"Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse"

[Falvlun]

I don't know. If you took some kid with a natural talent for music, then screwed up their musical education so bad that they couldn't pursue their interest in music, or at least, had inordinate trouble pursuing it, you wouldn't be doing the kid any favors. Same with a kid who had a natural talent for the sciences.

I think any child runs that risk though. We don't always get the perfect childhood to cater to our innate talents or desires.

 

[Revoltingest]

Long long ago, in a career far far away, I was an engineer. I worked in aerospace, medical & heavy machinery industries.
In all companies, I met capable engineers who suffered from magical thought, eg, Jew, Sikh, Mormon, Baptist, Word of
God, Catholic. Disbelief in evolution might have caused them professional difficulty if they were designing drugs, but was
no handicap in designing flight controls or surgical tools. Talent can win out.

 

[Walkntune]

That's good enough for me.

I have no problem as well with the Bible not being mixed with school,politics,or any other form of man's government.I think this has done more to confuse the issues between saving grace and mans self efforts more than anything.I hear we need to get God back in school but I disagree.I think it is the parents resposibility for the spiritual healthiness of their children and they are who God will hold responsible, not the schools.

 

[Me Myself]

Not teaching creationism is child abuse.

Support this.

 

[ArcNinja]

Support this.

I'm curious to know in what way.

 

[outhouse]

I have no problem as well with the Bible not being mixed with school,politics,or any other form of man's government.I think this has done more to confuse the issues between saving grace and mans self efforts more than anything.I hear we need to get God back in school but I disagree.I think it is the parents resposibility for the spiritual healthiness of their children and they are who God will hold responsible, not the schools.

Valiant reply.

 

[4consideration]

I have no problem as well with the Bible not being mixed with school,politics,or any other form of man's government.I think this has done more to confuse the issues between saving grace and mans self efforts more than anything.I hear we need to get God back in school but I disagree.I think it is the parents resposibility for the spiritual healthiness of their children and they are who God will hold responsible, not the schools.

I agree, but I don't think where one teaches their own children belief in "creationism" was really the thrust of this thread. I think any form of creationism taught at any place was the thrust.

As I see it -- there was no distinction made in either the article or the video that reference was being made only to public schools. So, IMO the general use of the term "schools" would apply to ALL schools, including private and religious -- and "teaching creationism" to any form of teaching -- including religious instruction in or any form of religious-school type of classes.

 

[Warren Clark]

[/INDENT]While not "child abuse" in its usual sense, I do believe that misinforming children is an abuse of their intellect.

What say you?

I agree one hundred percent.
We are only hurting ourselves by deluding the truth with ignorance.

 

[Skwim]

I agree, but I don't think where one teaches their own children belief in "creationism" was really the thrust of this thread. I think any form of creationism taught at any place was the thrust.

As I see it -- there was no distinction made in either the article or the video that reference was being made only to public schools. So, IMO the general use of the term "schools" would apply to ALL schools, including private and religious -- and "teaching creationism" to any form of teaching -- including religious instruction in or any form of religious-school type of classes.

And I don't believe the distinction was made either; however, where most of the criticism of teaching creationism is aimed is at public schools, because private schools are chosen with the supposed knowledge of what will be taught. That said, teaching creationism in a private school is still abusing students' intellect.

 

[4consideration]

And I don't believe the distinction was made either; however, where most of the criticism of teaching creationism is aimed is at public schools, because private schools are chosen with the supposed knowledge of what will be taught. That said, teaching creationism in a private school is still abusing students' intellect.

If a school is teaching a religious perspective which includes creationism, but it is a flavor of creationism that includes the biologically based scientific understanding or general scientific consensus regarding evolution, would you still consider it abusing students simply because the concept of creationism necessarily includes (or is based upon) a belief in a creator -- and that a creator cannot be scientificially proven to exist?

Am I correct in assuming that what I stated above is the basic argument for it being viewed as "abusing" to the intellect? If not, please correct me on the most basic or underlying reason for it.

edit: (Not sure if I was completely clear.) I am trying to figure out if you think it "abusing" because you liken all "creationism" to YEC, which may teach a perspective that leaves out, ignores or has inaccurate scientific information. Or, if the objection is all creationism -- and it is the inclusion of the concept of "creator" that make it "abuse" to you.

 

[Skwim]

If a school is teaching a religious perspective which includes creationism, but it is a flavor of creationism that includes the biologically based scientific understanding or general scientific consensus regarding evolution, would you still consider it abusing students simply because the concept of creationism necessarily includes (or is based upon) a belief in a creator -- and that a creator cannot be scientificially proven to exist?

Trouble is, the word "creationism" has come to be understood as denoting the belief that the world and the variety of species on it came about in accord with a literal reading of the Bible. It leaves no room for any "scientific understanding or general scientific consensus regarding evolution."

Am I correct in assuming that what I stated above is the basic argument for it being viewed as "abusing" to the intellect? If not, please correct me on the most basic or underlying reason for it.

No you're not correct. It's abusive because it flies in the face of what science has concluded about the world. In science classes, where creationists want creationism taught, there is no room for religious beliefs. Just as there's no room for myths to be taught as true in history classes.

edit: (Not sure if I was completely clear.) I am trying to figure out if you think it "abusing" because you liken all "creationism" to YEC, which may teach a perspective that leaves out, ignores or has inaccurate scientific information. Or, if the objection is all creationism -- and it is the inclusion of the concept of "creator" that make it "abuse" to you.

Whether or not a god or other supernatural being was involved in creation is immaterial. Want to say that god started the ball rolling? Fine. Just don't tell students that the diversity of life is a result of supernatural shenanigans. Science has a lot, and I do mean A LOT, of evidence that all the life evolved from other life. So to say it does not simply because another source, a singular religious one, says otherwise fails to rise to the level of the scientifically acceptable evidence worthy of classroom curriculum. And just to be clear here. Evolution doesn't say a thing about how the world was created or how life first arose on the planet. ALL it addresses is why we have the diversity of life we do---and have had.

 

[StarryNightshade]

As someone who grew up with an alcoholic father who was emotionally, and sometimes physically, abusive, teaching creationism is no where near "abuse". I can see why some people would think so, but it is more misleading rather than abuse. I'm against creationism being taught in public schools, but let's not be so hyperbolic and undermine a serious issue such as abuse.

As far as I'm concerned, people who say this kind of crap are people with their own agenda; just like those pushing for creationism in public schools. To be honest, I'm sick of arrogance and militancy from both sides.

 

[Revoltingest]

No you're not correct. It's abusive because it flies in the face of what science has concluded about the world.

Were I schooled in the style of Paul Krugman to trumpet the mighty charge of "False equivalency! False equivalency!', that is what you'd hear.
Since I've known creationists who function just fine in technological fields, the idea of teaching creationism being in the same league as beating,
starving, raping or berating children is just terrible.

 

[Skwim]

As someone who grew up with an alcoholic father who was emitionally, and sometimes physically, abusive, teaching creationism is no where near "abuse". I can see why some people would think so, but it is more misleading rather than abuse. I'm against creationism being taught in public schools, but let's not be so hyberbolic and undermine a serious issue such as abuse.

As far as I'm concerned, people who say this kind of crap are people with their own agenda; just like those pushing for creationism in public schools. To be honest, I'm sick of arogance and militancy from both sides.

Evidently there is a comfort in sitting near one end of the spectrum and declaring oneself an exemplar of abuse, and those not measuring up to your degree of personal abuse ineligible for membership in your "club of the abused." However, like it or not abuse does cover a spectrum of maltreatment. And while I understand your need to preserve the term for people who have suffered as you have, it carries absolutely no weight in the real world. A child's trust and intellect can be abused, and teaching them that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution in school rises to just that level. It's a lie that that not only does them an educational disservice, but when found out will more likely than not damage the trust they should have in both our teachers and our educational system. But go ahead and wear the crown of abuse as proudly as you want, sneering at those who don't measure up to your standards. Sneering ain't any deal breaker, just bad form.

 

[Skwim]

Were I schooled in the style of Paul Krugman to trumpet the mighty charge of "False equivalency! False equivalency!', that is what you'd hear.
Since I've known creationists who function just fine in technological fields, the idea of teaching creationism being in the same league as beating,
starving, raping or berating children is just terrible.

And I agree, which is my I don't believe anyone has suggested it is. But to suggest that abuse only comes in a rich robust flavor is to miss the fact that it can also come in a delicate, subtle blend as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

The way you define "child abuse"
is broad, & is of little use.
Mere myth which is magic
ain't nearly as tragic
as wounds which assault would produce.

I see at least a couple classes of wrongful behavior by parents:
1) Abuse (rape, broken bones, etc)
2) Things I'd rather they not do (teach creationism, vote for Obama, etc)
To have one term, ie, "abuse", cover both strikes me as counter-productive.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Evidently there is a comfort in sitting near one end of the spectrum and declaring oneself an exemplar of abuse, and those not measuring up to your degree of personal abuse ineligible for membership in your "club of the abused." However, like it or not abuse does cover a spectrum of maltreatment. And while I understand your need to preserve the term for people who have suffered as you have, it carries absolutely no weight in the real world. A child's trust and intellect can be abused, and teaching them that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution in school rises to just that level. It's a lie that that not only does them an educational disservice, but when found out will more likely than not damage the trust they should have in both our teachers and our educational system. But go ahead and wear the crown of abuse as proudly as you want, sneering at those who don't measure up to your standards. Sneering ain't any deal breaker, just bad form.

What? I never claimed to be an "exemplar of abuse". Nor do I "wear the crown of abuse as proudly as I want, sneering at those who don't measure up to my standards.". All I'm saying is that I'm against teaching creationism in public school and that, although it is very intellectually disingenuous, it is not abuse. The fact that I did face some abuse is incidental.

However, your opinion is your opinion. As is mine.

 

[Skwim]

The way you define "child abuse"
is broad, & is of little use.
Mere myth which is magic
ain't nearly as tragic
as wounds which assault would produce.

I see at least a couple classes of wrongful behavior by parents:
1) Abuse (rape, broken bones, etc)
2) Things I'd rather they not do (teach creationism, vote for Obama, etc)
To have one term, ie, "abuse", cover both strikes me as counter-productive.

And so we differ again. I'll drink to that. .

What? I never claimed to be an "exemplar of abuse". Nor do I "wear the crown of abuse as proudly as I want, sneering at those who don't measure up to my standards.". All I'm saying is that I'm against teaching creationism in public school and that, although it is very intellectually disingenuous, it is not abuse. The fact that I did face some abuse is incidental.

Just responding in kind. And pleased that you're against teaching creationism in public school.

 

[Me Myself]

You all have high standards for the word abuse.

Its a word. There are abuses that dont need to be that horrible.

Beating a kid because he misbehaves is common here, not against laws. I wouldnt do it, and I dont support it but I know of people who do and say they are thankful their fathers did so and because of that they didnt do stupid things as they grew up. Teir parents didnt do it becuade they were full of booz, nor they did it in spite of wha their mothers said ( its not uncommon that e mother slaps either anyways ) they did it not liking it at all and hearing their children cry afterwards because they were sure it was the only way to correct the kids.

So there was no ill intent, there was actually a good intent and ey did something they hated because they were afraid of what their children could become.

I am sure a lot of you northamericans would call that child abuse, but to be honest I would have prefered to be hit a lot more (and I was hit, even with belt, although admittedly only once or thrice) insteaf of fathers teaching me that it is okay to live in hig denial like that of creationism.

Those wounds heal. Must people though, calive their lifes in denial, and that is exactly what creatonism teaches.

I find your creationism to be comparable to this honestly. Parents in US do it with good intentions and their kids grow up and are able to functioin the world, but it is still abuse .

 

[bandress]

Teaching is the holy purpose. And when it comes to kids the kids are not enough intellectual to understand the answers but are curious about this and that. I would just say that i do admit that this like a child abuse to answer them wrong what you know is right. Right information conveying is teacher's duty and this would be dishonesty to not to answer correctly some you suppose to know.