Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I still want to know what that combustible matter transmutation thing is.

~~ Paul

 

[Beth]

And I suppose, Beth, that those who feel the Bible tells them that the best way to discipline their children is through brutal beatings, well, that's their right too, right?

Same thing. Abuse is still abuse.

What constitutes abuse can vary dramatically from one person to the next. If you disagree with me, well, you certainly have the right to hold a different opinion regarding what constitutes abuse, but please don't make the assumption that I'm using the same definition that you are.

Educational neglect is appropriately a crime. So are brutal beatings. But I don't think that parents who choose not to have their children taught about evolution are necessarily guilty of educational neglect any more than parents who spank their children are necessarily guilty of brutally beating their child.

 

[supercorgi]

My own personal opinion is that we should not require any child to learn things their parents find objectionable. That encompasses a great deal of controversial curriculum, not just ID and evolution.

I understand that this is your opinion but in my opinion this is so very, very wrong. The best way to enforce tyranny, whether in a government or a family, is to restrict access to information. Keeping people ignorant just reinforces the status quo. By letting parents customize their children's education, you are ensuring that the kids will have less access to information that will enable them to form their own opinion rather than just parroting their parents views. Also, in situations where the parent's beliefs are fanatical, you would limit the kid's ability to even see how wrong their parents beliefs are.

If schools were run your way, what's to prevent parents who are Holocaust-deniers and rabidly anti-Semetic from keeping their children from learning about the truth of the Holocaust?

 

[Z]

And when you start with one aspect - like evolution vs. creationism - you end up on that slippery slope, anyway... whether you want to be there or not.

The school system is designed to teach facts to children, to the best of their ability and knowledge, which will prepare those children to become contributing members of our society. As such, our advanced education system has certain standard requirements for continuation and completion which is comprised of a set of facts, theories, formulae, and systems which students are expected to know. The religious preferences of families is presently respected by not enforcing education of any specific religious point of view. By sticking to the facts, the school system respects all faiths equally well.

When a religious group's faith runs counter to fact, it is not the responsibility of the school system to change to support that faith; it is the responsibility of the parents and their religious community to present compelling and convincing evidence to their children as to why their faith runs contrary to fact. I do think you are right, Beth, so far as the fact that children return from school in a better state of education than their parents, and this improved knowledge allows the students to realize that there are several fallacies and shortcomings in the faith of their families. This does create a kind of rift within the family, but such a rift is preferable, by far, to having ignorant children locked into a continuing cycle of brainwashing and deliberate miseducation.

Educational neglect, IMHO, is no less a severe crime than physical abuse. And both are supported, proponents claim, by scripture, culture, custom, heritage, etc. You are already admitting that allowing parents to deny their children education of facts is deliberate educational neglect, yet you seem to support this; so, simply, if you support this, do you support a family's right to commit other faith-based crimes against their children? Should American Fundamentalist Moslims be allowed to circumcise their daughters? Should some Fundamental sects of Christianity be allowed to teach their children that slavery is a God-given right of the Master Race? Perhaps it would be OK, since it is based on faith and might cause a rift in family cohesion if we teach otherwise, for certain sects of Christianity to teach their children that liars, witches, poisoners, etc. should be murdered?

You also admitted that this mode of mis-education is not tenable; one wonders, then, why you support such mis-education? Perhaps because if the government left parents to teach their kids as they see fit, you'd be allowed to teach them all the woo-nonsense you'd like without worrying about how they'll fare come testing time?

The future is all about class mobility, not class restriction. The children of today will know greater employment freedom than we have EVER had, and this is how it should be. If we left it up to you, rural families would still keep their kids home and teach them farming and animal husbandry; a farmer's kid would always grow up to be a farmer; the ignorant would remain forever ignorant, and the caste system of our ancestors would be rigorously enforced.

Beth, you DO realize there are many Christians who believe, honestly, that the ONLY book anyone EVER needs to read is the Bible, right? That the Bible contains all truth, fact, etc? And would you support this, as well?

I feel sorry for any children you have, if your ideal world includes keeping people stupid and enslaved to the culture of their ancestors. I hope each child you ever have will find a path to intelligence and enlightenment, one which creates a HUGE rift between you and them. And I'm not saying that to be mean to you, but because I have hope for them. I pray for freedom from intellectual slavery of the sort you propose. I pray that, one day, our culture learns to embrace the real world, the world of facts, verifiable observations, and tenable theories, over the fantasy world of faith, and prayer, and invisible sky daddies who create both good and evil in the same breath.

To whom do I pray? To Mankind itself. The only God this planet has ever had.

 

[PatKelley]

SKAIK, even Beth did not suggest those courses of action for public schools, and I sure don't.

The connection is not apparent? Okay, an analogy then.

An auto shop course. One is told gas goes here, exhaust comes out here. What happens in the middle? Ah, but that it is not to be discussed, or isn't necessary to know.

Perhaps they are right- one can drive a car without knowing how an engine works. But, if anybody ever want to get near engineering, one has to learn more than what goes in and comes out.

Lists of animals and descriptions are the in and out - evolution is the middle. Take it out, and you've got a very limited shop or biology course, gutted of any true understanding other than a superficial knowledge. ID does not replace that gutting with anything other than a faith of who did it, but still leaves out the middle part.

Like the shop teacher telling his class it is a GM engine. That explains nothing about how the engine works, just puts a brand on it. There is nothing left. No understanding, no questioning.

This is the essence of the change proposed; a gutting of an entire subject for the sake of being a brand-name loyalist.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Here's another example --- I just came across this by chance looking for something else.

Here are some scientific errors which at one time or another have been taken as part of their faith by Jehovah's Witnesses:

1923 - An article entitled "The Vaccination Fraud" begins the Watchtower's opposition to vaccination (Golden Age, 1/3, p. 211 #35). Sample quote: "When it has been shown conclusively that there is no such things as rabies." (Golden Age, 4/22, p.455, #15).

1929 - Vaccinations are again condemned: "Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccinations, . . . Hence the practice of vaccination is a crime, an ourtrage and a delusion . . . it has never saved a single life" (Golden Age, 5/1, p. 502, #40).

1931 - Vaccinations are a violation of the Eternal Covenant God made with Noah. (Golden Age 2/4/31, p. 293)

1935 - Vaccination is a direct injection of animal matter in the blood stream and a direct violation of the law of Jehovah God. (Golden Age 4/24/35, p. 465) For seventeen years Witnesses refuse smallpox vaccination until the Society, after the death of Br. Woodworth, reverses the vaccination ban. As it turns out, the smallpox vaccine wasn't even manufactured from blood.

1961 - Personality traits, the impulses to commit murder and suicide are transmitted in the blood. (Watchtower 9/15/61, p. 564)

1971 - The heart is not just a pump, it is linked to the brain through nerves and is the actual organ where affections, motivations, desires and emotions are literally formed. (Watchtower 3/1/71, p. 133-135)

Was there any obligation to change the curriculum to suit their fantasies? Should we have "taught both sides" of the "debate" about whether emotion comes from the heart?

I never dreamed that anyone took the Bible that literally. Feeling stuff in your heart --- it's a metaphor, isn't it? Sheesh.

Now if they could just find that pesky mustard tree.

 

[William Parcher]

And when you start with one aspect - like evolution vs. creationism - you end up on that slippery slope, anyway... whether you want to be there or not.

The school system is designed to teach facts to children, to the best of their ability and knowledge, which will prepare those children to become contributing members of our society.

Zdragon, everybody already knows this. But, the ID movement can be defined by their tactics as much as their content. ID is saying that conventional science is ignoring the FACT of design and irreducible complexity in nature. They are saying that students are being deprived of the facts of nature under the guise that they are being taught the facts of nature. ID is going directly to parents and saying that school curricula mandates and science itself are turning a blind-eye to the facts of nature. They are trying to give parents a way to defeat the fundamental enterprise of science itself by modifying the way that their children are exposed to science.

The open question remains... if students are taught a skewed perspective of science and the strength of its provisional findings... should it be assumed that this will later correct itself by way of subsequent education?

Should we just assume that a university education automatically has the dual task of expanding knowledge... AND correcting the falsehoods that were learned previously in public schools?

 

[Beth]

I feel sorry for any children you have, if your ideal world includes keeping people stupid and enslaved to the culture of their ancestors. I hope each child you ever have will find a path to intelligence and enlightenment, one which creates a HUGE rift between you and them. And I'm not saying that to be mean to you, but because I have hope for them. I pray for freedom from intellectual slavery of the sort you propose. I pray that, one day, our culture learns to embrace the real world, the world of facts, verifiable observations, and tenable theories, over the fantasy world of faith, and prayer, and invisible sky daddies who create both good and evil in the same breath.

If I were arguing for the legalization of drugs would that you think me a heroin addict? Just because I argue that people should have certain rights does not automatically imply that I think they are right if choose to exercise those rights. Only that I consider it more important that they be allowed to make "wrong" choices over being forced to make what the majority thinks is the "right" choice.

Please don't assume anything about what I do or do not teach my children, or how I raise them. You really don't know anything about that because I prefer not to discuss my personal life in forums such as this. I prefer not to do so precisely because people make statements like yours.

Good-bye.

 

[hammegk]

... stuff snipped ...

This is the essence of the change proposed; a gutting of an entire subject for the sake of being a brand-name loyalist.

Who is proposing this?

Do you check your closet for monsters before you go to bed?

Here's another example...

We agree some people have mental conditions described in DSM. From what I read a lot of NEA members may too. Are you sure that's germane to public school curiculae?

And when you start with one aspect - like evolution vs. creationism ....

The only people here babbling about creationism and the "bible literalists" are on your side of the table. You can I suppose find posters who fit that description on the net; but how many have you found in school board meetings? I doubt you'd have much better luck finding them in any good sized church.

 

[PatKelley]

Dismissal is easier I suppose than addressing the subject. The subject being evolution as nonessential. The ad-hominem does not help the discussion, as attempts on my character really have no bearing on the argument.

 

[Melendwyr]

What part of "don't feed the trolls" can't you people understand?

 

[Ryokan]

With the Dali Lama now speaking out in support of ID it is unrealistic to keep up the pretence that this is about nothing more than sneaking the Bible in by the back door.
_
HypnoPsi

Of course, the Dalai Lama is a great scientist and not at all a religious leader.

Oh, wait....

 

[Ryokan]

I wonder if this is strictly true? I always understood "fittest" in this context to mean -

adj. fit·ter, fit·test
<snip>
4. Biology. Successfully adapted to survive and produce viable offspring in a particular environment. Dictionary.com

Maybe "natural selection" was settled on to avoid people confusing "fittest" to be equivalent to "healthy"? Sort of like the scientist/non-scientist understanding of "theory"?


Edit to avoid accidentally implying delphi_ote is a non-scientist - changed "non-scientist" to "people".

In Norwegian, 'survival of the fittest' has always been translated to 'survival of the strongest'. Very very very bad translation, a shame we can't seem to get rid of it.

But still, if someone proposed we'd teach 'Intelligent Design' along with evolution in science class, they could just as well put on a clown suit because they'd be laughed at

 

[Beth]

Of course, the Dalai Lama is a great scientist and not at all a religious leader.

Oh, wait....

He may be a religious leader, but I don't think his religion is based on the Bible.

 

[Beth]

I understand that this is your opinion but in my opinion this is so very, very wrong. The best way to enforce tyranny, whether in a government or a family, is to restrict access to information. Keeping people ignorant just reinforces the status quo. By letting parents customize their children's education, you are ensuring that the kids will have less access to information that will enable them to form their own opinion rather than just parroting their parents views. Also, in situations where the parent's beliefs are fanatical, you would limit the kid's ability to even see how wrong their parents beliefs are.

If schools were run your way, what's to prevent parents who are Holocaust-deniers and rabidly anti-Semetic from keeping their children from learning about the truth of the Holocaust?

Governmental tyranny is very difficult to overthrow or escape. OTOH, one can escape family tyranny quite easily. Just grow up and leave. So, given a choice between the two, I prefer family tyranny. Thus, while you are right to an extent, I think on the whole, I'll maintain my opinion that it is better to allow parents the power to make those decisions than for the government to have the power make those decisions for them.

 

[Ryokan]

He may be a religious leader, but I don't think his religion is based on the Bible.

It's not.

What has that got to do with anything?

 

[Beth]

It's not.

What has that got to do with anything?

The original quote you were responding to was:

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
With the Dali Lama now speaking out in support of ID it is unrealistic to keep up the pretence that this is about nothing more than sneaking the Bible in by the back door.
_
HypnoPsi

It doesn't compute that the Dali Lama would be trying to sneak the Bible in by the back door. Thus pointing out that he is a religious leader doesn't refute HypnoPsi argument.

 

[Dr Adequate]

We agree some people have mental conditions described in DSM.

Well, it's easy for you to dismiss them as nuts. But this line of argument, if protracted into public policy, would make the situation for the makers of curriculums and standards even worse: because they would then have to decide not only that certain religions should have special considerations made for their views, but also that certain other religions should not because they're too nutty. This determination to be made by public officials.

At this point you can take the First Amendment, tear it up and use it as firelighters.

On the other hand, if you give every religion an equal playing field, then you have to take into account the JWs, the Scientologists, the Hindu creationists... that reminds me, happy Diwali, everyone.

This is, surely, exactly the sort of steaming mess the First Amendment was meant to avoid.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos,

Please don't make the mistake of assuming that all homeschoolers are like this. It's an incredibly diverse group. People homeschool for all sorts of reasons.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that for people who don't want their children to learn about evolution because it might lead to a lapse in faith, their choices are very limited and homeschooling is certainly a popular option. While you might disagree with decision regarding teaching their children about evolution, they aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone but their own families.

I'm sure there is a diverse group. However, most homeschooling materials and sites are showing as anti-evolution for reasons that have nothing to do with evolution. They've imposed their own misguided ideas about evolution.

You can say they aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone but their own families, but you can see the influence affects us all. The misguided ideas about evolution leads to campaigns against what they believe are evil plots to take over the world with "evilution" forwarding agendas.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=660

Scaring kids by telling them that areas of science are only for corrupting the populace with atheism is not only untruthful, but brings up generations with complete ignorance about the topic and ready to fight it tooth and nail. Why not fight evil?? They way they paint it, I'd fight it if I didn't know any better.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

On the other hand, if you give every religion an equal playing field, then you have to take into account the JWs, the Scientologists, the Hindu creationists... that reminds me, happy Diwali, everyone.

This is, surely, exactly the sort of steaming mess the First Amendment was meant to avoid.

You forgot FSM in your mentions above...he deserves an equal playing field!