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
johnston@spp1.UUCP (11/30/84)
I will not reprint the posting by Yosi Hoshen for space condierations, but I'd like to respond to his analogy between education being mental food as necessary as physical food. All this I grant, but creationist are not advocating starving their children from mental food but, instead, providing mental food they consider to be more nourishing and in fact non-poisonous. In the case of blood transfusions, certain religious sects prohibit any way of obtaining blood. There should be safeguards against this, but I don't think anyone should be prohibiting a group from using another method to obtain the benefits of blood transfusion without using the transfusion. Getting back to the analogy of food, if you were a committed vegetarian and provided very nicely what you condider to be nutritous non-meat food for your children, would you consider the "right" of society to force your children to eat hot dogs in the school cafeteria, because, in their minds, you were poisoning your children by not allowing them to eat meat. Do you see the point? By looking at the net, you can see that the origin issue is not settled. Both sides could and do consider the teaching of the other point of view as being detrimental IF THAT WERE THE ONLY SIDE PRESENTED. What you've presented seems to advocate one view over the other. A creationist with the same thinking would advocate the same thing (Of course, the views would be switched). A standoff, eh? Wouldn't it be better to allow concerned parents to effect the possibility of both views being presented and allow education to return to the task of providing an environment in which an educated and aware child can choose. Mike Johnston
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!!
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (12/02/84)
From Mike Johnston =< >I will not reprint the posting by Yosi Hoshen for space condierations, but >I'd like to respond to his analogy between education being mental food as >necessary as physical food. I would appreciate if Mike would take notice to the real author of the article. The article that Mike refers to is not my article but a response to my article! PEASE NOTE!!!!!!! >All this I grant, but creationist are not advocating starving their children >from mental food but, instead, providing mental food they consider to be >more nourishing and in fact non-poisonous. To clarify the issue, I am reposting my original article: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Taylor =} }I conclude that Q-Bick (what an appropriate pseudonym) has neither }interest nor appreciation of elementary physics. It is this kind }of argument that leads me to answer Paul Dubois that indeed, creationists }should NOT be allowed to determine how their children are schooled. }The children should not be punished by a denial of their potential }heritage, simply because their immediate family glories }in their ignorance. I agree with Martin that creationist don't seem (or don't want) to understand the basic sciences and the scientific methodology. I strongly disagree with Martin's next statement that creationists should not be allowed to determine their children's education. Although providing a proper science education is very important for an individual, we should not try to force scientific theories on those who find these theories offensive. As we are not dealing here with a life threatening situation, or a total deprivation of education, I think that infringing on the right of parents to educate their children is unjustified. If creationist would tell us that some aspects of modern science are offensive to their religion, we should be trying to help them rather than scoff at them. Creationists' children should not be required to take science classes or section of classes that they find offensive. I know that this a tough choice. Yet, I feel that a pluralistic society should find ways to accommodate the special educational needs of the creationists' children without, at the same time, destroying science education for the rest of us. The creationists are not blameless in this situation. They are trying to impose their "science" on the public education system. Instead of developing a coherent scientific theory that is acceptable to the majority of scientists, they are attempting to advance creationism through legislation. The way to advance a scientific theory is to convince the scientific community that the theory is valid. By attempting to legislate creationism, creationists are undermining their credibility within the scientific community. If you want to advance a new theory, do not expect scientists to take you seriously, when you are simultaneously trying to promote your theories via legislation. When Darwin, Schroedinger, and Einstein introduced new revolutionary theories, they did not ask for the acceptance of their theories by legislators, school boards, or the uneducated public. These new theories became the accepted standard, because the majority of scientists agreed that the theories consistently and adequately explain the observed scientific data. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- So you see my view are quite different from what you assumed. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
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