Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Physicist, Claims Teaching Creationism Is Child Abuse

Creationism science

  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#41 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:15 PM

View PostMark, on 19 February 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on 19 February 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Mark, as you say, everyone is free to forge a metaphysical path toward their own "truth" - but that assumes an adult ability to distinguish between various theories drawn from various traditions, religious and scientific/mathematical included, doesn't it?  And that gets back to the (fairly important) subject of the thread: what we teach our children, and what it means both for them as individuals and for us as a society.

If we teach children that the fossil record (and indeed evolution itself) is god's little joke on mankind, are we also teaching them to distrust and discount science and mathematics?  (I'm reminded of the Bob Jones University Astronomy textbook that denies cosmological distances, black holes, quasars, et al - Like the fossil record, these are god's little joke on mankind.)

What are the implications for the individual child so taught?  (Will anyone argue that Bob Jones turns out astronomers employable in the field of astronomy?)  And what are the implications on a macro level?  A whole generation of children brought up to distrust and discount science?

Mark: Teaching children that there are many theories about the creation of the Universe is doing nothing more than telling them the truth! If someone is teaching them that creation was only caused  through an omnipotent being, that is wrong. That's is  deception and brainwashing. However, to not teach them about the other theories is just as bad as sticking their heads in the sand so they don't learn about the real world we live in, and all the beliefs therein.

Mikoto, why shouldn't we teach the theory of creationism in schools? What difference does it make where theories originate? What if one day we learn there IS a God...and everything we know in existence originated because of him? I shouldn't have to tell you that MANY myths are based on factual information. The writers of the Bible undoubtedly know all the things they wrote happened for certain, but they used the stories that had been passed from generation to generation for eons and attempted to write it to the best of their limited abilities and with their limited knowledge. For instance...did a global flood as described in the Bible once happen? Scientists have discovered the Earth has flooded and had higher sea levels in the distant past. Scientists have also discovered that the story of Noah was undoubtedly an account of Gilgamesh, which had happened further back than Noah. Both stories have undeniable parallels, and scientists have listened to those stories, and began to study if a flood of the proportion described in those two stories was a real event. They're certain a flood happened that affected thousands of people, but we also know the Earth didn't flood completely all over, and it didn't rain for 40 days and 40 nights. All that was writer embellishment. Journalists have been using sensationalism for thousands of years!

...And Scott, why would the fossil record be god's little joke on mankind? To me, the fossil record lets us know that there is more knowledge out there than just what is learned from ONE source (like the Bible). Explaining a few of the main theories of our creation was the way I was taught as a child, and I didn't ever distrust or discount science. My teacher told me the leading scientific theories, and when someone in the class said, "I thought God created the Universe"...she simply said, "Yes, that is what a lot of people believe."
To me...the fossil record, evolution, and the science behind the Big Bang totally mesh with my other beliefs that originate from the account I learned in the Bible. The Bible didn't say HOW God created the Universe. I also never believed the Bible had it's account of the creation of the universe and life, completely correct down to the last little detail. The Bible was written by men...and as we know, men often have ulterior motives, and/or wrong information when they're writing a book.

I was taught to take all the theories, and believe what I chose to believe, because as I said earlier...NOBODY knows exactly how and why the Universe came to be, and how and why lifeforms were created. God could have created the Universe via the Big Bang, and made certain the seeds of life were planted and would evolve as planned. OR, we could ALL be wrong with every current theory (religiously-related or not).

Scientists are still figuring out when and how early mankind spread around the world. It was once taught that people left Africa traveling east, until they reached what is now the Bering Strait...then they crossed over the frozen sea into North America. HOWEVER, now scientists are rethinking that theory, as much evidence has come to light that man could have been in North America MUCH earlier than previously thought. We now know Christopher Columbus was not, and never was the discoverer of North America. The Vikings beat him by several hundred years, and again, new things are being examined that may indicate that mankind was here in some capacity even before the Vikings found "Vineland".

So, you believe that the Earth could be 6000 years old, there isn't enough empirical data to establish that the Earth is millions and millions of years old.
And we should teach that to children?

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#42 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:30 PM

View PostBalderdash, on 18 February 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:


What do you consider harm?  The guy said he felt it was a mild form of abuse, I personally think that it's more than mild but people disagree.
"This is an infringement of the highest order."  What!?  BS!  What is infringement?  Infringement of what?

Labelling teaching Creationism a form of child abuse (mild or no) is placing said teaching in the category of something which the state can intervene in - for the welfare of the child.  I don't believe that intervention at state level is appropriate, so I also don't agree that labelling this particular belief system as child abuse is appropriate.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#43 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:24 PM

I can actually see the argument that is it child abuse.  To clarify, let me us an extreme example...let's say a couple has a young son that they decide to home school, but instead of teaching him anything, they let him play video games all day and never teach him how to read.  They otherwise tend to his physical and emotional needs, but insist that he receive NO education.  I would call that child abuse, because once that child is grown he is going to have a very hard time getting by in the world (this is also why many states make homeschooled kids take standardized tests every year).  Indeed, unless the child is very bright and can teach himself well, he may end up never thriving in modern society, even as an adult.  In fact, I think most people would classify that as a form of child abuse, even if they don't see at as severe as something like molestation.

Now, insisting that creationism IS science and that evolution is a lie is a milder form of educational abuse.  It's not so severe that the state really can do anything about it (and honestly, the state can't really do anything about a lot of the "milder" forms of child abuse, like emotional abuse).  But it does set up the kid for struggle later in life.  I've had to fail students in my science classes because they were taught lies.  I teach college, so every time I fail a student for something like that it's a few thousand dollars and many hours of work completely wasted.  If they end up failing out of college completely that's even more money, more time, and more effort wasted without benefit.  I've seen people who really want to be STEM majors, but they can't let go of decades of what their parents, church, and previous schools have taught them....so they fail out of those programs.  Even if they don't want to go to college or work in the sciences, teaching kids bad science means they won't understand a lot of the world around them.  Science is behind so much of what we do today, from being informed about your diet and health (I want to scream at every new fad diet/miracle cure out there), to politics (climate change, fracking, abortion), even personal life (I know many people who refuse to date creationists).  Lying to kids about what science is and what science says is a massive disservice to them.  Is it as bad as no education at all?  Of course not.  But it does set them up to struggle needlessly.  And on a note that frequently annoying the heck out of me, It also basically teaches them that as long as you believe you are right, it's ok to lie about the evidence.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#44 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:28 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on 18 February 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 17 February 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

Creator of the universe?
Sustainer of the universe?
Eternal?
Unchanging? Or changing? (for example, old testament verses new testament. Did God change, or not?)

Omniscience? (infinite/unlimited knowledge)
Omnipotent? (unlimited power)
Omnipresent (present everywhere)
Omnibenevolence? (perfect goodness)


Well, I believe that variations of God that we see pertain to our understanding of God at any time.  At the time of the Old Testament, God seemed one way to humanity, and today, God seems another way - but that evolution of God is with us, not with God.  And, as we grow and evolve, God provides new instructions suitable to our stage of development.  In short - it is we who are young and changing, not God.

I was reading somewhere an article that posited that we are becoming more non-violent, and that our brains are actually changing in response to this increased non-violent impulse. That is to say - humanity today is significantly different than it was a thousand years ago, at least partly because of the ascendance of certain ideas as normative.   To me this confirms the process of progressive revelation - namely that each teacher from God comes at a specific time, teaches specific principles and over time those principles become more normative - and change humanity.  At which point another revelation will become necessary because we just aren't the same as we were before.

QT

Are people less violent or do they just have a more stable existence?  By that, I mean that people aren't struggling for food and protection from warlords like they did in the past.   People do go hungry still but the areas with the highest crime rates tend to be the poorest.   The idea of working together may spring from Jesus and other holy leaders but it was spread under threat by the Roman Catholic Church.  Claiming God is going to send someone to hell to be tortured in the flames by Satan for all eternity is the pinnacle of violence.  A lot of people today who are less violent are worried about being punished by God. In it's own way, modern Christianity has probably restrained a lot of people who would otherwise commit violent acts.  If people's brains are less violent it might be because "the weak are inheriting the Earth", meaning that according to Darwinian theory the strong adapt and survive but we've actually cut that mechanism out and now the more passive people's genes are getting a chance to thrive.

But the violent impulse is still there, look at all the countries where mass unrest and violence occurs today, there is no stability.  Or there is a religious doctrine that people use to justify their actions.  I've never been one to defend people who use religion to advocate their violence, but impressionable minds can be misled.  I remember seeing the airport worker who let the hijackers on 9/11 go through despite having suspicions(he was on Oprah) and he said the younger guys didn't act like they knew they'd be dying later that day.  That's the danger of turning a blind eye to religious indoctrination.  It can be used to spread great thoughts but it can also be used by people in a fervent belief they are doing the right thing, or worse, for their own ends like Warren Jeffs.  Women are kept oppressed in the Middle East because of this type of indoctrination.

For a long time I thought the Amish way of life was kind of endearing, they had an honest faith and let their children decide at a certain age whether they wanted to live that life or not.  Until I watched those TLC and Discovery channel shows on them and realized how hard it was for those kids to integrate into the modern world.  It's not impossible but they are hindered a bit.

Dirty confession time, I'm actually taking online courses through a religous university and they do teach creationism in their biology classes.  In one of our first assignment's we had to answer why we thought God would create different animals and lifeforms.   It doesn't harp on God so much but it does occassionally point out the maginificience(sp?) of his design.   The biology itself is strictly science, although this discussion did prompt me to go and skim over the chapter dealing with evolution(which they deny) and it is basically a compare and contrast on mutations from the perspectives of intelligent design vs. evolution. I checked with the local community colleges and state university to see if the credits will transfer before I enrolled because I'm just getting my prerequisite courses out of the way first and the credits will transfer. I knew what I was going to get when I signed up to take the courses but I also went through a period as an agnostic, then I was an atheist for a while, now I'm just not sure.

I see no problem with saying we don't know what caused the big bang, but it's different to teach in a public school that a God created the universe.   We never discussed religion in public school in any of my science classes and this is a small southern town, Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian country.  Oddly enough, the only time I can remember God being brought up was by me in fifth grade.  It was in the early 1990s when some guy had predicted an earthquake along the New Madrid faultline and the teacher asked the class why she wasn't scared, I raised my hand and said "Because God is with you".  She looked like "uh oh"... In high school we had a "moment of silence" each morning but no prayer, I doubt anybody did use it for that but that's what it was for without coming right out and saying it.  The religious kids would pray around the flagpole before school.

Going back to the violence thing, I took a Criminal Justice course and we had to discuss the death penalty, I being me decided to state my opposition to the death penalty, knowing that I would catch flack for it.  It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be but it more or less boiled down to why did I think I knew better than God.  And that the people deserved to die and that only God could forgive them.  You'll find these same types of arguments underneath any major news story and almost all the people calling for blood will claim to be Christians in the same sentences.  I still say the impulse to kill is the impulse to kill no matter the reasoning, it's actually more premeditated when you decide to use it as a punishment, it's just morally acceptable.

#45 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:06 PM

View PostMark, on 19 February 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Scientists are still figuring out when and how early mankind spread around the world. It was once taught that people left Africa traveling east, until they reached what is now the Bering Strait...then they crossed over the frozen sea into North America. HOWEVER, now scientists are rethinking that theory, as much evidence has come to light that man could have been in North America MUCH earlier than previously thought. We now know Christopher Columbus was not, and never was the discoverer of North America. The Vikings beat him by several hundred years, and again, new things are being examined that may indicate that mankind was here in some capacity even before the Vikings found "Vineland".

Certainly not related to the main of the topic, but there is no dispute, that I am aware of, that there was mankind in the Americas before the Vikings found "Vineland" (I assume you are referring to, IIRC, the short term settlement(s) from around 1000 AD in what is now Newfoundland). I figure you just misspoke and you mean people who preceded the Native cultures/civilizations we know of and/or followed them. Possible thru means other than the bering strait land bridge (but which, IIRC, most who have studied such would say was crossed in successive waves anyways).
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#46 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:08 PM

View PostNikcara, on 19 February 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

Now, insisting that creationism IS science and that evolution is a lie is a milder form of educational abuse.  It's not so severe that the state really can do anything about it (and honestly, the state can't really do anything about a lot of the "milder" forms of child abuse, like emotional abuse).  But it does set up the kid for struggle later in life.  I've had to fail students in my science classes because they were taught lies.

And it's not just STEM.  A professor of comparative religion friend of mine had to persuade a young man to drop his class and try a different major because the young man insisted that comparative religion did not include Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism.   :oh:

Quote

And on a note that frequently annoying the heck out of me, It also basically teaches them that as long as you believe you are right, it's ok to lie about the evidence.

That explains a lot about the current political situation too.   :(  :mad:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#47 Mikoto

Mikoto

    Rejected on all levels.

  • Islander
  • 9,304 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:23 PM

Ah perhaps I wasn't quite clear enough. No creationism within science classes. In religious/humanities classes sure, children can hear about the religious alternatives there in its proper setting.

Just like how they'd learn how religion and science have affected human development in history. Hopefully that makes things a little clearer.
Rejected and gone.

#48 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:31 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on 19 February 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

View PostBalderdash, on 18 February 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

What do you consider harm?  The guy said he felt it was a mild form of abuse, I personally think that it's more than mild but people disagree.
"This is an infringement of the highest order."  What!?  BS!  What is infringement?  Infringement of what?

Labelling teaching Creationism a form of child abuse (mild or no) is placing said teaching in the category of something which the state can intervene in - for the welfare of the child.  I don't believe that intervention at state level is appropriate, so I also don't agree that labelling this particular belief system as child abuse is appropriate.

QT

Ah, well we disagree then.  There are lots of things that some religions do or advocate that I believe is child abuse.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#49 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:52 PM

View PostBalderdash, on 19 February 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

View PostQueenTiye, on 19 February 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

View PostBalderdash, on 18 February 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

What do you consider harm?  The guy said he felt it was a mild form of abuse, I personally think that it's more than mild but people disagree.
"This is an infringement of the highest order."  What!?  BS!  What is infringement?  Infringement of what?

Labelling teaching Creationism a form of child abuse (mild or no) is placing said teaching in the category of something which the state can intervene in - for the welfare of the child.  I don't believe that intervention at state level is appropriate, so I also don't agree that labelling this particular belief system as child abuse is appropriate.

QT

Ah, well we disagree then.  There are lots of things that some religions do or advocate that I believe is child abuse.

Amen to that.   :(
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#50 standish

standish
  • Islander
  • 72 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:18 PM

View PostMark, on 19 February 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

I was taught to take all the theories, and believe what I chose to believe, because as I said earlier...NOBODY knows exactly how and why the Universe came to be, and how and why lifeforms were created. God could have created the Universe via the Big Bang, and made certain the seeds of life were planted and would evolve as planned. OR, we could ALL be wrong with every current theory (religiously-related or not).




Ahhhhh,...  Not true, Mark.  We, here at exisle, know EXACTLY how the universe was created...

Hide: Click to see


#51 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:23 PM

View PostMark, on 19 February 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on 19 February 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Mark, as you say, everyone is free to forge a metaphysical path toward their own "truth" - but that assumes an adult ability to distinguish between various theories drawn from various traditions, religious and scientific/mathematical included, doesn't it?  And that gets back to the (fairly important) subject of the thread: what we teach our children, and what it means both for them as individuals and for us as a society.

If we teach children that the fossil record (and indeed evolution itself) is god's little joke on mankind, are we also teaching them to distrust and discount science and mathematics?  (I'm reminded of the Bob Jones University Astronomy textbook that denies cosmological distances, black holes, quasars, et al - Like the fossil record, these are god's little joke on mankind.)

What are the implications for the individual child so taught?  (Will anyone argue that Bob Jones turns out astronomers employable in the field of astronomy?)  And what are the implications on a macro level?  A whole generation of children brought up to distrust and discount science?

Mark: Teaching children that there are many theories about the creation of the Universe is doing nothing more than telling them the truth! If someone is teaching them that creation was only caused  through an omnipotent being, that is wrong. That's is  deception and brainwashing. However, to not teach them about the other theories is just as bad as sticking their heads in the sand so they don't learn about the real world we live in, and all the beliefs therein.

I have no problem with - and in fact, would advocate - the teaching of comparative religion in public schools.  In that context, kids could learn about creationism and other facets of christian theology.  Of course, they would also have to learn about other world religions and THEIR theologies as well.  

My problem is with teaching the creation account of the Book of Genesis - or any variation thereof - as science, as "another theory" comparable to evolution.  That is an insult to both science AND faith.  (And perhaps to literature as well!)

Quote

Mikoto, why shouldn't we teach the theory of creationism in schools?

Creationism isn't a theory - It is not the result of a rational process.  It's the result of reading a 6,000 year old ancient Judaic text as though it were literally true - which even the Jews do not do!

Quote

What difference does it make where theories originate?

All the difference in the world.  You wouldn't teach a kid to play bassoon in social studies - you shouldn't indoctrinate him into your religion in a science class.  (Or in any other public school classroom.  That is for Sunday School - or for home - but not for PUBLIC school.)  

By the way, I went to a very conservative Catholic High School and even THEY did not talk about creationism in the science classroom.  Not EVER.  They talked about genetics and evolution.  (Ironically, my friends in public school said their science teachers DID talk about creationism alongside evolution.  This was in the late 80s.)

I'll say this for the Catholic Church - Somewhere along the way, after that whole Galileo contretemps, they figured out there's no profit in getting on the wrong side of science.  (Though they are STILL running around the third world telling indigenous populations that condoms won't protect them from HIV.  Cut to: millions dead...)

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#52 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:43 AM

Here's a delightful :sarcasm: example of science education gone wrong:

Alabama GOP Rep Claims A Baby Is The Largest Organ In A Woman’s Body

http://www.addicting...-a-womans-body/

Quote

Boy howdy, this one is just mind-boggling. This is what happens when education is considered to be elitist while stupidity and ignorance are glorified. Alabama state Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin ®, who apparently never took biology, is sponsoring the latest TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) bill in the Alabama legislature. It contains all the usual crap we’ve come to expect from those who are trying to outlaw safe abortion through burdensome regulations, including requiring physicians to have admitting rights at local hospitals, baseless building codes. Though this one also adds a prohibition against nurses, nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants from dispensing abortion-inducing medications (punishable as a felony, fergawdsake!). Mississippi’s last clinic is battling to survive in the face of similar legislation in that state.

We’ve heard all of the pro-birth crowd’s weak arguments about these regulations and how they will “make abortions safer” (they are already safe) and, gosh, we are only thinking of the patients. But Rep. McClurkin has come up with the most inane, ignorant thing I think I have ever heard:


“When a physician removes a child from a woman, that is the largest organ in a body. That’s a big thing. That’s a big surgery. You don’t have any other organs in your body that are bigger than that.”

Read that again and marvel at the sheer stupidity on display here. First, a baby is not an organ. Get that woman a dictionary! And a biology textbook, while we’re at it....

Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#53 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:12 PM

^^Not to mention that she obviously does not know the size of an embryo or fetus.either at the stage during which the majority of abortions are done.

Not the first legislator who does not have his or her facts right or said something incredibly stupid.  and not likely to be the last either. :headshake:

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#54 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:36 PM

Okay, then. Well, as the writer pointed out, a baby is not an organ, if it is, then why the fuss? Some organs are removed all the time, even shared between people. I'd also like to point out the the skin is the largest organ, but why quibble? I'll just leave it at a baby being an organ. She actually lowered the baby's status by making it an organ, simply because some organs, parts of, etc... are removed and disposed of.
I don't know whether to laugh at Alabama state Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, or feel anger toward her. I think I'll just do both.

As for teaching creationism being child abuse. No, I don't see it that way. If this became considered child abuse, that means the children can be removed from otherwise loving homes and put into foster care. Is this what we really need more of?
Being taught to only believe in creationism will hurt them in the eyes of other people, but it's not going to destroy their lives.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#55 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:46 PM

Not to derail the thread too much further, but about the abortion thing, UGH.  Sometimes what I hate the most about the abortion debate is all the misinformation out there.  I can barely talk to my fiance about it because he grew up in a very conservative Christian household and has been told all sorts of lies about it.  He admits he knows next to nothing about biology, he admits that I know *way* more about biology than him (given that I am currently getting my master's in it), but he STILL insists on using wrong information whenever we talk about abortion.  I have to break out *multiple* textbooks before he'll believe me.  And this is from a guy who is pretty reasonable 99% of the time.  But he spent most of his life hearing lies and misinformation on the topic, so it's really hard to convince him he's wrong.  He's begrudgingly pro-choice at this point, but if they're any topic that's really annoying to talk to him about, it's whatever science his parents' church felt the need to hijack.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#56 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 04:47 PM

I guess it depends on whether you think that deliberately lying to and misleading a child is a form of mild abuse or not. It's certainly a form of manipulation.

Saying that we don't know where the universe came from is one thing. Saying "Therefore, it must have been the tooth fairy" is quite another.

Abuse or not, as Balth points out, if you teach actual evidence-based, empirical, factual Science alongside "Or the other idea is that leprechauns live in your bathroom and created everything out of rainbow and sherbet - we can't know for sure so just assume it's that" is simply absurd. It's nonsense, a complete waste of time.

It's the same as teaching Maths to be "Some people think that 2+2=4, but others think it equals an orange. Either is valid" - that's simply not true. 2+2 does not and never will equal an orange. It is NOT a valid hypothesis - we know for a fact that it is NOT true. Confusing the hell out of and deceiving children for your own political, religious agenda, whether you think it's abuse or not, is despicable and abhorrent.

Meanwhile in Religious Studies you can teach all creation myths alongside one another - they are after all very interesting and reveal a lot about different cultures, which you can impartially ask your students to analyse and opine about.

Sparky

PS - the state SHOULD intervene to prevent teachers lying to children. Teachers are not permitted to teach whatever the hell they want to kids. They can no more teach imaginary beings than they can teach children that violence is fun. They must stick to the curriculum.

Edited by SparkyCola, 20 February 2013 - 04:51 PM.

Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#57 Mark

Mark
  • Islander
  • 5,269 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 05:55 PM

View PostBalderdash, on 19 February 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

View PostMark, on 19 February 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on 19 February 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Mark, as you say, everyone is free to forge a metaphysical path toward their own "truth" - but that assumes an adult ability to distinguish between various theories drawn from various traditions, religious and scientific/mathematical included, doesn't it?  And that gets back to the (fairly important) subject of the thread: what we teach our children, and what it means both for them as individuals and for us as a society.

If we teach children that the fossil record (and indeed evolution itself) is god's little joke on mankind, are we also teaching them to distrust and discount science and mathematics?  (I'm reminded of the Bob Jones University Astronomy textbook that denies cosmological distances, black holes, quasars, et al - Like the fossil record, these are god's little joke on mankind.)

What are the implications for the individual child so taught?  (Will anyone argue that Bob Jones turns out astronomers employable in the field of astronomy?)  And what are the implications on a macro level?  A whole generation of children brought up to distrust and discount science?

Mark: Teaching children that there are many theories about the creation of the Universe is doing nothing more than telling them the truth! If someone is teaching them that creation was only caused  through an omnipotent being, that is wrong. That's is  deception and brainwashing. However, to not teach them about the other theories is just as bad as sticking their heads in the sand so they don't learn about the real world we live in, and all the beliefs therein.

Mikoto, why shouldn't we teach the theory of creationism in schools? What difference does it make where theories originate? What if one day we learn there IS a God...and everything we know in existence originated because of him? I shouldn't have to tell you that MANY myths are based on factual information. The writers of the Bible undoubtedly know all the things they wrote happened for certain, but they used the stories that had been passed from generation to generation for eons and attempted to write it to the best of their limited abilities and with their limited knowledge. For instance...did a global flood as described in the Bible once happen? Scientists have discovered the Earth has flooded and had higher sea levels in the distant past. Scientists have also discovered that the story of Noah was undoubtedly an account of Gilgamesh, which had happened further back than Noah. Both stories have undeniable parallels, and scientists have listened to those stories, and began to study if a flood of the proportion described in those two stories was a real event. They're certain a flood happened that affected thousands of people, but we also know the Earth didn't flood completely all over, and it didn't rain for 40 days and 40 nights. All that was writer embellishment. Journalists have been using sensationalism for thousands of years!

...And Scott, why would the fossil record be god's little joke on mankind? To me, the fossil record lets us know that there is more knowledge out there than just what is learned from ONE source (like the Bible). Explaining a few of the main theories of our creation was the way I was taught as a child, and I didn't ever distrust or discount science. My teacher told me the leading scientific theories, and when someone in the class said, "I thought God created the Universe"...she simply said, "Yes, that is what a lot of people believe."
To me...the fossil record, evolution, and the science behind the Big Bang totally mesh with my other beliefs that originate from the account I learned in the Bible. The Bible didn't say HOW God created the Universe. I also never believed the Bible had it's account of the creation of the universe and life, completely correct down to the last little detail. The Bible was written by men...and as we know, men often have ulterior motives, and/or wrong information when they're writing a book.

I was taught to take all the theories, and believe what I chose to believe, because as I said earlier...NOBODY knows exactly how and why the Universe came to be, and how and why lifeforms were created. God could have created the Universe via the Big Bang, and made certain the seeds of life were planted and would evolve as planned. OR, we could ALL be wrong with every current theory (religiously-related or not).

Scientists are still figuring out when and how early mankind spread around the world. It was once taught that people left Africa traveling east, until they reached what is now the Bering Strait...then they crossed over the frozen sea into North America. HOWEVER, now scientists are rethinking that theory, as much evidence has come to light that man could have been in North America MUCH earlier than previously thought. We now know Christopher Columbus was not, and never was the discoverer of North America. The Vikings beat him by several hundred years, and again, new things are being examined that may indicate that mankind was here in some capacity even before the Vikings found "Vineland".

So, you believe that the Earth could be 6000 years old, there isn't enough empirical data to establish that the Earth is millions and millions of years old.
And we should teach that to children?

Mark: No, I don't think the Earth is 6000 years old. However, I do believe that the universe was created and didn't just spring into existence all by itself.

Teaching children the history of many various theories as to how the universe was created IS something that should be taught...perhaps not in science class, but it definitely needs to be a part of their overall knowledge.

Again, as previously posted at the very first of my last post...."Teaching children that there are many theories about the creation of the Universe is doing nothing more than telling them the truth! If someone is teaching them that creation was only caused  through an omnipotent being, that is wrong. That's is  deception and brainwashing. However, to not teach them about the other theories is just as bad as sticking their heads in the sand so they don't learn about the real world we live in, and all the beliefs therein."

BTW, weren't the scientists back in the day also in agreement that the Earth was flat?

Edited by Mark, 20 February 2013 - 05:56 PM.

Mark
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge: argument is an exchange of ignorance.
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.
APOGEE MESSAGE BOARD

#58 Balthamos

Balthamos

    Once more unto the breach!

  • Islander
  • 2,280 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 06:25 PM

Quote

BTW, weren't the scientists back in the day also in agreement that the Earth was flat?

But when presented with evidence to the contrary a scientist will admit that he is wrong.

#59 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:02 AM

I think we really all agree that children should not be taught only creationism, that they also need to be taught real science.

Here is the issue that I have a problem with. When you decide that teaching creationism is child abuse, it will fall to the parents, which means that they will be charged. Once this happens, the child is ripped from it's home. If this home is an otherwise loving, happy, healthy family, what do you think will happen to the child/ren? Think about this. You are a child, you love, adore your parents, and one day a stranger comes along and takes you away. After some time, they stick you in a house with more strangers and it may be weeks or months before you are finally reunited with your parents. What do you think that child feels? What trauma has that child now endured? How much of that child's life is destroyed because someone decided that teaching creationism is child abuse?

I find creationism to be silly, but I don't want this to be considered child abuse. How about the government simply makes sure that all schools, home schools, church schools, follow a certain curriculum? Of course, I thought that was done now.
If, after being taught real science, that child then decides to disregard what they were taught, I think that was going to happen no matter what they were taught.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#60 Mark

Mark
  • Islander
  • 5,269 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:19 AM

View PostBalthamos, on 20 February 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

Quote

BTW, weren't the scientists back in the day also in agreement that the Earth was flat?

But when presented with evidence to the contrary a scientist will admit that he is wrong.

Mark: :think: Some scientists perhaps, just not some EI members. :p  

  ....I'm kidding people...just kidding...  mehbeh... :sly:

BTW, and I'm being serious now...lying to a child (or anyone) is wrong, but not abusive, unless that lie could lead to injury or death. For Instance, telling a child that fire won't hurt them if they touch the flames, etc...etc...

I really don't see why anyone here could agree that teaching a child creationism is "abuse". There have been many instances of abuse in religious situations, but telling a child about creationism is certainly NOT abuse. That knowledge (whether right or not) doesn't cause them emotional, physical, or neglect-type harm. The closest variation I could find where telling someone false information could be considered abusive is a tort law regarding a breach of confidence. That's just a civil wrong, not a criminal wrong.

Also, if teaching creationism is abusive, teaching anything that isn't true is abuse...and there is a very long list of thingschildren are taught that aren't true! For instance, if they ask the question about where babies come from, and they're told a stork delivered them. That's just one example, but I know there are things being taught in history books that just aren't true also. That's another reason it's important to teach them as much diverse (and factual) information as possible, in other words, teach them as many variations of a theory or story as possible, and like the rest of us, they'll learn to figure out for themselves which one they choose to believe.

Edited by Mark, 21 February 2013 - 02:38 AM.

Mark
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge: argument is an exchange of ignorance.
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.
APOGEE MESSAGE BOARD



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Creationism, science

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users