I'm curious...

[Antediluvian]

How accurate are these two statements?

"Home schooling turns out 40% more well-educated students than public school."

"The Supreme Court ruled that secular humanism is a religion in 1961."


I seriously doubt the first, but how accurate is the second? Did the Supreme Court really make such an asinine ruling?

[Australopithicus]

I'd say that in England at least, the first statement is probably true. Most of our more intelligent minds (Patrick Moore is a lesser example, among others) were privately educated. The fact is that in our country, as you go up the education ladder in public schooling, the dumber you get, relatively.

[Joe]

The first statement is probably true in America, too.

As for the second statement, I'm going to have to disagree; what part of "secular" did the Court not understand?

[TrailerParkJawa]

Is the first statement even correct? Grammer wise and logically ?
What does 40% more well educated mean?

[neoolong]

Either it means that the kids or 40% smarter (like if most kids have an IQ of 100 they have an IQ of about 140), or that relatively speaking home schooling spits out about 40% more well-educated kids(if public schools produce 20% well-educated kids and 80% not well-educated, then home schooling produces 60% well-educated).

But the statement doesn't really mean anything by itself. The well-educated nature of the kids can come about through something associated with home schooling and not home schooling itself.

[Antediluvian]

Is the first statement even correct? Grammer wise and logically ?
What does 40% more well educated mean?

A creationist named Chuck Missler made both statements, so what did you expect?

I just wanted to see what everyone else thought of these remarks.

[Antediluvian]

Either it means that the kids or 40% smarter (like if most kids have an IQ of 100 they have an IQ of about 140), or that relatively speaking home schooling spits out about 40% more well-educated kids(if public schools produce 20% well-educated kids and 80% not well-educated, then home schooling produces 60% well-educated).

But the statement doesn't really mean anything by itself. The well-educated nature of the kids can come about through something associated with home schooling and not home schooling itself.

Presumably, Mr Missler meant the second definition (that's how I interpreted his statement.)

[salm]

i know exactly one person who homschools her children, and i would NOT want to be homeschooled by her.

MAHOK!

[Stormbringer]

How accurate are these two statements?

"Home schooling turns out 40% more well-educated students than public school."

It depends on the people doing the home schooling. If it's fundies turning out more little fundies, no. If it's someone smart doing the teaching then it's certainly possible.

"The Supreme Court ruled that secular humanism is a religion in 1961."

Wouldn't suprise me. The conservative courts especially (and the liberals one to a lesser degree) have made some truly spectacularly asinine rulling on anything relating to religion. It would help if you provide a few more details.

[salm]

It depends on the people doing the home schooling. If it's fundies turning out more little fundies, no. If it's someone smart doing the teaching then it's certainly possible.

naahh... homeschooling sucks. i mean check what you miss. school is the place where you meat all kind of friends and other people. you might get better training ( in very view cases though because teachers are specialized on a certain subject) but you´re not going to learn the whole social stuff.

[Stormbringer]

naahh... homeschooling sucks. i mean check what you miss. school is the place where you meat all kind of friends and other people. you might get better training ( in very view cases though because teachers are specialized on a certain subject) but you´re not going to learn the whole social stuff.

Of course you loose out on the social interactions and that a big negative against home schooling. But this was about how smart the students are that are turned out.

[salm]

naahh... homeschooling sucks. i mean check what you miss. school is the place where you meat all kind of friends and other people. you might get better training ( in very view cases though because teachers are specialized on a certain subject) but you´re not going to learn the whole social stuff.

Of course you loose out on the social interactions and that a big negative against home schooling. But this was about how smart the students are that are turned out.

bein able to interact in society is part of ones intelligence.

[Stormbringer]

Of course you loose out on the social interactions and that a big negative against home schooling. But this was about how smart the students are that are turned out.

bein able to interact in society is part of ones intelligence.

True but not the objective part measured in tests. That's what's being discussed.

[salm]

Of course you loose out on the social interactions and that a big negative against home schooling. But this was about how smart the students are that are turned out.

bein able to interact in society is part of ones intelligence.

True but not the objective part measured in tests. That's what's being discussed.

test??? who said anythign about tests? the statement was: Home schooling turns out 40% more well-educated students than public school."
no tests mentioned, just well-educatedness, and´bein able to participate well in society is part of being well educated.

[Master of Ossus]

A lot of the first quote, of course, comes from the fact that naturally bright people are more likely to be home-schooled. Their parents will tend to be wealthier (intelligence does appear to be some kind of a genetic trait, though that is certainly a gross over-simplification), and the parents will usually be more involved in their childrens' educations (the fact that the kid is smart reflects well upon the parents' involvement with their child). I think a lot of it is that smart children are more likely to be home-schooled rather than the other way around.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

How accurate are these two statements?

"Home schooling turns out 40% more well-educated students than public school."

"The Supreme Court ruled that secular humanism is a religion in 1961."


I seriously doubt the first, but how accurate is the second? Did the Supreme Court really make such an asinine ruling?

For the first one, it's hard to judge the accuracy of the statement, because we don't know the metric that they're using to make that statement with.

For the second one . . . . that's a contradiction in terms . . . "secular" and "religion."

[Nick]

On the first (home-schooling & being 'well-educated'):
The metric needs to be defined:
- what do they mean by 'well-educated'?
- what do they mean by '40% more well educated'

And, as MOO pointed out, even if a correlation exists, this does not demonstrate cause-and-effect. Any attempt to claim such would be ignoring the fact that being 'well-educated' (whatever that means) is likely to be the result of a complex combination of factors. Some of those factors (such as high parental involvement) might also increase the probability of home schooling.

On the second, Google is your friend. A few choice first page results for "secular humanism 1961 supreme court":
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisi ... atkins.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/b ... manism.htm
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/ ... _1.01.html

Essentially, what happened is that the US Supreme Court struck down a paragraph in Maryland's Declaration of Rights demanding that holders of public offices profess a belief in God. In the judges' comments, one of them included 'secular humanism' in a list of religions that do not profess a belief in God. The things to remember are:
1. The comment appeared in a section with no legal force - it was just the opinion of one of the judges.
2. That judge was wrong anyway - as GMT already pointed out, 'secular' and 'religious' are contradictory terms.

[Nick]

Hey, this guy almost manages to sound convincing (well, until he loses it about halfway through):
http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/defin ... ligion.htm

Oh, and if you're concerned about how to counter his arguments:

Secular humanism, as a personal philosophy is a religion for 'free exercise clause' purposes - because the 'freedom of religion' clause is really about 'freedom of personal philosophy'.

The conclusions reached by rational scientific investigation, a methodology which is part of the philosophy of secular humanism, are not religious beliefs for 'establishment clause' purposes - because the establishment clause is NOT about excluding all philosophy or rational thought from government! (Without philosophy, how could one ever decide that democracy is an ideal worth striving for?).

By this guy's argument, because 'thou shalt not kill' is part of the doctrine of the Christian religions, murder should not be considered a crime! Because, after all, saying that murder is a crime is agreeing with the Christian religions, which amounts to a violation of the establishment clause!. (Yes, this is a stupid argument - that's the point. It is the exact same argument the guy I found in my Google search makes - just with things turned around a little bit )

[Antediluvian]

(Wouldn't suprise me. The conservative courts especially (and the liberals one to a lesser degree) have made some truly spectacularly asinine rulling on anything relating to religion. It would help if you provide a few more details.)

Nick already did, which is helpful, since Missler didn't provide any more details, he basically just made this statement and moved on, without explanation.

Thanks for the responses, you have all been a big help.