to assert their own Christianity — Christians outnumber everyone else by a huge margin. They do so because they don’t understand their own religion very well; and are reliant on others, who have a political agenda, to spoon feed their religion to them in small, easily digestable doses. They’re unable to reconcile within themselves that both science and religion can be true. They are in the vast minority of Christians.

Bridges now denies writing the memo. One of his constituents, and political ally, Marshall Hall, says he wrote it with Bridges’ approval.

By Bob S

February 16, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

Let’s get some facts straight. Evolution science is not about the origin of the universe or life. It is an explanation based on evidence and fact for the biodiversity we see today on the Earth. Evolution is a process that we understand better everyday and will be a breakthrough science in our fight against cancers.

In the 150 years since Darwin and through years of addition and refinement, not one shred of evidence has refuted the science of evolution. That you don’t understand or “believe” evolution science is irrelevant. That it has been one of the most successful an prolific scientific theories ever, is the only proof you should need.

It is okay for you to reject evolution science on pure religious grounds, but to reject it on scientific grounds, you will have to get your science right or you flunk science. It’s really as simple at that.

By Jeff

February 16, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

To all those claiming “speciation”: That is NOT what I am talking about. What I am demanding proof of (and no one has yet shown) is one type of animal becoming an entirely different type of animal. Heck, as I said earlier, animals changing over time is pretty evident (ala Galapagos). I’m saying show me a fish that became a bird or a rat that became a dog, etc.

By abc

February 16, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this

Jeff, the differences between apes and man, from the perspective of chromosomes and DNA, are not that great — certainly not as much as between fish and birds. Chimpanzees and humans have as high as 99% similarity in DNA. It was proposed January, 2006 that chimpanzees be reclassified from the Pan genus to the Homo genus. Chimps evolved differently from other apes in a way that deviates only 3% from the way humans did.

By Jeff

February 16, 2007 03:44 PM | Link to this

Point of order:

I was wrong. Macro evolution (the one that cannot be proven) deals with those aspects of the scientific taxonomy ABOVE species (which is actually where my arguments hae pointed anyway).

Brief science lesson: Scientific Taxonomy:

Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, Subspecies.

My argument, restated:

Show me any animal of a particular Order (or even Family or Genus) that has moved to a different Order.

It can’t happen.

Basic Information Theory! Speciation LOSES information, yet evolution claims that organisms can GAIN information and thus move to a different Order. My claim is simple: prove it.

By abc

February 16, 2007 03:49 PM | Link to this

Please note that it was proposed that chimps be reclassified into the Homo genus and not humans into the Pan genus!

By Bob S

February 16, 2007 03:56 PM | Link to this

“What I am demanding proof of (and no one has yet shown) is one type of animal becoming an entirely different type of animal.”

“Show me any animal of a particular Order (or even Family or Genus) that has moved to a different Order.”

For a person who asserts they are a scientist, you certainly have a cartoon version of ToE. ToE has never said that a dog would ever evolve into an elephant. And ToE has never said an species would move to a different order. If you think that, you are just wrong.

The history of evolution is a bush, with branches splitting and growing more numerous and many just ending. Thus once a branch is started, a species cannot jump to another branch, but a species may become a different species through several understood processes of evolution. The change is over several hundreds of thousands of years. That’s why you haven’t noticed what’s going on all around you.

By Janine

February 16, 2007 04:18 PM | Link to this

I’ve almost always supported you, Jeff. But this time, I’m afraid I can’t. Abc and BobS are , as far as my own studies go, explaining the process of evolution from a scientific point of view, clearly and correctly. I have never actually been able to successfully relate this to religion as others have.

By emoryscientist

February 16, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

Jeff, your posts make it very clear to me that you are not, in fact a scientist.

By HB

February 16, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this

Bob S, are you a biology teacher/professor? I’m just curious because you seem particularly good at accurately explaining evolution in a clear, simple to understand, manner.

By Jeff

February 16, 2007 04:49 PM | Link to this

Janine,

Thanks for your support. I freely acknowledge that this isn’t my strongest area, but I DO know that evolution DOES have flaws and I am working to make sure that people see that at its essence, the General Theory of Evolution (that all life sprang from a single inorganic object) is flawed. If this were possible, you would see a fish eventually become a bird or some other such transformation. We have not, nor will you.

What IS freely acknowledged is the phenomenon of speciation. THAT is what Darwin observed, and we in fact observe it today.

The problem with the General Theory is Information. Speciation LOSES information. But changing Genus would mean GAINING information. The problem thus presents itself: How does an organism GAIN the needed information to make a Genus level jump when all observable data points to a LOSS of information during transformation?

By Jeff

February 16, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this

Emory:

Just because I don’t subscribe to the faith that has more holes than Branch Davidism?

By abc

February 16, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this

Yeah Jeff, I guess speciation losing information explains George Bush. yawn. Yall have a nice weekend! :-)

By HB

February 16, 2007 05:09 PM | Link to this

Jeff, you called science a religion and imply that evolution is a tenet of that faith. Is math a religion too? What about economics? I think it’s fair to conclude from your statements that you are not a scientist.

By luvs2teach

February 16, 2007 05:14 PM | Link to this

My students ask, “Ms. _, do you believe in the theory of evolution?”

To which I reply, “No.”

Before you freak out, I then continue, “Evolution is not a religion, and you don’t therefore ‘believe’ in it. It is a theory explaining biodiversity in the world today, and as such, it is well-supported.”

Depending on interest, I may continue, “Like anything else in science, when we make new discoveries or create new technologies, we might have to go back and evaluate our theories - sometimes they change - it doesn’t mean we haven’t made up our mind - it just means we have to consider new information - Pluto being demoted is a perfect example - as in the switch from a geocentric to a heliocentric model of the solar system.”

“Science tries to make the theory fit the facts - when the facts change, the theories change. We look for observable, measurable evidence. Religion needs no facts, merely faith…and that, kids, is something you believe in.”

HB, BobS and others - well said :-)

Y’all have a great weekend!

By Bob S

February 16, 2007 05:16 PM | Link to this

Jeff, you are correct to reject your expressed version of ToE because it is far from the truth and far from what, in fact, the ToE actually says. You are correct that we do have direct evidence of speciation and that is what Darwin observed. So we really are in agreement.
What you don’t seem to understand is the effect of deep time on the speciation phenomenon you accept. That the Earth is 4,500 million years old allows for what we see today based solely on the simple speciation we observe around us today.

By KA

February 16, 2007 05:36 PM | Link to this

I am Catholic (which is Christian in case you Baptists think not). I am also a biologist. I believe in God and I believe in evolution. Evolution explains the progress of God’s work.

By KA

February 16, 2007 05:41 PM | Link to this

OK, the weekend is coming, and here’s a question for the anit-evolution crowd ….do you believe in the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

By Jeff

February 16, 2007 06:10 PM | Link to this

Bob:

Let’s say you are right. Now, that would mean that Chimps are a descendant of MAN, since speciation loses information (and Chimps have less information than man).

But everyone claims that MAN is a descendant of CHIMPS….

By KA

February 16, 2007 06:32 PM | Link to this

Jeff, Pick up a biology book over the weekend and learn read up on speciation. To understand evolution over a short period of time, study cold and flu virus mutation.

By mmm

February 16, 2007 07:03 PM | Link to this

I would suggest the book;

Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (Paperback) by Kenneth R. Miller for$12 on Amazon.com

This guy is good at simply explaining evolution and some of the most compelling evidence for it, and at explaining the limitations of science’s capacity to answer theological questions. After poking holes in everyone that comes at this with a “I am the only posessor of truth” attitude, he suggest a much more humble attitude is appropriate for us all.

By Bob S

February 16, 2007 07:09 PM | Link to this

Let’s correct a few misstatements. Humans did not descend from Chimps or vice versa, we have a common ancestor that is different from both. Chimps do not have less information than humans. We share 98% of our genes and the remaining is different, not more or less.

I cannot adequately address your misunderstanding of information science in this forum. However, nothing in ToE conflicts with information theory. Consider the following questions and you might understand the source of natural information better

• Where did the information expressed by the chemical elements originate when the universe consisted of only hydrogen and helium?

• Where do molecules get the information that expresses their unique properties different from the atoms that comprise them? Both Chlorine and Sodium are poisons and yet table salt is a dietary staple.

• Does a snowflake lose information when it forms? It is much different than water.

By Prof

February 20, 2007 01:03 PM | Link to this

Get a grip, folks. Religion is just bad science fiction. All gods were created by people, not the other way around.

If you are a devout Christian opposed to the teaching of evolution, it’s likely because your parents were, too. They infected you with their beliefs while you were young and impressionable. Had they been devout members of any other faith, you’d believe a different set of mumbo jumbo.

Science trumps fiction every time.

By SET

February 20, 2007 02:12 PM | Link to this

I agree with Prof.

But on some level I’d love to allow all the true believers to go to thier own schools where they would take themselves out of competition with my family for seats in Med School.

Free Choice is not a bad thing when you can accomodate it. And we should. If the Feds and their courts would butt out of Education as per the US Constitution, the states would be free to run their state schools largely as they see fit. I believe that is vastly preferable to what we have now.

And I have no illusion how long a system of schools run by mystics would last in a competitive economy. People have put up with the Catholic Schools since the public schools have been destroyed in most West Coast Cities and the Catholics are cheaper than the alternative private prep schools. When push comes to shove - families who count will make sure their kids are educated to compete with students nationally and internationally.

Society only requires a certain number of competitive kids. The proletariat can go to creationist schools all they want. You don’t need to know Darwin’s Theory to say “Would you like fries with that order?”.