Start Date: January 10, 2002 Finish Date: January 28, 2002

What is a Real Education?

     When a person thinks about education today, they are likely to get pictures of colleges, universities, teachers, and schools in their head. Rarely, if ever, do they consider the actually value of a real education. Today in school, the curricula taught to the students is likely to consist o academics and health issues. Students receive the same daily dose of history, math, English, and science. In classes, students are taught to memorize various bits of data. For history, they memorize dates, people, and locations. For math, they memorize various formulas and equations. Science and English tend not to differ: it is the memorization of sterile facts and static data. The schools today are not a place where things are learned, nor is it a place that is bent on creating a sense of wonder and awe for the average student. Rather, it is a place of repetition, to turn students into cassettes that can replay information at desire. Information that is only lost with years of life that degrade the useless education learned at our modern learning institutions.

     What year was the Treaty of Ghent signed? What city did John Calvin spread his Theocracy to? What is Photosynthesis? These are all questions which, in themselves, they are not useless pieces of data. To those in certain fields, however, they can very valuable pieces of information. To others, they are simply interesting and intriguing to know such information. However, the retainment of such memorized facts is often a fruitless venture, resulting in wasted money, time, and energy. You may be able to make a child memorize the United States Constitution, but within a few weeks, I would find it doubtful if the child could recollect more than three sentences. Instead, you could have taken that time to show the child something real and meaningful. A child could be taught how logic and reasoning abilities. They could be taught how to separate science from pseudoscience. They could be taught about a cultural idea that would interest them and get them involved in a book, an author, a song, an artist, a musician, an orator, a leader, a poem, a technology, an art form, etc., etc.. They could be taught about how the Universe formed: the origins of life, matter, stars, higher elements, as well as thousands of other topics.

     The formal, educational system as it is working today certainly does not produce any fine, intelligent individuals. It does not foster independence and it did not teach compassion. It is the affirmation of dependence and dogma. In tests of average 17-year-olds in many world regions, the U. S. ranked dead last in algebra; they averaged 43%. Only 13 nations did worse in chemistry. Even though many American high school seniors are in advanced chemistry courses, only 1% know as much as 25% of Canadian students. South Korean students are far ahead of American students in all aspects of mathematics and science. 59% of school children in 1984 believed in astrology. The problem isn't just with school students. Every philosopher who has dealt with the education problem has at least admitted that how children are taught eventually leads to the production of how the new society thinks. It shouldn't be amusing that American adults lack in education as well. A quarter of Americans believe in astrology. A third thing that Sun-sign astrology is "scientific." 63% of American adults are unaware of the fact that all the dinosaurs were dead before humans arose. 75% do not know that antibiotics do nothing to viruses. 57% do not know that "electrons are smaller than atoms." Polls show that half of Americans do not know that the Earth goes around the Sun and takes a year to do it. Undergraduate classes at Cornell University, even the brightest students, and many of them do not know that the Sun itself is a star. 95% of Americans are "scientifically illiterate." That's the same amount of African slaves that were illiterate prior to the Civil War -- and a slave learning to read back then carried severe penalties! [*1] Carl Sagan notes on this lack of education...

In American polls in the early 1990s, two-thirds of all adults had no idea what the "information superhighway" was; 42 percent didn't know where Japan is; and 38% were ignorant of the term "holocaust." But the proportion was in the high 90s who had heard of the Menendez, Bobbit, and O. J. Simpson criminal cases; 99 percent had heard that the singer Michael Jackson had allegedly sexually molested a boy. The United States may be the best-entertained nation on Earth, but a steep price is being paid. [*2]

     Carl Sagan wrote an article concerning these statistics and it was published. Many of the letters he received were from classrooms. Here are some of the responses concerning the dwindling education of American students (grammar and spelling unchanged)...

Not a Americans are stupid We just rank lower in school big deal.

Maybe that's good that we are not as smart as the other countries. So then we can just import all of our products and then we don't have to spend all of our money on the parts for the goods.

And if other countries are doing better, what does it matter, their most likely going to come over the U. S. anyway?

Our society is doing just fine with what discoveries we are making. It's going slowly, but the cure for cancer is coming right along.

It's true that some Americans kids don't try, but we could be smarter than any other country if we wanted to.

If we want to rank first, we could go to school all day and not have any social life.

When you put down how far behind we are in science and math, why don't you try to tell us this in a little nicer manner?... Have a little pride in your country and its capabilities.

I think your facts were inconclusive and the evidence very flimsy. All in all, you raised a good point. [*3]

     It is obvious that formal education extinguishes whatever love of sciences and knowledge that existed prior to the schooling. From school one learns to hate knowledge. Upon hearing or learning of new scientific progress, an average American is likely to associate it with the monotonous educational system that is in place today. With this association comes the apathy of learning new knowledge. Students are taught to retain facts for a relatively short period of time. It would be doubtful if a student could recall 10% of their classes, or even 2% of what they learned in those classes. From the statistics of the intelligence of Americans and school students today, it is obvious that any intelligent person would hold skepticism towards the efficiency of the modern, formal, educational institutions of our time. As far as school goes, a man will learn more of he does not attend, and a person's natural love of the sciences will be freed from the sheer inadequacy of schools. Albert Einstein is most notable for stating, "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." However, we need not take the word of a high-ranking scientist to know that modern schooling is destructive to education. Any experience within American schooling will be able to easily confirm the theory that formal schools in America today make for individuals who detest learning itself. To quote Carl Sagan's experience when teaching various grades in school...

Except for children (who don't know enough not to ask the important questions), few of us spend much time wondering why Nature is the way it is; where the Cosmos came from, or whether it was always here; if time will one day flow backward, and effects precede causes; or whether there are ultimate limits to what humans can know. There are even children, and I have met some of them, who want to know what a black hole looks like; what is the smallest piece of matter; why we remember the past and not the future, and why there is a Universe.

Every now and then, I'm lucky enough to teach a kindergarten or first-grade class. Many of these children are natural-born scientists--although heavy on the wonder side and light on the skepticism. They're curious, intellectually vigorous. Provocative and insightful questions bubble out of them. They exhibit enormous enthusiasm. I'm asked follow-up questions. They've never heard of the notion of a "dumb question."

But when I talk to high school seniors, I find something different. They memorize "facts." By and large, though, the joy of discovery, the life behind those facts, has gone out of them. They've lost much of the wonder, and gained very little skepticism. They've worried about asking "dumb" questions; they're willing to accept inadequate answers; they don't pose follow-up questions; the room is awash with sidelong glances to judge, second-by-second, the approval of their peers. They come to class with their questions written out on pieces of paper, which they surreptitiously examine, waiting their turn and oblivious of whatever discussion their peers are at this moment engaged in. [*4]

     The schooling process has rendered curious, intelligent children into mindless zombies: uninquisitive, dull, and uncreative. If this is not the surest proof that our schools need reform, then I am not sure if any such proof exists! Bright-eyed children who are yearning to learn about the Universe enter our school system. What comes out at the other end are quite the opposite: adults who are neither ambitious enough to learn nor creative enough to invent. The flame of every individual, the lust for learning and desire for knowledge, is thoroughly extinguished by these traditional methods of "teaching." The only thing accomplished by modern schooling is a backward process: destroying any creative processes in the minds of its students. There may be students in these schools who genuinely wish to excel and try to do so by doing well in their studies, but in the overall perspective, the educational system fails to develop students into lovers of learning or intelligent beings.

     The education system should return to the roots of education. It should not be based on shoving knowledge down the throats of unwilling children, making them hateful of learning. Learning should be a creative process. It should not be burdened with tests and quizzes, constantly questioning the intellectual level of the student. School should be a place of learning, not a place of grades and marks. 25% of Canadian students are at the same level as 1% of the best American students in chemistry, despite the fact that American students are subjected to rigorous testing. It is obvious that even with testing, American students do not retain the knowledge that they learn from such classes. Such information is eventually lost and discarded at a later date. It should be no surprise, either. When students have to take certain courses in their schools simply to graduate, and when many of these courses contain completely erroneous data, the students will forget all of the useless information fed to them. Year after year, this process continues: short-term memorization of facts and eventually deletion of these facts. The student, in the end, gains nothing but a diploma which only holds assurance that nothing of value was gained. In mockery of diplomas, Mark Twain has written...

Now then, to me university degrees are unearned finds, and they bring the joy that belongs with property acquired in that way; and the money-finds and the degree-finds are just the same in number up to date--three: two from Yale and one from Missouri University. It pleased me beyond measure when Yale made me a Master of Arts, because I didn't know anything about art; I had another convulsion of pleasure when Yale made me a Doctor of Literature, because I was not competent to doctor anyone's literature but my own, and couldn't even keep my own in a healthy condition without my wife's help. I rejoiced again when Missouri University made me a Doctor of Laws, because it was all clear profit, I not knowing anything about laws except how to evade them and not get caught. And now at Oxford I am to be made a Doctor of Letters--all clear profit, because what I don't know about letters would make me a mutli-millionaire if I could turn it into cash. [*5]

     The same monotonous, traditional methods of teaching should be abandoned. History class should not be restricted to a book anymore than wood shop class or art class. Education should not be about repetition and memorization. Education is supposed to be about learning new things that can intrigue students and mesmerize them. It is about making students independent so that they can enter society as productive, happy, free, and capable citizens. Education is not supposed to make anyone compassionate or kind, but it is what gives students tools to become compassionate and kind. It provides a way for individuals to better themselves. Education is about the building of the character, of the person, of each individual student. It is not at all about the memorization of static facts which soon become forgotten. What education can principally be defined as, is the creation of independence of an individual, so that they may be creative, productive, and happy in their own life. To this end, it is only obvious that all school classes must be made voluntary. The mere concept of forcing a child into a "learning classroom" is absurd! To make courses and classes mandatory is tantamount to extinguishing the flame of curiosity. When a student, particularly a child, is forcefed facts and monotonous data, it can do nothing but harm the child. It makes them hate education, because all they can associate education with is the dread of being forced into classes where they learn nothing at all. But this is not fair at all, to say they learn nothing at all. They certainly do learn to detest the government which unrightly abuses them and they learn to hate education in all its forms. If a child is given the privilege, the independence, to choose the classes which interest them the most so that they may excel in those fields, then they child will become educated. Mandatory classes will dishearten the student's zeal for education. The facts of mandatory classes are soon forgotten, and the class itself is useless. It is stupid and ignorant to believe that students can be forced into classes and then make them learn information. The only way a student can learn is if they willingly desire to learn, and the only way to do that is to provide students with a wide range of classes to choose from with interesting, provocative topics, as well as to give the student the opportunity to attend classes voluntarily or not at all. To quote Carl Sagan...

Since most school children emerge with only a tiny fraction of what they've been taught permanently engraved in their long-term memories, isn't it essential to infect them with consumer-tested topics that aren't boring... and a zest for learning? [*6]

     The case for proper educational reform is two-part: to produce a vast array of intriguing, provocative, and classes, and to give students the independent choice to select the classes that they wish to take. Few, if any, can argue with the first part. It is obvious that when a student is interested in what they are learning, it will be more likely that they will learn more. To make a class interesting, it must avoid repetitive exercises and the educational administration should do as much as possible to make the class as different, informative, and as creative as possible. This is something that I hardly need to argue. There are those, however, who would find it improbable that a society can move forward when students are wholly given the option themselves to choose classes or not. If given the choice to go to classes or not, many would assume that students would simply skip all the classes that they signed up for. If this voluntary system of choosing to go to the classes you desired was put into effect today, I hardly doubt this objection: students absolutely would skip their classes. However, this would be entirely due to the boredom, monotony, and the generally poorly run classroom. When individuals learn in a hostile environment where they are forced to learn, they learn only to detest schooling. With this idea in mind, it is obvious that students would skip class, and the reasons are all too clear: the hatred of education is bred into students from our modern, formal, educational institutions. If classrooms were set up in a way that was intriguing and interesting, they would have more appeal with students. There is then the other objection: if classrooms provided an interesting, intriguing atmosphere, children who were apathetic still may avoid school altogether. However, a child who is forced to sit in a classroom "learning" will only dishearten any interest they have for education. A student can easily memorize dull facts and forget them a year later with great ease. A student gains nothing by being forced into a class that is uninteresting or dull to them. In fact, it hurts any natural feelings they have for learning. Education cannot be forced. It can only be chosen. That is the principle of an efficient school: freedom of conscience and classes.

     The question of religion now comes into regard with education. Many schools and colleges during the Renaissance were supported by the Jesuits and the Catholic Church. To what extent shall religion govern education? Any educated person can come to the conclusion that religion is an ignorant pursuit in itself. To incorporate its principles into the educational system is much worse than not teaching students anything at all. It sets a shaky foundation. Perhaps one or two individuals can find moral or inspirational value in religion, but to search for facts, science, and truth, religion will be the last place to aid in any way at all. In reference to Isaiah 40:22, Carl Sagan has said...

If you accept the literal truth of every word of the Bible, then the Earth must be flat. The same is true for the Qu'ran. Pronouncing the Earth round then means you're an atheist. In 1993, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict, or fatwa, declaring that the world is flat. Anyone of the round persuasion does not believe in God and should be punished." [*7]

     In 1999, 68% of of the public want the teaching of both Evolution and Creationism as science in school. 40% are in favor of teaching Creationism instead of Evolution. [*8] Carl Sagan notes on the religious fervor of Creationists...

I meet many people offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over eons of slime. They also tend to be less than assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence. Evidence has little to do with it: What they wish to be true, they believe is true. Only 9 percent of Americans accept the central finding of modern biology that human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed along the way. (When asked merely if they accept evolution, 45 percent of Americans say yes. The figure is 70 percent in China.) When the movie Jurassic Park was shown in Israel, it was condemned by some Orthodox rabbis because it accepted evolution and because it taught that dinosaurs lived a hundred million years ago--when, as is plainly stated at every Rosh Hashonah and every Jewish wedding ceremony, the Universe is less than 6,000 years old. The clearest evidence of our evolution can be found in our genes. But evolution is still be fought, ironically by those whose own DNA proclaims it--in the schools, in the courts, in the textbook publishing houses, and on the question of just how much pain we can inflict on other animals without crossing some ethical threshold. [*9]

     The ethic of incorporating religion into education cannot be ignored. Only a slight knowledge of history is required to understand that scientific dependence on religion will bring about the ruin of a civilization. As Adolf Hitler took control of Germany, he commented on a new way of thought, "We stand at the end of the Age of Reason. A new era of the magical explanation of the world is rising. There is no truth, in the scientific sense." [*10] On the evening that Hitler took control of Germany, Leon Trotsky is noted for saying...

Not only in peasant homes, but also in city skyscrapers, there lives along side the twentieth century the thirteenth. A hundred million people use electricity and still believe in the magic powers of signs and exorcisms.....Movie stars go to mediums. Aviators who pilot miraculous mechanisms created by man's genius wear amulets on their sweaters. What inexhaustible reserves they possess of darkness, ignorance and savagery! [*11]

     Adolf Hitler's usage of religion was sparse. He used religion to justify his actions. To quote him, "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." [*12] Considering that his tyranny was based on religious dogma, it's no doubt that he detested free and secular schools. In regards to schooling, he has said...

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people. [*13]

     In one statement to the public, Pat Buchanan stated, "We're going to bring back God and the Bible and drive the gods of secular humanism right out of the public schools of America." [*14] Rev. Romaine F. Bateman - Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Milburn, New Jersey - said, "Washington and Lincoln were un-Christian and their names are unworthy of being brought before the public." [*15] How could an intelligent history class occur when names are erased from the book because of religious dogma? William Dembsky once said, "Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." [*16] I don't think any educated person would find themselves shaken from this babble -- the fact that astronomy, chemistry, or physics do not incorporate religious dogma does not mean that they are deficient. Jerry Falwell, the Christian Fundamentalist, once said, "The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." [*17] Since it is commonplace information that the Bible has many mistakes, should we actively teach those mistakes, including the Flat-Earth Theory and Creation "Science"? Bill Keith has said, "If I had my way, I would have the Book of Genesis taught in all our elementary schools." [*18] By teaching a religion, students do not gain anything of value, but learn to incorporate dogma and superstition - false tools - into their lives. Upon seeing iguanas, Reverend Walter Lang said...

We really have dinosaurs today, without any question. You just need the right weather conditions, as I see it, to get huge creatures. And in the ocean, of course, we have huge creatures.... this is where the plesiosauruses seem to be today, and perhaps also this fire breathing dragon is still down there -- very rare, but occasionally there. [*19]

     Walter Lang is not the only Creationist who believes that dinosaurs still walk the Earth. Kent Hovind has quoted many sitings of dinosaurs, all from the middle of Europe to Florida, and even accepting the testimony of individuals who were intoxicated with LSD. Kent Hovind has said the following...

Well, if Evolution is true, you're nothing important. You're just a bit of protoplasm that washed up on the beach. And you're not worth a thing. As a matter of fact, you're part of the problem, because you're one of the polluters of the environment, and the more of you we can get rid of, the better. See, that's normal thinking if Evolution is true. [*20]

     The fallacy of Hovind's quote is that it lacks intelligence. It doesn't rely on evidence and it makes arguments by making Evolution look bad rather than by debunking it. In fact, he says things about Evolution that aren't even true. If someone believes Evolution, it does not mean that they are trying to "get rid of" humans. However, to the audiences that are willing to pay $50 to listen to Hovind slander Evolution, they learn that Evolution is about not being worth anything and that humans are problems. This isn't science. This isn't even remotely smooth talking. On Kent Hovind's part, this is making yourself look stupid. Mockery of science hardly disproves it. Hovind is not the only one to make himself look ignorant. Henry Morris has said the following...