Should scientists debate creationists?

[Mobyseven]

Beautifully stated, Mobyseven!

Danke.

Bump for Beth.

 

[Corsair 115]

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.

Do you propose this compassion and sensitivity be restricted to just evolution, or should it be applied to other potential areas as well? Might geology have a negative impact on those who are young Earth creationists? Might the teaching the heliocentric model of the solar system be insensitive to those who believe the Sun orbits around the Earth? How much of acquired scientific knowledge should be left out of classrooms due to some finding that knowledge problematic for their particular religious beliefs?

Just where do you propose drawing the line? Which scientific concepts need to be handled with this compassion and sensitivity and which don't?

 

[Dumbledore]

This might surprise creationists but science does not have to defend itself. The whole of scientific approach makes sure that the only scientific principles and theories left are ones that are supported by evidence. If at any time data came forward to actually refute evolution it would be struck down or at least modified, but this is has not happened! With the principles of science in place we don't have to worry that theories are being propped up unjustly science sees that this is so, unlike creationism and religion. Theories and principles can be refuted in science can you say the same for creationism and religion. By definition creationism is not even a scientific hypothesis because it does not follow scientific principles. Instead it is merely a pseudoscience at best, that is bantered about by people who feel uncomfortable with scientific theories that they quite often do not understand.

 

[JoeEllison]

This might surprise creationists but science does not have to defend itself.

It is more accurate to say that accepted science defends itself constantly against new data, and is replaced by a better model every time the evidence dictates. Evolution has grown and become stronger due to those challenges, and any theory that seeks to replace it will have to stand up to the exact same scrutiny.

 

[Beth]

Nicely handled. Deep breaths, my wan.

Thanks for your response Dymanic. We're not in much disagreement here.

My take is slightly different: respect for the individual regardless of his or her beliefs. As for the beliefs themselves, some are simply not worthy of respect.

Okay. I agree with this.

Again, not possible. Creationism conflicts with modern science in ways that simply cannot be resolved.

Again, I agree. However, despite the conflicts, evolution can be taught in a way that does not conflict with creationist beliefs – but not in public schools – because the key to teaching evolution without conflict is to teach creationists explanations along with it. Whether god or satan is credited with placing false evidence to confuse people or some other explanation is proferred, creationists have alternative explanations. That is way I think vouchers are a potential solution to the conflict. Vouchers allow creationists an option for educating their children in a manner that doesn't undermine their religious faith.

Like "theory", the term: "belief" is often abused, as here. Critical thinking involves learning the differences between such things as beliefs, opinions, and reasoned judgements.

I agree, though I wouldn't term my use of the word 'belief' as abuse. I was talking about how creationists teach evolution and they are going to teach evolution as a belief held by others in contrast to their own.

 

[BlackKat]

... However, despite the conflicts, evolution can be taught in a way that does not conflict with creationist beliefs – but not in public schools – because the key to teaching evolution without conflict is to teach creationists explanations along with it. Whether god or satan is credited with placing false evidence to confuse people or some other explanation is proferred, creationists have alternative explanations. That is way I think vouchers are a potential solution to the conflict. Vouchers allow creationists an option for educating their children in a manner that doesn't undermine their religious faith.
I agree, though I wouldn't term my use of the word 'belief' as abuse. I was talking about how creationists teach evolution and they are going to teach evolution as a belief held by others in contrast to their own.

The problem with vouchers is that I don't want to, nor should I have to, pay for someone's religious education. And the money spent on these vouchers would be much better spent improving the quality of facilities and supplies in under-performing public schools. If someone wants to receive a non-secular education full of falsehoods and pleated skirts that is their right. But it's not right to expect that education to be publicly funded, and in fact may be unconstitutional (in the U.S.A.).

By supplying these parents with vouchers you are giving these parents (creationist or those who just want a better education for their child and have given up on improving their public school system) an easy out.

 

[Beth]

Thanks for the bump. It made this thread much easier to find.

Beth:

Please look up 'rhetoric' in a dictionary.

It's really, really annoying when I take the time to write a reply to you, and in return I get the same things back at me that I've already heard. What do you expect me to write in response to you this time? If I wanted to repeat my position over and over again, I'd yell into an echo chamber.

Okay. I looked up rhetoric in the dictionary. Also in wikipedia. It seems to be a fancy way of saying 'persuasive argement'. That not much help to me in understanding why you don't find my answers satisfactory. I've basically given you my arguments in terms of expected outcomes and values I place on those outcomes. I'm not sure we have much more to discuss if you consider my repeated attempts to explain my position as 'baseless rhetoric'.

Just as an example, so we're perfectly clear here - this is what you wrote in reply to my 'facts as a vaccination' paragraph:

First, you have attributed a position to me that I don't hold.

I didn't attribute it to you but specifically asked if that was your position because that's how your posts came across to me. To be honest, that's still how your position comes across to me.

I don't quite frankly care whether or not evolution conflicts with the religious beliefs of a student - they could believe that the world was created by a giant llama for all I care - all I care is that students are taught the theory of evolution, that they are taught the supporting evidence for that theory, and that they are not taught a strawman version of that theory (as is common among creationists).

Hmmm. I think it rather difficult to distinguish between a 'strawman' version of evolution and a 'simplified' version of evolution suitable for children. At any rate, if they teach the theory in accordance with all curriculum requirements, that seems enough to me.

If the theory of evolution and the evidence supporting it conflicts with the religion of a student, then that is not a failing of the education system or of science - indeed, belief systems of every kind should be challenged. Challenging one's own beliefs is one of the most important aspects of science and critical thinking. Simply because teaching evolution correctly may force reality to intrude upon the child of a creationist is not a reason to stop teaching it properly. Indeed, it may well be quite the opposite.

This is a value judgement about what is most important. While I agree that challenging one's own beliefs is important, I also recognize that not everyone agrees with that POV and some people feel that it is more important to maintain a child's faith in god.

Now that I have once again explained and supported my stance, it would be nice if you could do the same. Yes, you disagree with me, but why do you disagree with me? What is the reasoning behind your position? If you think that challenging religious beliefs is a bad or dangerous thing, then tell me why you think that? Support your assertions so that I know where you're coming from.

To paraphrase Monty Python: "An argument's not just contradiction!"

I'll try once more, but I don't know if you will find it any more satisfactory this time.

I think that the teaching of evolution in public schools often has the consequence of undermining the religious faith of children whose parents belong to certain religions. I think this is wrong. I think our society ought to allow those parents and children other options to obtain an education in ways that do not conflict with their religious faith. This is a value judgement that I have made after considerable thought on the matter.

I understand that you, and most other posting on this board, would disagree. That's okay. As I said, it's a value judgement. I understand that you don't care if evolution conflicts with some people's religious beliefs. But those people care.

In fact, they care enough that they have been willing to put tremendous effort into political efforts to change our public educational system to reflect their views and have been quite successful in my state (Kansas). My opinion is that they have a reasonable cause for complaint and need for change in terms of their childen's faith being undermined. I'd rather see them teach evolution on their terms to their children than eliminate it from the curriculum for all public school children, which happened here a few years ago and could well happen again in a few more.

 

[Dumbledore]

It is more accurate to say that accepted science defends itself constantly against new data, and is replaced by a better model every time the evidence dictates. Evolution has grown and become stronger due to those challenges, and any theory that seeks to replace it will have to stand up to the exact same scrutiny.

Thanks, thats exactly what I mean by the principles of science!!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Okay. However, despite the conflicts, evolution can be taught in a way that does not conflict with creationist beliefs – but not in public schools – because the key to teaching evolution without conflict is to teach creationists explanations along with it. Whether god or satan is credited with placing false evidence to confuse people or some other explanation is proferred, creationists have alternative explanations. That is way I think vouchers are a potential solution to the conflict. Vouchers allow creationists an option for educating their children in a manner that doesn't undermine their religious faith.

Excuse me for butting in, but this is ridiculous. Teaching the evidence of evolution as a lie is not teaching in any rational sense. It is pure indoctrination. These ideas emerge from authority, with evidence considered only if it supports that authority. In other words, these are the old moments of the disputatio, the scholastic teaching that we jettisoned at the end of the Middle Ages. To force anyone to pay taxes for such a warped "eductional" idea runs counter to the purpose of public education.

 

[Dumbledore]

I think that the teaching of evolution in public schools often has the consequence of undermining the religious faith of children whose parents belong to certain religions. I think this is wrong. I think our society ought to allow those parents and children other options to obtain an education in ways that do not conflict with their religious faith. This is a value judgement that I have made after considerable thought on the matter.

I understand that you, and most other posting on this board, would disagree. That's okay. As I said, it's a value judgement. I understand that you don't care if evolution conflicts with some people's religious beliefs. But those people care.

In fact, they care enough that they have been willing to put tremendous effort into political efforts to change our public educational system to reflect their views and have been quite successful in my state (Kansas). My opinion is that they have a reasonable cause for complaint and need for change in terms of their childen's faith being undermined. I'd rather see them teach evolution on their terms to their children than eliminate it from the curriculum for all public school children, which happened here a few years ago and could well happen again in a few more.

I understand your point but don't you see the inherent danger in allowing groups to teach their religious beliefs as scientific fact in public schools. I understand that evolution threatens a religious stance these groups have chosen to take but their lack of comfort with evolution does not justify teaching religion as science especially in a public school. These people have every right to believe what they want, they do not have the right however to dictate to others what to believe or what is taught as scientific fact in our public schools.

And haven't you ever wondered why these groups want to teach their beliefs as scientific fact and not as a religious belief. Creationism and its new brother Intelligent Design are pseudosciences at best, in reality they are simply religious beliefs dressed up as science.

Ultimately these groups are going to have to deal with their lack of comfort with evolution. The rest of us have to deal with our lack of comfort with modern society and all of its disturbing ramifications. The idea that nothing should challenge your beliefs in life is a disturbing and ludicrous one! Life by definition is challenging in every way, you cannot just change everything outside of yourself that does not conform to your own personal beliefs!! This unfortunately is exactly what these religious groups want to do!! They want to be comfortable!!

 

[sphenisc]

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?

It's not a value judgement, it's an expression of personal taste.

You'd need to assign some value to the statement to make it a value judgement - good, bad, right, wrong etc. e.g. It is bad to live in a society that does not teach science and critical thinking.

 

[Beth]

Beth,

I will try to bust our debate down to the relevant disagreements.
Your apparent positions;
[1] The basic framework of evolution theory is more important than the evidence.
[2] Teaching evolution would traumatize some students.
[3] Vouchers should be used to allow some students to avoid exposure to evolution.
[4] Teaching evidence means teaching the sum total of all the evidence.
[5] Trust is implicit in the act of teaching.
[6] It is reasonable to allow evolution to be taught in a way that doesn't directly conflict with the parent's religious faith.

1 - Yes
2 - No, not quite. Teaching evolution without regard for the religious beliefs of some students can lead to a crises of faith which can be traumatic for some people.
3 - No, not quite. Vouchers are a method by which parents of certain religious faiths can control how evolution is taught, thereby avoiding the potential crisis of faith for their children.
4 - No. In fact, quite the opposite. I think the wealth of evidence for evolution makes teaching the sum total of all the evidence an unreasonable requirement to impose on teachers.
5 - Yes.
6 - Yes.

I'll address your responses to 1, 5, and 6 since they are correct rephrasings of my opinion.

Responses;
[1] You appear to be showing a gross misunderstanding what the framework of a theory is. Without the evidence there is no theory to teach.

When I say that I think understanding the theory is more important than the evidence, that does not imply that evidence is not important or should not be taught. It's a value judgement, so you need not agree, but it is one that most curriculum developers seems to share. My favorite quote to illustrate the reason I value theory more than evidence in teaching science is:

Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.
- Jules Henri Poincare

Evidence is important, but theory is more important. One can build a house with stones or wood or some other material, but one cannot build a house without an idea of what a house is.

This exact same logical fallacy was used by the Discovery Institute to claim ID was a legitimate competing theory. The same logic applies whether we are talking about Evolution, Gravity, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Plate Tectonics, etc. I suspect that these deficiencies in your own science education is what leads you to the opinion that such in depth knowledge is required to teach about the evidence.

If you want to continue to converse with me, please leave personal remarks like the ones above out of your posts. Disagreeing with you on a value judgment of the importance of theory in relationship to the importance of evidence in imparting understanding does not imply deficiencies in my educational background or a gross misunderstanding on my part.

[3] This was primarily answered in point [2]. The remaining argument I make here is the one you made this comment about;
I'm supposing that is an attempt at irony?

Sarcasm actually. I don't dispute that religious sects can prove to be dangerous to themselves or others. What I dispute is that a religious sect that separates itself from mainstream society is inherently dangerous. The Amish provide a nice example of a religious sect that chooses to live separately from the mainstream without being threatening to the rest of society in any way.

[5] There's not much to add here accept to vehemently disagree.

You are certainly allowed to disagree. As I feel the same about your opinion, I have nothing to add except that I see no evidence to support your opinion.

I can't help to wonder how as a teacher you would respond to a student like me who challenges the factual grounds of a lesson.

When I was a teacher, I always tried to respond to every question asked in class. But I did not always have the time to do so. Sometimes it was necessary to ask the student to spend time with me outside of class because their questions were simply beyond the scope of what I could cover in class.

[6] This is a fundamentally different position than sequestering those who object or have objecting parents. You avoid "conflict with the parent's religious faith" by avoiding religion.

No, unfortunately avoiding religion does not avoid the conflict. We've tried that for decades and the controversy continues.

We do fundamentally agree that religious respect is morally required.

Nice to agree on something.

You are after all just presenting evidence and not authoritatively denying someones faith the way those silly little religious pamphlets portray it. That leads us back to our little problem with [5] though doesn't it?

Yes, it does. That's the main point I've been trying to make from the beginning. The conflict regarding the teaching of evolution really boils down to one of trust.

 

[Beth]

I understand your point but don't you see the inherent danger in allowing groups to teach their religious beliefs as scientific fact in public schools.

Yes, I do. That's why I support vouchers which would allow them to take their kids out of public schools.

I understand that evolution threatens a religious stance these groups have chosen to take but their lack of comfort with evolution does not justify teaching religion as science especially in a public school. These people have every right to believe what they want, they do not have the right however to dictate to others what to believe or what is taught as scientific fact in our public schools.

They have the right to work to elect represenatives to the state school board. Those representatives have the responsibility of deciding what will (and won't) be taught as scientific fact to the school children in our state. That's what they have done in the past and what I expect them to continue to do in the future.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think that the teaching of evolution in public schools often has the consequence of undermining the religious faith of children whose parents belong to certain religions. I think this is wrong. I think our society ought to allow those parents and children other options to obtain an education in ways that do not conflict with their religious faith. This is a value judgement that I have made after considerable thought on the matter.

If the universe is in conflict with the tenets of your faith, it's not the universe that's the problem.

 

[Beth]

If the universe is in conflict with the tenets of your faith, it's not the universe that's the problem.

A good point. That's the main reason I'm an agnostic, not a believer. But it's not an argument against allowing parents to have their children taught evolution in a manner that doesn't conflict with their faith. That's something that I feel strongly about and value quite highly.

It's not that the arguments against teaching creationism are wrong; I find them insufficient. It's more important to me that parents be allowed their best shot at inculcating their kids with their own beliefs and value system. I feel that our current public education system does not do justice to those people who believe differently than the mainstream. I think vouchers are a way to correct for that injustice without unduly compromising the education of the majority. I have seen no new arguments against that position. I could spend a lot of time detailing the nuances of why I feel the way I do, but the bottom line will turn out to be a difference of value judgements in the importance of what I said above. My position is the same whether we are talking about evolution, sex education, science education, moral education, language education, whatever. I think parents are the party most likely to have the child's best interests at heart and I support whatever their decision is within very wide limits. And yes, I do have limits. There is no need to assume that I fully endorse the indoctrination of children into religious killing machines. I've heard that strawman argument far too many times in the past.

Look, I'm sorry, but I'm tired of being the only one arguing this position. I've posted my position as succinctly as I can (thanks PixyMixa for the inspiration) but I'm not going to post any more responses on this thread. I received some bad news about my father's health this past week-end and I don't feel much like arguing about this anymore. Although it's been a nice distraction for me today. Thanks everyone for your time and consideration in discussing this with me.

 

[JJM]

{snip} I received some bad news about my father's health this past week-end and I don't feel much like arguing about this anymore. Although it's been a nice distraction for me today. Thanks everyone for your time and consideration in discussing this with me.

I am sure I speak for everyone in hoping things work out well for you.

 

[my_wan]

Welcome back Beth. This debate has reached a point where not much else can be said. There remains one point of curiosity that I would appreciate some help in understanding.

This exact same logical fallacy was used by the Discovery Institute to claim ID was a legitimate competing theory. The same logic applies whether we are talking about Evolution, Gravity, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Plate Tectonics, etc. I suspect that these deficiencies in your own science education is what leads you to the opinion that such in depth knowledge is required to teach about the evidence.

If you want to continue to converse with me, please leave personal remarks like the ones above out of your posts. Disagreeing with you on a value judgment of the importance of theory in relationship to the importance of evidence in imparting understanding does not imply deficiencies in my educational background or a gross misunderstanding on my part.

I don't understand in what way I got personal that you would give a warning like that. First I qualified it all with "I suspect". Furthermore, the statement itself implicitly assumed you have "in depth knowledge". My argument was a purely structural one that directly related to the structural argument that the Discovery Institute used and lost. Yet this claim and/or perception of personal attack was used to claim the one substantiative argument was itself a personal attack also. A substantiative debate cannot be conducted in an environment where an attempt to understand the person you are debating is defined as a personal attack, thereby claiming the substantiative claim itself is personal and vacuous.

I see a lot of improper attacks here and am embarrassed when my own post even get close to that. The apparent sensitivity is so extreme here that I am completely dumbfounded. I don't even understand how it's possible to comprehend certain logical constructs under those precepts. Out of curiosity and for my own understanding I would appreciate an explanation. As it would be purely an explanation of perspective it would not be a matter for debate.

 

[Mobyseven]

Thanks for the bump. It made this thread much easier to find.

No problem.

Okay. I looked up rhetoric in the dictionary. Also in wikipedia. It seems to be a fancy way of saying 'persuasive argement'. That not much help to me in understanding why you don't find my answers satisfactory. I've basically given you my arguments in terms of expected outcomes and values I place on those outcomes. I'm not sure we have much more to discuss if you consider my repeated attempts to explain my position as 'baseless rhetoric'.

Noun

rhetoric (uncountable)

1. The art of using language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade.
2. Meaningless language with an exaggerated style intended to impress.

Didn't look very far, did you?

Look, the reason rhetoric doesn't impress me is because it is unsupported by evidence or logic. Saying, "Do you believe in the tooth fairy? I don't," is rhetoric. Saying, "I don't believe in the tooth fairy, because...[argument]," is a contention supported by reasoned argument. Rhetorical devices are a cheap way of weaseling out of clearly stating one's contention, and the reasoning behind that contention.

I didn't attribute it to you but specifically asked if that was your position because that's how your posts came across to me. To be honest, that's still how your position comes across to me.

Then I can only assume you didn't read a word I wrote.

Hmmm. I think it rather difficult to distinguish between a 'strawman' version of evolution and a 'simplified' version of evolution suitable for children. At any rate, if they teach the theory in accordance with all curriculum requirements, that seems enough to me.

Er...I think it is very easy to differentiate between a strawman version of evolution and a simplified version of evolution.

For example, if it is taught that humans and apes have a common ancestor, that's simplified. If it is taught that humans evolved from apes, that's a strawman. If it is taught that the eye is very complex, and that there are a number of theories as to how it may have evolved in humans, that's a simplification. If it is taught that Darwin thought the eye was too complex to have evolved, that's a strawman. And so on.

It really isn't that hard to differentiate between a simplification and a strawman.

This is a value judgement about what is most important. While I agree that challenging one's own beliefs is important, I also recognize that not everyone agrees with that POV and some people feel that it is more important to maintain a child's faith in god.

So? Just because people think it doesn't make it correct, Beth. If a person thought that it was 'right' to murder other people, would you respect their beliefs or their right to believe?

The most important question here is: What works? What will stand up to scrutiny? What, if we examine it time and time again, will produce reliable results that we can base our lives, our technology, and the advance of the human race upon?

It turns out that critical thinking and science wins out over religion every time. Science gave us plate techtonics. Science gave us the heliocentric model of the solar system. Science gave us the germ theory of disease. Science gave us the internal combustion engine. Science gave us computers, calculators and combine harvesters. Science gave us Newtonian Mechanics, and later Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And science gave us evolution.

Why, why, would you throw out science - science that has time and time again proven its worth - for the sake of religious dogma, dogma that has absolutely no applicability to the real world?

I'll try once more, but I don't know if you will find it any more satisfactory this time.

I think that the teaching of evolution in public schools often has the consequence of undermining the religious faith of children whose parents belong to certain religions. I think this is wrong. I think our society ought to allow those parents and children other options to obtain an education in ways that do not conflict with their religious faith. This is a value judgement that I have made after considerable thought on the matter.

Why in the name of Ed do you always stop at this point of the discussion?

I've already read your posts where you tell me that, "...the teaching of evolution in public schools often has the consequence of undermining the religious faith of children whose parents belong to certain religions." I've already heard you tell me that, "[You] think this is wrong." I've heard your opinion that, "...our society ought to allow those parents and children other options to obtain an education in ways that do not conflict with their religious faith."

Quite frankly, I'm sick to death of hearing you say these things. What you don't seem to understand is that these are not reasons, they are positions, contentions, conclusions - call it what you will, they are the stance you are taking but they are not reasons unto themeselves!

You said, "This is a value judgement that I have made after considerable thought on the matter." Good for you. What I'm asking you to do is articulate those thoughts. Give us the reasons that support your contentions. In a nutshell - explain to us the "considerable thoughts" you had on this matter that led you to this conclusion! Without such reason, your posts will remain, as they have been, baseless rhetoric - worthy of any politician to be sure, but incredibly inadequate for any skeptic worth their salt.

I understand that you, and most other posting on this board, would disagree. That's okay. As I said, it's a value judgement. I understand that you don't care if evolution conflicts with some people's religious beliefs. But those people care.

So what if they care? Caring doesn't make creationism right, and caring doesn't grant one the right to espouse their frankly anti-scientific notions as science, while deriding true science - the science that likely has enabled many of them to live long enough to complain in the first place!

In fact, they care enough that they have been willing to put tremendous effort into political efforts to change our public educational system to reflect their views and have been quite successful in my state (Kansas). My opinion is that they have a reasonable cause for complaint and need for change in terms of their childen's faith being undermined. I'd rather see them teach evolution on their terms to their children than eliminate it from the curriculum for all public school children, which happened here a few years ago and could well happen again in a few more.

Once again: So what if they care? What if a majority of people wished to legalise heroin? Or to legalise murder? Would you say, "Well, they care enough to try and change the law. We should leave them alone." Or would you attempt to prevent them from teaching damaging ideas to the children in your state? 'Caring' is not enough to justify change in educational curreculum. One also has to be correct.

You say that they, "...have a reasonable cause for complaint and need for change in terms of their childen's faith being undermined." What is your reasoning behind this statement. Personally I don't feel that science (that has been shown time and time again to provide real, measureable results) should be undermined in the education system just so that religion (which has not produced such results) is not undermined.

You also say that you would rather them teach it on their terms than eliminate it from the curreculum altogether. I do not know your reasons for this, but, aside from being a false dilemma (as I believe the best course of action would be to, oh, I don't know - teach the damn theory properly) I disagree with your statement.

'Teaching evolution on their terms' is in fact not teaching evolution at all. It is instead teaching a subject entirely foreign to evolution, where humans evolved from apes and where eyes are too complex to evolve. These claims are not created wholecloth by me - they are the 'theory of evolution' that creationists argue about every day, despite the fact that such a 'theory' is foreign to anyone who has even a basic knowledge of biology.

I would far prefer that evolution be omitted entirely from the school curreculum than for it to be taught on creationist terms. It is very hard to 'unlearn' what has been learnt, and if someone has grown up believing that evolution is something that it patently is not, it will be very difficult to convince them otherwise. If, however, someone has grown up with no knowledge of the theory of evolution, then it may be far easier to challenge any notions they may have had about how different species arose - while they may have been indoctrinated with the creation hypothesis (if it can even be called that) they have not been indoctrinated with a false idea of what evolution is about, and thus may be more open to the idea than someone who has been taught a patently wrong version of evolution.

We are all entitled to our opinions, Beth, but unless you can justify your opinions there is no reason that anyone should take them seriously.

 

[Dumbledore]

They have the right to work to elect represenatives to the state school board. Those representatives have the responsibility of deciding what will (and won't) be taught as scientific fact to the school children in our state. That's what they have done in the past and what I expect them to continue to do in the future.

While they certainly do have a right to representatives they do not have the right to deem what is and is not scientific fact. This is the crux of the problem. Creationist want to represent their pseudoscience as scientific fact. It is not, nor will it ever be, it does not follow scientific principles. This is the inherent danger I was talk about, if you don't want learn evolution thats fine, but you do not get to hold up your beliefs as scientific fact, that just propaganda!

Besides religion being taught as science we are forgetting the basic tenet of our country, the separation of church and state. Religion has no place in the class room period! If you want to learn about religion and creationism go to church, if you want to learn scientific fact go to school. If you don't want to learn about evolution that is fine, though I wonder how you will understand biology and other subject directly tied to and relying on evolution, but you do not get to teach religion as scientific fact in the classroom. It goes against the very foundations of our country!!

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, I do. That's why I support vouchers which would allow them to take their kids out of public schools.

I support public education.

The following is an argument by absurdity.

Posit a religious group which says that the 'races' of humans were created by God and that God intended for them to have separate existences. A rather easy conclusion from creationism. God created black people, god created white people. The assumption(for this sect) is that God does not want black people and white people to have babies together and that cultural beliefs should be held separate and that exposure to other cultures might dilute the original culture.

Further posit that this sect beliefs that God wants cultures to stay the way they are, that white and black cultures should remain separate.

So in this situation we have a religious sect which beliefs in separation of the races.
They are posited as not wanting white people to marry black people.
They don't want white people taught the cultural values of another culture.
They don't want white people to associate with black people.

So Beth?

In this situation you are saying that public monies should be used to allow these people to teach their children that segregation is good and that the public monies should be used to support the sect in their discriminatory way of life to prevent trauma based upon religious belief?

That is absurd.

No public money for religious schools!

They have the right to work to elect represenatives to the state school board. Those representatives have the responsibility of deciding what will (and won't) be taught as scientific fact to the school children in our state. That's what they have done in the past and what I expect them to continue to do in the future.

And so they have the right to try and get school boards that allow for segregation?