Creationism vs. evolution

Great Debates
61

I don’t think parents should be forced to have their kids be taught evolution by the government, or for that matter any subject which they strongly oppose being taught to their kids (like sex education).

And yes, I am perfectly willing to let open the door to stupid objections to other subjects.

Nonsense. Right now, there are kids who are getting:

  1. No evolution taught
  2. No sex ed

Why? Because they can afford private school or homeschooling. Is it you idea that we must force homeschoolers to teach their kids things with which they strongly disagree?

62

Apos said, with clarity and uncanny wisdom:

I agree 100%

63

Great, and here I thought we were fighting ignorance.

Can’t wait until these sexually repressed kids who don’t know diddly squat about birth control and STDs walk around preaching that the world is flat and the Jews run the government giving special attention to those dirty godless blacks in a plot to destroy Decent People and that nice chap Hitler, all while waving around their high school diplomas.

Teach your kids what you want, don’t teach them what you want, but don’t expect them to then say have an “equivalent” education. If you don’t want them to meet government standards, then they don’t meet government standards. Make your own degree system, home school the kids, and lock them in the basement to protect them from the harshness of the Evil Real World ™ - but don’t try to cheat everyone else.

64

Perhaps a practical demonstration would be helpful; raindog, you claimed that the theory of evolution is full of gaping holes; would you care to pick three of what you consider to be the best examples of this and present them here?

65

Zagadka wrote

[quote]
Great, and here I thought we were fighting ignorance. [/point]

No, in fact, this thread has fought against freedom. Even if it is the “freedom to be ignorant.”

That was the OPer’s concern and my point all along.

Did you ever hit the “submit reply” and then re-read it and say to yourself, “Man that was impestuous. I wish I hadn’t done that.” I know I have.

The above comment is patently unfair, and one you could not possibly support. To associate someone who rejects evolution and wishes to teach sex education in the proper venue as Nazis is irresponsible and offensive. I’ve not called anyone ignorant in this thread, or any other. If you wish to continue discussing this (with me anyway) more civility is in order.

So you know, while I would not home school my kids, home schooled kids consistently are some of the brightest students. (and unlike your offensive remarks above can be supported with scientific proof) It is also a common venue where evolution is not taught as fact.

Exactly. I don’t want my kids getting the “equivalent.” It’s about freedom, man!

Huh? How is everyone else being cheated? My kids excel in school and have a well- rounded education. My “own degree system” is hardly warranted if I simply choose to teach evolution in different context. Locking them in the basement? This is rubbish.

66

Looks like there a few different arguments going on here:

**Evolution vs. Creationism as concepts ** - an tired old debate that I believe the OP wasn’t trying to re-open

&

**What role does the state have in educating our children? ** - perhaps more relevant to the OP and more problematic

Should the government force parents to educate thier children in disiplines that the parents find offensive? What if a parent dosen’t want their child to learn math and they homeschool thier child so as not to learn it? Should the government force the child into a public school so that they must learn math? I’m undecided here. I think the kid would be seriously harmed by a no math “education” but should we really give our government the power to trump parents when it comes to education? Same question just substitute reading. Or the english language, without which a child is seriously handicapped in our society.

If a parent denies their child a certain aspect of education does that equate to an abuse or neglect that is so strong that the government should begin parenting the child? If the answer is YES then which aspects and disiplines do you consider essential to education? Also, if you argue YES then are you prepared for the government to begin shutting down the thousands of private schools around the country to force those kids into a public school aganist thier parent’s will? I am not prepared for that to happen.

I thought for a moment that perhaps public school choice might help – then parents could send their child to an evolution school or a creation school according to their beliefs. (The evolution kids could then go on to college and become scientists and the creationist kids could become insurance salesmen or preachers). But I don’t want my tax money funding a school that teaches creationism. Then again many creationists don’t want their tax dollars funding schools that teach evolution. In conclusion I (at least for now) I think that the only solution (that respects the rights of parents and the integrity of science) is for publicly (governmentally) funded schools to only teach what is mainstream science (biological evolution) and to completely leave religious views out of it. And if parents want to pull their child out of said school and opt for private school or home school then they should be able to do that with no interferance from the government. If they can’t afford private or home school – I don’t know? Grin and bear it? It is a free education after all.

67

You’re right, this probably wasn’t originally intended to be a debate about the validity of creationism, but how can you debate whether the state should be teaching X without examining the validity of X - at the very least this is an important factor.

68

True - but I think that the OP assumed that creationism was not valid science:

So assuming creationism to be religion instead of science how should the government react to parents who insist on teaching their children creationism instead of science? I think that question can make an interesting debate. I realize that many would inturrupt by saying that not everyone makes the above assumption, but that issue (as other threads have shown) can’t be resovled in debate. Creationists seem unwilling to accept any evidence or argument that might prove them wrong (which makes the question I pose even more relevant).

69

I think Raindog has a good question. Can a student grow up to work in the hard sciences without knowing evolutionary theory?

Well. Let’s think about that. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, the best explanation we have at this time to explain certain facts. These facts are essentially necessary for many hard science jobs, from physics (and thus engineering) to chemistry, to astronomy, to archeology, to history to ecology to agriculture to… well, frankly, most things. It’s not just about “things change over time.” It’s about “well, this oxidizes at this rate, and this has this much residue left, so it must be that old.” Or “If light approaches at speed X, and we can determine through Y and Z that object Q is that far away… how old is object Q?” "If we introduce insecticide to this environment, how many of Y and Z will die? Will their removal from the ecosystem cause an overpopulation of V?

It is perfectly possible to go through life as a counter clerk, assembly line worker, or artist, without a working knowlege of evolutionary theory. But no one can be certain, at the point in life where a child should be educated about such things, if they will find themselves in such a position for the rest of their life.

Still, even as an assembly line worker, the education gained by learning about evolutionary theory is useful. Because it teaches you to think about things. Animals changing into other animals is a simple concept that people can understand. And if someone learns, “Okay, when the fish moved into the caves of Carlsbad, the eyes were no longer an evolutionary advantage, so they were no longer selected for, and therefore, when they no longer worked, it no longer mattered…” they have learned to think about cause and effect. This means that when someone asks them where a bottleneck exists on the line, they will be able to think, “Well, if Steve got his doors to me a bit faster, I’d have them ready to pop on the chassis.” This has led, for example, to a seperate door assembly line on the plant that makes Ford Explorers. (True example.) Or, “You know, back in the 70s, the notch on each piston that told us which way to align them was necessary. Today, thanks to precision manufacturing, we don’t need to align them manually, anymore, because they’ll only fit one way. This means that we can remove the notch, increasing the strength of the rod, decreasing the loss of energy, giving us another three horsepower at zero pollution increase.” (True example… Ford Taurus - 1986)
It’s not about evolution. It’s about knowing how to think logically and clearly about the objective world around you. Evolutionary theory is the result of some of that, and as the best possible solution to the world around us, it has to be taught in schools, or people are going to be left without significant mental tools in their toolbox.

After all, “Because it’s always been done that way.” is no way to make a better country out of America, now is it?

70

Well, there’s the trouble; anyone arguing the contrary is quite likely to believe that creationism is valid science - after all, nobody would argue “this is fallacious nonsense, but I think it should be taught in science classes”

71

I concur. We would not allow holocaust denial to be taught on the basis that it is junk history, likewise creationism should not be taught on the basis it is junk science.

Any argument that we should have choice in educating our children on certain subjects must have justification for the allowal of that choice. No one would want neo-nazis having their kids pulled out of history lessons because we know they are wrong about the holocaust, equally one would presume that we dont want creationists taking their kids out of evolution lessons because they are wrong about evolution.

Comparing the two is unfair as has been said but surely the comparison is valid on its symbolic level at least if not emotional level unless the creationist proves that his view of evolution is as valid as ours by displaying some of the holes he purports to have in his grasp. Otherwise wihtout this proof how can we respect the choice to deny to a child what is to all other intents and purposes an area of study that is as valid and useful as maths, art or poetry.

72

True - which means the two sides will never come to a consensus. So the important question then is: *Now what do we do? * How do we approach creationism vs. evolution in education when we have two opposing sides that will never come to an agreement. If your answer is to make the creationists accept evolution (by educating them?) then good luck.

73

The burden of proof is on those who want the subject taught, I think.

If I want my children’s biology curriculum (and therefore the curriculum of their classmates) to include the four-humour model of disease (presented as a valid concept, I mean, not ‘this is what people used to believe before they knew better’), then it is incumbent upon me to demonstrate that the idea has validity in it’s own right; it wouldn’t be enough for me to put up arguments against the germ theory - that not everybody believes in bacteria and they aren’t mentioned in the Bible, and who has actually seen a virus, anyway?

Creationism has abjectly failed to do this and (I would argue) isn’t even trying - which is why it appeals for legislation forcing it to be included - it cannot stand on its own merit, so it seeks to be imposed.

74

The burden of proof is on those who want the subject taught, I think.

75

Damn – ignore last post.

I believe evolution should be exclusively taught at public schools, however. . . if a parent wants to take their child out of biology class I think it should be allowed as long as the parent and student know that the child will receive an F for that class (and possibly risk graduation).

This is where I disagree. I think the same applies to Neo-nazi parents. If they want their kids to skip history or any part of history class then I think they should be allowed to do so if they are willing to take the failing grade for the course or test that they have missed.

This is where I think we get into some trouble. Do we really want a government that forces kids to learn things that the parents don’t want them to learn? What if a parent sends his child to a white nationalist private school that teaches that the holocaust is a myth? Should our government shut that school down and force those kids into public school? Where do we draw the line on when the government takes over the education of children?

As for the burden of evidence – although I think the burden of evidence for evolution is strongest a creationist may think otherwise. So what happens then. What type of evidence will you use? Scientific evidence? A creationist may say that scientific evidence is bogus and you may say that religious evidence is bogus. You aren’t convinced by their evidence and they aren’t convinced by yours – so we are back to the same question - now what do we do? We have two parties that will never be convinced to accept the others point of view – both think that they are exclusively correct. So does the one side then have the right to force the other side into a particular type of education? What criteria will the government use to decide when to take over a parent’s right to educate their own child?

76

I don’t think anyone wants to force creationists to accept evolution, just to understand it. (And judging from creationist literature I’ve seen, and posts by creationists on other forums, many do not understand evolution in the slightest.) We pretty much accept that a parent keeping a child from learning how to read is abusing that child. Society has pretty much accepted that it is okay to pull a child out of sex ed classes for religious reasons. Where, in between these extremes, is the minimum set of knowledge we need to be sure kids learn?

BTW, no one is forcing anyone to give up any beliefs. It is inappropriate for a science teacher to say that evolution shows god does not exist. It appears that at least some creationist parents are afraid that this knowledge will prompt kids to challenge their beliefs - but it is a poor belief indeed that can not stand up to such a challenge.

A question for raindog. If it someday is demonstrated beyond reasonable archeological doubt that the Davidic kingdom was small, and not at all like described in the Bible, should parents be allowed to pull kids out of history class to avoid learning this?

77

The parent has every right to remove the student from the school. That is what home schooling is for. The student may not get a diploma, or a GED, thanks to the parent’s choice, however.

The government’s responsibility, such as it is, insofar as the public school system, is to teach things which are true to people, to educate them for life. This is a difficult task, and does not allow for individualized education. If a parent feels that removing the child is the only solution… go ahead. Most places, there are rules for doing that.

Sure, it’ll screw up chances for a good job later, or any advanced education, but heck, their call.

78

I totally disagree that parents have any right to withhold education from their children. That amounts to a deprivation of the civil rights of children. A civil right which should not be subject to the whims of ignorant parents. The government has to make sure that every child recieves a basic, minimum standard of education, regardless of how stupid their parents are.

To answer an question: yes, I believe that homeschooling parents should be obliged by the government to teach evolution-- or at least that the child should have to pass a test showing a basic understanding of the theory whether they believe it or not.

Educational standards cannot just be left up the the arbitrary whims of individual parents. Children are not property, they are individual citizens with rights of their own and even their parents do not have the authority to abridge those rights.

79

I disagree. That would give the government too much power. What if the state decided that creationism is the standard that should be taught in schools? Is it OK then for the government to force you to teach creationism to your child? You want the government to educate children regardless of what the parents want because at this time the government mostly agrees with you as to what constitutes a valid education. If the government disagreed with you then you would oppose a government dictated education. If a parent forces a child to learn something how is that more violating than if the government forces a child to learn something. In truth what you want is for the government to teach all children according to your opinion on what should be taught. Referring to rights: It is a violation of my rights for the government to force me to teach my children to oppose my beliefs. It it also a violation of my child’s rights for the government to force him to learn what the goverment believes to be truth.

80

This is the part that I have difficulty wrapping my brain around: why wouldn’t a parent want his/her child to learn something (assuming it isn’t something like bomb making or drug use)? Kids, by the time they are able to grasp the concepts of evolution and biology in general, are probably old enough to be able to choose for themselves whether or not they “buy” it. If parents do not even want their children exposed to such concepts, then they want to indoctrinate, not educate, their children. An important part of education is teaching kids to think for themselves.

My opinion is that a public school, being funded by the government, should be separated from church doctrines. If a parent truly fears their children being exposed to secular theories about “how things work”, then they should be free to select private schools or home schooling. But they should neither expect nor demand their doctrines to become part of public school curricula.