Arkansas inflicts child abuse on its school children

[Revoltingest]

I don't see how you can conclude that when I'm explicitly singling out teaching religious superstitious myths as science.

Does the pastor in church when reading from the bible claim that he is teaching science?
I don't think so. So no.

Some thoughts....

- The law doesn't say teach creationism (of the Earth) "instead
of science". It only allows teaching this. There's no "instead".

- Far & away most religious leaders proffer religious myths
as reality in the material world. This is an affront...a challenge
to science, albeit avoiding invocation of the word itself.

- "Child abuse" as the term is normally used....
Child Abuse
Excerpted....
Child abuse has been defined as an act, or failure to act, on the
part of a parent or caretaker that results in the death, serious
physical or emotional harm, Sexual Abuse, or exploitation of a
child, or which places the child in an imminent risk of serious
harm (42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g).

- No one has made the case that a child who is taught a
religious myth of Earth's creation is harmed to the extent
it's become "child abuse".

 

[Twilight Hue]

Would make more sense if the Genesis was included within an ancient literature class.

They actually do that. I remember the Bible being used in teaching ancient literature.

 

[Heyo]

Creation theory is as scientifically supported as the theory that children are brought by storks. I wonder what parents would think if the biology teacher asks children to make up their mind between embryology and storks. I would remove my kid from school asap.

Scientific knowledge is not something that is left to opinions.

Ciao

- viole

There is a real, measurable, significant correlation between stork populations in an area and fertility rates.
It is therefore unfair to the stork hypothesis to compare it to YEC.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is that you you were talking about?

Correspondence bias is a 'COGNITIVE DISSONANCE'. Maybe brother you are today happy to jump to insult someone to boost your adrenaline or something so you are too quick to do that.

Have a little more character. Have a good day if you can. Cheers.

I think you may be confusing cognitive dissonance with cognitive bias.

List of cognitive biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

 

[Heyo]

That seems contradictory.
Do you claim that creationism advocates really don't believe it?
Or that "defraud" includes unintentional misleading?

Neither. I don't know if they really believe in YEC or even just the possibility that it may be right but because I don't know (and can't know) I accept their word on it.
In short, yes, they believe in YEC.
So the fraud isn't in unintentionally misleading.
The fraud is in the illegality of allowing the teaching of YEC in science class. The arrogance of believing to be right - and therefore having the right to illegally push such a law, is what makes it a fraud.
The Arkansas lawmakers know, or should know, about Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They should know that their bill is illegal and unpopular outside the bible belt. They do it anyway and their conviction to be right motivates them. The result will be a lawsuit that the public has to pay for. Iow, they are defrauding you of your tax$$.

 

[Heyo]

None of this justifies the harsh claim that teaching
kids creationism rises to the level of "child abuse",
which is the kind of crime necessitating the justice
system to arrest, try, convict, & imprison the offender.

The Dover school board was tried, convicted and made to pay $1M for the lawsuit.

 

[Revoltingest]

Neither. I don't know if they really believe in YEC or even just the possibility that it may be right but because I don't know (and can't know) I accept their word on it.
In short, yes, they believe in YEC.
So the fraud isn't in unintentionally misleading.

Then it's not fraud.
Ref...
Definition of fraud | Dictionary.com

The fraud is in the illegality of allowing the teaching of YEC in science class. The arrogance of believing to be right - and therefore having the right to illegally push such a law, is what makes it a fraud.
The Arkansas lawmakers know, or should know, about Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They should know that their bill is illegal and unpopular outside the bible belt. They do it anyway and their conviction to be right motivates them. The result will be a lawsuit that the public has to pay for. Iow, they are defrauding you of your tax$$.

To be clear to all....
I oppose teaching these religious myths in public schools.
It's illegal & a waste of resources.
I object only to mischaracterizing it as "child abuse".

 

[Revoltingest]

The Dover school board was tried, convicted and made to pay $1M for the lawsuit.

To clarify my position all....
I oppose teaching these religious myths in public schools.
It's illegal & a waste of resources.
I object only to mischaracterizing it as "child abuse".

 

[Windwalker]

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.

If they taught those in a science class, then it wasn't really a science class.

 

[Heyo]

This is different from belief in something "nicht einmal falsch"
& benign. To teach kids to commit crimes is orders of magnitude
worse. It could qualify as "child abuse".
Are you saying they're equivalent scenarios?

They are equivalent in their intention. Both are wrong in the public opinion.
I can teach a child that there is a political idea named anarchism in which property is thought to be theft and that that is not what is OK in a capitalist and democratic society.
You can teach children that there is an ancient creation myth that states that the earth is only 6000 years old and that that is not what current scientific consensus is - and therefore has nothing to do with science and should not be taught in science class.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are equivalent in their intention.

I disagree.
One is to foment crime.
The other is to teach a religious myth that causes no crime or real harm.

You can teach children that there is an ancient creation myth that states that the earth is only 6000 years old and that that is not what current scientific consensus is - and therefore has nothing to do with science and should not be taught in science class.

I agree with this.

I get the impression that several posters here
believe I approve of teaching religion as science.
I do not.
I never have.
I never will.
I oppose teaching any religion in public schools.
It's illegal (a violation of the 1st Amendment).
I am an atheist. I find every religion to be bunk.
I object only to mischievous use of "child abuse".
I oppose all actual child abuse.

I wonder if this is clear?
I could go on if need be.

 

[Heyo]

To clarify my position all....
I oppose teaching these religious myths in public schools.
It's illegal & a waste of resources.
I object only to mischaracterizing it as "child abuse".

I got that. And I can see that "child abuse" is a buzz word and an exaggeration and possibly degrading the value of the term.
But it also isn't as benign as you make it to be. When the "easy fix" has to be a year long prep class to re-educate a student to make her/him fit for university, it is stealing a year from the students life. And the alternative is probably even worse. A life long being uninformed and easy target of other science deniers like anti-vaxxers or snakeessential oil tradesmen is also not the best you can do for a student.

So, in conclusion, I don't insist on "child abuse", I just insist that it's a severe crime with long lasting and reaching ramifications.

 

[Revoltingest]

I got that. And I can see that "child abuse" is a buzz word and an exaggeration and possibly degrading the value of the term.
But it also isn't as benign as you make it to be. When the "easy fix" has to be a year long prep class to re-educate a student to make her/him fit for university, it is stealing a year from the students life. And the alternative is probably even worse. A life long being uninformed and easy target of other science deniers like anti-vaxxers or snakeessential oil tradesmen is also not the best you can do for a student.

So, in conclusion, I don't insist on "child abuse", I just insist that it's a severe crime with long lasting and reaching ramifications.

A year lost because of a religious Earth creation myth?
I do not buy it. If they're taught math & sciences,
the myth wouldn't even take hold for many.
Others could unlearn it in minutes if the need arises.

 

[Heyo]

A year lost because of a religious Earth creation myth?
I do not buy it. If they're taught math & sciences,
the myth wouldn't even take hold for many.
Others could unlearn it in minutes if the need arises.

Have you ever tried to educate a YEC? It is really hard work and not a thing of a few minutes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Have you ever tried to educate a YEC? It is really hard work and not a thing of a few minutes.

I have engaged many YECs in discussion.
But I don't find it plausible that the proposed
law will create many such firm believers.
It comes from family & church indoctrination.

 

[Heyo]

I have engaged many YECs in discussion.
But I don't find it plausible that the proposed
law will create many such firm believers.
It comes from family & church indoctrination.

Yep, and school is often the only counterweight to that indoctrination for children. Allowing just the slightest infringement on that counterweight is depriving children of the last alternative source of learning. It will cement the religious indoctrination from outside school with indoctrination inside schools when the teacher decides so. (And it already is a fact in many Southern schools, the law is just making it legal.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep, and school is often the only counterweight to that indoctrination for children. Allowing just the slightest infringement on that counterweight is depriving children of the last alternative source of learning. It will cement the religious indoctrination from outside school with indoctrination inside schools when the teacher decides so. (And it already is a fact in many Southern schools, the law is just making it legal.)

See post #131.

 

[Vee]

If they taught those in a science class, then it wasn't really a science class.

It wasn't taught in the sense of "God made the earth in 6 literal days". It was thought in the sense of "this is a theory that is out there and some people believe it".

 

[JustGeorge]

I'm still confused on why creationism must exclude all other sciences... yeah, it'll screw up the biology lessons. But what does creation/evolution have to do with technology, chemistry, physics, advanced mathematics, or many other studies? One can spend their life studying the behavior of sharks without concern of how they got there.

Again, I don't approve of teaching creationism.... but I just think to label it as 'abuse' is overreacting. Unconstitutional would be my preferred title... I also think it does a disservice to those who have been abused to throw the label around so liberally.

If they are to teach such topics with fire, brimstone, insults and threats, I could possibly see it being addressed as abuse. But that would be on the individual teacher, not the entire state. Teachers also have the option not to teach it, if my understanding is correct.

 

[Heyo]

See post #131.

So were is our disagreement? Oh, yeah, you are still downplaying it (and I'm still exaggerating it).
Maybe we should try to see it from a different angle?
What would be a proper punishment for teaching creationism in science class (or advocating such)? For the Dover school board it was about $1M. Justified?