mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/27/84)
==============
To sum up, I think that creationist children should not be
required to attend classes that they deem offensive to
their religion. At the same time, we should make sure that
creationists will not force pseudo-science into the science
classroom.
--
Yosi Hoshen
==============
There is a very serious point here, and I may not do you justice by
this summary quote. But it should provoke a good argument if we can
avoid dogmatism of all kinds. I am cross-posting this to net.politics,
where the argument should continue (follow-ups should remove net.origins
from the Newsgroups list).
I originally suggested that the right to determine their children's
education might be taken from creationists (I should have said SOME
creationists, perhaps, but the more extreme claim will do for now).
This suggestion was provoked by a series of bewildering pseudo-physics
comments made by a creationist, that showed that he had been denied
a significant chunk of the heritage of human Civilization.
What is more disturbing, he seems not to be aware of his deprivation,
as a slave may not be aware of his lack of freedom.
When a child needs a blood transfusion in order to stay alive, courts
in some jurisdictions will take that child from its parents' custody
if their religion prohibits transfusions. Denying a child access to
its cultural heritage, or to large parts of that heritage, can be
almost as damaging to the child, and more damaging to the society
in which the child grows up. We have to live with the children of
creationists, and it is evident for all to behold how dangerous such
people can be to the health of an enquiring society.
The crimes that are committed in the name of religion are many, but
among the worst must be included refusing a child the nutrition it
requires for mental growth. Would you leave a child with parents
who starve it for food? No? Why then would you leave it with parents
who starve it for mental food? Malnutrition of the brain has the same
general effects in both cases.
I take an extreme position here in order to provoke discussion, not
because I see a truly black-and-white solution to the problem.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtwarren@ihnss.UUCP (Warren Montgomery) (11/28/84)
Children ought to learn the lesson that different people have different opinions and tell them as if they were known facts as soon as possible in life. Keeping pseudo-science out of the classroom won't keep it off of the front page of every magazine in the checkout line in the grocery store (probably far more influential on young minds just learning to read it -:), and parents bent on keeping the evil influence of evolution away from their kids in school won't protect them from TV, printed media, friends, etc. People have to learn to reason for themselves who and what they are going to believe, whether the process is by scientific reasoning or blind faith. Religion versus science is not the only issue where judgement is needed. What about history texts and teachers that belittle or ignore the contributions of large groups of people or exaggerate others? (One of my most vivid childhood memories of school is the fit my very conservative father threw over a composition I wrote outlining the glorious accomplishments of FDR as taught to us in school). How many of us never heard a teacher express a political opinion, directly or indirectly? My advice to concerned parents is to focus on teaching people HOW to think, not WHAT to think. -- Warren Montgomery ihnss!warren IH ((312)-979) x2494
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (11/29/84)
> > ============== > To sum up, I think that creationist children should not be > required to attend classes that they deem offensive to > their religion. At the same time, we should make sure that > creationists will not force pseudo-science into the science > classroom. > -- > > Yosi Hoshen > ============== > > I originally suggested that the right to determine their children's > education might be taken from creationists (I should have said SOME > creationists, perhaps, but the more extreme claim will do for now). > This suggestion was provoked by a series of bewildering pseudo-physics > comments made by a creationist, that showed that he had been denied > a significant chunk of the heritage of human Civilization. > What is more disturbing, he seems not to be aware of his deprivation, > as a slave may not be aware of his lack of freedom. > > Martin Taylor > I suppose that what is really being discussed here is whether the children of creationists should be required to learn about evolution. Well, just recently there was, here in B.C., a problem along the same lines. The solution was quite simple and, at least in my mind, quite fair. All students were required to learn about the *theory* of evolution ( in the appropriate biology courses ) , and would be expected to answer questions on it in provincial exams. However, after answering these questions the student would then be allowed to put down on his exam paper that he did not agree with the said theory, and I suppose give his own views. This seemed like a reasonable solution to me since it made the creationists happy and also still resulted in evolution being taught to their children. J.B. Robinson
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/30/84)
> ============== > To sum up, I think that creationist children should not be > required to attend classes that they deem offensive to > their religion. At the same time, we should make sure that > creationists will not force pseudo-science into the science > classroom. > -- > > Yosi Hoshen > ============== > > I originally suggested that the right to determine their children's > education might be taken from creationists (I should have said SOME > creationists, perhaps, but the more extreme claim will do for now). > This suggestion was provoked by a series of bewildering pseudo-physics > comments made by a creationist, that showed that he had been denied > a significant chunk of the heritage of human Civilization. > What is more disturbing, he seems not to be aware of his deprivation, > as a slave may not be aware of his lack of freedom. > > Martin Taylor > I suppose that what is really being discussed here is whether the children of creationists should be required to learn about evolution. =============== No, it's wider than that. The original suggestion that children were being denied part of their heritage was stimulated by a demonstration of profound ignorance of physics on the part of a creationist. The heritage that I was meaning is the spirit of enquiry and what it leads to. What these people wish to deny their children is the feeling of being able to question dogma, whether scientific or religious. Civilization is built on tolerance and enquiry; adherence to dogma is the key to theocracies. Basic sciences have developed from, and are a route to the spirit of enquiry and tolerance for strange ideas. To deny children training in basic sciences is to deny them a substantial part of their heritage. I've no objection to children being exposed to creationism, provided that they are given both the factual and the methodological tools with which to evaluate it. The fate of any one theory doesn't matter; all theories are wrong in the end when it comes to detail. I object to people being brought up with the idea there is one truth, and that someone KNOWS that truth. I think such people are dangerous to the rest of us and to the kind of society we find tolerable to live in. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/01/84)
> Children ought to learn the lesson that different people have > different opinions and tell them as if they were known facts as soon > as possible in life. Keeping pseudo-science out of the classroom > won't keep it off of the front page of every magazine in the > checkout line in the grocery store (probably far more influential on > young minds just learning to read it -:), and parents bent on > keeping the evil influence of evolution away from their kids in > school won't protect them from TV, printed media, friends, etc. > People have to learn to reason for themselves who and what they are > going to believe, whether the process is by scientific reasoning or > blind faith. Religion versus science is not the only issue where > judgement is needed. What about history texts and teachers that > belittle or ignore the contributions of large groups of people or > exaggerate others? (One of my most vivid childhood memories of > school is the fit my very conservative father threw over a > composition I wrote outlining the glorious accomplishments of FDR as > taught to us in school). How many of us never heard a teacher > express a political opinion, directly or indirectly? My advice to > concerned parents is to focus on teaching people HOW to think, not > WHAT to think. But this is the basic difference between the creationists and the evolutionist's positions. The evolutionists believe that the proper way to think is to look at the facts and form a theory consistent and supportive of them, and the creationists believe that the proper way to think is to accept the "word of God", and trust what people have been thinking for thousands of years. Their respective theories follow from this. Presumably your disagreement about FDR arose from another difference in ways of thinking -- judging somebody on the basis of what he did, and judging him on the basis of his political party. Wayne
act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis) (12/02/84)
> What about history texts and teachers that > belittle or ignore the contributions of large groups of people or > exaggerate others? (One of my most vivid childhood memories of > school is the fit my very conservative father threw over a > composition I wrote outlining the glorious accomplishments of FDR as > taught to us in school). How many of us never heard a teacher > express a political opinion, directly or indirectly? My advice to > concerned parents is to focus on teaching people HOW to think, not > WHAT to think. > This point about FDR is a very interesting one. I long ago learned that the reason General Lee gave General Grant his sword was so that General Grant could polish it for him! Another illusion shattered!!
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (12/03/84)
In article <2835@ucbcad.UUCP> faustus@ucbcad.UUCP writes: > >But this is the basic difference between the creationists and the >evolutionist's positions. The evolutionists believe that the proper >way to think is to look at the facts and form a theory consistent >and supportive of them, and the creationists believe that the proper >way to think is to accept the "word of God", and trust what people >have been thinking for thousands of years. > Wayne If this is indeed the basis of the creationist position, then this is the best argument against teaching as it science, science is, by definition, a method of inquiry based on looking at facts and drawing conclusions from them. The method of "accepting the Word od God" is properly *religion* not science, and should be taught as such.
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/04/84)
---------- > But this is the basic difference between the creationists and the > evolutionist's positions. The evolutionists believe that the proper > way to think is to look at the facts and form a theory consistent > and supportive of them, and the creationists believe that the proper > way to think is to accept the "word of God", and trust what people > have been thinking for thousands of years. ---------- Now that paragraph is singularly irritating. I happen to dislike the way that *both* "creationists" and "evolutionists" present their arguments. (Personally, I have next-to-no-opinion at all, but...) It is not the case that "creationtionists" simply check their brains at the door when they come to scientific questions. "Evolutionists" have certain evidence which they find compellingly convincing. Fine. "Creationists" happen to have a body of evidence (yes, evidence, you can't just dismiss it as 100% garbage) which they find equally compellingly convincing. It is highly unfair to attempt to simply dispense with half of an argument by claiming that that other side doesn't approach the problem from a rational point of view. It's not true, and the attack doesn't work. Both sides think. Both sides reach conclusions. The conclusions just happen to be different. I am attempting to stay out of this argument as much as possible, because, as I said, I have no particular stake in it. But I would appeal to everyone to allow the possibility that in fact the people on the other side of the fence also have functioning, thinking, and mostly rational brains in operation, too. Please try not to forget that. -- From the badly beaten keyboards of best address---+ him who speaks in *TyPe* f-O-n-T-s... | V Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 cbosgd!osu-eddie!karl
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/06/84)
> It is not the case > that "creationtionists" simply check their brains at the door when they come > to scientific questions. "Evolutionists" have certain evidence which they > find compellingly convincing. Fine. "Creationists" happen to have a body of > evidence (yes, evidence, you can't just dismiss it as 100% garbage) which > they find equally compellingly convincing. Maybe this debate has been going on elsewhere and I haven't noticed, but "rational" arguments in favor of religous positions have been pretty rare lately... Hume, for instance, had some good rational arguments in favor of creationism (good, that is, for his time), but I think that after being beaten repeatedly at the scientific game most creationalists have retreated into dogmatism. If anybody has any rational arguments in favor of creationism that anybody seriously makes these days I'd like to hear them, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting... Wayne
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (12/08/84)
This is in response to a message that wasn't addressed to me particularly, but what the hell. >[Karl Kleinpaste] >It is highly unfair to attempt to simply dispense with half of an argument >by claiming that that other side doesn't approach the problem from a >rational point of view. It's not true, and the attack doesn't work. Both >sides think. Both sides reach conclusions. The conclusions just happen to be >different. I certainly don't suspect creationists of being irrational in the sense of needing to be kept away from sharp objects (or at least not more than the rest of the net :-)). I do suspect them of attempting to pass off as science certain articles of faith which stand in contradiction to what we have observed of the universe. Whether or not this constitutes irrationality is a philosophical issue. If someone insisted on believing that he could fly and proposed to try it out, then we could probably all agree that the person in question was being irrational. Since creationism has no harmful immediate practical consequences and acts to buttress a belief system that is important to creationists it less clear to me whether it constitutes irrationality. It is clear to me it isn't science. >"Evolutionists" have certain evidence which they >find compellingly convincing. Fine. "Creationists" happen to have a body of >evidence (yes, evidence, you can't just dismiss it as 100% garbage) which >they find equally compellingly convincing. Have you seen something here I missed? Or are you espousing an "I'm OK, you're OK" version of science? What do you think of the Hollow Earthers? They claim to have evidence also. The above will not be the official opinion of the University of Texas until such time as it can be reliably ascertained that hell has frozen over to a depth of at least 10 meters. "I can't help it if my Ethan Vishniac knee jerks" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712