[jswinghammer]

Given that public schools can barely teach reading, writing, or math I don't really worry too much about what they are teaching children about much else. It also does not matter what schools anywhere teach if your children do not attend that school.

[uptown]

"It also does not matter what schools anywhere teach if your children do not attend that school."

How do you figure? These people eventually enter the workforce. Maybe they become politicians, and base their political direction on misinformation. Even if they remain in the private sector, someone that is the product of a misguided education will lack the tools necessary to impact society in an informed way, and will have an artificial ceiling on their potential due to lack of knowledge. Education has a massive impact on the world around those who are educated. Considering knowledge to be an isolated, personal thing isn't remotely accurate.

[jswinghammer]

I know a lot of successful people who don't know anything about the current state of evolutionary biology. I'm guessing you do too. It's totally superfluous to most occupations.

[subsection1h]

I don't think a lack of an understanding of biology is the problem; the problem is a disregard for empirical evidence.

Whenever the evolution vs. creationism debate comes up in the context of a presidential election, some people argue that it doesn't matter whether the POTUS understands biology. But as I wrote, a lack of an understanding of biology isn't the problem; the problem is a disregard for empirical evidence. If a presidential candidate has no regard for empirical evidence in the context of biology, they likely have no regard for empirical evidence in the context of other subjects, including important subjects such as health economics. That's the problem.

So while you're correct that a person can lack an understanding of biology and still be successful, a successful person who has little regard for empirical evidence is a threat to civilization.

[jswinghammer]

So if Miley Cyrus doesn't believe in empirical evidence she's a threat to civilization? Damn. We're in trouble.

[uptown]

Sure. Anyone with an audience, the financial resources to promote a message has the potential to inflict harm on a societal level. I realize this example is potentially politically divisive - but take the Koch brothers, and their position on climate change.

[fnordfnordfnord]

> It also does not matter what schools anywhere teach if your children do not attend that school.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree. If a significant number of my neighbors' children are taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that blacks deserve scorn as penance for Cain's sin, and that the rapture's arrival is to be expected nigh on any moment now; that is a problem for myself, my children, and everyone in my community. People who believe those things support public policy that is incompatible with the type of place that I want to live.

[jswinghammer]

So maybe you want to live in a society where public policy has nothing to do with the age of the universe. Let's do that. That sounds good.

[fnordfnordfnord]

I don't think I understand your reply, but, not basing public policy on ideas about our world which are clearly wrong is important to me.

[jswinghammer]

I meant to say that maybe having public policy that even remotely relates to these topics is a huge mistake.

[gms7777]

The whole principle behind public schooling is that having an educated public is beneficial for society as a whole. These are the people that eventually work and contribute to the economy, they vote, they become politicians and dictate policy, etc. As such, it matters quite a great deal what schools are teaching, even if you have never met a single person that attends those schools.

[jswinghammer]

This is part of why I'd advocate for limited government. That way if everyone around you is acting foolish then the amount of damage they can do is fairly small.