"Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse"

[McBell]

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.

So a child who self blames is committing child abuse?
Who is the abuser when it comes to flashbacks?

What if the flash backs cause happiness and or comforts the child?
Given your presented "creationists can live perfectly happy lives without worrying" it seems to me you are being quite selective with your definition, application of your definition, or both.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

It is all a function of how damaging the teaching is.

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.

I don't consider that healthy, but obviously the exact consequences vary a whole lot in gravity.

It seems to me that they vary mostly due to the environment in which the children are raised. How important is that specific belief for the child? How much of a nurturing, supportive framework he or she has without it?

If a child is raised to rely on hoping for Santa Claus to come and give him or her gifts, then yes, it may easily be abusive. But in this case the belief itself is far less important than the circunstances in which it is held (or lost), and which have little relation to the belief itself.

Contrast with the teaching of Creationism, which may easily be kept for the whole life due to the social support of many people (albeit at a price).

On the other hand, Creationism is a far more serious belief, exactly because it is not dispelled with anything close to the predictability and unavoidability of belief in Santa Claus. So you see a far more concerted effort and emotional investment, involving many passionated adults, to keep one but not the other.

 

[Father Heathen]

ever noticed the reaction of a child to being told we are decedents of animals? Its utter disbelief. It goes against our grain to believe we are nothing more then animals.

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

For one, we are what we are. Our origins don't make is any greater or lesser. The fact that we evolved from, and are, animals doesn't mean we're "nothing more than." Hocus pocus nonsense isn't required to have importance and meaning. You know what separates us from other animals? We have the ability to reason. And it is with our ability to reason that we learn, study, examine evidence and apply logic, and it is with our ability to reason that we've come to understand how life and the world around us works. So by disavowing reason, the very thing that separates us from other animals, it is in fact the creationists who are "nothing more than animals". Evolution is a scientific reality, and acknowledging and accepting reality doesn't do harm. In fact it is the denial of reality that does harm, and that's precisely what most religions do.

 

[Breathe]

So a child who self blames is committing child abuse?
Who is the abuser when it comes to flashbacks?

What if the flash backs cause happiness and or comforts the child?

I guess I should have stated caused by other individuals.

Given your presented "creationists can live perfectly happy lives without worrying" it seems to me you are being quite selective with your definition, application of your definition, or both.

Oh well, not everyone is perfect. Or are you just trying to misunderstand or twist my words?

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

Oh, I've thought about the other's reasons, but I just don't buy them: I just don't see any reason to think of creationism as abusive.

In addition, the responses I've been given are pretty much, "Well, it is; who do you think you are to say it isn't? It is. Your opinion doesn't matter because it disagrees with our own.".

If my posts have been emotional in nature, then so have the majority of the "rebuttals" against me, not to mention being incredibly personal; both personal in the case of being directed to myself and how I can't be qualified to give a reason, and of personal values.

Between my last post on the forum and this post, I was contacted by one of those who was abused. I carefully asked for her opinion on this subject, and she said that she does not consider it as abuse (FTR, she's an atheist, so not like she's being blinded by religion) -- only much more crudely worded.

 

[Quintessence]

Eh, I'm not really using "emotional reasons" as much as remarking upon rhetoric and intolerance intrinsic to calling something as (relatively) trivial as parents teaching their children a worldview they believe in "abusive." I cannot and will not agree that parents teaching their children what they believe in a manner that lacks clear mistreatment and overt malice "abusive." I also cannot and will not agree that Bible-based literalistic creationism is some massive problem for human society. Honestly, it kind of horrifies me how readily some of you all paint literalistic creationists as "bad guys" and speak words that suggest you want to wipe them from the face of the planet instead of saying "hey, let them do what they want in raising their own kids; that's their private business and not mine." The moment it becomes public business - given that most of our nations are secular - you are well within your grounds to object (i.e., attempts for literalist creationists to force their worldview into science classrooms). However, I cannot mind demonizing what parents teach their kids in their own homes as "abuse" just because we happen to disagree with it. It's a fantastic way to make enemies, stir up conflict, hatred, and prejudice. No thanks, guys.

With that, I don't think there's much more I have to say here, so I'm likely bowing out of this thread. :nightcraw:

 

[LuisDantas]

Abuse perceptions are often, if not unavoidably, personal in nature, I guess.

I'll take some time before answering further.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, they are personal. This thread reminds me of a story that ran on NPR a year back or so about child services abducting Native American children off of reservations under questionable circumstances. They would basically disrespect their cultural traditions and paint them as "abusive" to whittle away at Native communities. *digs* Ah, I found it. They covered the story here. I see this thread, and it reminds me of this story. If we're going to call teaching kids a cultural worldview "abuse," then this is the result when put into tangible action. Lost children, shattered families. I mean, that is the implication, isn't it? If you're abusing your child, he or she should be taken away?

And now I probably really will poof. *chuckles* But I thought of this story, and had to post it up.

 

[Reverend Rick]

What a wonderful like mind love fest this thread has been. If I may bring up a few facts here......

Evolution is a theory not fact as some of you have misrepresented in this thread.

Moving on to stay on topic.............

Parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit which includes requiring them to attend church, be educated as they see fit including sending them off to a strict military academy if they so choose.

Parents can leave the country and take their children with them and go to places like Africa and live in grass huts with no air conditioning or running water. They could take them away at such a young age that they not even learn to speak English.

Children are not required to be educated in state ran schools and be indoctrinated by the likes of the gentleman in the video.

All this really amounts to is raising a generation to vote in lock step with your ideals when they grow up.

It all boils down to who is responsible for the children and parental rights.

 

[Koldo]

It is all a function of how damaging the teaching is.

I don't consider that healthy, but obviously the exact consequences vary a whole lot in gravity.

It seems to me that they vary mostly due to the environment in which the children are raised. How important is that specific belief for the child? How much of a nurturing, supportive framework he or she has without it?

If a child is raised to rely on hoping for Santa Claus to come and give him or her gifts, then yes, it may easily be abusive. But in this case the belief itself is far less important than the circunstances in which it is held (or lost), and which have little relation to the belief itself.

Contrast with the teaching of Creationism, which may easily be kept for the whole life due to the social support of many people (albeit at a price).

On the other hand, Creationism is a far more serious belief, exactly because it is not dispelled with anything close to the predictability and unavoidability of belief in Santa Claus. So you see a far more concerted effort and emotional investment, involving many passionated adults, to keep one but not the other.

I don't know exactly how to measure the impact of teaching creationism, so i don't really know where i stand on this issue. Certainly, i see it as wrong, but i don't know if i would call it abuse. That's a quite harsh word and i do rather refrain from making this judgement until i have better data on the consequences of this belief specifically.

 

[Koldo]

Honestly, it kind of horrifies me how readily some of you all paint literalistic creationists as "bad guys" and speak words that suggest you want to wipe them from the face of the planet instead of saying "hey, let them do what they want in raising their own kids; that's their private business and not mine." The moment it becomes public business - given that most of our nations are secular - you are well within your grounds to object (i.e., attempts for literalist creationists to force their worldview into science classrooms).

To what extent what parents do with their own children is none of our business?

 

[YmirGF]

ever noticed the reaction of a child to being told we are decedents of animals? Its utter disbelief. It goes against our grain to believe we are nothing more then animals.

Disbelief? Oddly, when I was told about Evolution, I thought it all made perfect sense. I do find the phrase "to believe we are nothing more then animals" to be inadvertently hilarious. Pegg, humans ARE animals. Our fangs and claws are our brains. Pity more human animals don't use their brains.

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

I would consider willfully stunting the intellectual development of children to be quite harmful to the child. Don't we do enough of this already?

Codswallop. It never hurt my sense of self; rather, it helped define it. There's nothing wrong with being animals.

I'm rather proud of my heritage. We descended from noble creatures but have neutered our nobility in the process.

In regards to the OP. No, I don't believe it is outright child abuse, but it does come perilously close.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I guess it becomes abuse if you can prove the damage. My daughter is a YEC. She is in her third year of college and came to me with concerns about questions on her tests. I told her to give the answers to the test that would get her a good grade showing she grasped the knowledge that was taught to her.

Most adult YEC can become educated and still keep their personal beliefs personal.

If my parenting was abuse, my daughter would not be on the deans list nor would my son been able to choose a different religion than mine. They both think for themselves and I am very proud of them.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess it becomes abuse if you can prove the damage. My daughter is a YEC. She is in her third year of college and came to me with concerns about questions on her tests. I told her to give the answers to the test that would get her a good grade showing she grasped the knowledge that was taught to her.
Most adult YEC can become educated and still keep their personal beliefs personal.
If my parenting was abuse, my daughter would not be on the deans list nor would my son been able to choose a different religion than mine. They both think for themselves and I am very proud of them.

Sorry, RR, I don't buy it. You should be brought up on charges for child abuse. You'll have to wait though, since
tens of millions of other child abusers will also have to be tried & imprisoned under this new approach to justice.

Dang, this will be expensive & really thin the ranks of workers! Maybe this is a bad idea.

 

[Me Myself]

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


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.

It's not about it being something I hate, it's about it being wrong being done to a child. You make wrong to a child, you are abusing e child.

While people associate the term with the ultimate worsts scenarios, that is not necesarily the case. There are a lot of little ways to abuse power and there are a lot of little ways to abuse a child. I am not putting all forms and intensities of child abuse in the same basket, I am simply not, and if it were to give emotinal charge, then It would be a tactic. It's simply not.

It's plain simle and direct abuse of e child's intelectual capacities and eagerness to agree with his parents, that will further develop his capacity for denial to real life evidence as long as he doesnt like the evidence.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I guess it becomes abuse if you can prove the damage. My daughter is a YEC. She is in her third year of college and came to me with concerns about questions on her tests. I told her to give the answers to the test that would get her a good grade showing she grasped the knowledge that was taught to her.

Most adult YEC can become educated and still keep their personal beliefs personal.

If my parenting was abuse, my daughter would not be on the deans list nor would my son been able to choose a different religion than mine. They both think for themselves and I am very proud of them.

I don't doubt your parenting, Rick.

I think the argument is that teaching children to deny evolutionary theory is equivalent to denying germ theory. That it's morally equivalent to suggest that demons cause sickness rather than viruses and bacteria. That it's also morally equivalent to teach children to deny gravitational theory, and that if they believe enough, they can jump off a cliff they can fly.

The argument is that evolutionary theory has spawned tremendous advances in biological research and development that we all benefit from. I hesitate to call it child abuse, but I do think it's so incredibly strange to deny a scientific theory that has been established many many times over through observations and testing. I highly suggest looking more deeply at what the term "scientific theory" actually implies before thinking that it's a bunch of regular guys taking a wild guess at causes, conditions, and predictions.

From research into parasitic threats, to antibiotic resistance to cancer research to conservation biology to looking into our current practices affecting the rate of mutation in a large variety of species....we have through science benefitted from their research in our protection and in our advances in medicine.

So, again, I'd hesitate to call it "abuse", but I certainly call it wildly out of touch.

 

[Walkntune]

I think teaching children to trade their natural intuitive humanist nature in for intellectualism to become like cattle is most abusive and can be the cause of mental illnesses and chemical imbalances.There must be a true balance between the right and left brain and between our spiritual and intellectual aspects for harmony in ourselves.If this gets out of whack then so do our chemicals.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think teaching children to trade their natural intuitive humanist nature in for intellectualism to become like cattle is most abusive and can be the cause of mental illnesses and chemical imbalances.There must be a true balance between the right and left brain and between our spiritual and intellectual aspects for harmony in ourselves.If this gets out of whack then so do our chemicals.

Yay! Compulsory dance lessons! :bounce

I'm so all for it.....that IS what you're talking about, right?

Right?

 

[LuisDantas]

What a wonderful like mind love fest this thread has been. If I may bring up a few facts here......

Evolution is a theory not fact as some of you have misrepresented in this thread.

Sorry, RR, that is simply not true.

Moving on to stay on topic.............

Parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit which includes requiring them to attend church, be educated as they see fit including sending them off to a strict military academy if they so choose.

Within certain limits established by morals and law, yes.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Yes, they are personal. This thread reminds me of a story that ran on NPR a year back or so about child services abducting Native American children off of reservations under questionable circumstances. They would basically disrespect their cultural traditions and paint them as "abusive" to whittle away at Native communities. *digs* Ah, I found it. They covered the story here. I see this thread, and it reminds me of this story. If we're going to call teaching kids a cultural worldview "abuse," then this is the result when put into tangible action. Lost children, shattered families. I mean, that is the implication, isn't it? If you're abusing your child, he or she should be taken away?

And now I probably really will poof. *chuckles* But I thought of this story, and had to post it up.

I agree everyone should be able to raise their children in their religion and culture.

 

[Skwim]

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?

First, don't tell me not to "ask [you] something then say 'no need to answer'," it's arrogant.

Second, why would I have a personal investment in limiting its meaning to X, Y, or Z?

Perhaps it's because you're "someone who's had to deal people who've actually been abused." Frankly, it's the only reason I can think of for taking the position you do.

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

No claim, just a simple observation.