Creation education

[juliod]

Should there be a law prohibiting the teaching of creationism to children?

Obviously, the usual arguement against this is based on religious freedom. And I have always strongly supported the freedom of all people to believe what they want.

But recently I have been having trouble with this argument. Mainly it is because religious people, as a whole, do not equally support freedom for others, including we atheists. They are quite happy to force the teaching of religious doctrine onto other people's children.

Then there is the issue of protecting children from harm. There are two parts to this. One is that allowing children to be taught things that are demonstrably false is harmful. The other is that by teaching children an anti-science doctrine you cripple them in the modern high-tech job market, another form of harm.

This applies to the nation too. It is clear today that first-world countries like the US depend on technology jobs to maintain their positions. We are harming ourselves by allowing children to be taught superstition, mysticism, or other forms of irrationalism.

DanZ

[Nyril]

Should there be a law prohibiting the teaching of creationism to children?

No. I learned the Earth centric model of the Universe to have a good laugh at it, it could serve well in context.

Obviously, the usual arguement against this is based on religious freedom. And I have always strongly supported the freedom of all people to believe what they want.

I support it too. However when they try and push it on other people, that's where I draw the line.

[mujahid263]

I don't think it should be taught, in regards to US law. But if evolution is taught, many people would find that contradictory to religon. In this case they should be allowed to skip classes teaching evolution and have a replacement assignment. Although learning the Darwinian theory would be good for some religous people as well if they decide to go and debate it, they'll have some knowledge on it from school.

[otseng]

We have covered the teaching of creationism pretty in-depth from various angles in the following threads:

Should Creationism be taught in classrooms?
Teaching of creationism and its religous overtones
How can we teach creationism scientifically?

[juliod]

I think I wasn't clear enough in my opening post. I am not asking for a debate on whether or not to teach creationism in school. I am asking whether there should be a legal prohibition on teaching creationism to children at all.

In other words, should creationists be prohibited from teaching creationism to their own children (as well as others)? Should churches be prohibited from teaching creation in classes or services where children are present?

I think it is something we should consider in order to protect children and society.

DanZ

[micatala]

Juliod's specific question, to me, is part of a larger question.

How should we decide what is legitimate to include in a school curriculum?

I assume your query would apply to both public and private schools, as it is for the most part private schools that would be teaching or including creationism in the curriculum.

I agree, we all have a stake in what U.S. children learn in school. It affects our society, it affects our economy, it affects our politics.

I also agree with what I think Juliod's opinion would be. Namely, it would be better for everyone if no one was taught creationism, at least that no one is taught to BELIEVE IN creationism. Nyril notes that it might be instructive to learn the details of an erroneous view, even if only for historical purposes or to understand the thought processes by which people come to hold and defend erroneous views (well, yes and the entertainment value ).

This is different than what goes on in a lot of private schools or home school situations where children are taught about creationism and that they should believe in it, yay, even that it is evil to believe the contrary (including evolution).

However, I have great, great reluctance in "outlawing" creationism as a subject. Partly, because I think this is pretty heavy-handed, partly because I think it would not work and in fact would make the problem worse, and partly because it doesn't address the larger question I raise. Singling out creationism for 'special treatment' would be in some sense similar to the creationists singling out evolution (and a few other specialized topics related to evolution and Genesis) for attack, while accepting the vast majority of what modern science says.

[juliod]

Singling out creationism for 'special treatment' would be in some sense similar to the creationists singling out evolution (and a few other specialized topics related to evolution and Genesis) for attack, while accepting the vast majority of what modern science says.

But creationism already gets "special treatment". If it got ordinary treatment then it would be taught-as-false in school just like the divine-right of kings and the flat earth in the Age of Discovery.

Creationism is known to be false, but it is controversial to state that. We have, in fact, special arrangements in our society to avoid confronting creationists with the falsity of their beliefs.

If adults want to believe it, then fine. I have nothing to say about that. But we have a duty to protect the children. Children have no say in what religion they are brought up in, and it can effect their whole lives.

In a large part, our children are dependant on a high-tech future. Depriving them of an upbringing in rationalism is another form of neglect, if not outright abuse.

DanZ

[otseng]

Quite honestly, it is hard to take this thread seriously. But, I will make an attempt to do so.

Should there be a law prohibiting the teaching of creationism to children?

No.

Then there is the issue of protecting children from harm.

How is teaching creationism harmful?

The other is that by teaching children an anti-science doctrine you cripple them in the modern high-tech job market, another form of harm.

That's quite a stretch. I believe in Creationism and it has not crippled me working in the modern high-tech job market.

We are harming ourselves by allowing children to be taught superstition, mysticism, or other forms of irrationalism.

How is teaching creation synonymous with teaching "superstition, mysticism, or other forms of irrationalism"?

In other words, should creationists be prohibited from teaching creationism to their own children (as well as others)?

Most decidedly no.

Creationism is known to be false, but it is controversial to state that.

An unsupported statement. How is it known to be false?

Depriving them of an upbringing in rationalism is another form of neglect, if not outright abuse.

Instead of making these wild assertions, you need to make a case to support your statements. How is teaching creationism "depriving them of an upbringing in rationalism"?

[ST88]

I think I wasn't clear enough in my opening post. I am not asking for a debate on whether or not to teach creationism in school. I am asking whether there should be a legal prohibition on teaching creationism to children at all.

In other words, should creationists be prohibited from teaching creationism to their own children (as well as others)? Should churches be prohibited from teaching creation in classes or services where children are present?

Good luck getting very far with this. There should be very little prohibition on anything that parents teach their children. We might as well ban them from teaching about Santa Claus. I don't think this is a viable idea nor is it a particularly good idea. The whole debate surrounding Creationism in the Classroom revolves around the idea that the Classroom is a government-supported area. No one is saying that Creationism should be stamped out like smallpox, just that it shouldn't be taught to students by government employees.

[Logetic]

juliod's post is the kind of writing that is amazing to see in a modern world. Every atheist atrocity ever committed (and they number towards the billions murdered), start with a single person holding that thought process.

If a non-predjudiced and unbigoted mind will examine the Gospels, you see freedom of choice "for individual thought," from the person all Christians worship as God.

Anyone that would force their views on others - especially the comical view of evolution as a means of cosmic origin - should be purchased the biggest house on the street. Because, they are the kind of person that you want to be able to see at all times.

Why is it that self-labeled "freethinkers" i.e., atheists, only have one view of everything?

Isn't that the definition of a closed mind?

I'm not afraid of books about the Big Bad Wolf or Sleeping Beauty being read and taught in my children's school. And if they want to read other fairy tales by Chucky Darwin, that should be allowed as well. Just as long as empirical science can be given a voice as well.

Why are evolutionists so frightened by the creation "myth" being found in public schools? Doesn't "public" include all tax payers? I'm a (Boo!) Christian and my W-2 sure shows I pay tax!