Creationism as a Human RIghts Problem.

[gluadys]

How about not teaching these creation accounts because they come from false religions?

Because in a state-supported public school setting you cannot assert that these are false religions. That would be discrimination against other people's religious beliefs and a violation of the separation of church and state.

The only place you can assert these are false religions is in private, Christian schools.

If creationists were content to have creationism taught only in such private, Christian schools, the court battles seen in the US would not have happened and the European legislation would not be proposd.

 

[Dannager]

How about not teaching these creation accounts because they come from false religions?

Unfortunately, you cannot make that distinction when it comes to the classroom. The Establishment Clause prevents special treatment for any on particular religion. If you start teaching the beliefs of one religion in the classroom, you need to give equal time to all of them. And since Christian creationism is no better supported than any other creation myth, you can't use that excuse either.

 

[arunma]

Because in a state-supported public school setting you cannot assert that these are false religions. That would be discrimination against other people's religious beliefs and a violation of the separation of church and state.

The only place you can assert these are false religions is in private, Christian schools.

If creationists were content to have creationism taught only in such private, Christian schools, the court battles seen in the US would not have happened and the European legislation would not be proposd.

But we're not in a public school right now. We are all on a private online forum, and we are able to express whatever opinions we want. I did not ask what the Constitution forbids me from doing, I asked about other posters' opinions on these false religions.

Legal arguments are great fodder for lawyers. But again, I doubt any legal argument will be of much comfort to a person who suffers in hell because the only religion he ever learned was false religion which rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For the sake of respecting man-made documents like the Constitution, should we really ignore the fate of peoples' immortal souls?

Let me offer another reminder that I don't favor teaching creationism in school, and let me also say that I also don't favor school prayer (in case anyone got that out of my posts). All I'm asking is that people view the judgment and grace of God as very real things instead of arcane philosophical ideas.

 

[arunma]

Unfortunately, you cannot make that distinction when it comes to the classroom. The Establishment Clause prevents special treatment for any on particular religion. If you start teaching the beliefs of one religion in the classroom, you need to give equal time to all of them. And since Christian creationism is no better supported than any other creation myth, you can't use that excuse either.

Please see my above post. Once again I don't want to teach creationism in school (I don't even believe in creationism myself), but I would like to know if you personally put stock in false religion.

 

[chaoschristian]

I think that one important step in understanding this article is in understanding that Europe is not the USA in terms of religion, Christianity and cultural diversity.

These folks are essentially saying, 'Creationism (regardless of what brand) is a manifestation of religious extremism. Religious extremism is a direct threat to the social institutions that are important to our society. If we allow creationism into the classes room, we are increasing the opportunity for religious extremism to root itself into the next generation, a generation that we are depending on to maintain and expand our current social institutions (that guarantee among other things personal religious liberty).

So, is creationism itself a human rights violation? I think not. But is allowing the teaching of creationism in state schools a threat to future social liberties, if in fact it is true that creationism is an expression of deeper religious extremism? I would answer yes, based on my experience and my observation that the folks in the US who are pushing the hardest for this are also closely aligned with, in not in total league with, religious dominionists. I'm not as familiar with the European scene, but I suspect that that is what this concern is over.

 

[chaoschristian]

How about not teaching these creation accounts because they come from false religions? Whether you are a creationist or a theistic evolutionist, you can't believe in Jesus and believe that other religions are valid means of salvation (even the Catholic Church rejects this). We're all Christians here, and I can't see how any of us should be entertaining the study of false religion.

Comparative religious studies is an academic field. One can examine various religions without necessarily embracing them.

I for one entertain the study of all religions, because it's good to know something about the people with whom you are talking.

 

[gluadys]

But we're not in a public school right now. We are all on a private online forum, and we are able to express whatever opinions we want. I did not ask what the Constitution forbids me from doing, I asked about other posters' opinions on these false religions.

But that is the topic of the thread. The article in the OP refers to legislation that, if passed, would forbid teaching creationism in state schools. So we are talking Constitution.

And in that context, these are not false religions, whatever our personal and Christian opinion says.

 

[theIdi0t]

A socialist defending democracy from religion? That is the funniest thing I have heard in a while.

Haven't you ever heard of a democratic socialist?

I find your arrogance uncalled for, and if you want to attack socialism I suggest you take it to the appropriate forum.

 

[Gus2009]

I don't see how this is anywhere near a human rights violation.

I also don't know why everyone is so worked up over the issue. Isn't the purpose of education to teach kids to think critically? Why not allow them to discuss both evolution and creationism in the classroom and ask the kids why or why not each is/is not science?

The only reason I can see to keep either out of the discussion is to silence opposition to your views.

If we want to limit what is taught in the classroom, there are a number of things being taught that are far worse than discussing whether or not creationism (or evolution for that matter) is actually science.

Science is not democratic. The only debates in science are issues of validity, not opinion per say. The debate on evolution and YEC type thinking was all pretty well ironed out a few hundred years ago. Some of us however, just havent gotten around to accepting it yet. If evidence was presented to the contrary of current biological theory, you could bet it wouldnt just be the YEC's who'd be "teaching the controversy". Thing is, there is no controversy. If you want to teach kids science, teach them that.

There may be a fitting place for the debate, but the science classroom isnt it.

 

[shernren]

The debate on evolution and YEC type thinking was all pretty well ironed out a few hundred years ago.

While I appreciate (and agree with!) your confidence, evolution has only been around for a century and half - I doubt that it has had a few hundred years to beat creationism!

[/pedant]

With regards to gonebowling's comments about religious radicalism. The article highlighted in particular creationist material handed out by Harun Yahya, so this can hardly be said to be an anti-Christian initiative. Moreover, given the current terrible image that Islam has in Western culture right now, it's hardly surprising that a connection between creationism and radicalism was made - even if it may be a bit tenuous. Something of a slippery slope fallacy?

 

[mark kennedy]

Haven't you ever heard of a democratic socialist?

I find your arrogance uncalled for, and if you want to attack socialism I suggest you take it to the appropriate forum.

First of all if you want to moderate this board I suggest you apply for the position. Secondly, Socialism is not a democratic system, the American representative republic is. It is no accident that religious views flourish in democratic societies where religious freedom is protected. On the other hand European socialists are predominately atheistic philosophies with political agendas attached.

I find you ad hominem argument appalling.

 

[Dannager]

Secondly, Socialism is not a democratic system, the American representative republic is.

Spoken like a true American. A political science course or three will help you out with the knowledge gap you're currently experiencing. Failing that, you can read this and this. Of course, those shouldn't really be necessary, as the understanding that socialism is a primarily economic philosophy and democracy is a primarily governmental structure should be common knowledge.

I find you ad hominem argument appalling.

Given that he was actually right, and you really don't know what socialism is or what democracy is (or perhaps both), you really haven't got any room to talk.

 

[artybloke]

On the other hand European socialists are predominately atheistic philosophies

Tell that to the Methodists who founded the English Labour Party. Or the Catholic Worker movement. Or the Diggers, for that matter.

 

[On the Narrow Road]

Because there is no debate within the scientific community as to whether or not creationism is valid science. It is not. Allowing for the discussion of creationism in the science classroom gives the false impression that the issue is still unsettled. It would be like allowing history students to discuss whether or not the holocaust actually happened. If such a debate were to occur, I hope the concluding remarks would set the record straight so as to leave no doubt in a child's mind.

Apparently you are speaking for all scientists?

By the way, the holocaust is denied in a number of areas around the world...and believe me they don't have any closing remarks to set the record straight.

I just think that kids should be taught to think critically. Whether or not we actually allow Creationism in the science classroom doesn't matter to me. At the same time, I would like to see the problems with the evolutionary theory taught along side the "evidence" for it. Then let the kids make up their own minds rather than indoctrinating them into the viewpoint of the current concensus.

This type of indoctrination stifles creativity and limits the directions these future scientists will investigate in their careers. Imagine if no one thought to questioin the "world is flat" theory. (Which, by the way, existed in spite of the fact that the world was already know to be round).

And this doesn't even bring into the discussion what evolutionists positions do to the faith of many Christians who are told daily (in the classroom, on Discovery, etc.) that their Bible is incorrect (obviously this refers to a literalist approach).

Just my 2 cents worth...

Oh, and for those of you constantly pointing at the Constitution and telling us what the separation clause was intented to do...you may want to read "Original Intent" by David Barton. He provides an excellent viewpoint on our Constitution and what it means, citing the writings of those who actually put it together.

 

[shernren]

I just think that kids should be taught to think critically. Whether or not we actually allow Creationism in the science classroom doesn't matter to me. At the same time, I would like to see the problems with the evolutionary theory taught along side the "evidence" for it. Then let the kids make up their own minds rather than indoctrinating them into the viewpoint of the current concensus.

This type of indoctrination stifles creativity and limits the directions these future scientists will investigate in their careers. Imagine if no one thought to question the "world is flat" theory. (Which, by the way, existed in spite of the fact that the world was already know to be round).

What problems? Most, if not all, of the "problems" within evolutionary theory have been solved. The few genuine problems there are (e.g. accurately defining the unit of selection, the C-value enigma, remotely plausible suggestions of epigenetics) are miles away from the ones creationists suggest.

In theory, I'm all for teaching children what the "problems" with evolutionary theory were, and then teaching them how evolutionists trounced every single one of them. The problem is that firstly, this isn't the approach that creationists are asking for. Problems with evolution are intuitive while their solutions are counterintuitive. (This is not unique to evolution; quantum mechanics takes a problem obvious to any first-year electromagnetics student - how can an atom keep its structure? - and rips all our intuitions of the world apart on a small enough scale.) Creationists thus ask for intuitive problems, but not counterintuitive solutions, to be taught in the classroom. Is that a fair approach? Would you teach a theology class that listed all the apparent contradictions in the Bible and then withheld their solutions?

Secondly, there just isn't enough time. And this is a genuine regret of mine: there simply is no way for a class of five or six hours a week to reconstruct a few centuries' worth of science. Why stop at evolution? After all, the atomic theory was not even considered "proven" as late as the early 1900s. Why not teach children all the "problems" with atomic theory, instead of "indoctrinating" them that everything is made out of invisible atoms made of even smaller and similarly invisible subatomic particles? Plate tectonics is barely 70 years old; why not teach children all the "problems" Wegener faced, instead of "indoctrinating" them about the structure of the earth? In fact, I bet you don't even know how Galileo and his successors showed that the Earth goes around the sun. I myself didn't know how it was done until earlier this year when I researched the geocentrists. Should I be upset that my teachers "indoctrinated" me to believe in heliocentrism, when they might have been wrong all along?

Sure, the situation sucks. In an ideal world we would force those poor kids to learn their critical thinking by making them derive the whole lot by experiment and cognition. Start them with a blank slate and let them discover everything on their own one by one. But that's just not how school works.

And this doesn't even bring into the discussion what evolutionists positions do to the faith of many Christians who are told daily (in the classroom, on Discovery, etc.) that their Bible is incorrect (obviously this refers to a literalist approach).

Well, then Sunday Schools should teach children why evolution isn't a threat to their faith, shouldn't they?

Oh, and for those of you constantly pointing at the Constitution and telling us what the separation clause was intented to do...you may want to read "Original Intent" by David Barton. He provides an excellent viewpoint on our Constitution and what it means, citing the writings of those who actually put it together.

I do agree that using the Constitution to fight creationists is a bit funny, like trying to cut a birthday cake with a butter knife or something similarly silly. And sad. Like I said earlier, imagine if your car mechanic did nothing but pray over your car - and imagine if the one thing you could pin on him was religious discrimination. A science teacher's job in a school is to teach science and a science teacher who teaches pseudoscience isn't doing his/her job properly and deserves censure for that. It should be that simple.

 

[Mallon]

Apparently you are speaking for all scientists?

I am speaking as part of the 99% of scientists in the relevant field of natural science who reject young earth creationism.

By the way, the holocaust is denied in a number of areas around the world...and believe me they don't have any closing remarks to set the record straight.

So what? Does that somehow validate the teaching of creationism in American schools?

I just think that kids should be taught to think critically.

I agree. But teaching young earth creationism in the classroom as a valid alternative to evolutionary theory is not the way to do it. Exploring the claims of YECism would make for a great tool for exploring pseudoscience, however.

I would like to see the problems with the evolutionary theory taught along side the "evidence" for it.

I would like to see the problems with all scientific theories taught alongside the supporting evidence. Why just pick on evolution?
Out of curiosity, would you also like to see alternative points of view taught in your Sunday school?

Imagine if no one thought to questioin the "world is flat" theory. (Which, by the way, existed in spite of the fact that the world was already know to be round).

Yep. And the reason why it hung around for so long was because fundamentalist Christians argued that a round earth was contrary to the Bible.

And this doesn't even bring into the discussion what evolutionists positions do to the faith of many Christians who are told daily (in the classroom, on Discovery, etc.) that their Bible is incorrect (obviously this refers to a literalist approach).

Those adherents to the literalist approach shouldn't equate their interpretation with the Bible, then. Refuting YECism only applies to one interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself.

 

[arunma]

But that is the topic of the thread. The article in the OP refers to legislation that, if passed, would forbid teaching creationism in state schools. So we are talking Constitution.

And in that context, these are not false religions, whatever our personal and Christian opinion says.

But these aren't personal opinions we're talking about. How can absolute truth change in a different context? What matters is what the Bible says, because the words of God constitute absolute truth. And the Bible says that all unbelievers are going to hell unless they repent and believe in Jesus Christ. So shouldn't our discussion be based on how best to do the will of God, rather than how best to obey the Constitution?

Now, if you were to say that it doesn't serve God's purposes for us to artificially inject Christianity into the public school, then you might be right, and in fact I'd agree with you. But whatever actions we choose to take, it seems to me that we should be trying to serve God instead of man-made documents like the Constitution. The governments of the world are temporary; in a hundred years the United States might not even exist. But the Kingdom of God is eternal, and I think we should be setting our minds on it instead of on American law.

I am speaking as part of the 99% of scientists in the relevant field of natural science who reject young earth creationism.

Mallon is right. I'm a scientist who is also a believing Christian, and I don't believe in young earth creationism. My fellow believing graduate student in my department, whom I mentioned earlier (the one who rejects evolution) also does not believe in young earth creationism. It's rather difficult for us scientists to know what we know, and blind our eyes to the truth. Indeed, willful ignorance is somewhat necessary in order to hold creationist views as a scientist, because creationism just doesn't agree with observable facts. To be sure, there are creationist scientists out there, and there are even a few YECs. Then again, there are also scientists out there who believe that the earth is the center of the universe (I kid you not, they exist). These individuals are in the vast minority.

 

[busterdog]

I think it's utterly ludicrous, but for a completely different reason.

Imagine going to a Muslim doctor - only to have him pray the Al-Fatihah over you, charge you full consultation fees, and send you home.

Then imagine further that for some idiotic reason, this is fully legal and permissible under medical malpractice law, and that the only thing you can charge him with is religious discrimination since his methods assume that Allah is god!

The case at hand says as much about educational legislature as it does about the agenda of some atheist groups (which I won't deny). A law that mandates science teachers to teach science and nothing else in science classes should be as common-sense and common-place as laws that mandate doctors to do medicine, car mechanics to repair cars, and lawyers to lie - umm, defend their clients. That such educational laws don't exist, and that concerned citizens have to force pseudo-science out of classes by calling it a human rights issue - instead of being able to legally call it "science teachers not doing their job", pure and simple - is simply ridiculous.

This reminds me of things like the Pledge of Allegiance cases and all other establishment clause cases. If Iowa wants confuvionism to be its official state religion, it has every right to do so, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

So, yeah. No one needs a bloody legislature to regulate the teaching profession.

In my Andy Warhol like aphorism, in the future, everyone will go to jail for fifteen days. Since, pretty much everyone will be doing something illegal every day, but generally, people won't know it until it is too late.

 

[shernren]

This reminds me of things like the Pledge of Allegiance cases and all other establishment clause cases. If Iowa wants confuvionism to be its official state religion, it has every right to do so, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

So, yeah. No one needs a bloody legislature to regulate the teaching profession.

In my Andy Warhol like aphorism, in the future, everyone will go to jail for fifteen days. Since, pretty much everyone will be doing something illegal every day, but generally, people won't know it until it is too late.

The whole "official religion of the state" business is a lot more serious than you'd expect. You may take it for granted in America where the separation of church and state is very heavily protected, but mosey over to Malaysia once in a while and you'll see the problems inherent in declaring an official state religion. It messes up the whole framework of freedom of religion and basic human rights.

Having said that, we shouldn't need to treat creationism on religious grounds at all. You're a lawyer, right? Tell me something. If a doctor refused to give me medicine, and only prayed for me and did nothing else, wouldn't there be some legal provision for me to sue him for malpractice or not rendering contracted services?

It is only reasonable to ask science teachers to teach science. After all, nobody's asking them to do anything other than their job!

 

[mark kennedy]

Spoken like a true American. A political science course or three will help you out with the knowledge gap you're currently experiencing.

Been there, done that! Why is it that evolutionists always assume creationists are ignorant and uneducated? We don't call the democratic socialists on this side of the big pond, we call them liberals. Any hoot, if you would like to expand your very narrow view of democracy in America learn a little something about our Christian moorings.

The whole book that is here offered to the public has been written under the influence of a kind of religious awe produced in the author's mind by the view of that irresistible revolution which has advanced for centuries in spite of every obstacle and . which is still advancing in the midst of the ruins it has caused. It is not necessary that God himself should speak in order that we may discover the unquestionable signs of his will. It is enough to ascertain what is the habitual course of nature and the constant tendency of events. I know, without special revelation, that the planets move in the orbits traced by the Creator's hand.

If the men of our time should be convinced, by attentive observation and sincere reflection, that the gradual and progressive development of social equality is at once the past and the future of their history, this discovery alone would confer upon the change the sacred character of a divine decree. To attempt to check democracy would be in that case to resist the will of God; and the nations would then be constrained to make the best of the social lot awarded to them by Providence.

The Christian nations of our day seem to me to present a most alarming spectacle; the movement which impels them is already so strong that it cannot be stopped, but it is not yet so rapid that it cannot be guided. Their fate is still in their own hands; but very soon they may lose control.

The first of the duties that are at this time imposed upon those who direct our affairs is to educate democracy, to reawaken, if possible, its religious beliefs; to purify its morals; to mold its actions; to substitute a knowledge of statecraft for its inexperience, and an awareness of its true interest for its blind instincts, to adapt its government to time and place, and to modify it according to men and to conditions. A new science of politics is needed for a new world.

(Alexis de Tocqueville,Democracy in America)​

Social equality and democracy had been championed by Christians hundreds of years before the word socialist had ever been contrived. Human rights are defended in the U.S. Constitution and the first right of Americans is religious liberty, not the censorship of religious ideology as it is in Europe.

Failing that, you can read this and this. Of course, those shouldn't really be necessary, as the understanding that socialism is a primarily economic philosophy and democracy is a primarily governmental structure should be common knowledge.

I can do my own Wikipedia searches thank you and I know what socialism is. I grew up watching what it did to the Soviet Empire and I know what socialists think of religion. Invariably they are grossly intolerant of religious expression in the public square.

Given that he was actually right, and you really don't know what socialism is or what democracy is (or perhaps both), you really haven't got any room to talk.

Evolutionists tell me I don't know the life sciences but I do. They tell me what Christian theology is but their wrong. Now you are telling me I understand neither socialism or democracy and it's just another unsubstantiated insult hurled with blind indifference.

Think what you will of creationists, the true ignorance is not ours. It's in the copious slander and intentionally inflammatory rhetoric of Darwinians desperate to thin our numbers.

Socialists are social losers who pass laws when persuasion is called for.