Now this extends to all aspects of education in all topic areas and grade levels through college.

Why is that? When we permit arrogance to dominate curriculum decisions and start implanting one set of opinions or another, we have undercut not only the educational value for the children but our own country’s economic well being. All so one group get their values pushed and promoted while the facts are damned.

Yes, that is wording it strongly. But when our schools devolve into teaching paradoxes instead of what is based on proven facts, observational data supported by experimental data tested by the rigors of time and the validation process in not only science but all of the social sciences and history, we have surrendered reason to emotion.

We have surrendered logic and the capacity of generations to think logically and in a grander scope for the sake of influence of a set doctrine. Now we must reap what has been sown and the country must pay the price if it can survive the price tag.

Between a Federal Reserve system having orchestrated a series of blunders leading to a devalued dollar, restrictions in supply and demand, and extensive stupidity for over 30 years covering many different administrations and combinations of Democrat or Republican controlled House, Senate and White House, we are seeing the failure of sound educational practices come to bear. I concur with the statements of Professor Walter Williams regarding Congressional Problem Creation.

But in this culture of not taking responsibility for ones actions and dodging accountability, the fingers will be pointed elsewhere. The fault of those driving a substandard education at all levels gives rise to the product put forth to serve in office. When logic and reason are suspended for the purposes of political or ideological gain, suffering on a large scale will ensue. Those who have initiated the process and propped up the deterioration are responsible for what will be their own decreased place in the world.

Now it has come back to hit the same education system and governmental bodies square on the jaw or a body blow to the pocketbook. Gas prices are starting to cripple the budgets of school districts, sheriff’s departments, cities, counties and states. Who is going to pay for this? The taxpayer is the normal answer. However, the taxpayers are also losing their homes or the values of the homes are plummeting. That directly leads to decreased property taxes which is where the schools, police and fire departments get their funding from exacerbating the budgetary impact of the gas price increases.

The more our education system focuses on teaching the irrational, the unproven, and the illogical dogmas whether they be of a humanistic or other value system, the more they slit their own financial throats down the line.

Why do I write what I write? I see my nation self-destructing for reasons that are petty and vain. Arrogance has replaced humility at the price tag of our nation’s future

• 0 comments »

If any website wants to post news and be considered credible, it falls upon them to have the wisdom to determine what news is and what an editorial is. To know the difference, it requires those in charge to know the basics about a subject like that of science. You need to know what science is and is not at the very basic level. If a website such as Yahoo cannot do so, then they deserve to be the whipping post.

Science is attempting to understand the world around us. We observe something, postulate a reason for it, test if the postulate is correct through applicable experimentation, and submit your results for not only peer review but duplication of the experiment to verify the results. If you fail the process, you go back to the start and try, try again. We use the scientific method to have a baseline of rules to follow to keep opinions on the sideline as much as possible to get to the information and keep it factual and honest. It is a “checks and balance” system if you will. Science is about following the evidence to where the evidence leads us.

Unfortunately, those with agendas have opted to turn the field of Science backwards. Instead of following the evidence, far too many “professionals” have decided to try and take the neutral evidence and conform it to their opinions and world views as opposed to following the evidence like true science dictates. Yahoo has chosen to fully support those who have in no uncertain terms bastardized science.

How so? Their primary source for “science” articles is the website LiveScience.com which is described as “scientific inquiry with an original, provocative point of view. LiveScience reports amazing, real world breakthroughs, made simple and stimulating for people on the go.” You can change some of that wording around. “Original, provocative point of view” easily translates into opinion not science. Science is ignored and an agenda is pushed instead. LiveScience is little more than an overzealous blog masking as science. Why would a company such as Yahoo use such a sad source for “Science News”?

If you watch and read closely, real scientists and historians are not given airtime. Who do they quote? Who writes the articles? Anthropologists do. Nice title but anthropology has little to do with science or history. They take the tidbits that are known or confirmed and insert a heavy amount of opinion based on their world view to fill the void of unknown. That isn’t science or history. That’s science fiction writing which often completely ignores the basics of genetics and microbiology in order to mislead and flat out lie to those reading the material.

Here is one of the articles Yahoo thought worthwhile to post as “provocative science news”. The location on the LiveScience website is here. The title of “Sarcasm Seen as Evolutionary Survival Skill” says it all. The word “seen” indicates opinion not provable fact. It goes on to blather about “claim” and other words that indicate opinion. It also assumes there was enough time for “evolution” to have happened. Which I have already shown doesn’t exist in Time Demand Crunch III. But the standard argument used for evolution ignores the basics of genetics and microbiology. and

The environment does not dictate to your DNA what you will become. Your DNA dictates how you can interact with the environment. If I can’t reach the top shelf, my offspring of my wife and I (5’ and 6’2” respectively) will not be taller than me just so he / she can reach the top shelf. To assert the opposite is just ridiculous and doing an incredible disservice to those attempting to learn real science. Observational data supported by experimental data produces evidence you follow to the eventual conclusion. But if no one was there to observe it and it can’t be tested then it is not science. Yahoo should try supporting real science not this published junk science or sci-fi writing.

Makes a person wonder why Microsoft would want to bother buying Yahoo out.

• 0 comments »

Like I have always stated, it is time to prove it. Eugenie Scott is not only the Executive Director of NCSE but is also a public signer of the Humanist Manifesto III. So a person who is running a “neutral” agency that influences the science curriculum of the 50 states and is a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto will not permit her philosophy to dictate the direction of the NCSE? Is the Golden Gate Bridge for sale?

Straight from the Humanist Manifesto:

“Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.”

Okay, that’s fine. However, the next stance is contradictory to the first and bears a striking resemblance to what the NCSE stands for.

“Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.”

So the Humanist Manifesto values match the goals of the NCSE and are reflected in the Wisconsin DPI standards for science education. Nice version on neutrality.

Next exercise, go to the About page on the AHA website. Of course it is just a philosophy and not a religion but for the fun of it take their mission statement and substitute the words Humanist and Humanism with your choice of religion. Of course though, it isn’t a religion at all right?

It just talks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, so it must be an ostrich.

Any further questions? Try reading their version I and their version II (modified after Nazism proved to be a bad human idea) if the picture isn’t crystal clear.

Let’s see in Version I the founder says:

“In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate. … To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.” (emphasis mine)

Yup, humanism is not a religion at all. Obviously the founder was mistaken. The Public Schools are obviously neutral. If you believe that still, I can sell you the rights to being King of Atlantis and you can charge all the nations of the world who sail on the Atlantic Ocean. Hmmm, what would a fair price be for that?

• 0 comments »

No matter the statements made about how the public school system is neutral on the topic of religion it amounts to little more than a public relations spin. To proclaim such a standard is pushing a blatant falsehood or con game on the population. I will be blunt in my statement. There is no neutral group or individual that includes humans in its numbers.

Each person brings their own set of ideas, bias, world view and opinion into whatever they do. It takes incredible discipline to separate out your stances from your work and remain neutral. That degree of discipline is quite rare and where it does exist, it sure will not get air time. Those who strive for the air time are those who want their opinions and bias heard.

Anyone that pays attention to what is being taught in the public schools knows the answer to the next question. Are the public schools neutral on the topic of religion? Obviously, the answer is a resounding no. It is the height of naiveté to believe religion and views on morality could ever be separated in a public school setting. To remove one that was taught for 150 years and declare “no religion” will be supported is a rather weak sales pitch. But it is a sales pitch bought because many do not pay attention to what their tax dollars are being spent on.

Is there any proof of religion in education? Quite simply, the answer is yes. The NEA long has had the stance of driving out the influences of Christianity and the parents because the group felt it knew better than the rest on how to raise a child. Is there a document trail to support my statements? Yes, there is.

On the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction website in the science section, they have issued their statement on the topic On the Nature of Science and the Teaching of Evolution and have stood by it since 1982. In their list of resources, they cite the National Center of Science Education (NCSE) and some of their articles. Let us follow the trail though shall we?

The NCSE comes straight out and says what it stands for right away on the homepage of their website.

“The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out. NCSE is the only national organization to specialize in this issue.”

On their website, they declare themselves to be neutral on the topic of religion. Give me a break, no group or agency is neutral. The NCSE is led by Executive Director Eugenie Scott since 1987 in a small building with about 10 or so staff members on-site. Can we draw the conclusion that since the position statement of NSCE is they are neutral on religion that the Executive Director is neutral too? Logically, we can’t. Would it be fair to say the opinions and bias of the Executive Director would have an impact on the operations of NCSE? Since that is how any business or group is run, obviously yes.

to be continued...

• 0 comments »

Can fresh unfossilized dinosaur bones be found outside of Alaska and other frozen areas? We only need to look to Montana for our answer. Way back in 1990 Mary Schweitzer found dried blood cells in unfossilized T. rex bones. Blood cannot last more than a few thousand years at best. Of course, honestly reporting observations carried with it the price of losing her job.

We can also look to the ground and see what the dinosaurs left us in their tracks. There has been much debate about whether or not the human looking footprints next to dinosaur footprints were real near the Paluxy River. However someone got the genius idea to ignore the human looking footprints and take some measurements and get some data. The measurements supported the initial observation of the dinosaur tracks follow the river bed. Since it is agreed the Paluxy River has maintained its current course for only a few thousand years, it begs the logical question of did the dinosaurs follow the river or did the river follow the dinosaur tracks? The only probable answer is the dinosaurs followed the river sometime in the last 4000 years or so.

But is there more concrete proof of dinosaurs having been around so recently? Again, yes there is. When the sites in Montana were observed closely, the coulees formed there are limited to a 3,000-70,000 year old time frame based on solid science with the variation depending on your viewpoint. The problem is hadrosaur or duck-billed dinosaurs laid eggs in the exact same place which has them living between 3,000 – 70,000 years ago and not 65 million years ago. The shorter timeframe is consistent with the findings of the RATE study and the radioactive carbon in diamonds.

While this same scientist was at a fossil dig in Montana, unfossilized shells were found, dinosaur eggs were found in hard dirt (not rock) and the evidence was apparent dinosaurs have lived recently. But the leader of the expedition was certain hard soil you could displace with a paintbrush had to be rock because the dinosaur eggs had to be from 75 million years ago. So from this we can conclude that when something walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be an ostrich. Oh yeah, that isn’t how the phrase goes. Shhhh, don’t tell the leader of the expedition.

When you look at the data and the evidence though, the amount of time required for their assumptions is not available. So logically that would force the ToE into a small enough timeframe where it would have to be measurable as the rate of Evolution would have to exceed the rate of extinction. I try my best to remain neutral on a topic but also remain skeptical of claims. It is time to produce the proof or remove it from the text books.

The math just doesn’t add up. They seem to be running out of time.

• 0 comments »

Revisiting the topic of Origins of Life, I’ll lay it out at the basic core level. Real science operates on the scientific method and requires proof before a hypothesis is given credibility. On the topic of Origins, proof is impossible to attain as we obviously weren’t there to witness it.

However, you will have many different sides claiming they “know” the unrecorded past and must be right. Like the majority of the “evidence” used, the positions are based on assumptions and opinions. The debate topic must come down to the data and the proof. If it remains about opinions, then it is no better than debating whether you like Wolverine or Iron Man better.

The greatest challenge to the Theory of Evolution is the burden of proof. It assumes new genetic material has been added to a single cell to transform that one cell into every animal and plant we see today. The primary answer to the challenge is all those changes take a lot of time to do or somehow magically occurred in radical jumps. Do the evidence and the data support the assumptions of large amounts of time or go against it? Is there a time demand crunch?

In a previous article Inconsistent History in 1^st Grade, I brought up the research regarding ‘mitochondrial Eve’. When the ‘age of Eve’ was calculated based on observed data not assumed data, the answer came to about 6000-6500 years. That timeframe makes sense when compared to the human population growth curves and the sticking point of recorded history only goes back 5000 years. Any statements making claims beyond what is recorded history is guesswork.

By herself, ‘Eve’ does not provide enough data to constrain the time demands. How about we give ‘Eve’ a diamond to match? In particular, recent studies on diamonds have determined the existence of ¹⁴C or radioactive carbon. This study called RATE went through the process of having natural diamonds crushed then tested in a blind, valid test and the results came back positive for radioactive carbon. Merging this up with my prior article on the Positives of Radioactive Carbon 14 Testing means there is a hard cap of less than 90,000 years for the ToE to work within. The ‘light’ reading work done prior to the RATE can be found here.

Let us turn to the popular dinosaurs and what they can add to this time issue because they are assumed to be 65+ million years old.

One group of men including a geologist traveled to Alaska to search for dinosaur fossils. What they found were un-fossilized dinosaur bones, partially petrified bones and some that were frozen. While this by itself doesn’t set an age, it does create an issue. Frozen dinosaur remains in Alaska would indicate they lived until the ice age. That throws off the standard time line just a tad.

To be continued...

• 0 comments »

Why does it matter? Math and science are closely linked. If we teach in mathematics that the candle example has insufficient information (true); but, teach you can assume information in Science on the same thing (false), all we have accomplished is confusing students. A confused student loses interest in a topic by either deeming the teachers don’t know what they are talking about or swiftly losing interest in the subjects.

Projected out, the increased number of students who do not pursue careers in the science and mathematics fields creates a negative impact on the economic viability of the USA by undermining the intelligence base. Teaching faulty deductive and critical thinking also dilutes the decision making needed in business especially in managerial roles. That leads to handicapping the USA The potential loss of global competitive advantage always comes back as the local areas begin to suffer with job loss, which equates into a lower tax base, which equates into even tighter budgets for the school systems. business sector in an increasingly competitive global market.

What can be done about it? This answer is incredibly simple and easy to implement.

1) Teach Mathematics.

2) Teach Science with a strict adherence to the scientific method.

3) Avoid taking sides in the Evolution/ Creation/ Intelligent Design debates.

4) Cut out/ glue together/ black out with marker any pages that deal with the geologic column, ‘millions of years ago’, or anything on Evolution/ Creation/ or Intelligent Design. Don’t worry about the budgetary impact; ask the community for volunteers who will bring their own supplies.

5) Contact the textbook companies and inform them your school district will not make any textbook purchases that include what you just cut out.

6) Adopt the following stance as your official curriculum stance district wide and demand the textbook companies include this simple paragraph:

“There are numerous opinions on the origins of life on Earth and the origins of the Universe. Since all of the stances involve assumed premises that can neither be tested nor demonstrated in accordance to the scientific method nor proven to be factually accurate, none of them will be covered in the K-12 curriculum of this school district/ textbook.”

That is all it would take. It is that simple. Err on the side of caution. Let the ego’s go. It is perfectly professional to say “There are some things we just do not know due to Insufficient Information.” There is plenty of science to teach that isn’t controversial and does promote critical thinking and decision making. The alternative is not appealing.

ET phoned home on sound logical thinking. The Entertainment Thinking often uses Exaggerated Theories in their depiction of science. Educational Training should avoid Erroneous Thinking by not teaching the Evolutionary Theory. Let E.T. stand for Extra Terrestrial and remain the domain of the movies. It would truly be sad to have a public education system funded by taxpayers challenging Hollywood for promoting poor scientific thinking. Too much is at stake.

• 0 comments »

Mathematically the answers are 5 inches, insufficient information, and insufficient information. Answers derived from the scientific method are 5 inches, insufficient information and insufficient information. The above explanation could be attached as an observation of why there was insufficient information. That would be correct. That would teach critical thinking skills.

Instead of following these basics all the way through, arguments abound between “professionals” as to what topics should be taught in science. There aren’t such arguments in mathematics. Debating on methodology of teaching the subjects is healthy for the profession. Debating on what topic to teach when all of the options have a similar flaw is irrational. The topics of controversy are the Evolutionary Theory, Creation Theory, Intelligent Design Theory and all of their variations. The debates on which to teach often boil down to “professionals” using 2^nd grade playground logic instead of adult thinking. One side or the other will claim the other as junk science. Another common one is to declare the other side isn’t science because both sides don’t have the same point of view. This is the same as the 2^nd grade playground logic of “You don’t belong with this group because you aren’t cool.” Let’s shelve that type of thinking.

Intelligent Design Theory holds a large variety of opinions on the origins of life. The differences are too grand to summarize. Creation Theory uses an assumption that writings in a book (The Bible) are true even though they aren’t demonstrable by the terms of the scientific method (in regards to the Creation in Genesis). Evolution Theory uses an assumption that writings in 3 books (by Hutton, Lyell and Darwin respectively) are true even though they aren’t demonstrable by the terms of the scientific method. All three use empirical data to substantiate some portions of their stances. But only the Evolution Theory is taught in public schools. Why when all three are in essence in the same boat?

There are over 300 empirical scientific challenges to the Evolution Theory that are often ignored. That isn’t the scientific method. That is closer in resemblance to a dogmatic belief structure. Ignoring the challenges is risking a true labeling of “Junk Science”. The last time the scientific community assumed they were correct on a hypothesis/ model / theory, and shunned any that didn’t agree with them despite that the hypothesis/ model / theory assumed to be a fact was not subjected to the scientific method was the belief in the Flat Earth. In hindsight, what they assumed turned out to make them look like fools. That is what assuming does.

With the assumptions made in the Evolutionary Theory, we will look again at the candle questions. First, using the beliefs of Uniformitarianism, we will assume that when we burn the candle and measure the rate of burning now, that rate will have always been true despite all of the unknown circumstances. Borrowing from the geologic column and arguments for it, we will now assume we know how long the candle burned and come up with how tall it was. Or we could have assumed we knew how long the candle was to begin with and calculate how long it burned at what ratio. Both are faulty in their logic. However, this is what is taught. The layer of the rock determines the age of the fossil. The identifier fossil identifies the age of the layer of rock. That is circular reasoning. This teaches students to make erroneous conclusions on insufficient information.

to be continued...

• 0 comments »

In the movie ET, ET assembled all of the items he could and knew the phone number to dial to reach his ship. Even though this was science fiction, it did hold to a basic precept of science and math. In order to complete a task, analysis or computation, you need sufficient enough information to make a proper conclusion or resolution to the topic at hand. What is counter to this basic premise is something called assuming.

Assume in this instance is defined as “to take as granted or true”. Outside of T-proofs in Geometry class, to assume anything in mathematics, science or general life normally leads to pretty bad results and conclusions. This general life fact has led to a slang definition of “assume”: When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.

How does Mathematics (save geometry) look at assuming information? Quite simply, it doesn’t. You can’t assume information to fill in an unknown as it would make the calculations incorrect. The only answer to a question without sufficient information is two words – Insufficient Information. (In other words: We can’t tell. We don’t know. Not enough info.)

How does true Science look at assuming information? Similar to mathematics, it doesn’t lest it becomes what is called Junk Science. Junk or bunk science is a term used to describe purportedly scientific data, research, analysis or claims which are perceived to be driven by political, financial or other questionable motives. Another tell-tale sign is taking data, research, analysis or claims to generate conclusions that are leap of logic which usually ignores multitudes of other data that counter it. How is Junk Science countered? How is assuming countered in Science? The answer is simple: strict adherence to the scientific method. If there are demonstrable test results that challenge any hypothesis, model, or theory, then the hypothesis, model, or theory must be reworked to incorporate the results.

Let us examine one simple scenario from a mathematics and science standpoint. A group of students enter into a room to conduct a fact finding mission on candles. They are all broken up into groups and given 5 inch long burnt candles. No further information is provided. They are asked to measure the candle and answer some questions. How tall is the candle now? What rate did the candle burn? How tall was the candle before it was burned?

Should some student questions come from this? Of course, they should be asking what the conditions were in which the candle was burned. But for the premise of this experiment, no further information can be provided. Issues that will hinder the research of the students are in regards to the burn rate of the candle. The candle could have been burned slowly at a higher altitude that had less oxygen. The candle could have been burned fast in a high oxygen container similar to a hyperbaric chamber. Or the candle could have been blown out shortly after it started.

to be continued...

• 0 comments »

This is a topic I haven’t seen written in very many places. Usually when the topic of radioactive dating methods comes up somewhere, the discussion gets bogged down in small details of one side or the other trying to rehash arguments that miss the main points. Also, it is quite difficult to find materials to read that stick to scientific facts and not go into philosophical debates.

But to kick this topic off, I will first highlight the two main problems cited on any method of radioactive dating methods whether it is Carbon-14, Rubidium-Strontium, Potassium-Argon or the various isochron tests. The first main problem deals with basic mathematical requirements especially where calculus is involved. In order to calculate any equation, you need all of the data for the variables in the equation or the calculations will be incomplete. These are those answers on your multiple choice questions for those math story problems, insufficient information.

You can complete the equation if you have data for those unknown variables. If that data amounts to an assumption or a guess, then the likelihood of calculating the correct answer is close to impossible. In basic terms, it was a waste of time and wrong.

That is the core of the problems with the radioactive dating processes. Assumptions are made on the starting sets of data to attempt to calculate a change. Granted we have the rate of change and the end set of data but without an accurate beginning set of data, the calculations are doomed to fail.

How can you get an accurate set of data to begin with? That is the other problem. We can’t. There are no measurements or direct observational data or experiment that can be done to determine how much of the parent or daughter materials were present at the onset. We weren’t there. That leaves the radioactive testing methods largely meaningless. If you wish to read the technical details, try this webpage and this webpage.

If those negatives are so big, then what are the positives of radioactive carbon-14 testing? Of all of the radioactive materials used for measurements, it has the shortest half-life. Depending on which resource you stand by, the presence of radioactive carbon-14 can be detected up to 50,000 to 90,000 years old. Again though, accurate dating is also flawed with starting assumptions but that doesn’t matter in this case.

Why not? Radioactive Carbon-14 gives us the potential of a true or false or yes or no test. When potential contamination of a sample can be minimized to negligible amounts, the results can tell us if Carbon-14 is present or not present in that formerly living object such as a non-fossilized bone, coal, diamond, or wood item. If it exists, then we know the object is less than 90,000 years old.

Depending on what is tested, that can completely ruin some philosophical stances and many dogmas held in some circles of the science community.

That is what makes it such a good test. Using the right test specimen makes the arguments boil down to plausible or wrong with this one test.

• 0 comments »

Way back in 7^th grade, my classmates started to label me as an information sponge or the “encyclopedia reader.” They had a justifiable position in that label because every study hall I would head to the library to read more if I could. I did read the encyclopedias and spent most of my time in the non-fiction section.

Eventually, I found a section devoted to animals and those animals which peak the curiosity of many. The giant squid, Mokele Mbembe, Coelacanth, Megalania, Mapinguari, various lakes and ocean ‘monsters,’ Sucuriju Gigante, Ropen, Kongamato, Yeh-Teh, and many more creatures are reported as existing or sighted. Without a doubt, this captures the imagination of those who study the topic of unknown or unclassified animals or otherwise known as Cryptozoology.

What are these creatures? Are they real, hoaxes, or figments of over active imaginations? Are some of them alive today or have they gone extinct at some point in time? Quite simply, I cannot answer these questions anymore than anyone else because of the nature of the creatures talked about. If real, these animals are elusive and quite rare.

A few have been proven to be real such as the giant squid and the Coelacanth which were thought to be extinct. The giant squid has been known from its carcasses and only recently was it photographed in its natural habitat. Those last two words form the crux of the argument surrounding these mysterious animals.

Nearly all of the animals are said to live in natural habitats that are flat out hostile to humans. The enormous swamps of Africa that prevent a person from standing, walking, or seeing far because of the waterlogged ground and canopy of trees blocking sight from above make for a great hiding spot. Add in a variety of things that can kill a person and the environment being even more hostile to equipment, you now have a place where many unknown animals could thrive. Other spots are a variety of densely forested areas where people rarely go, the Amazon rainforests with its long list of deadly creatures to greet you, and the deep oceans and lakes where humans are incredibly out of their element. (Does anyone else watch those deep sea documentaries and compare fishing in a lake with a bobber to those subs dangled down there?)

The greatest argument against these mysterious animals comes in two forms. The first is there is no valid observational data to prove these animals exist. That is a point. The counterpoint is these are animals with little behavioral information to go on, in very hostile, large environments making most scientific expeditions an expensive shot in the dark. If these animals are nocturnal as well, then they may very well stay hidden as all the factors would be against us finding them. (Not to mention scaring the animals away with the sound / lights of our equipment.)

The other argument is they animals couldn’t have survived all of these millions / thousands of years because they went extinct. Good scientists know better to avoid this argument for a simple logical reason. Claiming an animal or species of animals does not or did not recently exist because of assumptions about the unobserved past creates a hypocritical stance. If you need valid observational data to prove something happened or exists (real science), you can’t counter possibilities with beliefs in assumptions or the unobserved (pseudo-science).

The facts: Animals do go extinct. We do discover many new species of plants and animals a year. There are plenty of locations for animals and plants to hide on this planet that we are ill-suited to study in.

Opinion: There is much more we do not know than we do know. There is no reason to limit our learning while retaining a healthy balance between curiosity and skepticism.

• 0 comments »

But the worst was when the Principal made an error with the public address system and broad casted her morning announcements to everyone outside which included me. Her main line threw me for a loop. I couldn’t believe a person that ignorant and uneducated was put into a position of guiding the education of hundreds of children.

She had gone on the PA system and declared which student found out the name of the first black Congresswoman in the US Congress. No problem there. Her next line though was “It will truly be a wonderful day when Congress will reflect the population of the USA.” Wow, that’s sad. She didn’t know a few minor details found in the USA Census and the Wisconsin Census.

Before any statement can be made, you need people who are willing to run for those offices. That cannot be quantified. But population figures can be. Also, census numbers for a state do not reflect the other key factor involved and that is the population distribution in the district of a given Senator or Representative whether it be on the State or Federal level. In Wisconsin, 90% of the population is white. The black population is only 6% and most are concentrated in the Milwaukee as are the Asian (2%), Hispanic (4.7%) and others. That makes the highest percentage chance of a Latino female Representative coming from the same district as the Asian and black populations as well as still a large percentage being white.

So if we look at this Principal’s wish on a federal level we would have a Congress that is:

20% High School Drop-Out
25% College Educated
55% High School Grad only

By ethnicity as I refuse to call them races (we are all part of the human race just different shades of skin & hair):

80% White
15% Hispanic
13% Black
4.5% Asian
1% Native American

That is if we choose to ignore details on where the populations are in corresponding districts. Obviously, some identified themselves in multiple categories. We also have to ignore that the vast majority of those in Congress are college educated lawyers so there goes any chance at balance in career distribution too.

With great leaders like these at the helms of schools, no wonder skills in Math, Science and logic suck.

So why do we homeschool? Do I really need to say more?

• 1 comments »

The answer to this question comes down to a few basic answers for us. They are as follows: Federal Dept. of Education, Wisconsin Dept. of Public Instruction, West Bend Curriculum Director, and the Principal of our daughter’s Kindergarten school. All four have taken a stance of trying to dictate to the parents versus realizing they are Public Servants whom answer to the parents.

The Federal Department of Education starts off the list as it controls the choices of the remaining three. First, the DoE should not even exist if we were to follow the Constitution of the United States. Second, the DoE is subject to the whims of select special interest groups that do not have the best interests of the children at mind regarding true education. Instead, it is all about control of what the masses are instructed to believe not proven facts.

The Wis. Department of Public Instruction or DPI takes its guidance and sets further detailed standards for the local school districts to follow. Whereas you can count on them a little for resolving some issues, little research is done on sources chosen to listen to for guidance on the curriculum structure. This lack of vigilance in the defense of educating children on proven facts versus what some special interests want taught is the core reason we found this governmental unit wanting. Also, I was licensed under them so I know their operations fairly well.

Next up is the Curriculum Director who thought it was a good idea to give all Kindergarten children regardless of parental consent instruction on the location and name of all of their private parts. After all, they had a study that showed….you know the line. That ended up failing as it outraged many parents. Add in numerous other off-base concepts of what is good to teach children and we had to pull our daughter for the sake of her education. Left to the devices of this crackpot going on the other crackpots’ ideas, my daughter would be a victim of their incompetence.

Lastly, the Principal of the school was fresh out of getting her degree. Somehow she felt she could dictate to all the teachers what they had to teach despite it being very poorly researched. Two incidents showed us what this lady had in mind. The first was a school wide education on the holidays in December. In Kindergarten and the rest of the grades, they dove into the details of the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, glossed over Christmas as a day belonging to Santa Claus and materialism as opposed its true origins, and heavily indoctrinated the children into Kwanzaa. My question when I saw this on the future curriculum for the month was – What is Kwanzaa? You can read my post on that.

We pulled her out of the Kwanzaa garbage and the teacher and the Principal tried their utmost to use guilt tactics to change our minds. Teaching the religious holidays of Hanukkah and Kwanzaa but not the true meaning of Christmas is a double standard. There is no using the “separation of church and state” argument on that. Somehow the principal thought it was a good idea to teach the concepts of an ex-convict found guilty of committing rape and torture. In most other countries, that would be banned and the guy would have been executed for the cruel nature of his conduct. Here, the principal wanted to celebrate it.

• 0 comments »

The greatest threat to education in the USA is quite possibly political correctness. How so?

To keep it simple and to the point, many teachers, the current push in the public schools, at the federal level with No Child Left Behind, and numerous other ways focus on trying to treat students as if they are all the same. I’ve heard comments from other teachers I’ve worked with who believed there was no such thing as an advanced student or a gifted and talented population. The NCLB requires all students no matter their ability to take standardized tests to use to judge a school. Add in the common push to treat all kids the same and you have a recipe for a problem.

What is the problem? All kids are different. Some are gifted and advance while some will always be cognitively disabled. Now while some schools are trying to tell the parents the rationale for not challenging the advanced students is because of not wanting to hurt the feelings of the slower kids, the children know differently. I asked my daughter, who is now in first grade, about the kids in her Kindergarten public school class. She and all of the other kids knew who was smarter, who was a better athlete, who was a better talker, etc. I remember that all through school as well. I haven’t forgotten my childhood. Kids are people too with thoughts and observations just like the adults. The knowledge and experience bases are different but everything else is the same.

Basically, the adults are fooling themselves into thinking all the kids can be treated the same. Kids are not just some programmable robot. Some will go on to be the foundation of our country. The future of our economy is founded in those children in the areas of chemistry, engineering, computers and other science and technology. But some students / children are wired for other things such as being a mechanic or a janitor. That is where the politically correct drive of treating all the same does the most damage. Everyone is different. All the students are different. Not all are destined for college. While we struggle with this, the Asian education counterparts have long understood and embraced it.

As found here, there appears to be a high drop-out rate in the Asian countries of India and China as compared to the USA. But this is where one has to pause and understand you can’t look at how another country works from how we define things here. China, India, Philippines and many more Asian countries such as Japan require you to test INTO high school. Dropping out would indicate a choice. That would be mostly false. You have to prove you are worthy to get IN high school. Many are delegated to manual labor or other positions.

China has 24 million students who tested into high school. India has 35 million who tested into high school. The USA has 16 million who are required to be in high school. With fewer numbers of students on our side, that means there is far less room for error in our educational system while still keeping a hope of being a competitor in the global economy alive. With political correctness, we have handicapped the effectiveness of our educational systems, our present and future economy, and put the fiscal standing of the USA in the global community at serious risk.

It is said that powerful nations of 200+ yrs in age die from cancers created within. Will our arrogance and political pandering with the future of our children be our undoing?

• 0 comments »

There is a 54 minute documentary sponsored by a business man who compared 2 American, 2 Chinese, and 2 Indian high school students who were as equal as possible in all potential ways. The end result was a well put together piece to engage in the topic of how we run our schools and the various differences in priorities foisted on the respective children. The business owner is Bob Compton, a venture capitalist, who has worked with numerous individuals from all three cultures. The name of the documentary is “Two Million Minutes</