My my my_wan, there’s a lot of emotion in your response. I hope you feel better for getting that off your chest. Internet posts are good therapy in that regard. While I don’t want to discount your experiences, you’re basically presenting anecdotal evidence that doesn’t really relate much to our discussion, so I’m going to clip most of your personal experiences.
Also, I’m heading out of town this evening and I won’t have access to a computer for a few days. I just wanted to let people know that’s why I won’t be responding to posts this week-end.
If feels to me like you are giving lip service to concerns about evidence yet you remain willing to throw it all away for the sake of "trauma" and individual "beliefs".
It’s the respect for individual’s religious belief that I feel is important. The trauma I mentioned as just another reason why we, as a society, should be compassionate and sensitive to the impact that teaching evolution may have on individuals in our society.
Our debate is not about what the required curriculum is but what should be considered in defining it. You are after all suggesting vouchers to avoid evolution. Likewise I am not ok with "evidence for evolution" not being "included in the curiculum guidelines for my state". I would rather the evidence be taught than the theory itself.
That's close, but I not proposing that evolution be avoided - if it's in the curriculum requirements it would have to be taught - but rather that it's reasonable to allow evolution to be taught in a way that doesn't directly conflict with the parent's religious faith. I don't think this can or should be done in our current public schools, but voucher schools could provide such an alternative for those families without affecting the education of the remaining students.
No it's not "fine and appropriate" and no you don't have to trust the source!
Another area of disagreement between us. IMO, trust in inherent in any teaching situation. The student is trusting that the teacher is giving them accurate information. The student is trusting that what they read in their textbooks is true.
We are only asking that the evidence be presented so that the evidence, not "what scientist believe", is the basis of the mistrust.
I don’t have any objection to this if the decision of the committee that develops curriculum agrees with you. While I feel that understanding the basic framework of the theory is more important, you’re certainly entitled to your point of view. I think it would be quite impossible to cover ALL the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, so someone must pick and choose what will be used. Personally, I think it makes more sense to allow the individual teacher to select what evidence will work best in their lesson and insisting that curriculum designers specify to that level of detail is micromanaging it. But I’m not an expert at teaching the subject to children. I’ll leave it to experts to wrangle those specific details out and put what’s appropriate into the curriculum requirements.
Do you really think the religious lobbying organizations would remotely consider this?
No. I think people who hold those religious beliefs and are also parents of children would support this. I don’t really care what the religious lobbying organizations think about it.
If a subclass was created for them with no power to influence the mainstream the long term effects would be sects that resorted to terrorism for the good of all. Yes that is pandering!!! Pandering to those that will not reciprocate in any way shape or form!
Yes, those Amish sects are so militant it’s scary. I live near one and I’m quite aware of the dangers posed by religious sects who keep to themselves and don’t mix with the general population.
I'm offended that any information be denied anyone for or against mine or anyone elses POV.
That’s fine, but irrelevant. I’ve not suggested that information be denied anyone for any reason. You can’t put the entire sum total of human knowledge into the K-12 curriculum. Choices of what to include and exclude must be made. That some things you want included are not things I consider absolutely necessary does not imply that I am in favor preventing others from getting that information.
I think you are misinterpreting what I said. I never said that what teachers are to be trusted without question. I never said that children shouldn't question the evidence and be given answers. You are making some major leaps to conclusions that aren't appropriate here.
I hear you words yet fail to understand how your words translate to this. It feels to me like you are playing word games to avoid hurting my feelings the same way it appears your suggested policy is meant to spare "trauma" to some students. Please don't do that to me, I don't want to get banned. I'd rather get called stupid, wrong, lier, jerk, or anything else.
That’s just my style. I try to phrase things in terms of ideas and avoid personal insults.
Let's assume I am wrong and let's take the weakest possible interpretation of what you did say. 'Trust of the information is implicit in the act of teaching.' If this is so then it is the teachers fault! If it so much as appears that way to students then it shows the intellectual poverty of the teachers in question.
I disagree rather strongly with this. I think trust is inherent in teaching anything. It doesn’t mean that everything the teacher says must be taken as unquestionable truth. Indeed, it is my experience that a student who does not trust what their teacher is saying is unlikely to ask questions. Why bother if you can’t believe what they say? It’s why I don’t bother to watch political speeches. If I can’t believe what they are telling me (and I can’t), why should I listen at all? Instead, it is the teacher who has the trust of their students that is the most successful at educating them.
Yet your definition of understanding the basic theory is "what scientist believe".
No. My definition of understanding the basic theory includes “what scientists believe”. It’s not the totality. Nor is it incorrect. That is, unless you want to argue that scientists do NOT believe that evolution is the best theoretical framework for understanding life on earth in all it’s wonder and diversity. Somehow I don’t think you want to argue that.
Lying is not an acceptable alternative.
I wouldn’t call it lying, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion about what does and does not constitute lying that I don’t want to get into. So, I’ll just note that the fervid creationists often describe evolutionists as lying to children and they, also, don’t see it as an acceptable alternative. In addition, every society has “lies” are taught as truth to their children because such “truths” are part of every culture. In ours, “all men are created equal” is a good example. It’s a clearly false statement. Should we ban the teaching of that particular “lie” which is taught as “truth”. I don’t think so.
In the end, we all have to share this land with those believe in different ideals or "truths" than we do. I’d like to do it amicably. Rather than calling their beliefs 'lies', I think the best way to achieve that goal is to allow parents more automony is directing their children's education so that such conflicts between the 'truths' of evolution and creationism can be avoided.
Yes but home and private schools still have to provide an education commensurate with state test.
Actually, no. In my state there are no testing requirements of any sort for homeschoolers or private schools. But if vouchers were enacted, I think that would change.
I don't care what their "truth" is and would object to institutionalized efforts to deny them those beliefs. However denying them information that may or may not conflict with their beliefs is a lie!
Who has suggested that anyone be denied any information? I’ve suggested that parents be allowed more control over how their children taught. Not
what they are taught – that’s where the curriculum requirements come into play - but
how it is taught.
Yeah, because we don't really need biologists, do we?
I can’t think of one career field that requires detailed knowledge and understanding of evolution that does not also require a university degree. So why shouldn’t creationist parents be allowed to choose schools that are sensitive to those beliefs and teach evolution in a way that does not come into conflict with their faith?
And didn't you talk about the children getting traumatised by being taught evolution? Well, perhaps if the parents didn't teach them fairy tales as truth to begin with, then the facts wouldn't traumatise them. Did you ever think of it like that? Of course you didn't. I suggest you do.
I’m quite aware of that, but thank you for the reminder.
Because in my world, if fairy tales and facts makes a person conflicted, the fairy tales go first. That's the rational choice.
Not everyone hold the same values as you do. Some people place their religion above all else in value. Why does your value system take precedence over theirs? If they wish to cling to their faith, that is their prerogative. If they wish to teach their children such fables, that is also their prerogative. Personally, I do not want to see that changed.
Ah, righto. Well, here is my value judgment then: I want to live in a society that teaches science and critical thinking. I do not want to live in a society that does not teach science and critical thinking.
What a crazy value judgment, eh?
Not crazy, but not universal.
Facts are, in many cases, a vaccine for fantasies. Knowing the evidence and the science before you are informed of the alternate magical thinking will most often allow you to properly evaluate both options and come to a rational and reasonable conclusion. Should the fantasy precede the facts, however, the facts have far less of a chance of being properly evaluated - cognitive bias will come into play, and those who have been previously indoctrinated will find it harder to accept the evidence for evolution, and as such the theory of evolution. Of course there are probably exceptions (people who have had a decent scientific education who are exposed to religion later in life and become creationists) but such people are - tellingly - in the minority.
So, you are saying you wish the children of creationists should be taught evolution in a way that directly undermines the religious beliefs they are being raised with in the hope that when they are grown, they will reject their parents faith? And you consider this to be a good thing? I don’t.
Rhetoric is all well and good, but it means very little. You don't think that the problems are worse? That's fine - but why do you think that one is worse than the other.
Because, as Dancing David has pointed out more eloquently than I can, I think what you are advocating borders on fascism and moves our society in the direction of uniformity of belief. Both of those are things I consider far more dangerous that tolerating pockets of ignorance regarding evolution.
Can you imagine a world with no biologists? That is a world populated by creationists, and it is not a world that anyone who appreciates modern medicine would want to go back to.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that if we allow creationists the opportunity to send their children to voucher schools that teach evolution in a way that doesn’t conflict with their religious beliefs it will result in a society without biologists and creationists will take over the world? Surely I misunderstand you. At any rate, I just don’t see that as an imminent danger to our society.
Once again, why? I'm not asking for baseless rhetoric, I'm asking for reasons, for critical evaluation, for an argument of some description.
Um, an argument for what? Why I want to live in a world without biologists? Or why I don’t want to live in a society where everyone must hold to the same beliefs regarding how life came to be on our planet? Neither of those are arguments I'm making. And how do you delineate 'baseless rhetoric' from the value judgements I make in regards to what I support and do not support? I'm afraid I must ask you to be a little more specific about what constitutes an acceptable argument in your opinion. I’ll be gone for a few days, but I’ll try to come back to this thread. It’s one of the few I’m currently reading.
I find it very strange that you think religious indoctrination of children with beliefs that are demonstrably wrong and potentially dangerous is less harmful than teaching children science and critical thinking.
Yes, that would be a strange position to hold, but it’s not my position. What I have been arguing is that allowing indoctrination of children with beliefs that demonstrably wrong is not necessarily harmful. Consider the ‘lie’ that all men are created equal. Is it harmful that children across our nation are indoctrinated to believe this without question? I don’t think so. Is indoctrinating them to believe in creationism harmful? I haven’t see any evidence that it is. Most of the concerns voiced in this thread seems ridiculously overblown to me – like a world without biologists where everyone is a creationist. I just don’t find that a credible result of allowing creationists the freedom to teach their children evolution as they see fit.
Moreover, that you would suggest that creationism is harmless is, to me, laughable - is something harmless simply because it leaves no physical mark on the body of the child?
No. That is not my argument.
Creationism is far worse than that - it instills in the child a dogmatic belief system that includes eternal torment as punishment for questioning that belief system, and it sets in place the framework that children will use for the majority of their lives (if not all their lives) to evaluate new ideas.
So, because you object to the religious beliefs that often accompany creationist beliefs, that makes teaching creationism harmful? Even if I agreed with you regarding the harm caused by belief in hell, I don’t think the harm of allowing parents to instill such beliefs in their children compares to the harm of forbidding such a practice.
The framework it instills is not, "Does this make sense? What is my source for this? Is there evidence for this? Are there alternate hypothesis that have better explanatory power?" or other such tools that are essential for critical thinking, but instead a simple framework of, "Does this new information support or contradict my previously held beliefs?" Supporting information is most likely accepted as true, while contradicting information is discarded as false.
I’m acquainted with many creationists. This is not an accurate description of how they raise their children.
And you call Creationism harmless?
Not harmless, but less harmful than the alternative of forcing them to send their children to schools that teach evolution in a way that actively undermines their religious beliefs and values.
