PSAT and Religion

[Laurie]

All 10th and 11th graders at my son's school took the PSAT. He told us that they asked what religion you are on the score sheet. Why in the heck are they asking for the kids' religion on the PSAT?

[Belle]

All 10th and 11th graders at my son's school took the PSAT. He told us that they asked what religion you are on the score sheet. Why in the heck are they asking for the kids' religion on the PSAT?

A lot of that info goes to schools for recruiting and marketing. It's just a data point for them so schools can target populations of potential students accurately. I suppose they could also use it for other analysis, but it would mean the most to schools who want money from new students.

[Brent]

All 10th and 11th graders at my son's school took the PSAT. He told us that they asked what religion you are on the score sheet. Why in the heck are they asking for the kids' religion on the PSAT?

A lot of that info goes to schools for recruiting and marketing. It's just a data point for them so schools can target populations of potential students accurately. I suppose they could also use it for other analysis, but it would mean the most to schools who want money from new students.

Good info; thanks.

In my opinion, that's even MORE reason that they are wrong to request such information.

[DarylB]

Considering the absolute disdain the schools show daily for religion, and the passionate zeal with which our "Big ed" administrators continue to indoctrinate our children with their godless, hedonistic, and socialistic values, working tirelessly to erradicate religion from the lives of public school students with their "separation of church and state" secularization agenda, I'm offended that these same people then turn and ask for students to provide information regarding their religious affiliations and/or preferences. How is this any different than the Nazis asking if there were any Jews in the audience.

When asked for ethnic and religious data, I suggest students give the same answer I gave to the Air Force years ago (yep, they asked too).... and to this day, I am listed as an Aleut Indian, and a devout practitioner of Shintoism!

[francejamie]

How is this any different than the Nazis asking if there were any Jews in the audience.




Um, this is a little extreme. Last I checked, Wake county schools aren't gassing their students.

[DarylB]

How is this any different than the Nazis asking if there were any Jews in the audience.




Um, this is a little extreme. Last I checked, Wake county schools aren't gassing their students.

Yea, of course. They're only indoctrinating and brainwashing the youth with their hedonistic, debasement of values...whew, now I feel so much. better!

(and just for reference, the Nazis didn't start right off gassing the Jews either, they first created the database of who was and was not a Jew, and made sure they knew where they could be found come round-up time. Same thing goes now for gun ownership... and the liberal policy of "knowing where they live").

[francejamie]

Yea, of course. They're only indoctrinating and brainwashing the youth with their hedonistic, debasement of values...whew, now I feel so much. better!

(and just for reference, the Nazis didn't start right off gassing the Jews either, they first created the database of who was and was not a Jew, and made sure they knew where they could be found come round-up time. Same thing goes now for gun ownership... and the liberal policy of "knowing where they live").


Last I checked, values were something typically taught by parents (or in churches if you prefer). If the schools taught values, you'd have a cow over which values they were teaching.

You are more than welcome to send your children to church to be indoctrinated and brainwashed with your religion. Why do you feel a need to do the same to mine?

[DarylB]

Yea, of course. They're only indoctrinating and brainwashing the youth with their hedonistic, debasement of values...whew, now I feel so much. better!

(and just for reference, the Nazis didn't start right off gassing the Jews either, they first created the database of who was and was not a Jew, and made sure they knew where they could be found come round-up time. Same thing goes now for gun ownership... and the liberal policy of "knowing where they live").


Last I checked, values were something typically taught by parents (or in churches if you prefer). If the schools taught values, you'd have a cow over which values they were teaching.

You are more than welcome to send your children to church to be indoctrinated and brainwashed with your religion. Why do you feel a need to do the same to mine?

Your atheism is well known. Unfortunately it is also well entrenched as the defacto public school value system. Any child that is given any other system of values by their parents, their church, etc (ie creationism) is certain to have the schools work to purge those non-atheist values from them. To be sure, the values of the atheistic school sytem will appear on a test, and no student shall pass untiil the indoctrination (PC answer) is completed and accepted (ie cloning, euhenasia, abortion, etc). Were it true that your childrren were being forcd to accept the reality of God, and you'd be having a cow. Further, my church doesn't force you to pay taxes to support it's programs, but yours does that to me and mine.

[francejamie]

Your atheism is well known. Unfortunately it is also well entrenched as the defacto public school value system. Any child that is given any other system of values by their parents, their church, etc (ie creationism) is certain to have the schools work to purge those non-atheist values from them. To be sure, the values of the atheistic school sytem will appear on a test, and no student shall pass untiil the indoctrination (PC answer) is completed and accepted (ie cloning, euhenasia, abortion, etc). Were it true that your childrren were being forcd to accept the reality of God, and you'd be having a cow. Further, my church doesn't force you to pay taxes to support it's programs, but yours does that to me and mine.

Actually, in a way it does. Your church isn't required to pay taxes on its income. Yet all other businesses are.

As far as schools, they actually teach things like science based on things like the Scientific Method. Unfortunately for your hopes, Creationism is not scientificaly based. It is just another world creation myth, which deserves as much coverage in the schools science class as the Egyptian creation myth, or the Norse myths.

You children are free to have as much belief in god as they want, and to say all the prayers to themselves as they want. Why, are you worried that god won't hear them if they don'g have a big assembly and pray together?

[DarylB]

Unfortunately for your hopes, Creationism is not scientificaly based. It is just another world creation myth, which deserves as much coverage in the schools science class as the Egyptian creation myth, or the Norse myths.

I've presented you with this challenge before... pick up a rock (any old rock will due), and tell me, without using the term creation, how it came to be! Creationism is in fact a part of science, just as is evolution. In point of fact, the two are mutually entertwined, not mutually exclusive. Evolution does not, and never has, explained the origins of matter or the universe. Physics tells us neither matter nor energy can be created, only changed one into the other. The Big Bang theory doesn't even explain how the matter and energy that went bang originally came into existence to go BANG in the first place.... and that would involve some form of creation (and by default, a creator). The creation then in fact did and does continue to evolve. Insisting on exclusion of one or the other theories is only half an education.

[Icorpse]

Unfortunately for your hopes, Creationism is not scientificaly based. It is just another world creation myth, which deserves as much coverage in the schools science class as the Egyptian creation myth, or the Norse myths.

I've presented you with this challenge before... pick up a rock (any old rock will due), and tell me, without using the term creation, how it came to be! Creationism is in fact a part of science, just as is evolution. In point of fact, the two are mutually entertwined, not mutually exclusive. Evolution does not, and never has, explained the origins of matter or the universe. Physics tells us neither matter nor energy can be created, only changed one into the other. The Big Bang theory doesn't even explain how the matter and energy that went bang originally came into existence to go BANG in the first place.... and that would involve some form of creation (and by default, a creator). The creation then in fact did and does continue to evolve. Insisting on exclusion of one or the other theories is only half an education.

Daryl, you have an argument but not a very good one. If there is such a thing as GOD, then that person (or force or whatever) is certainly not Mohammad, Jesus or ___ (insert your God). The point is if you took the modern man with all his tools and somehow transported him back to 2000 BC, what would happen? Humans had no knowledge of cell-phones, AK47, genes etc at that time. Fast forward 2000 years and these are all well-established tools of the trade. I believe that 2000 years from now, the world will look much different and our knowledge of "things" will be much more refined. God or no God, this is an irrelevant argument. Schools are not churches or Madrassas and should not teach religion to our children.

[francejamie]

I've presented you with this challenge before... pick up a rock (any old rock will due), and tell me, without using the term creation, how it came to be! Creationism is in fact a part of science, just as is evolution. In point of fact, the two are mutually entertwined, not mutually exclusive. Evolution does not, and never has, explained the origins of matter or the universe. Physics tells us neither matter nor energy can be created, only changed one into the other. The Big Bang theory doesn't even explain how the matter and energy that went bang originally came into existence to go BANG in the first place.... and that would involve some form of creation (and by default, a creator). The creation then in fact did and does continue to evolve. Insisting on exclusion of one or the other theories is only half an education.


And, as I said before, the expanding, contracting eternal loop universe theory explains this quite fine. ie, there was no begining.

Or, if you prefer, then take things a step further in your argument. What created your creator?
Claiming that nothing created your creator and he was always there, doesn't add anything logically to the argument that matter was always there and nothing created it.

[JoeCiulla]

I've presented you with this challenge before... pick up a rock (any old rock will due), and tell me, without using the term creation, how it came to be! Creationism is in fact a part of science, just as is evolution. In point of fact, the two are mutually entertwined, not mutually exclusive. Evolution does not, and never has, explained the origins of matter or the universe. Physics tells us neither matter nor energy can be created, only changed one into the other. The Big Bang theory doesn't even explain how the matter and energy that went bang originally came into existence to go BANG in the first place.... and that would involve some form of creation (and by default, a creator). The creation then in fact did and does continue to evolve. Insisting on exclusion of one or the other theories is only half an education.


And, as I said before, the expanding, contracting eternal loop universe theory explains this quite fine. ie, there was no begining.

Or, if you prefer, then take things a step further in your argument. What created your creator?
Claiming that nothing created your creator and he was always there, doesn't add anything logically to the argument that matter was always there and nothing created it.

Perhaps you are both wrong, and the origins of the universe are simply beyond our comprehension. "Big Bang" theories and such rely on an assumption that the universe was created from one piece of matter... how did it get there? People either look to Religion or science for understanding, I don't think either offers a bullet-proof explanation.

[francejamie]

Perhaps you are both wrong, and the origins of the universe are simply beyond our comprehension. "Big Bang" theories and such rely on an assumption that the universe was created from one piece of matter... how did it get there? People either look to Religion or science for understanding, I don't think either offers a bullet-proof explanation.

I agree completely that we don't really have any proven perfect explanation for the origins of the universe. Daryl just likes to put out his bogus claim that everything must have been created, which is not necessarily true, given the possible expanding/shrinking universe possible theory. I don't claim to definitively know the origins of the universe, but I do know that there are other possibilities than a creator.

However, even if you say that there was a big bang of matter/energy and we don't know where that came from, then adding in some made up creator who have been around forever, who just created everything adds nothing to the logical argument. Why is it acceptable in that argument to say that the creator has been around forever, but not acceptable to just say, that there was no time before the big bang, and it just happened?

This is just another case of attributing things we don't understand to supernatural causes, just like the Greeks attributed lightning to Zeus throwing lightning bolts, and the Romans attributing the sun moving though the sky to the Apollo's chariot. In a few hundred years, we'll know way more about how the universe works than we do now, and many things that superstitious people attribute to supernatural causes now will almost certainly be easily explained by science.

Daryl, how can you call yourself a scientist and not understand this?

[DarylB]

I've presented you with this challenge before... pick up a rock (any old rock will due), and tell me, without using the term creation, how it came to be! Creationism is in fact a part of science, just as is evolution. In point of fact, the two are mutually entertwined, not mutually exclusive. Evolution does not, and never has, explained the origins of matter or the universe. Physics tells us neither matter nor energy can be created, only changed one into the other. The Big Bang theory doesn't even explain how the matter and energy that went bang originally came into existence to go BANG in the first place.... and that would involve some form of creation (and by default, a creator). The creation then in fact did and does continue to evolve. Insisting on exclusion of one or the other theories is only half an education.


********************

Perhaps you are both wrong, and the origins of the universe are simply beyond our comprehension. "Big Bang" theories and such rely on an assumption that the universe was created from one piece of matter... how did it get there? People either look to Religion or science for understanding, I don't think either offers a bullet-proof explanation.

As last I looked, both evolution and the Big Bang are listed as "theories" not laws. Yet, we teach these in school as hard factual science. I don't have any reason that these should not be taught, as I believe that what we know at the present time makes a very good case for these theories, and we'd be remiss if we didn't teach them. There's another theory that getting dissed, and that goes hand in glove with the other two, creationism. We're expected to allow the schools to devalue this theory, even though we have every reason to believe that there was an origin, not explainable by science. Whether you cast that creation as by a deist being, a force beyond our comprehension, or another unexplained law of nature yet to be discovered, it's resting on at least as solid a footing as the other theories we teach. If we are to use the argument that, at some point in the future we'll know more, then why are we teaching evolution and the Big Bang now? Shouldn't we be waiting for the hard evidence before teaching ANY theory? Seems rather selective to go with unproven theories ...

[francejamie]

As last I looked, both evolution and the Big Bang are listed as "theories" not laws. Yet, we teach these in school as hard factual science. I don't have any reason that these should not be taught, as I believe that what we know at the present time makes a very good case for these theories, and we'd be remiss if we didn't teach them. There's another theory that getting dissed, and that goes hand in glove with the other two, creationism. We're expected to allow the schools to devalue this theory, even though we have every reason to believe that there was an origin, not explainable by science. Whether you cast that creation as by a deist being, a force beyond our comprehension, or another unexplained law of nature yet to be discovered, it's resting on at least as solid a footing as the other theories we teach. If we are to use the argument that, at some point in the future we'll know more, then why are we teaching evolution and the Big Bang now? Shouldn't we be waiting for the hard evidence before teaching ANY theory? Seems rather selective to go with unproven theories ...

First of all, the "theory" of evolution is just as much a theory as the "theory" of gravity. Do you doubt that as well. Daryl claims to be a scientist but doesn't have basic understanding of the term "theory" as it us used in a scientific context versus common speech.

Second, Creationism is in no way a scientific theory. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a creator. For it to be a scientific theory, it must be theoretically possible to present evidence which disproves it.

We teach science in the classroom, not religion or mythology.

[DarylB]

The Duke University Prayer study:

Duke University Medical Center Prayer Study

Dr. Mitch Krucoff, of Duke University Medical Center is renowned for his writings and research on spirituality and medicine and was the principal investigator of Duke's groundbreaking prayer study. This study was important because, "of all patients tested, the lowest absolute patient complications were observed in patients assigned to offsite prayer...."

"...Even though Prayer has existed in every spiritual tradition, only recently has science begun to validate that prayer 'works,' which in the field of medicine means that patients who are prayed over recover faster and have fewer complications from serious illness."


Duke University studies - Small scale pilot study of 1998:

The Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina studied 150 patients who had undergone angioplasty between 1997-APR and 1998-APR. This procedure involves positioning a balloon inside a hardened and narrowed artery. It is then inflated to force the artery open. This is followed by a second procedure: stanting: A flexible mesh tube is inserted into the artery to keep it open. The patients were divided randomly into five groups of 30. One group received standard treatment. The other four groups received an additional treatment, using one of the following alternative therapies: guided imagery, stress relaxation, healing touch, or intercessory prayer. Prayer was provided by seven prayer groups around the world, composed of followers of various religions. The various alternative treatments did not affect the clinical outcomes of the patients. However, those receiving alternative therapies "had lower absolute complication rates and a lower absolute incidence of post-procedural ischemia during hospitalization." Of the four alternative therapies, intercessory prayer seemed to provide the greatest therapeutic benefits.

These results were particularly important. Unlike many previous studies on the effect of prayer on patient recoveries, this was a double blind study. Neither the researchers nor the patients knew which of the 60 patients who did not receive guided imagery, stress relaxation, or healing touch had received intercessory prayer. Many previous studies of this general type were not double blind and thus allowed researcher bias to adversely affect the results.

Unfortunately, the Duke study only involved 30 patients who were the recipients of prayer. A much larger group needed to be studied in order to provide definitive results. Duke University followed up the pilot study with a second larger investigation.


Duke University studies - MANTRA II study of 2005:

Duke University reported on their third double blind study into remote healing in The Lancet magazine -- the leading British medical journal -- for 2005-AUG.
The study involved 748 patients with heart problems. They were divided into four groups:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifOne were assigned people to pray for them.http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifOne received MIT (music, imagery and touch) therapy.http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifOne received both distance prayer and MIT therapy.http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifOne received no additional therapy.
There was no significant difference among the four groups in terms of clinical outcomes.
Lead investigator. Dr. Mitchell Krucoff, said: "We thrilled about this. It has been very startling to be hit with a media response and e-mails that so superficially misinterpret our findings." Stacey Chase, writing for Science & Technology News stated: "Although anonymous prayer was not shown to lessen serious complications, hospital readmissions, or death, Krucoff said the study provides the groundwork for future clinical trials." In this study, the researchers arranged a "higher dose" of prayer by enrolling additional congregations.

Reactions:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifSome skeptics say that no plausible mechanism exists to explain remote healing. Dr. Larry Dossey, author of Reinventing Medicine, said:
"An explanatory theory is often a luxury in medicine that is late in arriving. Our knowledge of consciousness and its effects in the world are so appallingly primitive that we should encourage further research activity in the field of remote healing intentions."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifMarilyn Schlitz, of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, an underwriter of the study., said: "Open-minded skepticism is essential, but we can’t let this topic die based on one study. So, does it not work, or have we not figured out the right questions?"http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifEditors of The Lancet commented: "The contribution that hope and belief make to a personal understanding of illness cannot be dismissed so lightly. They are proper subjects for science, even while transcending its known bounds." http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifHarold G. Koenig, co-director of Duke’s Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health, said that investigators should abandon the use of the word "prayer" in favor of a non-sacred, secular phrase like "testing whether a person can project his or her thoughts through space and time." 1http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifThe Office of Prayer Research (OPR) attempts to "advance scientific research on the healing effects of prayer and to serve as a conduit for the exchange of information..." Their director, Bob Barth, said:
"An important part of OPR's role is to be the conscience to make sure premature conclusions aren't drawn from this frontier research. We have analyzed hundreds of prayer studies and can affirm there in no definitive study on prayer; there are only formative research enterprises. But just as it has in other fields of study, the science of prayer research will grow. Observation builds on observation. Studies build on studies. Each time a study like MANTRA II is released we learn as much about how to conduct this kind of research as we do from an analysis of the outcomes." 17
http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topruled.gif

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical6.htm

[francejamie]

Thank you for making my point for me. There are forces that that we don't understand. It would seem that the human mind may have powers we don't understand when focused on actions like prayer.

Not sure what this has to do with the idea of a creator, though.

[Laurie]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1072638.ece

Prayer does not heal the sick, study finds

Praying for the health of strangers who have undergone heart surgery has no effect, according to the largest scientific study ever commissioned to calculate the healing power of prayer.

In fact, patients who know they are being prayed for suffer a noticeably higher rate of complications, according to the study, which monitored the recovery of 1,800 patients after heart bypass surgery in the US.

Members of three congregations - St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Massachussetts; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City - were asked to pray for the patients, who were divided into three groups: those who would be told they were being prayed for, those who would receive prayers but not know, and those who would not be prayed for at all.

The worshippers starting praying for the patients the night before surgery and for the next two weeks, asking God to grant "a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications".

The study found no appreciable difference between the health of those who did not know they were being prayed for and those who received no prayers. Fifty-two per cent of patients in both groups suffered complications after surgery. But 59 per cent of those who knew they were prayed for went on to develop complications.

[DarylB]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1072638.ece

Prayer does not heal the sick, study finds


Later, in the same article, the author states, "Did the patients think, ’I am so sick that they had to call in the prayer team?"’ said Dr Bethea." This is one of the factors mentioned in the articles I referenced previously, that this is obviously not a double blind study. Many other such studies have also come up empty due to skewing the results (via knowledge of the study by the participants), either skewing the outcome positively or negatively.

[Laurie]

This is one of the factors mentioned in the articles I referenced previously, that this is obviously not a double blind study. Many other such studies have also come up empty due to skewing the results (via knowledge of the study by the participants), either skewing the outcome positively or negatively.

And you missed this -

The study found no appreciable difference between the health of those who did not know they were being prayed for and those who received no prayers.

The study doesn't have the results you want, so you discount it.

[Tonya]

This is one of the factors mentioned in the articles I referenced previously, that this is obviously not a double blind study. Many other such studies have also come up empty due to skewing the results (via knowledge of the study by the participants), either skewing the outcome positively or negatively.

And you missed this -

The study found no appreciable difference between the health of those who did not know they were being prayed for and those who received no prayers.

The study doesn't have the results you want, so you discount it.

Further, as Jamie alluded, these studies do nothing to prove or disprove the existance of a creator. Rather, they examine the effects of having a belief that there is a creator--a far different concept.

[Brent]

Faith and science are not opposing forces, and are not an either/or proposition.

One need not discount religious faith to accept science.

I certainly don't.

[DarylB]

Personally, I view science from the perspective that it is our attempt to understand the creation, within the limits of our ability to understand it, using the best tools we have at our disposal. As I've stated numerous times, creationism and evolution are not at odds with each other, but are mutually supportive. Evolution is our best theory in explaining the changes in our world, especially among biological species. It does not explain the origins of the universe. Creationism likewise doesn't pretend to explain the patterns of changes and evolving nature of the creation now that it has in fact been created. As a scientifically curious person, I can't ask the one question without also asking the other as well.