So long HuffPo it was good to know ya' -
Please god let them have a coffee shop with wireless!
The next time your favorite release comes out it will be a great place to gather and do installs -
This is simply bogus and if I were grading it I would give it a F for plagarism - some student would have some serious explaining to do -
Lets begin with the first statement "Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory." because it tells us much about what follows.
A quick Google proved that this line along with most of this post comes from a video on YouTube by the creationist VenomFangX. For transcripts, link to video and extensive rebuttal see: http://talkingtotheists.blogspot.com/2008/05/story-thus-far-noted-youtube.html
However, I'll leave this alone since I'm not interested in tracing down the ownership of these concepts and sentences rather my concern is with their basic validity.
I could tear into the post but won't bother - the link above does that just fine.
What has been done here or or more properly by VenomFangX is to set up a false dichotomy between a contorted reading of Darwin and Creationist nonsense. He/she complains that you can't test Darwin's theories (note he/she does not say "evolutionary theory" because you can easily test parts of that) and then goes on say that the only alternative is the "God zapped it into existence" theory which, by the way, must automagically be correct. He/she then conveniently forgets to tell us how to test that theory!
This is the same game that Creationist have been playing for years - its bate and switch - applied to Science. There are of course other options - how about Darwin's basic concepts augmented and clarified by over a hundred years of biological discovery, i.e modern evolutionary theory? As any plant or animal breeder or freshman in a college biology course can tell you that "selection" is real and that organisms can pass on these selected characteristics to their progeny. So, parts of evolutionary theory can be easily tested and shown valid - where's the DIRECT EVIDENCE for the "God did it" theory?
From what I have seen this is the norm in the US.
Sadly, the folks doing/teaching IT in our schools are usually clueless. My nephew had a course on web site creation from a teacher who knew ZERO html - all she could do is M$ Front Page.
Its all very sad but I guess most real IT people can't afford the pay cut that would be involved in teaching or working at a school.
Paying enough that teaching appeals to people in it for the money is risky.
I'm sorry but at best this is silly. Its the logic that has been used for years to underpay teachers. I live with a 4th grade teacher, my mother was a special ed teacher, my sister was a music teacher and their salaries were/are all horrible. They all had/have Master's degree and I make 2x what they make/made. I personally would teach but the household can't afford the salary cut.
If we are going to apply the principle that you espouse - that people need to suffer to teach to the teaching profession we should do the same thing to others such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers of all kinds. Surely we want them to be passionate about their jobs just like teachers!