Zack Kopplin, The 19-Year-Old Face of the Anti-Creationist Movement

@Anonymous @myrtle Generalizations and stereotypes do not help anyone. The core of the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and most any other faith is not to wish harm on anyone, even on, as you say a "nonbeliver." A more appropriate statement would be "That is not a very religious thing to say. It is not right to judge others or wish harm on them."

@myrtle Just like a christian to wish harm on a nonbeliever

@BobRobinson OK. Anse doesn't need to prove that creationism is false; the onus is on you and your fellow believers to prove it true. And the reality is, it cannot be proven. There is no factual evidence that creationism theory - any version, mind you - is true. Scientific theories all around stand on ample evidence, are testable and observable. You know, the real problem is that people like you are so emotionally bound to your rigid beliefs because deep down inside you're afraid of mortality and you need comfort. Apparently, your belief system provides this. I've met creationist converts who were courageous enough to abandon their ridiculous beliefs and step into the light of reality. I really hope you do the same but I suspect it won't happen.

@BobRobinson @AnseOh yes, it is "ignorance". Creationism claims the Earth is only thousands of years old, when science proves that is simply NOT true. 

Nobody will get a good education at a school that teaches Creationism.  Unfortunately, if the parents choose to handicap their children by giving them a subpar scientific education, they have that right.  But they don't get one cent of tax money to do so...

@Anse @BobRobinson I fully agree the best long term plan is to increase funding, provide better teacher salaries, and provide more resources for students, but in Louisiana, with a republican government, that is not going to happen. Vouchers are the only solution on the table, and I am only stating I would prefer them to nothing! What I am saying is that the good private schools will not accept these students because they have enough money and they do not rely on state funds. Why would they accept students who will require them to change their entire system of education? The simple answer is that they will not. You use the term "rewarding funds" these funds go to students, who then are able to pay for private schools. We are not talking about your tax dollars paying for Creationism 101 at Catholic College Prep, we are talking about tax dollars going to a child who can then chose the best education available to them. I have emphatically stated that Creationism has NO PLACE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL CLASSROOMS. Allowing voucher students does not make a school that is private a public school, just as allowing a sick patient into an ER who cannot afford medical care at a Catholic Hospital does not make that Catholic Hospital a public hospital. We have an education crisis in Louisiana much akin to a medical emergency, and the voucher system is much akin to putting a bandaid on a mortal wound, but the bandaid is all that is being offered in Louisiana, and all I am saying is I would take the bandaid over nothing. I am not debating Creationism being taught in lieu of Evolution, I am against that, but I think it is terribly important to allow children access to the best education available. If you will indulge me in a hypothetical: if a child chose to attend a school that would allow them to get a good job and would provide them with an education that is 1000%% quantifiably better than the education they where getting in an underperforming public school, would you deny them the right to attend that school if that school taught Creationism and not Evolution? 

@BobRobinson @Anse The answer is not to take money out of public schools. The answer is to improve the schools. This can be done. It must be done, and if you reward a publicly-funded voucher to a student to attend a private school, you are therefore funding private education. That is so clear it is not possible to call it anything but what it is: the state support of private, religious education.

You are ignoring the point. I don't care if you embrace evolution. I don't care about the difference between creationism and evolution. As it regards this topic, we are only concerned with the possibility--and indeed, the reality--of the state rewarding funds to schools that do NOT make that distinction. They do exist, they are receiving state funds, and Mr. Kopplin is entirely right to object to it. Furthermore, we have state laws now proposed or passed that will make it expressly illegal for state-sponsored schools to force students to make that distinction. Apparently in Tennessee, if a student in a SCIENCE CLASS wants to claim that INTELLIGENT DESIGN is a valid alternative theory to evolution, the school will be REQUIRED to acknowledge this as okay. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. NOT YOUR DIVERSIONARY DISCUSSION ABOUT RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

@Anse @BobRobinson Ok, I do not know how to make this more simple: we are not talking about the allocation of public funds to private schools in Louisiana, private schools are doing just fine without voucher students. We are talking about public money being provided to poor students in underperforming schools to have a chance at a quality education. No strings should be attached to allowing these students to be admitted, and strings will bar their admission because schools will not forgo their principals for a few underprivileged students per year. Oversight against abuse is totally necessary, but Creationism is not the abuse we are talking about, poor educational conditions and poor teachers are what we are talking about. 

Creationism is NOT ignorance. Ignorance is seeing a belief that is conflicting to your own, and classifying it as ignorant because it is against your own beliefs. Creationism and Evolution can coexist in private schools, one in a religion classroom, and the other in a biology classroom, but neither should cross over. We are talking about state funds benefitting poor students, not benefitting private schools. Corrupt schools that are using students as cash cows are the enemy, not private religious schools who have been providing quality education for a hundred years. I think the whole part of this argument you are missing is that these vouchers in Louisiana only are for poor students, and they are often for less than the amount of tuition at already full capacity private schools with students paying full price with no financial help from the state. The effect of denying these students the chance to go to these quality schools teaching religion is to allow for more of these charter schools with the intention of using children as cash cows to crop up. 

@BobRobinson It is the responsibility of good government to provide money with strings attached. A system that rewards vouchers without any oversight is a system that will be ripe for abuse. We're seeing that in Texas now, where charter schools could be started with virtually no standards, and schools that became little more than cash cows for unscrupulous administrators. If you have a private school, and you really want it to remain private, I cannot fathom how you could support a voucher system. The strings may not be there now but they will be there at some point, and they should be, or you will end up giving tax money to schools that have atrocious standards and are doing little better than perpetuating ignorance.

We're dancing around a key issue here, of course. Are ignorant people free to be ignorant? And how far should the state go to support their pursuit of ignorance? Is it possible that the government should have the authority to say one curriculum is good and another one isn't? If there are tax dollars at stake, then yes, absolutely they must. To fail to do this is a disaster. You are free to teach a child whatever you want, but you are not free to have that supported by the state. 

I think we agree that there is a terrible public school system in Louisiana, no arguments there for me. I am also not arguing for Texas to do anything. I would hope no other state has the same problems as LA. Apparently you have no idea how vouchers work. They are for poor children only, they are paying less than the students who can afford to pay to go to that school, and they are simply taking their allocated money away from an underperforming school to allow that student a chance to succeed. When private schools accept these students they are doing so not because they need that money, but because they want the children to have the opportunity, they accept their vouchers. They will not allow them if there are strings attached by the government. Then, students will be rooked into charter schools springing up to take advantage of the system, and everyone will suffer. 

@BobRobinson If you allocate tax dollars for private schooling, it is no longer "private", and taxpayers have a right to voice their opinion on this particular allocation. Secondly, the reason Louisiana's private schools are considered superior to their public ones is because the state does very little to support public education. The standard salary of a teacher in Louisiana is atrociously low, for example; school campuses are often in disrepair (which I know from personal experience, having visited schools in New Orleans). The truth of the matter is that in many Southern states, public education went into a tailspin after Brown v. Board; before integration, public education was widely supported throughout the South. The day Texas begins following the example of Louisiana will be a very sad day for Texas schoolchildren.

Let me be clear, in Louisiana private schools often provide a far superior education to public schools, with the rare exception of our magnet schools, which are highly competitive and difficult to get in, especially if they are not in your district. For hundreds of years in Louisiana the wealthy have remained wealthy because their children had access to private school education, and for that reason we have the second most children per capita enrolled in private schools. I was fortunate enough to attend one of those private schools, and Mr. Kopplin was fortunate enough to attend a magnet school, but every child in Louisiana should have a choice between those two quality educational options. Creationism, as taught in the majority of religious schools in Louisiana is not young earth creationism, which you have described. It is the faith based idea that God created the heavens and the earth, and it is taught in a religious classroom along with the Bible. I never heard a theory about dinosaurs being in the garden of Eden or on the arc, and the vast majority of schools do not teach creationism in this manner. In addition, my school had one of the strongest biology departments in the state, and we where taught evolution as the definitive scientific theory. Our teachers never said anything about Jesus in a biology classroom. I feel like this is a straw man argument, because a few extreme schools teach an absurd theory we are should ban any religion in private schools wanting to allow deserving voucher students? No! If anything we should fight against schools teaching Young Earth Creationism, but leave schools teaching a religious belief in a private school religious classroom alone. If students don't want to learn religion, or they want to learn a different religion, they can take their vouchers to the school of their choice. Choice is what makes this country great.

@BobRobinson But you are not defending "quality education." That's the point. You are defending what amounts to indoctrination. These private schools make no distinction between religion and science. They are teaching children that Noah was a real person who really had dinosaurs on the ark. They are teaching children that evolution is really sham. That's their curriculum, and it's false, and you support it. There is no "equality" issue here. This is no effort to provide true choice; this is an effort to undermine the truth. Education is unfortunately a political minefield; it can't be avoided. But when the state engages in the support of what amounts to the perpetuation of dreadful ignorance, it cannot do anything but destroy the progress of knowledge in this country. You can wrap it in a flag and paint in the colors of freedom and the nice and patriotic rhetoric of liberty but in the end, you support the stupid-ization of American schoolchildren. That will not end well.

@BobRobinson @trav45  Public schools are "under-performing" but a private school that teaches mythological events and encourages Bible literalism is somehow...better? Truly a better educational option? Come on dude.

@BobRobinson @Anse Anybody who spends money on anything has the right to control the conditions under which the money is spent. I don't care if it's a million dollars or a single dime; if we are to have effective government, we must have a government that does not simply hand money out freely. The government has an obligation to see its education funds spent for actual education. I mean, hell, why not just send money to homeschoolers, too, while you're at it? Can you really believe that these vouchers should come with *no* strings attached?

For the record, I'm opposed to vouchers. They are supposedly intended to give families choices, with one consequence being that public schools, in an effort to retain students, will compete in a kind of market for those students and will work to reform their curriculum and their instruction. But this approach is fraught with a multitude of problems. First of all, it's not really a competitive market, since vouchers are a kind of price control; if a school is truly going to be free to operate independently, it must be free to set tuition as its priorities require. We have private schools in Houston that cost over $10,000/year, as much as many universities; a holder of a voucher cannot expect to attend those schools, nor can those schools be required to accept them. You aren't guaranteeing a better education; you're just offering a *different* education. Secondly, does it follow that families will choose the best program? Consider other examples of consumer choice in our larger marketplace. The world's largest retailer is Walmart. It's not Neimann Marcus, it's not Macy's, it's Walmart. This kind of approach to education does not give us a system of Neimann-Marcuses; it gives us a system of Walmarts: cheap crap for the masses, hardly a qualitatively superior system, but one that gives people bang for their buck. For further examples, consider the proprietary school model currently employed by schools like the U. of Phoenix; some of these schools employ hundreds of recruiters because their chief obligation is attracting students who qualify for government loans. That is money in the bank, and it's profit. Their standards for admission are a joke and their graduation rates suck. Why? Because graduation is a secondary concern. Keeping the incoming freshman coming through the door is the point, because that's a new customer and new money. That is, in effect, a voucher system. It destroys the fundamental relationship between institution and student and exploits the government in the process. And to this day, I cannot see how Louisiana's approach has improved educational opportunities for their students.

@Anse @BobRobinson I do not want to live on this planet anymore (insert furturama meme here). If you cannot see the difference between allowing a poor student to attend the school of their choice and thereby giving maybe 3k per student per year to a private school accepting less than 10 students, should that allow the government to control the curriculum? And if it does than the schools WILL NOT accept these students, and that is a tragedy! 

@BobRobinson @Anse There is no difference, dude. You may as well send a check directly to the religious school and call it a day.

@Anse @BobRobinson We are not talking about publicly funded private schools, we are talking about publicly funded students attending private schools which run on private funds, not on public funds. We are talking less than half of 1% of their funding coming from voucher students. 

@BobRobinson @Anse First of all, religion has a place in public education--as an academic study and not as a reinforcement of student/family values. There are religious clubs that students can join. No problem there. But a "religious class" has no place in a publicly-financed school. You want to start a religious class, do it outside of class time, and don't expect tax money to support it.

@Anse Again, you are confusing quantifiable and empirical facts with something that cannot be quantified, proven, or disprove. The moon is not made of cheese, we can definitively prove that. We cannot prove whether there is or is not a god. The issue is freedom to choose. If a poor child's parents want to send them to a religious school and they have a voucher they should be allowed to do so. Creationism is not insanity, it is a faith based belief, and it belongs only in a religious classroom. The state should not tell a private institution how to teach students in a religion classroom. 

@BobRobinson Bob, parents can send their kids to any school they want. They can teach their children that the moon is made of cheese. The question is whether or not the state should support that. You are completely maligning the issue by attempting to press this "freedom of choice" baloney. It is not relevant to the central debate, which is, should tax dollars support this insanity? And the answer must be, has to be, NO.

 I feel like telling children and parents they cannot chose the school they want to send their child to because that school teaches Creationism in a religion class is far more fascistic than teaching both Creationism and Evolution in the same school. Creationism in public schools is certainly not ok, but the government should not tell private schools receiving voucher students what to teach their students. If a child or their parents do not like what the school is teaching they can take their voucher elsewhere. That is a democratic idea, not a fascistic idea. 

Yes, teach them how to think. Which is what the scientific method does, after all. But I would argue that skill and content knowledge must go hand-in-hand, at least on an elementary level.

@brandblake, Intelligent design is an insidious thing. Its defenders spend 10% of their time on pure conjecture based on a misunderstanding of nature, and 90% of their time telling you all about how wrong evolution is. It's a "theory" with only one purpose: to cast doubt on the entire endeavor of science. I see it as one of the more destructive methods by which the American right wing is attempting to throw our society into chaos, both cultural and political. They can't dictate the framework of debate any more, so just nuke the debate itself.