"Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse"

[LuisDantas]

You're expecting a quick fix.

No, I am not.

Not going to happen.

Definitely.

It's going to take longer when people say things like "creationism = child neglect", too.

Why?

 

[Riverwolf]

To believe that being taught that we have animal (distant) relatives is traumatic is indeed quite arbitrary.

People have to deal with far more traumatic discoveries as a matter of course in every generation. Say, that there are economic differences between themselves and their little friends that will forever shape their lives and relationships. Or that mommy and daddy will never really stop arguing and having them move apart might be the best anyone can hope for.

I actually know that one; my parents divorced when I was 7. I don't think the scars ever entirely healed.

Even learning that Santa isn't real didn't hurt anywhere near that much.

 

[McBell]

ever noticed the reaction of a child to being told we are decedents of animals? Its utter disbelief.

And?
Is it your argument that children should not be told things they might not believe?

It goes against our grain to believe we are nothing more then animals.

Yes, of all the animals, humans easily have not only the biggest sense of self worth, but also the most easily bruised egos.

Evolution does far more harm to a childs sense of self then anything a creationist might say.

this opinion is no different than the opinion that teaching creation is child abuse.
Both are meaningless puffery geared for an emotional reaction.

Interesting how someone who thinks them self on the higher moral ground is so quick to sink to such low levels...

 

[Quintessence]

Teaching children to be consumers is = child neglect. After all, wanton consumerism encourages an unsustainable consumption of natural resources and a use-throw-away culture that spells doomsday for current and future generations. Any parents who teach their children to buy stuff and let them watch any advertisements are being abusive! Also, teaching children to have their own kids is also abusive. There are enough people on this planet already, and the numbers are not sustainable. They should be taught to adopt kids, not have their own. Any other way of teaching them is abuse! Both of these wrongful teachings are unethical!




>_>

See what I did there?

<_<

This all boils down to personal values, folks. Really. I am really not comfortable saying "hey, you can't teach your kid Biblical literalist creationism." I'm just not. Even though I disagree with it.

 

[JustWondering2]

ever noticed the reaction of a child to being told we are decedents of animals? Its utter disbelief.

Yes I agree. Most children would rather believe a fairy tale than the cold hard truth. Like the Flintstones where a real family, or that Santa brings them toys if they're good!
:yes:

 

[Pegg]

Yes I agree. Most children would rather believe a fairy tale than the cold hard truth. Like the Flintstones where a real family, or that Santa brings them toys if they're good!
:yes:

in the end kids grow to form their own opinions anyway. Some who have believed in evolution have rejected that idea as false, some who have been taught creation, have rejected that idea as false.

in the end, everyone will believe what is more logical to themselves whether its based on fact or not

 

[Me Myself]

Teaching children to be consumers is = child neglect. After all, wanton consumerism encourages an unsustainable consumption of natural resources and a use-throw-away culture that spells doomsday for current and future generations. Any parents who teach their children to buy stuff and let them watch any advertisements are being abusive! Also, teaching children to have their own kids is also abusive. There are enough people on this planet already, and the numbers are not sustainable. They should be taught to adopt kids, not have their own. Any other way of teaching them is abuse! Both of these wrongful teachings are unethical!




>_>

See what I did there?

<_<

This all boils down to personal values, folks. Really. I am really not comfortable saying "hey, you can't teach your kid Biblical literalist creationism." I'm just not. Even though I disagree with it.

When i was talking about child abuse I never said it in a legal way. Yes, teaching a children to be excessively concerned with toys and materialism in general is also unintended abuse.

 

[fantome profane]

in the end kids grow to form their own opinions anyway. Some who have believed in evolution have rejected that idea as false, some who have been taught creation, have rejected that idea as false.

in the end, everyone will believe what is more logical to themselves whether its based on fact or not

Then let's just scrap the whole education thing altogether. People are going to believe the earth is flat or not regardless of the facts.

 

[Me Myself]

Then let's just scrap the whole education thing altogether. People are going to believe the earth is flat or not regardless of the facts.

Absolutely. While we are at it, let's actually tell them the earth is flat, and all the evidence to the contrary is just godless blasphemy supported by a conspiracy of atheist scientist that unkowingly to them are contributing to the take over of the world by the hands of Satan... And Ice Giants.

 

[LuisDantas]

Teaching children to be consumers is = child neglect. After all, wanton consumerism encourages an unsustainable consumption of natural resources and a use-throw-away culture that spells doomsday for current and future generations. Any parents who teach their children to buy stuff and let them watch any advertisements are being abusive! Also, teaching children to have their own kids is also abusive. There are enough people on this planet already, and the numbers are not sustainable. They should be taught to adopt kids, not have their own. Any other way of teaching them is abuse! Both of these wrongful teachings are unethical!




>_>

See what I did there?

Brought up good, if unpopular, points, actually.

<_<

This all boils down to personal values, folks. Really. I am really not comfortable saying "hey, you can't teach your kid Biblical literalist creationism." I'm just not. Even though I disagree with it.

Maybe you should just ease up.

 

[Skwim]

How can we say it's abuse, or neglect, for parents to teach their children what they think is true?

But neither Sen. Marco Rubio nor Lawrence Krauss were talking about what parents choose to tell their kids. It's about what should be taught in schools.

Unless you belive that Sen. Rubio (he of the first quote in the OP) feels parents have no actual opportunity to teach their children the Biblical version of creation, Rubio's notion that people "should have the opportunity to teach [all versions]" must refer to schools teaching them.

Moreover, Krauss in his reply was referring to required education; specifically to teaching that earth is only 6,000 years old in schools.

And I believe that for school science classes to teach children that the earth is just as likely to be 6,000 years old as it is to be 4.5 billion years old is abusing both their trust and education.

That you and Quintessence seem to need to limit "child abuse" to just sexual and physical abuse is, of course, your choice; but I don't believe you'll find many supporters. The abuse of children, and everyone else, can take just too many other forms to be so limiting. And naturally, labeling an abuse according its victim is quite proper.

 

[Pegg]

Then let's just scrap the whole education thing altogether. People are going to believe the earth is flat or not regardless of the facts.

the facts of science are always changing anyway... what you teach this decade will be scraped next decade and the books will have to be updated and changed

so in some way, yes. Teach what is important, teach how to live a happy stable satisfying life, teach how to love, how to develop good habits, how to share and give, how to work hard with your hands ... those things are life changing. Evolution is not.

 

[Me Myself]

the facts of science are always changing anyway... what you teach this decade will be scraped next decade and the books will have to be updated and changed

so in some way, yes. Teach what is important, teach how to live a happy stable satisfying life, teach how to love, how to develop good habits, how to share and give, how to work hard with your hands ... those things are life changing. Evolution is not.

I love it how she just said evolution is nt life changing... Evolution is about precisely that: life changing

In any case, then you dont really believe in a right to education? Why tell them the world is round, maybe scientists will change their mind about that too?

I find your attitude dangerous to humanity, to be honest. I truly hope you don't contaminate too many people with it. God forbid, children.

 

[LuisDantas]

the facts of science are always changing anyway... what you teach this decade will be scraped next decade and the books will have to be updated and changed

Not to anywhere near such an extent, though.

so in some way, yes. Teach what is important, teach how to live a happy stable satisfying life, teach how to love, how to develop good habits, how to share and give, how to work hard with your hands ... those things are life changing. Evolution is not.

Lending the so-called "controversy" an importance and weight that it does not deserve is however a mistake that should be corrected.

Leniency to such a mistake may well be life-changing.

 

[Quintessence]

When i was talking about child abuse I never said it in a legal way. Yes, teaching a children to be excessively concerned with toys and materialism in general is also unintended abuse.

Gah! That's not what I was trying to say at all! :areyoucra

Let me put this another way: disagreements regarding cultural norms and values is not abuse; that's a judgement being projected onto the situation by outsiders. I really cannot justify calling anyone who raises their children in the cultural traditions they believe in and value as "abusing" anything, and I don't feel the word "abuse" is appropriate for "unintentional bad stuff" as adjudged by outsiders. I'd like us to recognize we're projecting judgements here by using terms like that, and I'd like us to recognize that using the words this way is often a rhetorical ploy to manipulate your emotions so you rally rally behind a particular set of norms and values. Calling it "abuse" is too strong of language and is a term I feels should be reserved for deliberate mistreatment grounded in clear malice and ill-will. There is no malice in the parents who are teaching their kids literalistic creationism (well, there might be in a few cases, but those notwithstanding).

Maybe you should just ease up.

Maybe. But you know, when we shift the meaning of words to the point that teaching kids something someone else disagrees with can be called "abuse" I can't quite rally behind that. By that standard of usage, every single child on the face of this earth is "abused" by somebody's standard. That was the intended point of my last post.

But you know, these kind of emotional rhetoric schemes are old hat now. I'm just tired of them. It's probably why I avoid listening to mainstream news. In this information age with so much noise, words are loosing their potency and strength. I don't see this as a good thing, for when the truly dire problems arise, what language do we have left for it? Will the words we once used convey the proper degree of risk and seriousness? Or will we fall to that classic fable about the boy crying wolf, drowning out the signals with noise?

 

[Me Myself]

Gah! That's not what I was trying to say at all! :areyoucra

Let me put this another way: disagreements regarding cultural norms and values is not abuse; that's a judgement being projected onto the situation by outsiders. I really cannot justify calling anyone who raises their children in the cultural traditions they believe in and value as "abusing" anything, and I don't feel the word "abuse" is appropriate for "unintentional bad stuff" as adjudged by outsiders. I'd like us to recognize we're projecting judgements here by using terms like that, and I'd like us to recognize that using the words this way is often a rhetorical ploy to manipulate your emotions so you rally rally behind a particular set of norms and values. Calling it "abuse" is too strong of language and is a term I feels should be reserved for deliberate mistreatment grounded in clear malice and ill-will. There is no malice in the parents who are teaching their kids literalistic creationism (well, there might be in a few cases, but those notwithstanding).

There certainly can be unintentional abuse. Least to my definition.

 

[Quintessence]

There certainly can be unintentional abuse. Least to my definition.

Fair enough. It is a merited usage of the word, I'm just really leery of using it here because there is great antagonism surrounding this topic. Using such emotional rhetoric clouds the issue more than it is helpful. I'd say the same on any sort of controversial and heated topic, from abortion to homosexuals. You're going to set fires under people's rears badly enough as it is without using words like "abuse" in there, ya know? It's not going to help win you friends across the fence, and serves to stir up the torches and pitchforks. :cover:

 

[Me Myself]

Fair enough. It is a merited usage of the word, I'm just really leery of using it here because there is great antagonism surrounding this topic. Using such emotional rhetoric clouds the issue more than it is helpful. I'd say the same on any sort of controversial and heated topic, from abortion to homosexuals. You're going to set fires under people's rears badly enough as it is without using words like "abuse" in there, ya know? It's not going to help win you friends across the fence, and serves to stir up the torches and pitchforks. :cover:

But it is not a controversia. Issue actually. Most of the world understands evolution as a simple fact of biology. I live in south America and coudlnt believe when I heard a lot of peoe in Uited States believe the Earth is like6000 yesrs old and pretty much Flintstones.

I mean, you have better info. There is no confusion. Only voluntary denial, which is something very dangerous to teach to the children.

As others have said. You are taing tactics now

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe. But you know, when we shift the meaning of words to the point that teaching kids something someone else disagrees with can be called "abuse" I can't quite rally behind that.

Do you think there is unanimity beyond the meaning of abuse? I doubt it.

By that standard of usage, every single child on the face of this earth is "abused" by somebody's standard.

I'm sure that is true.

That was the intended point of my last post.

Sorry, it was lost on me. Why would that be an objection?

But you know, these kind of emotional rhetoric schemes are old hat now. I'm just tired of them. It's probably why I avoid listening to mainstream news. In this information age with so much noise, words are loosing their potency and strength. I don't see this as a good thing, for when the truly dire problems arise, what language do we have left for it? Will the words we once used convey the proper degree of risk and seriousness? Or will we fall to that classic fable about the boy crying wolf, drowning out the signals with noise?

Maybe I shouldn't ask you then. But I don't think this is a case of ratio vs noise. I genuinely believe it is an underdiagnosed problem.

 

[Quintessence]

But it is not a controversia. Issue actually. Most of the world understands evolution as a simple fact of biology. I live in south America and coudlnt believe when I heard a lot of peoe in Uited States believe the Earth is like6000 yesrs old and pretty much Flintstones.

I mean, you have better info. There is no confusion. Only voluntary denial, which is something very dangerous to teach to the children.

As others have said. You are taing tactics now

Oh, I don't mean that ToE is controversial as a scientific theory (because it isn't), I speak of the controversy generated when one group decides it's way of thinking is better than someone else's then proceeds to shove that down everyone else's throats whether they want it or not. Both literalistic creationists and their opponents are guilty of this; neither seems content to leave the other alone. That's what I meant by controversy; controversial as in a cause of arguments.

Do you think there is unanimity beyond the meaning of abuse? I doubt it.

Sorry, it was lost on me. Why would that be an objection?

Maybe I shouldn't ask you then. But I don't think this is a case of ratio vs noise. I genuinely believe it is an underdiagnosed problem.

To the first, granted.

To the second, it highlights that singling out this as "abuse" is a rhetorical scheme to rally pitchfork-and-torches around a topic that often causes arguments. It behooves us to be careful with language when discussing things likely to set off people's buttons. But maybe that's just me; lots of folks are not particularly mindful of their words, and some some deliberately use words like this to stir the pot for their own agendas. When I see something like a different cultural worldview being called "child abuse" it strongly reminds me of that kind of manipulatory agendas. The goal is to paint a "bad guy" and not consider the needs of the other persons. I wouldn't say anyone here is doing that, but this "child abuse" rhetoric could easily be picked up by someone with such a agenda.

To the third, what do you mean under-diagnosed problem? What's the problem, exactly? Parents teaching their kids things we happen to disagree with? Isn't that a problem created by us projecting our own expectations onto everybody else? What tangible indicators - free of value judgements - are there that suggest these things are problems? Does what they are taught manifest in a way that is practically significant? If so, on what levels? Individuals? Families? Cities? Nations?

I guess I ask because to me, the entire literalistic creationist folks are not a problem at all until they start attempting to force their views on everybody else, effectively sabotaging the science of entire cities, states, and nations. Until they do that, I don't care that they exist, and I don't regard them as a problem. Even there I'm still making a value judgement. I'm a scientist. I like science. I'm obviously biased here. I also attempt, at least, to try and understand where the other sides are coming from.