Arkansas inflicts child abuse on its school children

[Shadow Wolf]

Click bait title, eh.

I wonder if the legislators imagined how many other
theories of the Earth's creation could be taught?

6 wacky creation myths around the world - Matador Network
Excerpted....
Chinese Creation Myth: Yet Another Egg?

Pan Gu! Pan Gu!

Heaven and Earth were together at the beginning of time, according to this myth. They were hanging out in a cloud that was, you guessed it, egg shaped.

But chaos was the name of the game for the universe at that time, and a giant named Pan Gu grew in the middle of it. Only took him 18,000 years of sleeping and developing in the egg until one day, he awoke and stretched. Boom, there went the egg.

The lighter egg goo, or elements if you want a nicer word, became the sky and heaven, and the heavier, yolkey- stuff became Earth. Pan Gu was a bit tense that the two might combine again, so he decided to do his part and hold the heavens on his head and the Earth underneath his feet.

Then he continued to grow for a whole other 18,000 years, until finally he felt satisfied when the two were a good 30,000 miles apart. Soon after, he died.

From his death, the Earth was bequeathed some new stuff – his arms and legs became the directions NSEW and the mountains; his blood the rivers; his sweat, the rain and dew. His voice was now thunder, and his minty-free breath, the wind. All elements of land and water came from his body, with his left eye becoming the sun, and his right eye, the moon.

It's a newer idea here (as America is slow to catch on to such things), but being neglectful of a child's education and depriving them is something many, many people are raising awareness of.
And in this regard, it is punishing the children as they will be denied college admissions, require remedial coursework, and be set off to a slow start in life when they can't get much more than low-wage entry level jobs.
And if they do this, they will have their way in other areas as well. Such as teens being taught condoms don't work. We aren't talking about being pushed too hard, we're talking about teaching kids a religious myth rather than actual science and the ways that will set them behind. And if my schooling is any indication, history will be very skewed and math will be of so little importance that instead of learning concepts of algebra in middle school I was counting change and doing long division (things I had already done in public school).

When I was in school I learned evolution, creationism, creation (not the same thing) and even something about life coming from other planets. All of those were presented as theories and the teachers left it up to us to make up our minds when we got older and had a better understanding of all that.
Didn't hurt me a bit, on the contrary, it was good to know.

Creationism has no business being in a science class. It is a religious mytho that fails to pass scientific criteria (such as the ability to be falsified).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I read the quoted law.
Calling it "child abuse" is mischievous.
They just want to teach what they believe,
but the OP doesn't believe. It's wrong for
a different reason from abuse.

Is teaching children any religion also child abuse?
They're all loopy & unscientific after all.

And you like to claim context is important!!!!

In this particular case, and it says it in the law itself, the context is SCIENCE CLASS. Creationism is not science. You can teach how to toast marshmallows in English class, but it won't do a frickin' thing to help the kids learn the subject matter the class is intended for.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What's next?
The Onion | Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Yes, and the beauty of it, is that you can then go on to learn how to fly! It's easy, if you start from "Intelligent Falling" Theory -- you just aim your fall at the earth, and then miss!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think it's more useful to call it what it is, ie, teaching
religious myths as science, rather than "child abuse".

So you don't find it abusive to deliberately teach children to be wrong about something that they may very well need later in life? Especially as we depend, more and more, and will depend even more, in future -- on science.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

how does the curriculum differ .. My hunch is that is that it would have to be a very short class , since wouldn't they nullify the need for a section on different stages which lasted millions of years each

 

[PruePhillip]

Click bait title, eh.

I wonder if the legislators imagined how many other
theories of the Earth's creation could be taught?

6 wacky creation myths around the world - Matador Network
Excerpted....
Chinese Creation Myth: Yet Another Egg?

Pan Gu! Pan Gu!

Heaven and Earth were together at the beginning of time, according to this myth. They were hanging out in a cloud that was, you guessed it, egg shaped.

But chaos was the name of the game for the universe at that time, and a giant named Pan Gu grew in the middle of it. Only took him 18,000 years of sleeping and developing in the egg until one day, he awoke and stretched. Boom, there went the egg.

The lighter egg goo, or elements if you want a nicer word, became the sky and heaven, and the heavier, yolkey- stuff became Earth. Pan Gu was a bit tense that the two might combine again, so he decided to do his part and hold the heavens on his head and the Earth underneath his feet.

Then he continued to grow for a whole other 18,000 years, until finally he felt satisfied when the two were a good 30,000 miles apart. Soon after, he died.

From his death, the Earth was bequeathed some new stuff – his arms and legs became the directions NSEW and the mountains; his blood the rivers; his sweat, the rain and dew. His voice was now thunder, and his minty-free breath, the wind. All elements of land and water came from his body, with his left eye becoming the sun, and his right eye, the moon.

First account in Genesis (there being two)
God created the heavens
and the earth
and the earth a darkened ocean planet, sterile
and the skies opened
and the continents rose
and life appeared first on land
and then in the sea
and then man.

Which accords with science.

 

[Revoltingest]

As put on by the state school board yes. It's abuse.

By this standard, all churches are child abusers.
(Except for some Unitarians.)
Jews, Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons, Hindus,
etc, etc...all are child abusers by reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it's not child abuse, it is at least a scam. Calling it "education" is mischievous.

Scams have intent to defraud.
These people actually believe this stuff.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Arkansas State House Republicans Pass Bill Allowing Creationism in Science Class

These children will have a lot of catching up to do when they leave school and join to the real world.

I always thought it was the schools' job to teach facts. Silly me.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a newer idea here (as America is slow to catch on to such things), but being neglectful of a child's education and depriving them is something many, many people are raising awareness of.
And in this regard, it is punishing the children as they will be denied college admissions, require remedial coursework, and be set off to a slow start in life when they can't get much more than low-wage entry level jobs.
And if they do this, they will have their way in other areas as well. Such as teens being taught condoms don't work. We aren't talking about being pushed too hard, we're talking about teaching kids a religious myth rather than actual science and the ways that will set them behind. And if my schooling is any indication, history will be very skewed and math will be of so little importance that instead of learning concepts of algebra in middle school I was counting change and doing long division (things I had already done in public school).

Creationism has no business being in a science class. It is a religious mytho that fails to pass scientific criteria (such as the ability to be falsified).

Are you willing to call every parent who teaches their
child such religious beliefs a "child abuser"?

 

[Revoltingest]

And you like to claim context is important!!!!

I still do.

In this particular case, and it says it in the law itself, the context is SCIENCE CLASS. Creationism is not science. You can teach how to toast marshmallows in English class, but it won't do a frickin' thing to help the kids learn the subject matter the class is intended for.

I object to the law.
And to calling it "child abuse".
If you disagree than your IQ is well below 70 (mine on a good day).

 

[Revoltingest]

So you don't find it abusive to deliberately teach children to be wrong about something that they may very well need later in life? Especially as we depend, more and more, and will depend even more, in future -- on science.

It seems that you misunderstand these legislators.
They don't intend to mislead.
They actually believe this stuff to be true.
I recommend being a wee bit more tolerant of believers.
Don't automatically presume evil intent.

 

[Revoltingest]

First account in Genesis (there being two)
God created the heavens
and the earth
and the earth a darkened ocean planet, sterile
and the skies opened
and the continents rose
and life appeared first on land
and then in the sea
and then man.

Which accords with science.

I've no problem with that approach, ie, to comport with science.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you willing to call every parent who teaches their
child such religious beliefs a "child abuser"?

If they inhibit the schools from providing a proper education and ill preparing them for life as adults, then yes.
Such as, colleges have already thrown their weight and made threats to require students take remedial courses if they graduate from a Creationist state. We can see the ill effects on society and individuals from their abstinence only lunacy.
Parents don't have to teach it, but somebody does.

 

[Revoltingest]

If they inhibit the schools from providing a proper education and ill preparing them for life as adults, then yes.
Such as, colleges have already thrown their weight and made threats to require students take remedial courses if they graduate from a Creationist state. We can see the ill effects on society and individuals from their abstinence only lunacy.
Parents don't have to teach it, but somebody does.

Believing in creationism is highly unlikely to interfere with
anyone's life. I wonder....Rev Rick, former poster here,
taught his kids to believe in creationism, & to disbelieve
in evolution. Would you call him a child abuser?

I think such histrionics do a dis-service to science advocacy.
Essentially, you're branding all such believers teaching their
own children their faith "child abuser".
It makes for a hostile climate, which entrenches attitudes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Believing in creationism is highly unlikely to interfere with
anyone's life. I wonder....Rev Rick, former poster here,
taught his kids to believe in creationism, & to disbelieve
in evolution. Would you call him a child abuser?

I think such histrionics do a dis-service to science advocacy.
Essentially, you're branding all such believers teaching their
own children their faith "child abuser".
It makes for a hostile climate, which entrenches attitudes.

Setting your kids up for failure is abuse. And when they prevent the schools from doing their jobs, such as how they are impeding the schools in the OP article, it does set children (and not just theirs) up for failure. They are being set up to be behind. And we have the studies and data to point where, and know it also is something we all pay for, such as more unwanted and unplanned pregnancies adding to the welfare payouts because a couples of kids were taught condoms don't work. We all pay for it because Americans are not being well enough educated. We all pay for it, because instead of leading the world as we once did we get to be the global embarrassment who teaches religious creation myths as a scientific fact.
And the children also pay for it. Because ultimately such "parent's strictly first" approach do--at many times--violate the autonomy of the child with a legal assumption the parent gets total control over their kids. Yoder v Wisconsin, for example, is a tragedy. Justice Douglas, the sole dissenter of the travesty, said this:

I agree with the Court that the religious scruples of the Amish are opposed to the education of their children beyond the grade schools, yet I disagree with the Court's conclusion that the matter is within the dispensation of parents alone. The Court's analysis assumes that the only interests at stake in the case are those of the Amish parents on the one hand, and those of the State on the other. The difficulty with this approach is that, despite the Court's claim, the parents are seeking to vindicate not only their own free exercise claims, but also those of their high-school-age children ...

On this important and vital matter of education, I think the children should be entitled to be heard. While the parents, absent dissent, normally speak for the entire family, the education of the child is a matter on which the child will often have decided views. He may want to be a pianist or an astronaut or an oceanographer. To do so he will have to break from the Amish tradition.

It is the future of the students, not the future of the parents, that is imperiled by today's decision. If a parent keeps his child out of school beyond the grade school, then the child will be forever barred from entry into the new and amazing world of diversity that we have today. The child may decide that that is the preferred course, or he may rebel. It is the student's judgment, not his parents', that is essential if we are to give full meaning to what we have said about the Bill of Rights and of the right of students to be masters of their own destiny. If he is harnessed to the Amish way of life by those in authority over him and if his education is truncated, his entire life may be stunted and deformed. The child, therefore, should be given an opportunity to be heard before the State gives the exemption which we honor today.

 

[Revoltingest]

Setting your kids up for failure is abuse.

They're not doing that.

Care to answer the question?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It seems that you misunderstand these legislators.
They don't intend to mislead.
They actually believe this stuff to be true.
I recommend being a wee bit more tolerant of believers.
Don't automatically presume evil intent.

Okay, so long as one doesn't intend to do harm, whatever they believe is okay to pass on to their kids. The link refers to a Canadian story, just 3 1/2 years ago, about a 14 year old JW girl that Canadian courts had to force to take treatments (involving blood products) for Hodgkin's Lymphoma. She has been taught that she must not, thus putting her life in danger.

I have no doubt that her parents and community had no intent to mislead her either. But I also contend that she was misled. And I also contend that people have died from having been just as misled.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jehovahs-witness-blood-transfusion-1.4299992

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, so long as one doesn't intend to do harm, whatever they believe is okay to pass on to their kids. The link refers to a Canadian story, just 3 1/2 years ago, about a 14 year old JW girl that Canadian courts had to force to take treatments (involving blood products) for Hodgkin's Lymphoma. She has been taught that she must not, thus putting her life in danger.

Of course, this is very different from believing in loopy
nicht eimmal falsch sky fairy myths. It's life & death.

I have no doubt that her parents and community had no intent to mislead her either. But I also contend that she was misled. And I also contend that people have died from having been just as misled.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jehovahs-witness-blood-transfusion-1.4299992

Are you equating deadly practices with belief in creationism?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They're not doing that.

Care to answer the question?

I provided it. Such as kids being denied what they want out of life because their parent's rights were considered more important, and where higher education has thrown it's weight to keep creationism out.
And it also violates Aguillard v Edwards. And as I also pointed out, it effects other people's kids as well. Not just their own. So they may not damn their own kid to a life of food service jobs, but they are impeding the children of other families who want to be biologists and geneticists. And any of those required to take remedial courses regardless the major.