Creation vs. Evolution

[Kent]

Politically motivated? Maybe I'm getting the wrong vibe here, but since when did sticking to the facts when teaching children become a political stance?

There's no two ways about it - that it is correct to teach evolution as a legitimate scientific theory is not an opinion, nor is it a political point of view - it's a fact. Teaching children otherwise is wrong. Period. The fact that opposition to teaching evolution is almost always motivated by religious bias is almost beside the point, but it is true to say that the only people that I know of who object to teaching evolution are religious fundamentalists.

We have definitely strayed and my use of skepticism was never meant regarding evolution. Teaching a child to be a skeptic and teaching evolution are two different things and I never addressed evolution- never. In fact, I had only talked about skepticism regarding a belief in a higher power (specifically what I posted for that matter).
I never objected to teaching evolution.
Never objected to teaching critical thinking or skeptical points of view.

I only stated that I oppose the force-feeding of religious views on children coming from either side, atheist or fundamentalist.

Evolution was never a point of my posts and I'm pretty sure it was clear that I stated this was regarding crazy Christians talking about where food comes from and atheist insisting there is no god (both with regards to forcing said views on children).

Being fair and presenting a view of skepticism is a good thing in my opinion. Harping on it and only allowing a view that god doesn't exist is bad IMO. Just the same goes for the crazy god people, presenting the possibility is one thing, teaching insane ideas like food comes from the lord is another.

Evolution on the other hand...
That's a scientific basic that should be taught in every school.

 

[Villain]

Before I take the bait and start searching for atheist examples of adults force-feeding children opinions they are too young to understand I need to get one thing clear...

Am I to take it you genuinely will not believe that sort of behavior occurs unless I can provide an example?

No, there isn't any snark hidden behind that post. I am genuinely interested in pro-evolutionist brainwashing of children.

Also, maybe before you do that we should make what I'm asking you more clear: I didn't say anything about Athiests and this is not a discussion about religion (there are plenty pro-evolution Christians). You said "both sides of the politically motivated groups addressing this issue often exploit kids."

I assume from the title of this thread that the two groups are: 1. Pro-Evolution and 2. Pro-Creationism.

So, what I am asking from you is examples of pro-evolutionists exploiting children.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't say kids shouldn't be raised to be skeptics, I said both sides of the politically motivated groups addressing this issue often exploit kids.

Moreover, I don't think it's quite appropriate to act like I don't understand child exploitation by citing such a personal and somewhat unrelated experience when my original post clearly stated that I was disgusted with religious people exploiting children while teaching them false information.

The point is relevant because one of the primary concerns about skepticism that was brought up (not by you) was that it would undermine adult authority, something that could be problematic for a child who needs to obey his teachers and learn their lessons.

I was merely citing reasons (not only aimed at your post, but also @Touring Mars ) as to why children need to learn to question adults in general. I wanted to drive that point home, so I cited a personal example.

I apologize for giving you the impression that I was specifically replying to you. I was replying to the general sentiment that skepticism can have negative consequences for children (which you had included in your post), and why the lesson of skepticism needs to be taught anyway.

 

[Kent]

No, there isn't any snark hidden behind that post. I am genuinely interested in pro-evolutionist brainwashing of children.

Also, maybe before you do that we should make what I'm asking you more clear: I didn't say anything about Athiests and this is not a discussion about religion (there are plenty pro-evolution Christians). You said "both sides of the politically motivated groups addressing this issue often exploit kids."

I assume from the title of this thread that the two groups are: 1. Pro-Evolution and 2. Pro-Creationism.

So, what I am asking from you is examples of pro-evolutionists exploiting children.

You took "this issue" out of context from my post and applied it to the context of the thread in general. My post was more specific and addressed the more recent previous post regarding a nut bag religious guy saying "the lord" provided food.

BTW Villain,
Since you didn't actually answer my question (addressing whether or not you are ignorant enough to believe pro-evolutionists or any other group for that matter can exploit children) I will just cut to the chase...
A very pro-evolutionist web site addresses the subject using an example of a public school teacher who was all but too proud to write "evolitionist news.org" and brag about exploiting his position to impose atheism on students.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/email_from_athe077711.html

Needless to say, evolutionnews did not find this idea to be ethical... To quote them...

I'm not a lawyer so I'll leave to others the question of just how certainly this is a violation of the First Amendment's prohibition of using public institutions to promote a religious faith -- in this case, atheism. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/email_from_athe077711.html#sthash.UYD5IWFO.dpuf

Take that for what you will if anything at all.

@ Danoff,
I appreciate you redressing that issue with me because I was a bit on the defensive after seeing that... I want to make it clear that I believe it's important for children to be taught skepticism, critical thinking, and a basic distrust of strangers (adults or otherwise). That also applies to a basic distrust of those who want to expound their own views over you without concern for what your views might be (especially when it's a child who is often too young to have views of their own).

 

[Spurgy 777]

Kent, you're not making sense, how does teaching a child to be skeptical allow you to force a view onto them, surely it does the opposite?

 

[Villain]

You took "this issue" out of context from my post and applied it to the context of the thread in general. My post was more specific and addressed the more recent previous post regarding a nut bag religious guy saying "the lord" provided food.

Ah, I see. I still don't know the identities of the two politically motivated strawmen exploiting children (especially the ones telling kids to think for themselves - was that one of the groups?), but I think I'm starting to get what it is you were trying to say. Or am I? I'm confused.

 

[Kent]

Kent, you're not making sense, how does teaching a child to be skeptical allow you to force a view onto them, surely it does the opposite?

I didn't say teaching a child to be a skeptic allows you to force a view on them. I said it is important to teach them to be skeptics and critical thinkers, I just happened to also say that both sides of any issue are capable of exploiting children.

Ah, I see. I still don't know the identities of the two politically motivated strawmen exploiting children (especially the ones telling kids to think for themselves - was that one of the groups?), but I think I'm starting to get what it is you were trying to say. Or am I? I'm confused.

Yes, you are confused.
I was talking about people exploiting children to tell them there is a god and people exploiting children to tell them there isn't a god.

Go Re-Read My Last Post.

 

[Villain]

Yes, you are confused.
I was talking about people exploiting children to tell them there is a god and people exploiting children to tell them there isn't a god.

Thank you for clearing that up. I periodically enjoy posting in the Do you believe in God? thread. Perhaps you can post your examples of people exploiting children to tell them there isn't a god in that thread and we can discuss it further there?

 

[Touring Mars]

We have definitely strayed and my use of skepticism was never meant regarding evolution. Teaching a child to be a skeptic and teaching evolution are two different things and I never addressed evolution- never. In fact, I had only talked about skepticism regarding a belief in a higher power (specifically what I posted for that matter).
I never objected to teaching evolution.
Never objected to teaching critical thinking or skeptical points of view.

I only stated that I oppose the force-feeding of religious views on children coming from either side, atheist or fundamentalist.

Evolution was never a point of my posts and I'm pretty sure it was clear that I stated this was regarding crazy Christians talking about where food comes from and atheist insisting there is no god (both with regards to forcing said views on children).

Being fair and presenting a view of skepticism is a good thing in my opinion. Harping on it and only allowing a view that god doesn't exist is bad IMO. Just the same goes for the crazy god people, presenting the possibility is one thing, teaching insane ideas like food comes from the lord is another.

Evolution on the other hand...
That's a scientific basic that should be taught in every school.

Cool 👍

As a scientist and science teacher myself, I know that it is possible to teach evolution without once mentioning God or religion and that is the way it should be. Teaching evolution properly involves absolutely no religious instruction of any kind whatsoever.

Unfortunately, evolution theory is opposed solely on religious grounds, and thus opponents of evolution wrongly equate the teaching of evolution theory to promoting atheism. It is true that many atheists are vocal advocates of evolution theory, but that doesn't mean that Creationists are right in saying that evolution is an atheist doctrine - far from it infact.

Evolution is taught by atheists and theists alike because it is science, not religion. Creationism is religion, and that's why it is only advocated by theists, and why it should never be taught as if it were science.

 

[Scaff]

A very pro-evolutionist web site addresses the subject using an example of a public school teacher who was all but too proud to write "evolitionist news.org" and brag about exploiting his position to impose atheism on students.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/email_from_athe077711.html

That's not a 'very pro-evolutionist web site' at all, its a creationist website (of the most extreme kind) dressed up to look like a pro-evolution website.

Its a product of the Discovery Institute and to be quite honest I would not believe a single word they print, given the track record for misleading (as the very site is designed to do) and outright lies.

 

[Kent]

That's not a 'very pro-evolutionist web site' at all, its a creationist website (of the most extreme kind) dressed up to look like a pro-evolution website.

Its a product of the Discovery Institute and to be quite honest I would not believe a single word they print, given the track record for misleading (as the very site is designed to do) and outright lies.

I'll just take your word for it.
I don't use that site and it only came up because a member refused to accept the possibility of an Atheist teacher using the classroom as a platform for their own views (insisting I provide an example... I spent 2 minutes on google, saw that, read over it briefly and saw the basic idea does apply).

Fact is, no one should think advocates of any view (whether it be religious or non-religious) are immune to exploiting a poorly informed audience.

 

[Scaff]

I'll just take your word for it.
I don't use that site and it only came up because a member refused to accept the possibility of an Atheist teacher using the classroom as a platform for their own views (insisting I provide an example... I spent 2 minutes on google, saw that, read over it briefly and saw the basic idea does apply).

Fact is, no one should think advocates of any view (whether it be religious or non-religious) are immune to exploiting a poorly informed audience.

I don't for a second doubt that individuals on both sides do so, however (and as that very site is an excellent example) one side goes far. far further in that regard than the other.

As a source of accurate and unbiased information I would strongly caution against using a site that has a long track record of heavy-handed bias and actively seeks to mislead in the very way it presents itself.

 

[Touring Mars]

That's not a 'very pro-evolutionist web site' at all, its a creationist website (of the most extreme kind) dressed up to look like a pro-evolution website.

Its a product of the Discovery Institute and to be quite honest I would not believe a single word they print, given the track record for misleading (as the very site is designed to do) and outright lies.

Exactly.

The Discovery Institute are as bad as it gets.

It is more than a tad ironic that they are highlighting a case of a teacher wrongly imposing his 'religious views' on his pupils, when that is precisely what they exist for themselves...

 

[Villain]

BTW Villain,
Since you didn't actually answer my question (addressing whether or not you are ignorant enough to believe pro-evolutionists or any other group for that matter can exploit children)

Right here, Kent:

No, there isn't any snark hidden behind that post. I am genuinely interested in pro-evolutionist brainwashing of children.

 

[Kent]

Just for the sake of avoiding that kind of trouble again, care to point me towards a fair site where they discuss evolution without advocating atheism?

At the end of the day I'm not really worried about finding the site but I'd still like to be able to provide proof that both sides of any and every argument are often willing to cross the line between ethical and unethical.

If it was as simple as using life experiences this wouldn't be much of a problem. University biology courses at my school were always riddled with atheism and the evolution study groups were more atheism study groups than anything else but I always wrote that off to being in a relatively small school in the deep south (Southeastern Louisiana University had only about 20k students and is located down here in LA).

Bottom line:
If people refuse to accept that teachers of either view are capable and have actually exploited their positions then there really isn't much I can do to change their view.

As is the case here, I get the feeling more and more that some people would rather this whole situation boil down to the religious people are wrong and always will be, and the atheist are right and always will be.

As for myself,
I feel like both sides can and have screwed up before and will continue to do so as long as their are advocates willing to put their agenda ahead of their integrity.

And really... All I was looking for at any point in this was a balanced view willing to admit...

I don't for a second doubt that individuals on both sides do so

I really don't think the religious people have it right, they have it far from correct.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I'll just take your word for it.
I don't use that site and it only came up because a member refused to accept the possibility of an Atheist teacher using the classroom as a platform for their own views (insisting I provide an example... I spent 2 minutes on google, saw that, read over it briefly and saw the basic idea does apply).

Fact is, no one should think advocates of any view (whether it be religious or non-religious) are immune to exploiting a poorly informed audience.

I think the confusion, at least for me, was that you originally said that you don't like scepticism being crammed down kids throats (don't quite know how you could go about doing that anyway) because it prevents them from believing in a higher power. Which isn't the same as an atheist teacher, or any teacher for that matter, using his position to try and make the kids in his classroom have the same view as him, which I'll agree is wrong.

 

[Kent]

I think the confusion, at least for me, was that you originally said that you don't like scepticism being crammed down kids throats (don't quite know how you could go about doing that anyway) because it prevents them from believing in a higher power. Which isn't the same as an atheist teacher, or any teacher for that matter, using his position to try and make the kids in his classroom have the same view as him, which I'll agree is wrong.

Clearly I didn't emphasize the part about "cramming" the view down someone's throat. What I meant by that was the idea of constantly forcing the view on someone to the point (in this case) of leaving a child with the inability to believe in a higher power simply because there is no scientific proof.

I have repeatedly stated that I condone, no, encourage skepticism and critical thinking.
I just happen to be foolish enough to think I can do that while also criticizing people on both sides rather than just one.

 

[Famine]

Just for the sake of avoiding that kind of trouble again, care to point me towards a fair site where they discuss evolution without advocating atheism?

Evolution is an intrinsically atheist concept - its a natural process that occurs without a deity (literally a [without] theos [deities]).

What evolution doesn't advocate is nontheism - the belief there is no god. There may be some teachers who'll invoke religion in evolution as proof of the non-existence of god and they're just as guilty of forcing as those who invoke god as proof that evolution isn't true.

Evolutionary biology requires no belief, religion or deities, even the belief that there are no deities. It simply shouldn't be a part of the teaching of it - and it should be taught without reference to religion.

 

[Kent]

Evolution is an intrinsically atheist concept - its a natural process that occurs without a deity (literally a [without] theos [deities]).

What evolution doesn't advocate is nontheism - the belief there is no god. There may be some teachers who'll invoke religion in evolution as proof of the non-existence of god and they're just as guilty of forcing as those who invoke god as proof that evolution isn't true.

Evolutionary biology requires no belief, religion or deities, even the belief that there are no deities. It simply shouldn't be a part of the teaching of it - and it should be taught without reference to religion.

I agree entirely but the whole issue here has been that certain members refused to accept the idea it's possible for an atheist to be willing to advocate their views with children without concern for the fact they are too young for make up their own minds.

This whole time I've advocated critical thinking, skepticism, evolution, basics of science... It's only when I say that both sides can make mistakes that people just assume I'm some crazy creationist or that I'm some how defending creationist.

 

[Famine]

Someone promoting their beliefs that there are no gods is a nontheist, not an atheist. Atheists have no beliefs to promote - and so wouldn't. The views an atheist ought to advocate when teaching evolution are all about evolution and not religion - it's not a related subject.

Calling yourself an atheist and promoting nontheism doesn't beget a problem for atheism, just because stupid people tack onto the label. Someone who does that is not only a rubbish atheist, but a bad teacher - and I think we can agree that being bad at your job isn't contingent on any one belief set just as being inconsistent in your belief set isn't contingent on your job.

 

[Villain]

Just for the sake of avoiding that kind of trouble again, care to point me towards a fair site where they discuss evolution without advocating atheism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0061441732/?tag=gtplanet-20

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/10/my-take-jesus-would-believe-in-evolution-and-so-should-you/

At the end of the day I'm not really worried about finding the site but I'd still like to be able to provide proof that both sides of any and every argument are often willing to cross the line between ethical and unethical.

That's a nice strawman point that anyone can agree with, but your's had been far more specific than merely "unethical."

I asked you for specific examples of children being exploited by pro-evolutionists (something I've never read about) with genuine interest. So far all I've gotten linked to is an opinion-post regarding a nebulous boastful e-mail.

 

[Kent]

Someone promoting their beliefs that there are no gods is a nontheist, not an atheist. Atheists have no beliefs to promote - and so wouldn't.

Calling yourself an atheist and promoting nontheism doesn't beget a problem for atheism, just because stupid people tack onto the label.

So obviously I've been misinformed for most of my life.
Atheism does not mean you do not believe it god. It just means you believe in living without god?
Let me know if I got that right.

Though I do ask you forgive my misunderstanding as even organizations like merriam-webster still define atheism as a dis-belief in god. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)
Wrongly so mind you... I know good and well using "a" at the beginning of a word means "without" such as amoral.
(this keeps getting worse and worse as even wikipedia says atheism is the rejection of a belief deities exist)
I'm going to have to go back to school just to take a class on the difference between living without a belief in god and believing there is no god.

As for the Villian part of this, you win bud, evolutionist never have and probably never will take advantage of their position (whatever it may be) to advocate their own religious, atheist, or non-theist views.

 

[Villain]

As for the Villian part of this, you win bud, evolutionist never have and probably never will take advantage of their position (whatever it may be) to advocate their own religious, atheist, or non-theist views.

Well, I wasn't trying to compete with you, I was genuinely asking for examples of exploitation. If you can't provide that, fine, but you don't need to be passive-aggressively implying that I'm being naive to the existence of malicious extremists. It's more the case that I wanted to read up on examples of these particular extremists.

I'll move on.

 

[Famine]

So obviously I've been misinformed for most of my life.
Atheism does not mean you do not believe it god. It just means you believe in living without god?
Let me know if I got that right.

"A" is the Greek prefix for "absence of" - as in "asexual" (without sexual features/inclinations), "asymptomatic" (without symptoms) and "asymmetrical" (without symmetry). "Theism" is a belief in deities. "Atheism" is, thus, an absence of belief in deities*. "Nontheism" is, very specifically, a belief in no deities.

It might seem like a very small distinction, but "I do not believe in deities" and "I believe there are no deities" are vastly different - as a quick example, let's say that you come up with something far fetched and two strangers respond. Stranger 1 says "I don't believe you!" ; Stranger 2 says "I believe you're lying." - I'm sure the distinction is a bit plainer now, and Stranger 2 seems that little bit more like a jerk.


It's actually surprisingly common to see the two definitions blur, but as you've probably found out now, that's quite unhelpful

I'm sure there's plenty of people who say they are atheist when they are actually nontheist and will push a nontheist agenda when it comes to discussing topics in which religion has no place even being discussed - it shouldn't happen any more than a theist should push a theist agenda in the same situation.

 

[Kent]

I'm sure there's plenty of people who say they are atheist when they are actually nontheist and will push a nontheist agenda when it comes to discussing topics in which religion has no place even being discussed - it shouldn't happen any more than a theist should push a theist agenda in the same situation.

I understood it once I addressed it in a more literal sense.
However, what I've quoted here was the point of all this in the first place and it amazes me people can't accept that sort of idea without being shown direct evidence.

 

[Danoff]

So obviously I've been misinformed for most of my life.
Atheism does not mean you do not believe it god. It just means you believe in living without god?
Let me know if I got that right.

An atheist finding, conclusion, piece of data, subject, etc. is one that is not theological in nature. In otherwords it has nothing to do with religion. Typing class, for example, would be an atheist subject. Likewise for cooking or biology or evolution. None of these have anything to do with religion.

A person who describes himself as atheist is one who does not have a belief in god, or any other religious beliefs.

A non-theist would be a person who believes, with faith, that there is no god.

An agnostic would be a person who does not know whether the various religious mythologies are correct. This person is open to the idea that the bible is accurate, but is not sure of it. Same for any other holy book.

You can be an atheist agnostic (one who does not believe in god, and is not sure of the validity of religious mythology). And you can be a theist agnostic (one who believes in god, but isn't sure which one to believe). You can also be an atheist and not an agnostic (one who does not believe in god, and is sure that religious mythology is wrong). I'm pretty sure you can't call yourself a non-theist agnostic.

 

[Famine]

I understood it once I addressed it in a more literal sense.
However, what I've quoted here was the point of all this in the first place and it amazes me people can't accept that sort of idea without being shown direct evidence.

That's atheists for you. We love our direct evidence

Let's be fair, there are plenty of examples of the theists getting all up in biology's face - but I can't think of any occasion where a school board has passed a state law requiring all Bibles to have "The story of Jesus may be a parable and events within should not be taken literally; Christianity is only one of a number of religions" stamped on the inside front cover.

It wouldn't surprise me that some active non-believers go out of their way to say "NO GOD DIDN'T MAKE THE PLANET BECAUSE HE DOESN'T EXIST! DUH!" during cosmology and evolution lessons, but there seems to be an awful lot less evidence for it than the counter-position adopted by creationists.

 

[Kent]

Much of this is getting to be a bit belittling at this point.
I know what agnostic means, and in reality I immediately understood the distinction between atheist and non-theist, the issue was that I had been using atheist to mean non-theist.
The entire time I was referring to people who say there is no god I should have been using non-theist, not atheist.

Though I think it's important we address the idea that this is to some extent splitting hairs.
An atheist to all of these definitions comes down to being a person who does not believe in god or deities. A non-theist is someone who actively believes there is no god. While there is a difference there, I'd say it isn't exactly earth shattering... Just like famine said, "I don't believe you" and "you are lying" are two different statements but in the end they both mean the person did not say the truth.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Clearly I didn't emphasize the part about "cramming" the view down someone's throat. What I meant by that was the idea of constantly forcing the view on someone to the point (in this case) of leaving a child with the inability to believe in a higher power simply because there is no scientific proof.

I have repeatedly stated that I condone, no, encourage skepticism and critical thinking.
I just happen to be foolish enough to think I can do that while also criticizing people on both sides rather than just one.

I could be wrong, but cramming skepticism down someone's throat doesn't force them to have any view. It would just force them to have doubt on all claims, which doesn't lead you to a view point, and as I said before, I don't know how you would go about forcing someone to doubt a claim anyway.

 

[QuattroDelta]

Creation is just stupid.