Creationism vs. evolution

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It’s not a question of what the government “believes,” it’s a question of what can be proven to be true. Evolution is not an “opinion” any more than the atom or gravity. We are not talking about ideology here, nor are we talking about preventing parents from teachig their ow belief systems. EWe’re talking about whether a parent has the right to truncate a child’s education. I say no.

I ask again, should parents be allowed to prevent children from learning to read? I would submit that withholding scientific literacy from a child is just as wrong.

[HumptysHamhole]

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.

I completely agree. I do oppose forcing kids to go to public schools though. Yes the kids who miss out on a solid scientific education will be disadvantaged but so are children who grow up with lazy parents, or who grow up with parents who are assholes, or who grow up with parents who work too much, or who grow up with parents who are racists. I don’t want the government going in and taking these kids away from their parents though.

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.

The problem with that statement is that a creationist would use it to support teaching creationism along side of evolution in school.

[HumptysHamhole]

It’s not a question of what the government “believes,” it’s a question of what can be proven to be true. Evolution is not an “opinion” any more than the atom or gravity. We are not talking about ideology here, nor are we talking about preventing parents from teachig their ow belief systems. EWe’re talking about whether a parent has the right to truncate a child’s education. I say no.

Everything is a question of belief. Evolution can only be proven within a scientific criteria. Evolution is true to you (and me) because you accept science as a valid way of approaching existence. If someone does not believe this position to begin with then your entire construct of truth is invalid to them. Science is an ideology. If a parent wants to teach their child that science is not a valid way of approaching the world then who are you to tell them that they can not? Your position begins with an assumption that the scientific method is a valid (perhaps the best) way of examining the universe. I share that assumption, so do many others, but not everybody. Why do you get to force your scientific ideology upon people who don’t share it?

[raindog]

HumptysHamhole said:

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

Exactly. That is the central theme of the OP, not the relative merits of evolution or creation.

Should the government force parents to educate thier children in disiplines that the parents find offensive?

Ground zero of the OP.

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.

That is a frightening prospect, and goes way beyond the narrow issue of evolution vs. creation.

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.

That is one approach, but you recognize the difficulties associated with it. I offered another that I felt was an easier fix. I’ll re-iterate:

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.
3)Lastly, that parents have the right to practice their own religion, without stste interference, even if that means opting out of the teaching of evolution.

It’s item 3 that has a couple people excited. Ironically it is the creationists who are typically accused og being “interventionist”, or not respecting the bright line between church and state.

[WernhamHogg]

@Kinthalis

PS: Is THAT website the best that $400,000+ can bring about?

Granted, I haven’t clicked on much yet, but jeez. A little pizzaz, something to catch the eyes of the youngin’s! Something other than a grey circle!

Ever heard of the coherence principle?

[raindog]

Mangetout said:

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.

This is an extremely important post, as much as for what it doesn’t say as opposed to what it says. I’ve never said the state shouldn’t be teaching it. That’s not the point of the OP.

But, my right to practice my religion without state interference, and the respect of the separation between church and state, cannot be predicated on establishing it’s validity by someone else. It is for this reason I did not accept the challenges to explain my views on evolution.

That’s because my freedom of religion is independent of a “vetting” process by the state, or scientists, no matter how zealous or sincere. (Or no matter how irrational I may seem to be by them)

[raindog]

Mr_Friendly said:

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.

This is more of the same argument for violating the rights of others. **The issue is about freedom of religion, not whether evolution or creation are the “truth.”

And this freedom doesn’t require of me that I have my beliefs vetted by the state.** Ever lived in a police state, or under (inversely) a repressive religious regime?

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.

Freedom doesn’t require of me to prove to you that my views are valid. And, yes comparing the two is not only unfair, but unreasonable.

I will say this about your holocaust analogy. I’m sure you are sincere but analogies like this are fallacious as it relates to the issues of evoultion vs creation. Since the OP is one of Church and State and freedom from interference, I haven’t been drawn to the core debate. Consistent with the OP, I’ve adressed the analogies themselves. I will tread this fine line again.

**As far as the holocaust (and those who would deny it’s existence) we have absolutely overwhelming evidence as to it’s existence. There are film reels, government documents, photographs, diaries, mass graves and eyewitness accounts from government officials, survivors, soldiers and others. Still there are the gas chambers themselves that to this day stand as monuments to evil. Those who would deny the holocaust do so in the face of absolutely stunning evidence to it’s reality.

While those who believe in the total account of evolution can point to compelling evidence, it is simply not true to say that the holocaust is a reasonable comparison. As I said, even the most ardent evolutionist must concede that the evidence supporting the theory is not as complelling as the evidence supporting the holocaust. You cannot establish the theory of evolution with the same level of moral and scientific certainty. I would appreciate it if the analogies that associate evolution with the certainty of the holocaust, first grade math or the civil rights era
as facts of history be stopped.

The Op is about freedom, man!
**

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.

I would like respect. Who doesn’t? However, if the cost of your respect comes at the expense of my religious freedom, I must respectfully say this is not your business.

[tdn]

I gotta go with raindog on this one. The government has no right to force a particular brand of knowledge on every single child, even if that particular brand of knowledge is absolutely correct. A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship. The system, as it is, works because it is dynamic. It must remain open to wonky ideas because then it will be open to brilliant ideas. Shut out creationism, wonky as it is, and you shut out everything else.

However, this is not to say that there should be no academic standards. Parents can opt their children out of science class, but they should not be able to opt them out of science tests. Smart parents should be able to do the math on that one.

Oh, and raindog, some of us would really enjoy it if you started a new thread on the gaping holes that you claim. I’m always up for a good evolution debate.

[Zagadka]

Seeing as my earlier questions were ignored, I have little hope for this one, but here goes.

So, you basically want all education to be voluntary based on what the parent thinks is right for the child?

[raindog]

Darwin’s Finch said:

[qoute]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.
[/quote]

I agree with you 100%, and believe it or not, I think your ideas are exceptionally reasonable. But, in this country every parent has the right to come to these approaches without government interference, or compulsion.

[HumptysHamhole]

Zagadka - So, you basically want all education to be voluntary based on what the parent thinks is right for the child?

That is the most difficult question to answer and it is where I was hoping that this debate would go. Is compulsory education a good idea to begin with? That may be a difficult question to answer. What if a parent doesn’t want their child to learn how to read? Should we allow that parent to keep that child out of grade school? In other words as I asked before: Where do we draw the line on government intervention in education? I don’t pretend to have the answers to that question but I think that is of great importance that we try to figure it out. An authoritarian system like Diogenes leaves no room for individual rights but on the other hand I can’t see letting someone deprive their child of the ability to read just because they want to have an extra farmhand at harvest. Any ideas?

[Kimstu]

raindog: *The issue is about freedom of religion, not whether evolution or creation are the “truth.”

And this freedom doesn’t require of me that I have my beliefs vetted by the state.*

I think the core of the problem here is that many people see creationism and evolution as competing for the status of “the truth”, so that each of them attempts to undermine the other’s validity.

IMO, we’d be better off just considering them as two fundamentally different kinds of truth claims. To wit:

• Science is concerned with finding consistent material explanations for observed natural phenomena. Science is therefore incapable of assessing any claims about the existence of God, miracles, or any other propositions about the supernatural. This is not the same as saying that the supernatural doesn’t or cannot exist in any way; just that the epistemological framework of science has no place for it.

• Religion is concerned with faith in things believed irrespective of scientific evidence supporting them. Religion is heavily involved with ideas of the supernatural, which by definition are outside the realm of scientific explanation. Scientific validity is therefore irrelevant as a criterion for religious belief. This is not to say that religious beliefs and scientific theories can’t agree, just that there’s no need to require them to agree.

In the context of science, evolution by mutation and natural selection is a well-documented fact, and the evolution of modern humans from a common ancestor with other species is an extremely well-supported and corroborated theory.

But that doesn’t make evolution “The Truth” in the sense of Absolute Ultimate Reality. Science is incapable of determining what Absolute Ultimate Reality is, because science is operationally and philosophically confined to natural phenomena and their material explanations.

It’s perfectly possible that the Absolute Ultimate Reality is that the biblical-literalists’ interpretation of Genesis is true, and God just created the universe and human beings in such a way that the observable data about them is consistent with the scientific theories of astronomy and geology and biology. Science will never be able to tell us whether or not that’s true in the sense of Absolute Truth.

So if you send your children to a school that teaches evolution in biology class, they will not be required to believe that “evolution is true”. (Or they shouldn’t be, if the biology teacher correctly understands the nature of science.) What they will be required to believe (and what’s perfectly reasonable) is that, within the restricted epistemological framework of science, evolutionary theory is a very solid material explanation of the observed data that we have about different life forms.

And what’s wrong with that? That doesn’t require them to “believe evolution”; that just requires them to understand how science works and what the scientific explanation of biology is.

You are still perfectly free to tell them “That evolutionary explanation is scientifically consistent and fits with the observed data, but on the level of actual truth, it’s false. We know it’s false because we have the true explanation revealed to us by faith, which is beyond the realm of science.”

No conscientious scientist could possibly contradict you. They might not personally agree with you—in fact, I doubt that many of them would—but they would have no scientific justification for asserting that your assertion was wrong.

[Stoneburg]

If you really believe in Creationism and think it is a valid science, what’s the harm in letting your kids hear about Evolution? Now if I am holding a view that I actually know to be false and easily debunkable, and I want to pass it on to my kids, then I wouldn’t want the kids to hear bout other ideas… but that’s not the case is it?

If Creationism is valid, then let your kids hear about the alternatives and make up their own minds. If you don’t intend to give your kids the freedom to make their own choice, based on facts about the choices, then you’re not raising them to become people. If you really believe and you really think your beliefs have merit, what’s the harm in letting them know about the options? I’m sure that God doesn’t appreciate brainwashed followers and would much rather that people come to believe on their own accord.

I’m also fairly sure I’m not the only one still waiting for a clarification on what the “holes” are in the theory of evolution.

[raindog]

Diogenes the Cynic said:

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.

This is a stunning post. Since you didn’t cite “scripture and verse” I assume that these are your personal views and not your intrerpretation of say…the constitution?

For those not inclined to wade through the details of this thread; we agree that:

1. Evolution SHOULD be taught in school, and ONLY evolution, and,
2. Creationism, if taught at all, Should ONLY be taught at home. (or church I presume)

You go a bit farther and assert (correct me I’m wrong. I hate it when people put words in anothers mouth):

1. The State has the right to FORCE a child to learn evolution.
2. The State is the final arbiter as to what constitutes “civil rights”; namely whether withholding the teaching of evolution is a violation of a child’s civil rights, even if both the child and the parent see no such violation. (I think your views would put the State on a collision course with the constitution.)
3. That the State can dertermine that my rights as a parent are subordinate to an arbitrary set of “civil rights” assigned to my children by the State. This of course puts the State directly into the parenting business.

This mindset can have tremondous pernicious effects, and can go a lot farther than the merits of evolution vs. creation.

Am I the only one cringing at this post?

[raindog]

HumptysHamhole said:

That is the most difficult question to answer and it is where I was hoping that this debate would go. Is compulsory education a good idea to begin with? That may be a difficult question to answer. What if a parent doesn’t want their child to learn how to read? Should we allow that parent to keep that child out of grade school? In other words as I asked before: Where do we draw the line on government intervention in education? I don’t pretend to have the answers to that question but I think that is of great importance that we try to figure it out. An authoritarian system like Diogenes leaves no room for individual rights but on the other hand I can’t see letting someone deprive their child of the ability to read just because they want to have an extra farmhand at harvest. Any ideas?

I agree with you. I think Zagadka brought up some interesting questions. I just didn’t have time to respond. Maybe a bit later.

[HumptysHamhole]

IMO, we’d be better off just considering them as two fundamentally different kinds of truth claims.

The only problem is that not everyone catagorizes the different kinds of truth the way that you do and we can’t really force them to do this. You accurately described what I think is the best way to look at the creation/evolution issue but many people see it differently.

Again it all comes down to belief. If someone starts with assumption that science is a poor way of looking at the universe in comparison to religion (or philosophy or solipsism) then you can’t try to appeal to scientific evidence to convince them otherwise. In other words a creationsist could make the exact same argument that you made by reversing the terms like this:

Science and religion are two different kinds of truth. Religion is the truth as dictated by the almighty Creator of the universe and science is man’s attempt to describe a universe without God. Therefore we should teach religion in schools because God has dictated it and it is more reliable than the mere theories of limited mortal men. If parents want to teach their kids science then thay can do it at home but these limited earth based theories of existence have no place in comparison with God’s direct authority.

It sounds like a rediculous argument to you and me because we don’t make the same assumptions as the (fake) person who made the above arguement. That argument didn’t affect you because you hold different ideas concerning the nature of religion and science. Likewise how can you expect your original argument to convince someone who holds the above viewpoint. In short – your argument was great but it started with some assumptions that not everyone is in agreement on. And if your basic assumptions can’t be accepted then neither can your conclusions.

[Zagadka]

@HumptysHamhole

That is the most difficult question to answer and it is where I was hoping that this debate would go. Is compulsory education a good idea to begin with? That may be a difficult question to answer. What if a parent doesn’t want their child to learn how to read? Should we allow that parent to keep that child out of grade school? In other words as I asked before: Where do we draw the line on government intervention in education? I don’t pretend to have the answers to that question but I think that is of great importance that we try to figure it out. An authoritarian system like Diogenes leaves no room for individual rights but on the other hand I can’t see letting someone deprive their child of the ability to read just because they want to have an extra farmhand at harvest. Any ideas?

I think one way to look at it is language.

Say a family legally immigrates to this country. However, they don’t think that they should have to teach their kids English, because that would be against their culture. Further, they believe that the Westernized version of history is incorrect in many key issues, and largely irrelevant. Where does the child’s rights to an education stop and the parent’s rights to raise their kid “their own way” begin? Should the kids be given a high school diploma if they don’t speak English or know anything about the Civil War and WWI (because WWI didn’t affect all that much of the world).

I have seen a case made for - literally - completely voluntary schooling. No required courses. No required attendance. I have a few questions. How is that case different from this case? Do children have a right to an education? Who’s right is more important - the children’s or the parent’s?

These are fairly complicated questions, and are open to debate. Fortunately, we have this forum called “Great Debates” at our disposal.

[HumptysHamhole]

**Stoneburg ** - If Creationism is valid, then let your kids hear about the alternatives and make up their own minds. If you don’t intend to give your kids the freedom to make their own choice, based on facts about the choices, then you’re not raising them to become people. If you really believe and you really think your beliefs have merit, what’s the harm in letting them know about the options? I’m sure that God doesn’t appreciate brainwashed followers and would much rather that people come to believe on their own accord.

Again the problem with this arguement is that a creationist could also use it just as well, like this: If evolution is valid then let your kids hear about the alternatives and make up their own minds, etc.

If we follow your logic you have by accident actually argued FOR creationism to be taught in school.

[HumptysHamhole]

I have seen a case made for - literally - completely voluntary schooling. No required courses. No required attendance. I have a few questions. How is that case different from this case? Do children have a right to an education? Who’s right is more important - the children’s or the parent’s?

I am tempted to say reading, writing, and basic arithmatic. But again what language to read and write? Maybe ANY language as long as the child learns to read, write and add. I also believe that the government should offer free education to all – but then do they have to offer it to kids in the language of their parents choice? Maybe the best answer is for the government to offer a full, complete education based on its own standards while allowing parents to opt their child out at any time. But then again it would probably be the poor kids with bad parents who would keep their kids home out of laziness. And it would be those kids who in most need of a free education.

A big concern of mine here is that (as I understand it) if a child doesn’t learn the basics of reading, writing and maths at a very early age then the chances of them catching on later in life is not good. This doesn’t necessarily seem to be the case with evolutionary theory however as is demonstrated in fine universities around the country each semester (when a creationist fish learns the truth of evolution in biology 101).

[raindog]

Kimstu said most elequently…

Man that was a stunning post! I don’t even know where to begin. I’m green with envy!

I think your suggestions make perfect sense and I can see how anybody would subscribe to that approach. At the risk of sounding like a pain, I would still think that ultimately the decision to adopt such an approach rests with the individual.

Man that was great post. I’ve read it 4 times.

It’s also the closest I’ve come to discussing the issue of evolution. My feeling was that the merits of evolution vs creation would cloud the real issue of the OP, namely the separation of church and state and the issue of imposing one’s beliefs on another. The OP was concerned, ironically, about the creationist being interventionist. In this thread however, I think it is the evolutionist, and Diogenes the Cynic specifically, who I think would take the more interventionist posture. I simply made the case for non-intervention. For freedom. (Although I doubt the OP would have guessed it was the creationists who would be seeking relief from the other)

I think the core of the problem here is that many people see creationism and evolution as competing for the status of “the truth”, so that each of them attempts to undermine the other’s validity.

Agreed. And so all of the high emotions/energy that come from discussions like these.

A couple people have asked me to elaborate on my comment about "holes’ I perceived in the theory of evolution. That was an off handed comment that was simply to state my position as I pursued what I thought was the real issue of the OP. I’m guessing that there a couple here who are ready to tear me limb from evolutionary limb, should I accept the invitation.

Your post was as insightful as any I’ve seen on the topic on a message board. It is in this type of context that I think the discussion of evolution vs creation is most helpful. It offers the opportunity to understand each others beliefs better. I have no appetite for intellectual posturing or discussions that infer, in often less than subtle terms, that believing something different than eveolution is tantamount to being ignorant. (And theres been a healthy dose of that in this thread alone)

Well, I must run now and will likely be out for the rest of the weekend. thanks for the lively discussion. Maybe I’ll catch up with you all later.