Monday, June 21, 2010

The barbarians among us

From The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30), by Mark Bauerlein:
According to recent reports from government agencies, foundations, survey firms, and scholarly institutions, most young people in the United States neither read literature (or fully know how), work reliably (just ask employers), visit cultural institutions (of any sort), nor vote (most can’t even understand a simple ballot). They cannot explain basic scientific methods, recount foundations of American history, or name any of their local political representatives. What do they happen to excel at is – each other. They spend unbelievable amounts of time electronically passing stories, pictures, tunes, and texts back and forth, savoring the thrill of peer attention and dwelling in a world of puerile banter and coarse images.
When you add to this situation the fact that schools have largely given up on passing on our culture (and, in fact, spend a good deal of their time undermining it), you get modern American culture--and a situation that, short of things like classical Christian education, will not likely correct itself.

HT: Beyond Necessity

11 comments:

KyCobb said...

Martin,

I can't agree with the gloom and doom. I know relatives and family friends graduating or about to graduate from high school and college who are outstanding students and good people. I doubt that the percentage of kids leaving school having learned almost nothing is actually significantly greater than in the past, when few went to college and larger percentages didn't complete high school or even went at all. I would also point out that with your support of "intelligent design" you don't have the firmest grasp on basic scientific methods either.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Can you point out to me where I have said I support Intelligent Design?

Lee said...

> I would also point out that with your support of "intelligent design" you don't have the firmest grasp on basic scientific methods either.

The well-established scientific proof by repetition.

Martin Cothran said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Art said...

Now we have Martin buying into government reports. The conflicting messages never stop on this blog.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

I have to admit that while your threads show sympathy for ID and disdain for its critics, you never actually come out and say you support ID. I also noticed that in your thread on the two Jones, you never responded to my point that you were right. Judge Jones merely had to point out that ID is vacuous and makes no falsifiable claims-comments about irreducible complexity, a debunked critique of evolutionary theory, were superfluous. If you agree with my agreement with you, then it will be clear that I was wrong, and you are no supporter of ID.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Martin supports old-fashioned creation "science" (as the Family Foundation used to on their website in the 1990s)or perhaps he is an old earther. Or his true ideas are something even more fun (ancient astronauts? The Hindu version? Scientology? the devil did it?). Inquiring minds want to know Martin's real position!

Martin Cothran said...

I've stated my position repeatedly on this blog: I don't know. I realize that position is a scandal to the fundamentalists on both sides of the issue. But at least the religious fundamentalists are supposed to be dogmatic.

Anonymous said...

Martin Cothran said...
"I've stated my position repeatedly on this blog: I don't know. I realize that position is a scandal to the fundamentalists on both sides of the issue. But at least the religious fundamentalists are supposed to be dogmatic."

Does Mars Hill know this?

Martin Cothran said...

Why wouldn't they and why would it matter?

Thomas said...

I think it's funny that the person who is implying that Martin's hiding a well known view from Mars Hill is commenting anonymously.

An anonymous person implying that someone else is trying to separate his views from his public identity... False? Obviously. Ironic? Certainly. Cowardly? I'll abide by the posting rules and submit that one to everyone's personal judgment.