Are creationists polluting the minds of our youth?

I ask this question after watching this video from Nightline. The video is a bit long, but take the time to watch the whole thing. Here is the link:
Nightline: Faith Matters
The link is through alternet.org. This is where I found the story.
I ask this question as the headline on Alternet claims that our youth's minds are being polluted by the two men in this video.
I must admit, I agree with alternet. These guys are not giving these kids both options. They are force feeding the children the ideas of creationism. not bothering to also inform them of the possibility of evolution being the truth. The funny thing about this, is that these two guys don't even seem to know themselves exactly what they are talking about.
It has been proposed that science and religion can work together on the debate of evolution and creationism. But with guys like these forcing one idea down these kids minds, that idea of coexistence of religion and evolution seems to be next to impossible.
I really feel sorry for these kids who are not even given the option to think for themselves. It is scary how these guys continually have the kids repeat what they say.
I also feel inclined to include this quote from the snippet that goes with the video:

There's something so upsetting to me about seeing children indoctrinated in hate and ignorance.

alternet.org

When they can't do simple algebra, how could people allow them to actually teach kids? Their teaching style is also very very basic, rote learning at its worst.

A better link for you PH...




But the answer to the question is: yes. Good the hear that Cali has brought in a law to ensure homeschooling parents have some sort of standard.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Thanks melatonin. Not all homeschooled kids though are taught by religious families. I think there was a big debate about that Cali law wasn't there?
Anyways, the way these guys spread their agenda around to these kids is ludicrous. They cut down the evolution theory and force the creationist theory saying we are trained to think like evolutionists. That statement I find hilarious. We are trained? HMMMM...I thought we were trained to look at all possibilities and decide for ourselves what we want to believe.

reply to post by melatonin

Oh, this is hilarious! Complaining about creationalists getting too much attention in education! Oh, let me see, next trick is going to be complaining that Al Gore isn't getting the attention he deserves about global warming?

Give me a break! The last school science textbook I saw devoted over thirty pages exclusively to evolution, and the remainder of the book treated it as a proven fact. There wasn't one single word about any dissenting opinions or contradictory evidence, and absolutely no mention that creationalism even existed.

And this:

But the answer to the question is: yes. Good the hear that Cali has brought in a law to ensure homeschooling parents have some sort of standard.

Oh, yes, there's a standard. A standard indoctrination, and a set of hoops to jump through designed to make absolutely sure that no one who disagrees with the 'science' du jour will be able to tell their children about it.

Give me a break! This is the most ridiculous thread I have seen yet.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by palehorse23
Thanks melatonin. Not all homeschooled kids though are taught by religious families. I think there was a big debate about that Cali law wasn't there?

No worries. I didn't really follow the Cali issue, just heard about it in passing. I think all children deserve a decent standard of education. If people want to homeschool, cool. Just learn to teach to some half-decent standard. Not too much to ask.

We are trained? HMMMM...I thought we were trained to look at all possibilities and decide for ourselves what we want to believe.

That's what they really don't want to happen.

Creationists: closing children's minds since 1616

reply to post by TheRedneck


I guess you are entitled to your opinion. Even though it may be typical of a creationist believer.
Isn't creationism a belief that is held within religions? How is that supposed to be included in a science book?
If indeed the book you refer to said that it is proven fact, then that is wrong. Nothing is an absolute proven fact. Not even creationism. You may see it as fact because that is what you choose to believe. I choose to believe that evolution is fact. That's just the way life is.
You and I have both been given the theories behind each ideology and we chose what we thought makes the most sense. Unless you were brainwashed like these kids. You can choose to learn other beliefs outside of education systems. That is a personal choice. I have been shown both and I chose evolution.
The mere fact that the guys in this video totally discount the theories behind evolution is what is truly ridiculous, not this thread. How do you explain the fact that these guys totally ignored the dating methods used and didn't teach kids about that? Isn't that a misleading method?
Look, we could argue till we turn blue in the face about what theory is right or wrong. I guess my point with this thread is to ask why people are not given all options and then allowed to make their own choice. If you missed that, I am sorry. Maybe I shouldn't assume that everyone can understand a simple observation.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Give me a break! The last school science textbook I saw devoted over thirty pages exclusively to evolution, and the remainder of the book treated it as a proven fact. There wasn't one single word about any dissenting opinions or contradictory evidence, and absolutely no mention that creationalism even existed.

That's because it was a science textbook. You can teach the supposed contradictory evidence in your churches and at home. Science classrooms are for science.

Cheers.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Oh, this is hilarious! Complaining about creationalists getting too much attention in education! Oh, let me see, next trick is going to be complaining that Al Gore isn't getting the attention he deserves about global warming?

there's a difference there. global warming is a tiny bit more controversial than evolution

evolution is as controversial as heliocentrism

Give me a break! The last school science textbook I saw devoted over thirty pages exclusively to evolution, and the remainder of the book treated it as a proven fact.

...that's what a well established theory is, essentially fact.

There wasn't one single word about any dissenting opinions or contradictory evidence, and absolutely no mention that creationalism even existed.

dissenting opinions are such a tiny minority that they're irrelevant and entirely religious.

there is no contradictory evidence...

and of course it doesn't mention creationism, just like an astronomy book makes no mention of astrology and a statistics class doesn't teach tarot cards.

Oh, yes, there's a standard. A standard indoctrination, and a set of hoops to jump through designed to make absolutely sure that no one who disagrees with the 'science' du jour will be able to tell their children about it.

...a standard against indoctrination. you don't indoctrinate with science, you indoctrinate with religion. that's what creationism is, 100% unscientific religious belief.

and anyone who disagrees with evolution is essentially not educated enough to teach science in the first place. either that or they accept that all the evidence points towards evolution and refuse to believe in it on religious grounds.

reply to post by palehorse23

It appears we have changed horses mid-stream. Your statement in the original post of this thread appears to be complaining about the fact that creationalism is given too much credibility. My stance is that it is typically given none.

These guys are not giving these kids both options. They are force feeding the children the ideas of creationism. not bothering to also inform them of the possibility of evolution being the truth.

As far as your contention on the concept of evolution and creationalism both being theories, neither proven, you are correct. When you state that the 'teachers' you refer to lack teaching skills, no argument there either. However, when one begins to argue that there is too much of the suppressed 'fringe' theory being taught, when in actuality it it is the other way around, I do tend to have a problem with it.

reply to post by melatonin

That's because it was a science textbook. You can teach the supposed contradictory evidence in your churches and at home. Science classrooms are for science.

That argument might hold some validity, were it not for this:

But the answer to the question is: yes. Good the hear that Cali has brought in a law to ensure homeschooling parents have some sort of standard.

The law you are referring to establishes a standard, yes. A standard which makes it pretty much impossible (or at the very least impractical) to home school one's children. So on the one hand you are claiming that certain things should be taught at home, then you are applauding a law that restricts home teaching. Must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

...that's what a well established theory is, essentially fact.

Er, no. A fact is a theory which has been proven via repeated experimentation of multiple scientists (or has been witnessed by such) and which has no evidence to the contrary. A simple review of the threads on this forum will point out many apparent contradictions, if one has an open enough mind to undertake such a search. This is sufficient to label evolution as a theory rather than a fact.

dissenting opinions are such a tiny minority that they're irrelevant and entirely religious.

As I just pointed out, the dissenting opinions are not a 'tiny minority', and certainly not irrelevant to a search for truth, which is the purpose of science. As for the 'religious' tag, that is simply not true in all cases, although I do concede that it is true of the majority of dissentions. I fail to see how slapping a 'religion' tag on an argument renders it null and void, however.

of course it doesn't mention creationism, just like an astronomy book makes no mention of astrology and a statistics class doesn't teach tarot cards.

The astronomy/astrology reference makes some sense, although astronomy developed from astrology (or weren't you aware of that?). To equate tarot cards with statistics is just silly, for lack of a better word.

But here again, this thread is pointing out how terrible it is that creationalism is trying to take over evolution. Your very arguments indicate the contrary.

...a standard against indoctrination. you don't indoctrinate with science, you indoctrinate with religion. that's what creationism is, 100% unscientific religious belief.

and anyone who disagrees with evolution is essentially not educated enough to teach science in the first place. either that or they accept that all the evidence points towards evolution and refuse to believe in it on religious grounds.

So, let me understand this position... it is impossible for science to indoctrinate, that is, to teach incorrect beliefs. So exactly how was the world once scientifically accepted as flat? Exactly how was it that Isaac Newton's explanation of motion did not include relativity? Exactly how was it that the cure for most diseases, among the wealthy and learned, was to remove one's blood?

So we have with evolution, not in the fact that it is an investigated theory, but that it is an enforced belief through the guise of 'science', and unable to be debated without sweeping statements such as yours in closing. This is not the mark of one who is secure in one's beliefs, but rather the mark of one who is insecure in those beliefs and unwilling to allow dissenters to be heard.

That is not true science, and your arguments are contrary to the topic I laughed at.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
That argument might hold some validity, were it not for this:

But the answer to the question is: yes. Good the hear that Cali has brought in a law to ensure homeschooling parents have some sort of standard.

The law you are referring to establishes a standard, yes. A standard which makes it pretty much impossible (or at the very least impractical) to home school one's children. So on the one hand you are claiming that certain things should be taught at home, then you are applauding a law that restricts home teaching. Must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.

Standards, yeah.

Different things, though. You can still teach pseudoscientific ideas at home whether the kids get a proper education or not. The Cali issue is enabling all children the entitlement to some standard of homeschooled education.

All kids deserve a decent education, and whilst some homeschooling parents might be able to simulate a decent pedagogy, others will fall far short. Providing a trash education could restrict a kid's life chances, like all those bible college people whinging that Cali universities won't accept their trash biology courses. Oh well. We even have some suggesting that creationists should be able to answer questions in academic exams from a biblical viewpoint and not lose marks, rofl. And then people who can't even multiply teaching kids in the video above.

Standards, yeah. Some people haz them.

Surely being open-minded encourages a person to be able to change their opinions or arguments whenever they gather evidence of something different. However, all I see is a stand-off between evolutionists and creationists. There is no middle ground from the looks of it except for polarised and entrenched positions. Can't we just say that God created the Universe and then allowed evolution?

Moreover, what is really the problem in presenting students with a number of arguments and allowing them to decide for themselves what they choose to belive?

There are arguments against global warming as a scientific fact for ecample. Can we not present both sides of the story and allow the stronger line of evidence to win? At the moment both Creationists and Evolutioists are convinced that they are the holders of this nebulous concept of 'The Truth' when the reality is uncertainty for both...

Originally posted by palehorse23
Look, we could argue till we turn blue in the face about what theory is right or wrong. I guess my point with this thread is to ask why people are not given all options and then allowed to make their own choice. If you missed that, I am sorry. Maybe I shouldn't assume that everyone can understand a simple observation.

I have an answer for this. The options are not presented because we have to figure them out for ourselves later on in life, if we so choose to. If not, keep living the way we are living and so it goes. I know that until my later teens and early 20's I pretty much believed what I was told/taught. Do I have a problem with it? Sure do, but who am I to correct my sister and her husband for what I feel to be brainwashing their kids from the time that they are born? I get asked all the time by them why I do not go to church but I have never given the true answer. Now if they ask me in say 10 to 12 years, I will gladly tell them. I guess what I am trying to say is that hopefully at some point these people start to question things and seek more knowledge.

I guess I am rambling. Oh, well.

Time for a smoke break.

reply to post by melatonin

All kids deserve a decent education, and whilst some homeschooling parents might be able to simulate a decent pedagogy, others will fall far short. Providing a trash education could restrict a kid's life chances, like all those bible college people whinging that Cali universities won't accept their trash biology courses.

I suggest you read the court ruling, instead of what some pundit is saying about it. It goes much farther than you apparently think. From www.ajc.com...


And recent studies have shown that the average home-schooled student scores well above the average public school student in college prep tests. From www.ericdigests.org...


TheRedneck

reply to post by Heronumber0

The theory you reference, creation by God through evolution, is indeed one of the alternate theories to evolution. And I believe it should be addressed as well as 'typical' creationalism. All, including evolution, are theories.

No one has the answer. We have beliefs, as you so aptly pointed out. My contention is simply that it is ridiculous to cry foul when an overlooked theory is presented finally in a world dominated by yours.

TheRedneck

reply to post by palehorse23




No more than any newspaper stand does, with all the porn and gore plastered all over it.

Nothing that makes one think (regardless of one's conclusions about it) could ever "pollute" the mind.

You know, I've noticed that an awful lot of "free thinkers" - who are so concerned about "young minds" - are actually opposed to thinking themselves...

Anyway, don't worry about children. It doesn't matter what anyone inculcates them; if they are of the thinking type, they will sooner or later reevaluate the old answers and start searching for new questions.






[edit on 29-3-2008 by Vanitas]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I suggest you read the court ruling, instead of what some pundit is saying about it. It goes much farther than you apparently think.

I did actually, found it t'other day. As you point out, they require a state license. Fine. They can go and get one.

And recent studies have shown that the average home-schooled student scores well above the average public school student in college prep tests. From www.ericdigests.org...

And as it noted:

Many home school parents were formally trained as teachers. Almost one-fourth of home school students (24%) have at least one parent who is a certified teacher.

In Cali, that needs to be 100%. And I guess you missed all the limitations and caveats noted in the article, and others (e.g., 50% higher income in the HS sample vs. comparison, higher educated parents vs. comparison, selective sample, poor generalisation, elective testing etc). When doing such comparisons, it pays to constrain confounds.

However, as I said earlier, I'm sure that many parents can simulate a decent teaching environment. I'm sure others can't. Thus, no-one is stopping parents homeschooling in Cali. They just need to do some learnin' themselves before they do so.

ABE: and your comment above to Hero shows why it's an issue when people who don't really understand stuff like science teach their kiddie-winkles. The science of evolution doesn't even speak to the presence or not of god. Many well-respected evolutionary biologists are christians. Science just doesn't invoke magic. If you want to plop it on top, cool.

Should we also have theistic tectonic theory? How about theistic rainfall? Theistic hurricanes? Theistic germ theory? Theistic gravity? Theistic mental illness? Theistic acid-base reactions? You can plop it on top, but it doesn't belong in science. It would sort of ruin it, don't you think?

Why not go further? Lets have theistic maths! Pi = 3!

[edit on 29-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

There's more to getting a state license than simply showing up and 'proving' one's ability. That proof can be tedious and beyond the ability of individuals. When a public or private school needs to get a teacher certified, they have people who do just that, who specialize in the rules and regulations that must be met and know how to make sure all the correct forms are exactly filled out and all the fees are paid. Individuals are at a disadvantage in such a circumstance.

In Cali, that needs to be 100%. And I guess you missed all the limitations and caveats noted in the article, and others (e.g., 50% higher income in the HS sample vs. comparison, higher educated parents vs. comparison, selective sample, poor generalisation, elective testing etc). When doing such comparisons, it pays to constrain confounds.

However, as I said earlier, I'm sure that many parents can simulate a decent teaching environment. I'm sure others can't. Thus, no-one is stopping parents homeschooling in Cali. They just need to do some learnin' themselves before they do so.

Since we need only ex-teachers, or those who are able to receive a teaching certification from the state to teach their own children, why not take it a step farther? Make it illegal to administer medicine without a med school certificate. That aspirin or cold remedy could be dangerous if abused. Perhaps require all cooking in the home to be done by someone who is state licensed as a cook or chef? The list could go on.

I contend it is not only the parent's right, but their responsibility to monitor the progress of the child's growth toward adulthood. If the public schools are teaching theory as fact against the parent's beliefs, then they must have an opportunity to change the direction of the child's education. Anything less is forced education toward the societal norm, which has never produced anything more than slavery. Not everyone can afford private education, so homeschooling can easily become a last resort. Making it harder to do simply forces more children into the possibility of state-imposed indoctrination.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
That aspirin or cold remedy could be dangerous if abused. Perhaps require all cooking in the home to be done by someone who is state licensed as a cook or chef? The list could go on.

Not sure they expect that in Cali.

Every child deserves a decent education. Some HS parents probably can provide it, many will fall short. Forget the obfuscation. Getting kids a half-decent education has been one of the best things that has happened in the last 100 years or so. The parents can do what is required. If they really want to homeschool, they can. If they can't afford getting the required education, maybe you should push for free education, bring in a few laws that ensure this, raise some taxes

Of course, you'd be happy with a pair of illiterates homeschooling, why would anyone even think that's an issue...same with the scientifically illiterate, those who think 2+2=5, those who think the holocaust never happened, etc etc. Kids deserve better.

As for food, if parents were neglecting the health of their kids, then they should be a worry, like the parents leaving a kid to die of diabetes you have been defending. I'm sure most can cut a few vegetables and meat and throw 'em in a pot. Not exactly rocket science

Just hope some don't expect praying for dinner will do the job. Sure you'll find a way to see the fight for 'liberty' in the rights to do so.

If the public schools are teaching theory as fact against the parent's beliefs, then they must have an opportunity to change the direction of the child's education.

Shouldn't we let kids develop their own beliefs? Or do parents determine beliefs for them?

They are teaching the scientific position, that's what people do in science classrooms. Evolution is both fact and theory. No-one makes the kids actually believe it, they can refuse to believe it - they just need to learn it, understand it, then they can go home and believe in whatever they like. We might then have anti-evolution users on ATS who can get beyond the 'der ain't no transitionals', 'itz just a feery' etc. mantra they have been exposed to.

Their parents can take them to a church and have some pastor lie to them about science, fine by me. The people in that video are lying to kids, making kids stupid for jesus, they can't even multiply simple numbers to see the massive holes in what they are filling the kid's heads with. But in the POMOistic world of some libertarians, that's fine and dandy.

Maybe one of these better edumacated kids will become the new Dr. Dr. William Dembski and provide us with epic lulz.

Once we start pushing religion into science, it becomes BS. Even Frankie Bacon, a very religious man and the first to formalise the scientific method, knew that. Plop your fairy-tales on top, but keep it out of science.

We all win.




[edit on 30-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Vanitas
Anyway, don't worry about children. It doesn't matter what anyone inculcates them; if they are of the thinking type, they will sooner or later reevaluate the old answers and start searching for new questions.

This is true.. and it's heartening that you made this point but ideally they shouldn't have to sort through so much bs in the first place. Science should be dependable.. it's knowledge is based on evidence.. not something that is 'interpritive' and biased to certain theologies.

time to get back to the forums.

reply to post by TheRedneck


dissenting opinions are a tiny minority.

there was a petition to show that scientists disagree with evolution, 700 people signed. it's the highest number ever given for disagreement with evolution

in response, there is a project steve. project steve is a petition for scientists with the name steve (or variations like stephen, stephania, etc) to show their support for evolution
this has 800+ signatures and growing.

there is no legit scientific basis for disputing evolution, that's why i threw the religious tag in. everyone that's disagreeing with it either doesn't understand it due to ignorance or willful ignorance, or they do understand it and choose not to accept that which contradicts their religious beliefs