Teaching creationism is child abuse

Originally posted by dryhump
Look man, I mean this in the least antagonistic way possible, but you and I are never going to agree on this issue. I'll tell you why. Scientific theories get replaced all the time based on new evidence or what have you. Yet, until those theories go down, they define reality. What if it turns out the universe is nothing more than a hologram? What if dark ...[text shortened]... rpened stick? Did the US invade the middle east because of the oil? Why did we need the oil?

What do you think has facilitated greater and greater numbers of deaths in those mass murders? That's right good old rational science.

No! it was the IRRATIONAL people that misused it! Science is blameless for its misuse. That's because it is not science that misuses science, it is PEOPLE. And science, the very same science misused by the delusional, can and often is used for good by rational intelligent people.

Originally posted by humy
LOL. If that is what he meant, perhaps he has a point!

I couldn't think of any other way he could have a point. The discussion went something like this:
You said: Keeping children ignorant and teaching them lies is bad.
He said: Look at all the intelligent well informed people doing bad things with their knowledge!
So if he is not arguing "better to keep them ignorant and harmless!", then what could he be arguing?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are arguing that we should teach children creationism in order to keep them ignorant so that they don't learn science and do bad stuff with it?

I haven't argued for or against the teaching of creationism. So far I have argued against saying that teaching creationism is child abuse. I have also pointed out that scientific advances have led to wars causing much more death and that wars have been fought over resources that we need for our technology. I don't think any of that is controversial in the least.

Originally posted by humy

What do you think has facilitated greater and greater numbers of deaths in those mass murders? That's right good old rational science.

No! it was the IRRATIONAL people that misused it! Science is blameless for its misuse. That's because it is not science that misuses science, it is PEOPLE. And science, the very same science misused by the delusional, can and often is used for good by rational intelligent people.

Science is also misused by the rational and intelligent people. I refer you again to eugenics. The truth is, people are inherently irrational beings. You think I'm arguing against science and that's not correct in the least. I am arguing against people who think that only delusional religious nuts cause wars. Or that only irrational people cause wars. Yes science can and is used for good, but to pretend that we can have science unfettered from moral or ethical judgement is way more dangerous than if a kid believes the earth is 6000 years old.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I couldn't think of any other way he could have a point. The discussion went something like this:
You said: Keeping children ignorant and teaching them lies is bad.
He said: Look at all the intelligent well informed people doing bad things with their knowledge!
So if he is not arguing "better to keep them ignorant and harmless!", then what could he be arguing?

I'm sorry if you understood the post that way, but that wasn't my intention. I merely pointed out that not all delusions are bad and that rational people fight wars that have nothing to do with delusional thinking.

Originally posted by dryhump
Science is also misused by the rational and intelligent people. I refer you again to eugenics. The truth is, people are inherently irrational beings. You think I'm arguing against science and that's not correct in the least. I am arguing against people who think that only delusional religious nuts cause wars. Or that only irrational people cause wars. ...[text shortened]... or ethical judgement is way more dangerous than if a kid believes the earth is 6000 years old.

Science is also misused by the rational and intelligent people. I refer you again to eugenics.

are you referring here by the word “eugenics” to the Nazis and their policy of using science and technology to preform mass murder of the so-called “inferior” races?
If no, exactly what do you mean by “eugenics” here because I have noted that on several occasions on these forums in the past that word was used to include such GOOD things as, for example, gene theory to cure horrible diseases and I would not say that is evil!
But, if yes, then what you say above appears to be a contradiction because the absurd and unscientific belief that some races are inferior to others because of skin-colour etc is certainly NOT rational! How on earth can a so-called “rational” person have such an extremely irrational belief!? Unless you are saying here that it IS rational to have such a belief!?

The truth is, people are inherently irrational beings.

How do you know this? Doesn't it just depend on which person? Some people certainly seem extremely rational and some clearly are not.

You think I'm arguing against science and that's not correct in the least. I am arguing against people who think that only delusional religious nuts cause wars.

Noted. So would you deny the historical fact that the vast majority of wars in the past were started by theists, NOT atheists?

Or that only irrational people cause wars.

virtually all wars in the past WERE cause by people with at least one irrational belief that arguably contributed to them starting the war! For most wars, those irrational beliefs included religion. WW2 is a classic example of that because it is a historical fact that all the leading Nazis, including Hitler, in WW2 were Christian and that they blamed the Jews for just about everything for, wait for it, religious reasons! (the Jews betrayed Christ in the Bible ) And they had the absurd belief that evolution was “guided by God” to create them, the superior race, which has the 'God-given' right to rule over all other races.

but to pretend that we can have science unfettered from moral or ethical judgement

With the meaning I personally normally attach to the word 'science', Science is not what people do with science but rather knowledge gained by scientific method (although I understand perfectly that it often also means the methods used to gain scientific knowledge ) . That knowledge gained by scientific method is just that, knowledge. And mere knowledge, excluding 'moral knowledge' which is not ever part of real science because it cannot be, cannot have "moral or ethical judgement" because 'knowledge' is not a person!, -don't you see! for example, the scientific knowledge that there are moons around Saturn cannot have "moral or ethical judgement" because any moral or ethical judgement would be in the minds of people and would not equate with their knowledge that Saturn has moons. It is people, not science, that must not be " unfettered from moral or ethical judgement", whether they are using science or not.
Didn't I just CLEARLY imply that science can be misused by irrational people?

Originally posted by dryhump
I have also pointed out that scientific advances have led to wars causing much more death and that wars have been fought over resources that we need for our technology. I don't think any of that is controversial in the least.

Its not controversial, it just doesn't seem to have a point.

Originally posted by dryhump
I am arguing against people who think that only delusional religious nuts cause wars.

Did anyone try to make that claim, or are you trying to argue against people who are nor present?

Originally posted by humy

Science is also misused by the rational and intelligent people. I refer you again to eugenics.

are you referring here by the word “eugenics” to the Nazis and their policy of using science and technology to preform mass murder of the so-called “inferior” races?
If no, exactly what do you mean by “eugenics” here because I have noted that ...[text shortened]... Didn't I just CLEARLY imply that science can be misused by irrational people?

The point is that teaching kids only the evilution theory without the balance of the morality and ethical part associated with the creation theory is what is really child abuse and dangerous to society. As the word implies EVIL-lution is EVIL. That is the simple point.

Creationism should be taught in order NOT to abuse our kids with the EVIL in evilution.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
The point is that teaching kids only the evilution theory without the balance of the morality and ethical part associated with the creation theory is what is really child abuse and dangerous to society. As the word implies EVIL-lution is EVIL. That is the simple point.

Creationism should be taught in order NOT to abuse our kids with the EVIL in evilution.

The Instructor

The point is that teaching kids only the evolution theory without the balance of the morality and ethical part associated with the creation theory

what “ morality and ethical part”? HOW is it 'moral' or “ethical” to believe in young earth and that everything was created by a supernatural deity? In what sense? Please explain...

is what is really child abuse and dangerous to society.

so teaching children the proven scientific fact of evolution without teaching them the disproved creation theory (here I am referring here specifically to your creation theory, not necessary that of some of the other Christians that accept evolution and old Earth as fact) is “child abuse” and “ dangerous to society”? how so? Exactly what could go wrong by teaching them evolution without the religious crap? Please explain.....

As the word implies EVIL-lution is EVIL.

why do you keep shamelessly advertise your extreme infantile stupidity? This is NOT an argument.

Originally posted by dryhump
Someone please explain to me why it matters if a kid believes the earth is 6000 years old? What if they believed the earth was flat? Why does it matter? Would that belief stop them from being a productive member of society? Does it stop them breathing? Does it break their bones or physically injure their brain? What about when kids grew up believing the sun ...[text shortened]... in the steady state theory or freaking pixie dust? Let's stop talking in ridiculous hyperbole.

Every explanation I start to type seems inadequate.

I guess if you have to ask you are beyond help.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Every explanation I start to type seems inadequate.

I guess if you have to ask you are beyond help.

That is because it is best that a kid believes the earth is 6000 years old. Then He can also believe in the Creator, who loves him and made him in the Creator's image. That is a much better image than the slime of the earth or a monkey.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is because it is best that a kid believes the earth is 6000 years old. Then He can also believe in the Creator, who loves him and made him in the Creator's image. That is a much better image than the slime of the earth or a monkey.

The Instructor

RJ is proof that teaching creationism is child abuse. Look what it did to his brain. Shame on his parents.

I actually agree creationism should be taught in schools - in the mythology class along with all the other gods.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is because it is best that a kid believes the earth is 6000 years old. Then He can also believe in the Creator, who loves him and made him in the Creator's image. That is a much better image than the slime of the earth or a monkey.

The Instructor

I agree it's a much better image, however that does not make it true.