Should/could denial of evolution be a criminal offence?

[Skeptic]

So, we have yet another holocaust denier who is "just an anti-zionist, not an antisemite". What a surprise.

 

[Jason V]

"Silly" isn't synonymous to "funny", which is the point. But you're right, it is just semantics, so there's no need to get into a debate over it.

So you went there anyway. silly things have to be trivial and trivial things can't be dangerous.

 

[Mirrorglass]

So you went there anyway. silly things have to be trivial and trivial things can't be dangerous.

I was simply giving you the chance to back away.

I can provide you at least a half-dozen dictionary definitions of "silly" from as many dictionaries as needed, none of them requiring the thing to be trivial. One such definition would make my point, but to make this more interesting, can you provide a single commonly accepted definition to back up the claim that silly things have to be trivial?

 

[Pacal]

You can't be serious. Why is this even considered a viable question. We've had far vto much experience with people being punished for "wrong" belief. This gives rise to thoughts about Inquisition, show trials and terror.

Isn't the past several thousand years enough to deter us from thinking that punishing wrong belief is bad idea.

 

[Cavemonster]

Nobody would expect that.

Fear and surprise are their chief weapons.

 

[slingblade]

You can't be serious. Why is this even considered a viable question. We've had far vto much experience with people being punished for "wrong" belief. This gives rise to thoughts about Inquisition, show trials and terror.

Isn't the past several thousand years enough to deter us from thinking that punishing wrong belief is bad idea.

What of teachers who tell their students that evolution isn't valid, but creationism is valid? I am under the impression that's what the OP is asking. Not that any Joe off the street should be arrested for his opinion, but that it shouldn't be taught in schools as fact.

I don't know that it should be a crime, per se, but as others have said, it should be a disciplinary offense.

 

[sphenisc]

You can't be serious. Why is this even considered a viable question. We've had far vto much experience with people being punished for "wrong" belief. This gives rise to thoughts about Inquisition, show trials and terror.

Isn't the past several thousand years enough to deter us from thinking that punishing wrong belief is bad idea.

On the contrary, it encourages that thought.

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Pacal
You can't be serious. Why is this even considered a viable question. We've had far vto much experience with people being punished for "wrong" belief. This gives rise to thoughts about Inquisition, show trials and terror.

Isn't the past several thousand years enough to deter us from thinking that punishing wrong belief is bad idea.

On the contrary, it encourages that thought.

God I've got to pay more attention when I write!

What I meant to say was Isn't the past several thousand years enough to deter us from thinking that punishing wrong belief is a good idea.

 

[Pacal]

What of teachers who tell their students that evolution isn't valid, but creationism is valid? I am under the impression that's what the OP is asking. Not that any Joe off the street should be arrested for his opinion, but that it shouldn't be taught in schools as fact.

I don't know that it should be a crime, per se, but as others have said, it should be a disciplinary offense.

The question was simply Should denial of evolution be criminalized? With a yes or no for possible answers. It said nothing about teaching. So it was natural to assume that this question was about criminalizing denial of evolution by anyone.

Teachers who deny evolution in classroom, assuming that violates their contract, i.e., they are not teaching the curiculum, should of course be disciplined, perhaps even fired, although turning that into a criminal act is way to much.

 

[Jason V]

I was simply giving you the chance to back away.

I can provide you at least a half-dozen dictionary definitions of "silly" from as many dictionaries as needed, none of them requiring the thing to be trivial. One such definition would make my point, but to make this more interesting, can you provide a single commonly accepted definition to back up the claim that silly things have to be trivial?

Are you saying a silly thing can be serious? Serious being the antonym of trivial?...Anyway, I should have backed out, soooo...

Should it be illegal for secondary school tutors to teach that evolution is not a fact?

 

[Jason V]

On Planet X we spell it criminalized.

One planet under God

 

[Mirrorglass]

Are you saying a silly thing can be serious? Serious being the antonym of trivial?...Anyway, I should have backed out, soooo...

Yes. I've said it several times now. Anyway, I'm glad you admitted your error. Be assured, it earned you more respect than trying to cling to the point would have.

Should it be illegal for secondary school tutors to teach that evolution is not a fact?

Are you asking me, specifically, or everyone?

I'd say it's not the kind of thing we make laws about; this is a problem that is best handled by school administration. If a teacher is incompetent or unwilling to teach the subject, they should lose their job - but it shouldn't be illegal to be bad at something.

On the other hand, there's nothing to be done about private tutors, as people do have the right to teach their children lies, as long as they do not significantly harm said children.

And lastly, if there is denominational religious education, then those teachers do have the right to teach mythology. I'm of the opinion that such education should be separate from the schooling system, though.

 

[Jason V]

I'd say it's not the kind of thing we make laws about; this is a problem that is best handled by school administration. If a teacher is incompetent or unwilling to teach the subject, they should lose their job - but it shouldn't be illegal to be bad at something.

On the other hand, there's nothing to be done about private tutors, as people do have the right to teach their children lies, as long as they do not significantly harm said children.

It's that grey (oops, sorry, gray) area between what denotes a school to be public. Here in the UK there are now freeschools which can teach whatever they like it would seem, even though they are funded by the state.

"They're our children so we should be free to 'teach' them whatever we like" being the argument which doesn't get shot down. I'd really like to see government observers in those 'controversial' biology lessons, but at the moment there seems no legal framework for that.

 

[Mirrorglass]

It's that grey (oops, sorry, gray) area between what denotes a school to be public. Here in the UK there are now freeschools which can teach whatever they like it would seem, even though they are funded by the state.

"They're our children so we should be free to 'teach' them whatever we like" being the argument which doesn't get shot down. I'd really like to see government observers in those 'controversial' biology lessons, but at the moment there seems no legal framework for that.

Really? Do you mean children schooled in these institutions don't have to take national exams to show that they are learning everything they need to? That's the way it works in here, as well as many other countries.

 

[Jason V]

Really? Do you mean children schooled in these institutions don't have to take national exams to show that they are learning everything they need to? That's the way it works in here, as well as many other countries.

I think there are still exams in the UK. There's a difference between giving the correct answer and sharing the view of the teacher evolution is nonsense. Parroting something held to be untrue score marks is probably quite common about this.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I think there are still exams in the UK. There's a difference between giving the correct answer and sharing the view of the teacher evolution is nonsense. Parroting something held to be untrue score marks is probably quite common about this.

Sure, but people don't have an obligation to believe in evolution. That's not why it's taught in schools. Evolution isn't a dogma, and it doesn't need to be believed in to be a fact. When we demand that children are taught about it, it isn't evolution we're protecting, but the children being schooled.

We school our children to make them productive members of the society, and even more importantly, to give them the opportunity to be successful ones. For that, they need knowledge, and that's what the school gives. And one of the pieces of knowledge given is how evolution works.

But after that, the rest is up to the children, as it should be. Whether they believe what they've been taught is irrelevant; what matters is that they understand it. Science doesn't rely on belief; you can be certain your car engine runs on pixie power, and the car will still run when you hit the gas. You can think algebra is a magic spell, and it will still give you the right answers. And you can believe the world was created 6,000 years ago, and as long as you understand how perfectly the ToE predicts the behaviour of life everywhere, you can still be a biologist.

So if creationists want to teach their children to parrot real science, let them. They're doing our job for us, and the kids will be better off for it.