Evangelical Indoctrination of Children

This is the line. particularly "all sides." The creo thinking is that creation is science and therefore should be included. Clarifying the term "all sides" with something like "all scientific theories so as to..." would, though have the same meaning, simply give that science only in a science class.

WHat kind of question is that lol ?1) If Evolutionists in this thread complained about something christians do, but that the NCSE would be guilty of wanting to do, I would find this thread ironic.2) I find Irony funny3) The NCSE wants to do something analog to the accusations pressed against chrstians4) Therefore, I find this thread funny.

I do find that your use of the word scientific theories is really analog to 'naturalistic theories'. Am I right on this ?Because if this is so, then you are simply rejecting non-naturalistic explanations a priori. You are entitled to your opinion on this, but unfortunately, if you try to impose this naturalistic view in the education system then you are simply asserting it to be 'the truth', and so we come back to the original point.As I've said before, I find nothing wrong in teaching children things in a 'this is the truth manner', and this applies equally to naturalistic explanation of, for example, the origin of life. However, in order to do this, you also have to let the children question and doubt these assertions. Which is what this' law' enables.The fear of the creationists invasion in the schools results in the NCSE wanting to teach a one-way evolutionnary-naturalistic explanation in schools, without questions allowed or alternatives proposed.

No, wrong. We are asserting that it is the only explanation with evidence supporting it. And we are not claiming anything is truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH. We'll leave those terms to philosophers and theologists, and others who study those squishy subjects. Will they question it on the basis of established science, or religious indoctrination? (Ever see the silly little Jack Chick tracts? That's what creationists are encouraging students to bring into science classes. What a load of nonsense!) Questions are allowed, of course. But the answers will be based on scientific evidence and theory, and that might mean that someone's pet religious belief will be excluded as not appropriate for a science class.Alternatives? The place for alternatives, if there are any, is in the technical journals and professional meetings. Science is not made in grade school classes. Science is taught and hopefully learned in those settings.And that's where creationists give it all away: they want their religious beliefs taught as science in the school settings. (They must be getting desperate in their efforts to counteract science and all that evidence.)And that brings us back to evidence. Creationism has none, while the theory of evolution has mountains of evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi slevesque Hence the use of the word science in the word scientific theories." - All other theories are not science. Science deals with the natural, not the non-natural. That would be theology.Perhaps you are talking about theological theories? In science class, science is taught. The "non-naturalistic" view is not covered in science, that's covered in theology class. Science deals with natural explanations and only natural explanations. Are you honestly proposing that children be allowed to question scientific theories? Like Einstein's, Newton's, Darwin's, etc.? Really?I think you have lost focus on what a childs role is in school. The child is there to learn. And while critical thinking should be encouraged, you have to admit, there are things that are just completely out of a childs level of knowledge, right? I would think questioning a theory like Einsteins is a bit too much for a child, don't you think so?Do you feel evolution is easier for them to question for some reason?Honestly, shouldn't the "questioning" of these theories be left up to experienced, trained and knowledgable scientist who know what they're looking at, and not a group of 5th graders? Any alternatives or questioning should be done by qualified scientist, not anyone who feels like it. So far, the concensus amongst scientist is that the Theory of Evolution explains what we observe in nature.Now if your alternatives deal with only the non-natural, then that is out of the realm of science and should be left to those involved in learning theology.- Oni

quote:

---

1) If Evolutionists in this thread complained about something christians do, but that the NCSE would be guilty of wanting to do, I would find this thread ironic.

---

But can Christians prove their existence (i.e. the truth of Christianity)?

quote:

---

The fear of the creationists invasion in the schools results in the NCSE wanting to teach a one-way evolutionnary-naturalistic explanation in schools, without questions allowed or alternatives proposed.

---

It's nothing of the kind. The 7-day creationist proposal is as valid as a proposal to teach that Bugs Bunny actually existed. There is not a scrap of scientific evidence for either. What creationists want is to destroy science education itself- economy, civilisation itself. There would be no injustice done if their belief was made illegal. People have been imprisoned for less.

quote:

---

Are you honestly proposing that children be allowed to question scientific theories? Like Einstein's, Newton's, Darwin's, etc.? Really?

---

Good science teachers welcome the questions of students. If a student comes up with a hypothesis that could, after testing, supplant Einstein's theory, all well and good! The same goes for ET, and it should be taught with reference to its historical development and explained as fully as time allows. It is understanding why ET is accepted that is important. There is no objection to asking questions, other than wasting time, because enquiry increases comprehension. Science has no fear of scrutiny, as the 7-day advocates may imagine.

The proposed Texas policy was not about the rights of children in science class, its about the science curriculum. If there's something in the Texas science curriculum that infringes upon the rights of children to question what they're taught then you'll have to call our attention to it.Science curriculums define what children should be taught about science. The proposal you quoted is just a Trojan Horse for sneaking anti-evolutionary propaganda into science classrooms. The whole history of creationism and ID is one of seeking answers to the question, "How can we sneak our religious theology into science classrooms?"No one on either side of the debate believes that the proposed Texas wording would ever be used to question F=ma, or whether the Earth orbits the sun, or even biological issues like whether pollen really fertilizes flowers. It would have been used solely for creationism's key issues: the age of the Earth and universe, geology, and evolution. But science has no reason to question these theories, and teaching children that they should be singled out for doubt is not science.--Percy

I am stuck trying to find a reference so this is off the top of an old brain. Maybe someone can help.There has been, by my recollection, at least one case where an undergrad course did teach the facts of both sides.However, this caused an uproar and was eventually terminated.Guess who uproared. The creationist side did. They do NOT want facts taught. When their ideas are examined and tested against fact they get ripped to shreds. That is the last thing they want even though they claim they do.

quote:

---

When their ideas are examined and tested against fact they get ripped to shreds. That is the last thing they want even though they claim they do.

---

Quite so. What they really want is protected status- their glossy literature to be spread among the semi-educated, TV and radio interviews with tame interviewers, even 'net forums where opposition is simply not allowed!

Bill Thwaites and Frank Awbrey at San Diego State University. Having just pulled out my copy of the class notes (was for sale from the bookstore), the copyright is 1981. They gave half the lectures and leading creationists, mainly from the then-nearby Institute for Creation Research (ICR), gave the other half. The Christian clubs on campus hated that class and kept protesting and applying pressure until the administration finally cancelled it.BTW, that was the class where Duane Gish's bombadier beetle claim was disproven in public and in his presence, so he had to admit publically that they were wrong (he blamed somebody else's mistranslation from a German article). However, both he and other creationists continued to use that false claim.

---

PS
Other (in)famous "balanced-treatment" classes include Ray Baird's 5th-grade class in Livermore, Calif, in 1981. It was documented in the PBS documentary, Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom, KPBS-TV, airing 7 July 1982, and Barry Price devoted an entire chapter to it in his book, The Creation Science Controversy (Sydney, Australia: Millenium Books, 1990).From Price's book, edited for brevity:

quote:

---

Finger's son Eric took the unit in 1979. On the first page of Eric's notes for the class is a statement of the Genesis account of creation. According to Eric, his teacher emphasized the mutual exclusiveness of the two models. "He said that either both were wrong, or one, but not both, could be right," Eric says.

​

Eric says that at the end of the unit, the teacher conducted an anonymous vote in which the students had to choose between evolution and creationism. According to Eric, six students out of a class of about 30 voted for evolution; the rest voted for creationism. The teacher presented a tally of the votes to the class.

​

"Most of those for evolution were among the gifted students," Eric says, who is himself among the gifted students. "I thought a lot of the others were maybe influenced by how Mr. Baird presented it. I don't know if that's true, but it could be."

​

Eric and the rest of the gifted students were given extra assignments in the class: They were required to view filmstrips over again in the library.

​

Those filmstrips were blatantly religious, according to Sheila Karlson, another of the mothers. "One of them started out by saying, and this is almost a direct quotation, that 'Either the Bible is true or evolution is true. You must make a decision.' It goes on from there to give this very distorted picture of evolution and this glowing picture of creation.

​

. . .

​

The protesting parents ... say Baird's course was slanted to creationism and his presentation of the issue conformed to the ICR's teachings, in particular its doctrine that the choice between creationism and evolution is a choice between God and atheism. The parents also contend that Baird was fully aware of the content of the materials, some of which had been in his classroom since last year. (The Independent, 7 January 1981)

​

The point overlooked by both Baird and parents is that these materials or their equivalents from the ICR are the only ones he could have used. They are designed and published for schools and without them there would have been no course. He would have been doing no more than standing up in the front of the class voicing his own opinion.

​

There is more than a little doubt that Baird gave equal time to evolution and creationism.

​

"I think it's true he gave more time to evolution, says one parent. "He spent 40% of the time telling the kids why creationism is good and the other 60% telling them why evolution is bad."

​

Another parent, whose child observed Baird teaching this subject three years ago, relates that while Baird succeeded in winning some converts to the creationist view, other students, including her own child, were so appalled that they completely rejected religion in their own lives. According to this mother, all the teacher really accomplished was to polarize the class into two camps, the believers and the nonbelievers. (The Independent, 7 January 1981)

​

One of the mothers writes:

quote:

---

The most dangerous information to the scientific creationists was the fact that the gifted students could see how bad the science was and that they were voting evolutionism which was, in the context of the course, the same as voting atheism. Some of the gifted students voted evolutionism because they could see the fallacy of the either-or approach. Some actually, in anger, did give up religious belief. (Finger, 1988)

---

---

From the PBS show, JP Hunt, one of Baird's students said:

quote:

---

Someone that I know has become an atheist because of this class, because the creationist theory was so stupid, he thought. Well, if religion requires me to believe this, then I don't want to have any part of it.

---

There's also Roger DeHart's high school class. The Discovery Institute tried to make him a poster child of discrimination against ID. From an email from a parent of one of his students:

quote:

---

{deHart} had been teaching creationism for 11 years before the aclu was called in and broke the news in the papers. The reason this happened was DH developed a teaching technique out of his arrogance and self-righteousness, and demonstrates his Achille's Heal. (spelling?)

​

When he presented his creationist portion of his class, if a student would point out it was creationism and stand up to him, he singled that person out and made the next two weeks hell for the student. Basically, he used the student to put a face on the false evolution science and got the whole class laughing at the poor person. It was the students who were so laughed at, who approached the aclu.

​

When the news hit the newspaper, I went to see a like-minded friend to see what he thought. He told me, I should talk to his daughter, she hated DH's guts. He said she stood up to him and for 2 weeks DH "mocked and humiliated" her.

​

Right after that, I contacted the aclu. I was talking to the woman in charge of this situation and she told me a story of the first student to approach them about DH. The aclu woman said the student stood up to DH and for 2 weeks he led the class in " mocking and humiliating" the student.

​

I said, I guess you talked to my friend, Jeremy?. She said, who's Jeremy? This student had a single mother and the child was a young man.

​

Two sources, didn't know each other both used the words, "mocked and humiliated". That is not a coincidence. We found a 3rd student who say it's true.

​

Basically, DH is a mean SOB, he's got God in his wallet.

---

Not only would he himself mock and humiliate the student, but he would lead the class in mocking and humiliating him/her and would even stage a "debate" which pitted the entire class against that student.So much for creationists' claims that they want the students to question what's being taught.

---

PPS
While looking for something else, I found the site that had tracked the Roger DeHart case in Burlington-Edison High School. Their page is still at ScienceormythAt the time (2002), I also read a CNN transcript on the case (still up at CNN Transcript - CNN Newsstand: Hackers Shut Down Several Internet Sites; Bush Wins Delaware Primary; McCain and Bush Exchanging Attacks in South Carolina - February 8, 2000, with the DeHart story starting about 2/3 of the way down the page). In a 2002 email to a British parent encountering creationist activities over there, I first presented the Ray Baird case and then the DeHart case, to which I provided this quote from that transcript:

quote:

---

COLLINS: But former student Emma Height (ph) says she was troubled by DeHart's class. She says he made them choose either evolution or intelligent design, and then defend their decision in an essay.
EMMA HEIGHT, FORMER STUDENT: A couple kids around me turned to me and said, well, I'm pretty confused. I believe in evolution, and you know, I think there's probably some evidence out there, but I believe in God, but I have to choose which one. I have to choose, you know, between God and science. And that really was the turning point for me.

---

The point I was making was that in 20 years, their methods and tactics had not changed. And I was specifically pointing out their persistent goal of compelling students to adopt their beliefs as a contrast to the actual goal of education, which I provided in this quote:

quote:

---

State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences, adopted 13 Jan 1989 [emphasized in original]:
"Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding."
(Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve, 1990, pg 206)

---

Since the goal of teaching creationism is to compel belief, it is therefore inconsistent with the goal of education.Edited by dwise1, : PSEdited by dwise1, : Added NosyNed's qsEdited by dwise1, : PPSEdited by dwise1, : added HRs

I'll be replying to this post, as it seems more complete than coyotes. Hopefully, my answers will also adress the points made by coyote in his previous post. If the supernatural was to be the cause of something inside nature (ex: DNA, or miracle.) than it would be science who would determine it, not theology. So although science deals with nature, it does not have to be naturalistic. I think my previous point also adresses this one. But Let me hypethetically agree that science cannot alude to any supernatural causes.Would you find it appropriate to talk about irreducible complexity, Intelligent Design, etc. in a religious class ? If so, would what they learn in this class come in contradiction with what they learn in science class (ex: naturalistic abiogenesis) ? I do not know at what age you teach evolution down in the states, but here in quebec we only had a bried overview of it during biology class in secondary 3 and 5.Nonetheless, my opinion is that you do not teach things to children when they do not have the mental capabilities to question it. Teaching things to kids when they are not mentally able to express critical thinking on the subject equals indoctrination in my book.Note that I am not talking about the knowledge capability to question it, but only mental capabilities. And so you teach the ToE when it is assumed that the children probably teenagers) are mentally capable of questioning it. Same goes for Einstein's relativity, etc.Note also that this stage of intellectual development comes probably at the same time as they start to apply critical thinking to what their parents tell them Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box.

It'd be more appropriate in a religion class than in a science class IMO. The IDers would fight you on it of course, they would not want to admit to ID being religious in nature.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Yes because it is creation not science. Which is what I said about religion classes to 5 year olds in the first place. Edited by bluescat48, : typo'sssss

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008