Except, of course, for the fact that creationism is not a theory at all, much less an “alternate theory”. It is an alternate explanation, but one which requires, in order to accept it, that one completely ignore the actual scientific explanations. As such, it merits no mention whatsoever in a science class.
Parents, rather than worrying about “opting out” their children, should reaslitically leave it up to the children to learn and decide for themselves which explanation makes more sense. If they go to church, they will be exposed to the creation angle. If they don’t, then learning about creationism isn’t an issue, much less a problem.
You did, however, state, “My personal feeling is that the evolution theory has so many holes in it you could run a God inhabited galaxy through it.” That appears, to me, to be a general statement as to why you do not accept evolution. It is an all too common statement made by creationists when asked why they prefer creationism to evolution, but don’t have the time / inclination to say more.
You are correct that I do not know how well read you may or may not be in the subject. The problem is, that statement fits the pattern of “stereotypical creationist” too well to be a coincidence. It is simply not the sort of thing anyone who has done any amount of study from actual scientific sources is likely to utter. My apologies if I have pegged you wrong, however.
Understood. But realize that comments such as the two I singled out previously tend to start Spidey-senses a-tinglin’ – especially if, as you say, your intent is not to debate such positions. Also, realize that many of these discussions to tend to transform into arguments of validity, largely because of off-hand comments such as those practically read as an invitation for people wishing further clarification (see also: Diogenes’ request for explanation regarding these “holes”). And, you should probably know that there are several here who would be all too willing to provide explanations!
I though it would take all night to get to the heart of the matter. I’ve previously said that I support:
1)Evolution should be taught in school, and ONLY evolution. And that;
2)Creationism, if it is to be taught at all, should only be taught at home.
So why aren’t we all singing Koombaya (sp?) arm in arm?
No one has offered me a membership card or has offered to teach me the secret handshake. What I’m getting grief about is the notion that my kids, and my famiily would opt out of the teaching of evolution.
The irony for me on this is palpable.
Isn’t it the creationists (and all of the derisive terms for them; fundies, bible thumpers etc etc) who get the rep of imposing their beliefs on others?
The problem, as I see it, is not one of imposition, but one of venue. No one is trying to impose evolution on anyone. We (I, anyway), just feel that the science class is the proper venue for exposure to evolutionary biology, while the church is the proper venue for exposure to “as it happened in Genesis” creation (note that courses in religious studies, or in the history of science itself, can also be valid venues for such). It certainly does no one any harm to learn about both or either, but there are proper places to do the learning. If one is to learn about biology from a scientific standpoint, evolution needs to be discussed (assuming the intent is for students to learn something beyond rote memorization of organs and muscles and phyla). It is not the proper place for non-scientific explanations of causality.
Meanwhile, some fundamentalist-literalist types practically demand “equal time” in the classroom for their explanations. Perhaps they need to work on recruitment for their church if the word is not being spread sufficently, rather than attempting to preach to the masses in public schools.
Once again, I agree. I would simply change the word “completely” to “partially.” And, of course, I prefer the term “scientific explanations” vs “scientific fact.”
I think your suggestion makes good sense, and may be the way that you would handle your own children. But, you do not have the attendent right to make those value decisions for another family do you?
Inclination is the predicate word here, in part because my intent was more narrowly focused towards what I perceived to be the OPer’s question.
I appreciate your sense of fairness. As pointed out before, it is a complex subject. My beliefs didn’t come to be by happenstance. I didn’t elaborate on the reasons for the reason above and the fact that it would be a lengthy thing; certainly greater than my meager typing skills and probably suited for a thread of it’s very own.
Once again, it is not a reasonable analogy to compare the theory of evolution to studying the civil war or the civil rights movement. This is the 2+2= 56 argument coming from a different classroom down the hall.
RainDog, we only disagree as to the “opt out” part of your argument. Whatever parents want to to tell kids at home is their business, but evolutionary theory is an indispensible part of any foundation in science and kids have to understand it to have any chance at advanced educations in biology, geology, paleontology, medical science, etc.
Parents who think that evolutionary theory is “flawed science” do not understand it. Teachers cannot tell students that “alternate theories” exist because they don’t. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it’s purely a religious belief.
Just to be clear about this, the word “theory” in science does not mean unproven. It means an explanation for a set of phenomena which is supported by evidence. This means that it must make specific predictions which can be confirmed or fasified by empirical observations. Anything which does not make falsifiable predictions is not a theory. Creationism makes no falsifiable predictions, hence it is not a theory.
Incidentally, it is not true that anyone could spend any time exploring the evidence for creationism because none exists. It has never even been clearly defined as a hypothesis and there is nothing to examine.
Most of what passes for creationist argument consists of desperately searching for holes in evolutionary theory. Some of the people who lead the creationist movement are educated enough that they know they can’t find real holes so they resort to deliberate distortion and lies. They can present a thesis to an audience of lay people which seems convincing and cogent, but trust us, those presentations are consistently shredded in any confrontation with anyone who has a real working understanding of evolution. That’s why “creation scientists” do not submit anything for peer review. They know that their arguments are specious at best and flat out dishonest at worst. Creationism is a business and guys like Hovind see their audiences as marks. It’s a way to make money. They avoid true, formal scientific debate like the plague.
Even if you think evolution is bunk, you should still at least understand what it is and so should your kids. It does not benefit a child to withhold information. Parents have a right to tell their kids “we don’t believe this” but it is irresponsible to prevent them from hearing it. In the case of a public school, the government has a vested interest in providing a full and complete education. It cannot allow parents to op their children out of receiving factual information because there would be no end or restriction on what could be considered a “religious” objection.
Consider something like “Christian Identity” which considers Jews to be a “subhuman” race. Should white supremacist parents have the right to opt their kids out of any class which teaches the biological fallacies of racism, or the civil rights movement? Should parents have the right to stop a kid from learning about WWII if they don’t “believe in” the holocaust?
Please don’t think that I am in any way comparing creationist beliefs to the above vile examples, I’m only using them to show that once you start letting the religious beliefs of parents dictate the curriculum you have a trainwreck on your hands.
By all means, tell your kids that you don’t agree with evolution. Tell them why. Give them creationist literature. But you can’t be afraid to let them hear what the theory is and how it was arrived at.
Forgive the brevity, I’m going to bed…
I invite all to check out Answers in Genesis’ website @ http://www.answersingenesis.org/
if your blood pressure can stand it. I’ve bought into it hook, line, and sinker. If God created Life, the Universe, and Everything in it (thank you, Mr. Adams), then teaching such would simply be responsibly relaying fact. Studying and testing the evidence and theories would be science. Worshipping / obeying the Creator would be religion. Denying the evidence for the Divine source of L, the U, & E in it for the sake of humanistic guesses (translate faulty, unproven, evolutionary “theories”) would be a different religion. Answers in Genesis gathers and presents reasonable interpretations of the same scientific evidence all other “scientists” study. Science supports Genesis’ account. It is evolution that requires a blind leap of faith, and disregard for the laws of Nature which God instituted.
This is meant merely as an introduction, detailed discussion for my part will have to wait for a resonable hour. God bless.
Well it was bound to happen guys Here come the bible literalists.
I boggles the mind. I saw a recent documentary that focused on bible literalist families and how they deal with their kids in respect to evolution.
Astonishing stuff. It really makes you wonder, and it makes oyu realize how AFRAID these people are. They truly feel that they are under attack.
Two of the most incredible moments for me were:
When I realized that they wanted two completely different things for their kids as compared to me. I’ve always said I wanted my kids to think for themselves, to make up their own mind about things, to learn by exposure to all sorts of ideas. But not the people in the documentary. They wanted, they NEEDED their kids to think exactly as they do. There was no and’s if’s or but’s about it. It can specially tense when one of the kids in the documentary started forming questions that the parents simply had no answer to. At which point things got even more tense.
The incredibly stupid arguments made in a conference one of these “bible scientists” was holding for some adults. They were arguments I could have debunked fresh out of highschool!
I thought to myself: If I were in the position of these people I would get up and toss that guy out of the building and when he asked why I had done so I would say: “Because you think me a stupid moron”. Seriously, this guy goes in there LIES plainly LIES to these people and deep inside KNOWS that they don’t understand the subject at all so they’re just going to just shake their heads. He thinks they are so stupid, that they are going to buy what he says hook, line and sinker.
What a monumental INSULT!
The OP asked about whether creationism should be taught in school. He also had a concern about creationists imposing their beliefs on others. I trust I answered that to your satisfaction. It is true that we disagree on the “opt out” provision, but that issue is a big one. But I think the paragraph above still misses the fundamental point. Would a person who believed that evolution represented a travesty of science simply suck it up because it was required to get a good job in a science related field? (Let me correct that, not a “travesty of science” but an affront before their God) Nope. The core belief in the creator transcends other worldy pursuits, and if the cost of such of a career involved compromising one’s faith, than the answer is likely “forget it”. (Nonetheless, I believe your premise is overeaching by a wide margin) Frankly, you seem to still trying to convince me the validity of evolution rather than allowing me to practice my faith.
The question still remains: Do I have a right to practice my faith by opting out of what I consider to be flawed science?
With all due respect, it is neither fair or reasonable to say that parents who don’t believe in evolution simply don’t understand it. Comments like this one earlier in this thread:(and others in that post) “Kids need a full and accurate education regardless of the ignorance of their parents” are unnecessary. While I disagree with you, I don’t doubt your enthusiasm, veracity or intellect.
I do agree however with your comment that “Creationism is not a scientific theory, it’s purely a religious belief.” I would also agree that evolution is, in fact, a scientific theory.
But back to the OPer’s question:** Aren’t those who “believe” in creationism essentially trying to impose their beliefs on others at the expense of the doctrine of separation of government and religion?
**
Not in this thread, huh?
(That of course, doesn’t mean that there isn’t some imposing going on…)
Once again, you do not know what I understand. You do a disservice to all of us by inferring, in a lot less than subtle terms, that someone who disagrees with you is ill-informed or ignorant.
Analogies are powerful tools and are useful in teaching. But in this thread we’ve had a steady diet of them with the exact same theme. We started by comparing evolution with 1st grade math, then gravity, ancient history, the civil war, the civil rights movement and others. While I appreciate that the analogies have graduated from 1+1 in complexity to the biological fallacies of racism, there is no analogy that adequately addresses both the complexity and breadth of the theory of evolution, or the dynamics that come into play when the contradiction of creationism is introduced into the dialogue. To suggest that the empirical evidence supporting evolution is every bit as strong as the evidence supporting the holocaust as a fact of history is irresponsible IMHO. When you can show me with the same level of scientific proof that the theory of evolution is as “real” as the holocaust, my kid will be the first in line to pick up his copy of The Origin of the Species.
In the meantime, can I opt out?
I appreciate that. But I haven’t advocated parents dictaing curiculum, right? I simply want to practice my faith without another belief system imposed upon me.
I don’t doubt your sincerity, and I don’t mean to be rude, but it is not your business as to how I raise my kids. And that is the central question in this thread.
I don’t mean to interrupt this discussion, as both of you are far more eloquent than I am, but I have to ask a question. Well, a few questions.
You stated earlier that a child growing up into the field of science should be able to without being exposed to evolution. However, what will happen when the child gets into a university? Or in the world in general?
Can you imagine a family raising a child without letting him/her know even what Christianity is? How would this child look upon it when they turn 18 and are surrounded by it? How would this child view religion in general?
Wouldn’t this leave a knowledge gap that may ostricize the young person?
Would it lead to more questions about what the other theories are?
Regarding telling anyone how to raise there children - this is true, I support that, to a point. There is a point where the right to raise your own children crosses a line, in most cases becoming child abuse. This is not child abuse, but on some level it is intellectual abuse. Is it wrong for someone to raise their kid to hate Jews (an unfair comparison to make, I think, but I’m sure you understand the idea)? To think the world is flat?
I mean, even the Amish let their children have an experience of “normal” life.
Is it other people’s business if you are neglecting your children? I think so.
Would you be neglecting them if you wanted to prevent them from learning basic science? Maybe, maybe not. How about if you wouldn’t let them learn to speak? Probably so.
The latter would have far greater ramifications than the former, but still: why deny them ANY part of their basic education?
I think the problem here is you see it as choosing which faith your kids will be indoctrinated with-- creationism or evolution. Yet the two are not comparable in that way. That’s why you got so many anologies thrown at you that essentially said the same thing. You can tell your kids on Sunday that 1 +1=creationism, or 5 or 56 or whatever. But if you interfere with them learning in school that 1 + 1 = 2, you are neglecting their needs. That is-- the need to be able to function in a modern, technological society.
Evolution is a fact, pure and simple. The ramifications that has for your religious beliefs are of no more consequence than they are for heliocentrism. You do not have a right to deprive your children their own civil rights to a full and complete education. Denying them knowledge about science is no different than refusing to let them learn how to read. The rights of your children to an education are not contingent on your religious beliefs.
No. You do not have the right to censor your children’s education. This is not a violation of your free practice of religion, it’s an affirmation of the rights of the children themselves, who do not have the ability to make educational choices and who stand to be damaged by a faulty or incomplete education.
Statements like this only underline your own lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. It is not unreasonable to say that people who think it has “holes” don’t understand it any more than it’s unreasonable to say that people who think that 2+2=54 don’t understand arithmetic.
You made a statement that evolution has “holes” yet you haven’t said what any of these holes are. I can assure you, they don’t exist and the assertion itself belies a lack of knowledge.
Didn’t you make a comment earlier in this thread about “alternate theories?” Are you now admitting that no such theories exist?
It’s not a question of disagreement. It’s a matter of fact. Biological evolution is not my “opinion.” it’s a demonstrable fact.
I wasn’t using those examples as analogies but showing them as consequences. If you let parents decide what their children may or may not learn based on religious bias then you must open the door to any and all religious objections no matter how stupid.
The “contradiction of creationism” is irrelevant to the conversation. We have to teach kids facts, no matter what they are. If those facts contradict your religious views, well, I’m sorry, but the public schools have no obligation to selectively ignore reality to conform to those views, nor would it be responsible or appropriate for the government to truncate any child’s education because the child’s parents don’t like the facts.
You can, but you don’t have the right to deprive your children of a full education.
I phrased it poorly. I meant that we can’t open the door to parents picking and choosing which facts their kids may hear or not hear in school. A child’s right to an education belongs to the child alone and is not subject to censorship by parents.
Is it your business if I decide I don’t want my kid to learn how to read? Or maybe I don’t want her to go to school at all. At what point does a child’s civil rights become the public’s business?
What “other people” are you referring to? Based on the OP, should I infer the State? (the counterparty to the Church/State dynamic) Do you mean “other people” like folks on Message Boards or my next door my neighbor? I’m not sure what you mean…The State would generally consider “neglect” to be things like the basic needs----food, shelter and the like. But not participating in evolution class is hardly neglect. (Especially if it is for religious reasons. Isn’t freedom grand?) If you’re meaning the fine folks here at SDMB, I would say that you’ve been great, but you can teach my kids evolution when we start a bible study at your home. How 'bout it?
You repackaged and redelivered the same analogies! I’ll save the bandwidth of copying/pasting my response. See below. It starts with …**“Analogies are powerful tools…”
**
You have yet to adequately (IMO) address these analogies that I have “repackaged.”
By “others” I am referring to the State, this message board, your next-door neighbor and anyone else who may take an interest in having all children be as well-prepared and educated as possible. Since I have to live on the same planet as your kids, I don’t want to have them walking around thinking that the earth is 6,000 years old. That sort of delusion leads to long rifles in the church-tower and grape Kool Aid guzzling.
Please don’t deny your children their right to a good education.
To millions of people this is not true. But that’s not what the OP dealt with.
My primary point in this thread is that neither the evolutionist or the creationist has the right to interfere in the belief system of another family. The OPer’s concern was that this interference would come from the creationist. Please inform me where this is an issue of civil rights for my kids, and how those civil rights are more important than our right to practice our religion without interference. Be specific. The fact that this is your personal opinion is apparent. Please give me more than this to support the assertion that you (anyone really…) has the right to interfere in our family affairs. Please let me know where I wouldn’t have the right, heck obligation, to censor my children’s education. Since you specifically used the term “civil rights”** I assume you will cite scrpiture and verse from a source more authoritative than your own reasonings. (pun intended)
**
Enough with the analogies please!
I have focused my response in this post towards what I perceived the OPer’s intent was. In fairness I made it clear that I believed in the creation account and that I found the theory of evolution dubious. I also made it clear that I had no intent of tackling, in this thread, the validity of evolution; just the issues raised by the OP.
It is ironic that you note that I haven’t offered you any basis for my beliefs, and even if I did you know that no such proof could possibly exists and so the assertion itself belies a lack of knowledge. Where do I begin with that? Maybe your own words will suffice: “Thanks for the compliment but really, we’ve just had a lot of experience with this topic. We see the same arguments over and over again and know how to respond.”
That’s not what we’re discussing.
Those weren’t anaolgies? where have I been?
Who is YOU in this question? Who is YOU?
I phrased it poorly. I meant that we can’t open the door to parents picking and choosing which facts their kids may hear or not hear in school. A child’s right to an education belongs to the child alone and is not subject to censorship by parents.
There was nothing new there and I don’t type so well…
Yikes! You’re suggesting that virtually anyone can interfere in my internal family affairs for no other reason than (and I’ll quote you!) “an interest in having all children be as well-prepared and educated as possible.” Forgive me if tonight I pray that you’re never appointed Attorney General! (Of course, that’s right after I thank God for making the universe)
I’ll do my best. You don’t seem like someone I want to displease. BTW I don’t let my kids drink Kool Aid. I hope that helps.
Here come the bible literalists.