"Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse"

[LuisDantas]

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 does? I think it is far more accurate to say that it exposes a badly underestimated problem.

It behooves us to be careful with language when discussing things likely to set off people's buttons.

True. And also to take the responsibility to press some buttons before it is too late to avoid serious damage.

I guess we have divergent opinions about how this matter fits among the two choices.

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.

Uh, that is the point. Words are meant to serve purposes. Calling this one an agenda implies a mistrust of what is ultimately a pretty straghtforward exposition of a serious mistake.

When I see something like a different cultural worldview being called "child abuse" it strongly reminds me of that kind of manipulatory agendas.

Creationism, at this time and age, is not a different cultural worldview so much as it is a social problem. It must be exposed, questioned, challenged, denounced for what it is.

Denouncing it is manipulatory in the same sense that polio vaccination is manipulating health.

The goal is to paint a "bad guy" and not consider the needs of the other persons.

Uh, no. Failing to denounce creationism is a failure to consider the needs of other persons.

If you don't agree with that then I guess you will feel greatly distressed by this thread. But really, I don't see how it can be helped.

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.

And that would be a bad thing, because...?

To the third, what do you mean under-diagnosed problem? What's the problem, exactly?

Parental abuse in a somewhat subtle yet deeply damaging form.

Parents teaching their kids things we happen to disagree with?

This goes way beyond simple disagreement. Creationism is not reasonable. Defending its teaching in "equal terms" to evolution is a severe mistake and should be treated as such. For it to even succeed in an individual level it must teach people to avoid reason and to embrace blind faith, superstition and dishonest or at the very least unashamedly biased thinking. It is, quite simply, an evil that must be purged.

Isn't that a problem created by us projecting our own expectations onto everybody else?

I don't think so. Is it?

What tangible indicators - free of value judgements - are there that suggest these things are problems?

Value judgements are an absolute need when deciding about what to teach children, be it at home or at school.

Why would I, or anyone, leave aside value judgements when they are called for?

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by value judgements?

Does what they are taught manifest in a way that is practically significant?

Oh yes it does, and direly so.

If so, on what levels? Individuals? Families? Cities? Nations?

Yes. All of them.

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.

Really? I hold instead that allowing them to spread their superstition without due challenge is effectively betraying our duty to them as fellow citizens.

And when it comes to the OP questions, they show an even greater duty to their children.

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.

Yes, you are. I wonder why you see that as a problem.

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.

Good thing, that. But that shouldn't stop you from being clear about what you find valid and what you find invalid. You can understand other sides and all the same decided that they must be fiercely opposed. Often enough one must.

 

[NIX]

False equivalence.

Ignorance about the age of the world cannot be compared to physical starvation at all. Whether the age of the world is 6000 years, 5 billion years, or 100 years is generally of no consequence in life.

yes..

 

[Alceste]

The Set-up

"Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a Catholic, said in a recent interview that the age of the Earth is a mystery as there are multiple theories out there.

"Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that," he told GQ magazine for its December issue

He continued, saying there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and that in the United States,
people "should have the opportunity to teach them all."
source


​

The Response

[youtube]UTedvV6oZjo[/youtube]

​

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

What say you?

I think the title of the video and the thread is unfortunate. The thrust of his argument is not that "teaching creationism is child abuse". He says that in passing, and seems only half serious. The point he's trying to make (which he even repeats) is that we must teach what is true, no matter how popular the competing falsehoods happen to be. And if the competing falsehoods are incredibly popular, that only means we must do a better job teaching what is true, because the purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it.

In fact, his entire argument has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not teaching creationism is or isn't "child abuse", but it sure makes for an attention-grabbing headline, doesn't it!

I think ignoring the entire content of the video in order to banter back and forth about how outrageous the video title is (or isn't) is discussion forum participant abuse.

 

[Me Myself]

"The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it." Thats one powerful phrase! And me having not seen the video till now

 

[Alceste]

"The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it." Thats one powerful phrase! And me having not seen the video till now

That's probably why he says it twice.

 

[Breathe]

No, I am not.

It looks like it.

Why?

Because it makes people see "evolutionists = intolerant bad guys".

 

[Desert Snake]

School should be for the basics and optional other courses, why there is even 'mandatory ' classes on evolution or otherwise is beyond me, there is already too much spreading out of topics.

 

[Breathe]

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

I don't believe creationism should be taught in schools, and if it should, it should be covered briefly, ideally in a comparative religious mythology class.

Even then, it isn't abuse.

That you and Quintessence seem to need to limit "child abuse" to just sexual and physical abuse is, of course, your choice;

Nice try, but no: physical, sexual, emotional, verbal, I've had to deal with people who've suffered all of them. Don't assume you know anything about me or what I've had to do either for myself or others.

but I don't believe you'll find many supporters.

I don't care; they can shove it up their arses.

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.

It's stupid from a parental perspective and has no place in schools, but it isn't abuse. Period. Krauss is just trying to be dramatic.

 

[Me Myself]

It looks like it.


Because it makes people see "evolutionists = intolerant bad guys".

Again, this is tactics. I dont expect to use child abuse in an argument over wheter to teach evolution or not, but that doesnt mean I dnt see it as child abuse. i am jusst aware that the person with whom I am talking is less likely to see how crazy s/he is about the topic if I say that.

 

[Me Myself]

And just because it is a less severe form of abuse dosnt mean it is not abuse.

 

[Breathe]

Again, this is tactics. I dont expect to use child abuse in an argument over wheter to teach evolution or not, but that doesnt mean I dnt see it as child abuse. i am jusst aware that the person with whom I am talking is less likely to see how crazy s/he is about the topic if I say that.

You can see it like that if you want, but that's just personal choice.

And just because it is a less severe form of abuse dosnt mean it is not abuse.

It trivializes what child abuse actually is, and annoys me as someone who's had to deal people who've actually been abused.

I'm not limiting child abuse merely to rape, molestation, physical assaults, and so on, however -- but this isn't one.

You can't just decide something you hate is child abuse; that's just using emotive words to make your case seem stronger. If you want to do that, then, of course, you have to give that leeway to the other guy; the guy who thinks atheists, liberals, homosexuals, and "ethnics" having children is also the same as child abuse or neglect.

 

[Skwim]

I think the title of the video and the thread is unfortunate.

And as I pointed out in a subsequent thread, I believe its quite apt. For schools to teach pseudo-science as science, which is what many creationists would love to see, borders on the criminal.

The thrust of his argument is not that "teaching creationism is child abuse". He says that in passing, and seems only half serious.

Then I suggest you watch the video again.

The point he's trying to make (which he even repeats) is that we must teach what is true, no matter how popular the competing falsehoods happen to be.

Well, that's almost a given in any class, no matter the subject, which is why this isn't his point. His point, which he very plainly states, is that schools should NOT teach pseudo-science along side science. Krauss does this by citing Rubio's notion that "somehow we should teach kids both ideas. That the earth is 6,000 years old and that it's 4.55 billion years old. Which is what it is."

In fact, his entire argument has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not teaching creationism is or isn't "child abuse",

It has everything to do with it because the teaching of creationism is the biggest of all the pseudo-sciences being promoted to abuse students.

 

[Skwim]

It trivializes what child abuse actually is,

So just what is child abuse, actually? No need to answer because I suspect you have a personal investment in limiting its meaning to X, Y or Z. While an attempt to hijack a label for a narrow interest is understandable--it reinforces the importance one needs to invest it with, it's a dishonest one. In this case, "THESE and ONLY THESE are worthy of the title" proclaims limits that were never intended. The fact is, the simple two-word description "child abuse" is vague enough to admit a whole list of conditions, and by suggesting that using it to describe these other abuses, trivializes it, one can easily conclude your reasoning is less than rational. Sexual and physical child abuse will always be reprehensible in their own right, and need no special label to make them so. That you seem to need one may be saying more than you care to disclose.

In any case, as it stands your argument isn't persuading.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

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.

By that logic we shouldn't send our kids to school. Forgot reading anything apart from the bible and maths and science experiments, it's not important...studying how the earth and nature works? Poppy ****! Just sit them in a circle singing Kum ba yah

 

[Breathe]

So just what is child abuse, actually? No need to answer because I suspect you have a personal investment in limiting its meaning to X, Y or Z.

First, don't ask me something then say "no need to answer". It's ignorant. Second, why would I have a personal investment in limiting its meaning to X, Y, or Z?

Sexual and physical child abuse will always be reprehensible in their own right, and need no special label to make them so. That you seem to need one may be saying more than you care to disclose.

While I have an idea of what you are saying, I want to know what you are claiming outright before responding.

 

[LuisDantas]

It looks like it.

That is both surprising and unfortunate.

Because it makes people see "evolutionists = intolerant bad guys".

To those predisposed to it, no doubt.

Which is one of the signs pointing towards urgency at clarifying matters.

 

[LuisDantas]

School should be for the basics and optional other courses, why there is even 'mandatory ' classes on evolution or otherwise is beyond me, there is already too much spreading out of topics.

Evolution is unavoidable if biology is to be taught at all.

It's stupid from a parental perspective and has no place in schools, but it isn't abuse. Period. Krauss is just trying to be dramatic.

I guess we will have to disagree then. Teaching stupid belief deliberately, or even out of fear alone, sure deserves being considered child abuse by any definition of the expression that I am willing to support.

Again, this is tactics. I dont expect to use child abuse in an argument over wheter to teach evolution or not, but that doesnt mean I dnt see it as child abuse. i am jusst aware that the person with whom I am talking is less likely to see how crazy s/he is about the topic if I say that.

And just because it is a less severe form of abuse dosnt mean it is not abuse.

This. Precisely this.

It trivializes what child abuse actually is, and annoys me as someone who's had to deal people who've actually been abused.

I will readily admit that my experience on dealing with abuse victims is very limited, but I'm not sure that entitles you to say so, much less that it makes your judgement correct on this particular point.

I'm not limiting child abuse merely to rape, molestation, physical assaults, and so on, however -- but this isn't one.

It sure looks like one to me. Maybe you could elaborate on your criteria for delimiting the meaning of the term?

Does it involve amount of trauma? Out of the top of my head it is the only factor that would perhaps justify your distinction.

You can't just decide something you hate is child abuse; that's just using emotive words to make your case seem stronger.

True. And I take care not to for that very reason.

All the same, I happen to find child abuse a wildly underestimated problem.

Maybe I am wrong at that, but so far you and Quintessence haven't given any non-emotional reason to question that.

If you want to do that, then, of course, you have to give that leeway to the other guy; the guy who thinks atheists, liberals, homosexuals, and "ethnics" having children is also the same as child abuse or neglect.

Do you think they don't? That ship has sailed a long time ago, even if they don't tell so up front.

 

[Koldo]

This topic got me wondering.
If teaching a false belief to children ( which parents hold as true ) is to be considered child abuse, how about when parents deliberately teach false beliefs to children? Certainly, it stands to reason, a priori, that it would also count as child abuse. The problem is that many parents tell their children about the ( fictional ) santa claus as real ( just to cite one example ) when they know it is not real.

Obviously i don't mean to compare both beliefs as equal though. I just brought it up to show it is the effect of spreading such a false belief that must be used to argue that teaching creationism to children is child abuse, rather than simply the act of spreading a false belief. Unless, that is, you want to argue that Santa Claus is a form of child abuse...

P.S.: I have only looked into a few posts of this topic, so if anyone pointed this out before....pardon me...

 

[Breathe]

I will readily admit that my experience on dealing with abuse victims is very limited, but I'm not sure that entitles you to say so, much less that it makes your judgement correct on this particular point.

I have experience dealing with it; a lot.

It sure looks like one to me. Maybe you could elaborate on your criteria for delimiting the meaning of the term?

Does it involve amount of trauma? Out of the top of my head it is the only factor that would perhaps justify your distinction.

Something which is physically and/or mentally discomforting for the child and has emotional or physical repercussions: flashbacks, self-blame, and so on. This would exclude creationism because creationists can live perfectly happy lives without worrying.

True. And I take care not to for that very reason.

All the same, I happen to find child abuse a wildly underestimated problem.

Maybe I am wrong at that, but so far you and Quintessence haven't given any non-emotional reason to question that.

Is an emotional reason a bad thing?

Do you think they don't? That ship has sailed a long time ago, even if they don't tell so up front.

I don't think they would get the same leeway, no; not that I care for their opinions, but I respect their ideas of what is child abuse as much as I do the idea that creationism is also a form of child abuse.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have experience dealing with it; a lot.

You have my sympathy and my respect for that.

All the same, I still wonder how your experience with those situations and their consequences entitles you to say so cathegorically that other situations that (I assume) are not nearly as familiar to you are not abusive.

Something which is physically and/or mentally discomforting for the child and has emotional or physical repercussions: flashbacks, self-blame, and so on. This would exclude creationism because creationists can live perfectly happy lives without worrying.

That, I will grant, is somewhat controversial. How real is damage if it is not readily perceived as such?

Is an emotional reason a bad thing?

I maintain that it may be, when it is used as a reason to disregard other valid reasons with no second thought.