Should parents/schools be allowed to teach creationism?

[Beastt]

What about children who are homeschooled? Should their be curriculum standards for homeschooled children, or is it okay for parents to teach them anything they want, even if it is certifiable false?

I'm just concerned about where the right of children to accurate information comes in. Do they have any? Should they?

Fact 1: Not all parents are equally skilled at parenting.

Fact 2: Because of Fact 1, not all children will receive equal parenting.

Fact 3: You can put the job of parenting ever more upon government but in doing so, you will not change Fact 1 or Fact 2.
​

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I have never supported teaching creationism in the public schools. I rejected this idea the first time I heard of it because of my belief that science and political systems corrupt religion. I support creationism in light of scientific discovery but it is well beyond the reach of basic biology and a more advanced and philosophical pursuit that has nothing to do with public school education.

So you claim to be that very rare thing, a creationist who doesn't want creationism taught as science in schools. Good for you.

They have never been mutually exclusive, knowledge is knowledge. The question is how you attain knowledge, not the source, and certainly not the conclusion.

They have always been mutually exclusive. One is study of the natural; the other is study of the supernatural. Whether or not and to what extent they yield knowledge is irrelevant.

Or, don't you know the literal meaning of the word science?

If you don't know the meaning of the word science, consult any dictionary. Conspicuous will be something about 'the natural world'.

My religious views are to who so ever will and have absolutly nothing to what scientists do in a lab. What is more you know nothing of my beliefs, you don't know what they are or where they lead me.

False. I know you are a young earth creationist

Something that has never happened because creationism is barred from public education of science.

Despite creationism's best efforts.

No science teacher has been forced to become a religious evangelist

Again, desite creationism's best efforts. They have been attempting for decades to make science teachers become religiosu evangelists.

unless you mean the Darwinian with the dogma of univeral common descent.

There is no 'Darwinian' religion; there is no 'dogma' of universal common descent.

I imagine more then a few potential science teachers have abandoned public education over that.

No doubt you imagine a lot of things.

Let's see if I follow here...creationism is religion...ok I agree...so what? Creationism has something to do with science in that scientific evidence and theories are involved...again...so what?

The ONLY thing creationism has to do with science is that creationists try to pass it off as science. No scientific evidence of theories are involved in creationism.

Here lies the biggest problem facing the teaching of science in the public schools, social and political agendas that have nothing to do with science.

Here lies the biggest problem facing the teaching of science in the public schools, religious agendas that have nothing to do with science.

 

[Morallyangelic]

I don't that either should be taught in schools. I think that you can have a perfectly good science class without ever asking the question " How did we get here? ". There are many different facets to science beyond evolution/creation.

Parents on the other hand have the right to teach whatever they want and thank God for that.

 

[charityagape]

Fact 1: Not all parents are equally skilled at parenting.

Fact 2: Because of Fact 1, not all children will receive equal parenting.

Fact 3: You can put the job of parenting ever more upon government but in doing so, you will not change Fact 1 or Fact 2.
​

OH my! I completely agree with that. I think I should go look for the freezing of lower places you don't believe in.

 

[Mystman]

I would say that the entire idea of homeschooling is dangerous, unfair to children..

..and quite frankly, utterly retarded.

One of the big advantages of being forced to go to school is that all children get the same opportunities to "mentally deploy" themselves. Another big advantage is that they will learn what kind of behavior is socally acceptable (at least, in theory..)

Allowing parents to teach their children whatever they want is dangerous because I would think it is extremely easy to make an extremist out of your child when you're the only one influencing him. It is unfair to the child, because if your parents suck at teaching, you'll miss out on a lot of information, and probably won't be able (or willing) to get higher education. And I personally find that, in a certain nation, every child should get the exact same opportunities. So that some children are homeschooled by some YECs who never got an education, while other children are educated on fine schools with certified teachers, is in my opinion, a bit unfair for the child.

Ofcourse, standardized tests would remove a lot of these problems, but I still don't see why you would want to homeschool your kid, unless you wanted to brainwash him with some crazy ideas (crazy ideas that the kid might start to dislike if he actually came in contact with other people )

Only legitimate reason I could think of is there not being a school nearby (or lots of trouble on the only school in the area, etc)

But meh, I get the idea most people don't homeschool for that reason.

Sooooo.. to awnser the OP

I think that homeschooling is stupid anyway, but if it is allowed, there should at least be standardized tests (including one about evolution ofcourse ^^), and the test should require some true knowlegde of evolution.

If the parents want to teach their kids both evolution and creationism, there is nothing that can stop them..

(well, you could ofcourse start executing people for teaching their children things that they believe are true.. but that's just a bit barbarian )

 

[Beastt]

I would say that the entire idea of homeschooling is dangerous, unfair to children..

..and quite frankly, utterly retarded.

One of the big advantages of being forced to go to school is that all children get the same opportunities to "mentally deploy" themselves. Another big advantage is that they will learn what kind of behavior is socally acceptable (at least, in theory..)

Allowing parents to teach their children whatever they want is dangerous because I would think it is extremely easy to make an extremist out of your child when you're the only one influencing him. It is unfair to the child, because if your parents suck at teaching, you'll miss out on a lot of information, and probably won't be able (or willing) to get higher education. And I personally find that, in a certain nation, every child should get the exact same opportunities. So that some children are homeschooled by some YECs who never got an education, while other children are educated on fine schools with certified teachers, is in my opinion, a bit unfair for the child.

Ofcourse, standardized tests would remove a lot of these problems, but I still don't see why you would want to homeschool your kid, unless you wanted to brainwash him with some crazy ideas (crazy ideas that the kid might start to dislike if he actually came in contact with other people )

Only legitimate reason I could think of is there not being a school nearby (or lots of trouble on the only school in the area, etc)

But meh, I get the idea most people don't homeschool for that reason.

Sooooo.. to awnser the OP

I think that homeschooling is stupid anyway, but if it is allowed, there should at least be standardized tests (including one about evolution ofcourse ^^), and the test should require some true knowlegde of evolution.

If the parents want to teach their kids both evolution and creationism, there is nothing that can stop them..

(well, you could ofcourse start executing people for teaching their children things that they believe are true.. but that's just a bit barbarian )

When does it become enough? Should we limit such government control at all or should we look to government to regulate all aspects of parenting?

I think this is a very dangerous line of thinking. The government was to be given power by the Constitution. The Constitution offers government no role in parenting or public education. Some would suggest that was specifically by design and perhaps with very good reason.

What aspects of our lives has government touched which has not become bloated, exceedingly bureaucratic and expensive beyond reason? Seeing what government has done with so many of the things entrusted to it, I prefer to allow parents the right to raise their children as they see fit. It's certainly not a perfect solution but, as with every other aspect of life, nothing really is. We can allow parents to be parents or we can thrust yet another responsibility upon government so that they may handle in in the usual manner; heavily influenced by political hidden agendas, unbridled lust for excessive growth and demand for more and more money from the already stressed and strained tax-payer.

Seeing how government has handled the need for flood control and emergency aid in the southeast, I think it unwise to grant them parental powers beyond that of the biological parents. When you children are no longer yours to raise, where is the freedom of belief, freedom of religion or even freedom in general? The idea of granting government such a degree of control over children sounds decidedly socialist from my point of view.

 

[Mystman]

..

Well, I look at it from the angle of the child. Giving parents the right to keep their children at home and indoctrinate them with wierd ideas (or just not learning them stuff that they'll need later in life) might be good for the freedom of the parents, but what does that mean for the freedom of the child? Basically, you'll be screwed if you're born into such a family.

And the whole "already screwed after birth" scenario is one I would like to minimise in my ideal world.

Ofcourse, letting the government regulate things is less than ideal for reasons you already mentioned. But seeing as how the government is already perfectly able to maintain schools, it isn't such an added problem to simply force everyone to attend it. The system has been working just fine here in Holland for the past 100 years

As for where to draw a line.. that's always hard to say (maybe even impossible), since it basically is a fully subjective subject matter. There is no "ideal" amount of government influence in parenting. The two conflicting "rights" here would be equal treatment of all children, and freedom of the parents. I would say that we should at least strive to get some consistency in our legislation (forcing kids to go to school because we want to treat kids equally, but not giving any monetary support to poor families is inconsistent for example, and thus a nono). But the exact rules will always remain subjective, and I think that many people will just find what they've been brough up with the "right" way.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I think that you can have a perfectly good science class without ever asking the question " How did we get here? ". There are many different facets to science beyond evolution/creation.

Not to biology. Evolutionary theory is THE most important, central aspect of biology.

Parents on the other hand have the right to teach whatever they want and thank God for that.

Or, rather, the constitution.

 

[Hydra009]

I don't that either should be taught in schools. I think that you can have a perfectly good science class without ever asking the question " How did we get here? ". There are many different facets to science beyond evolution/creation.

Ah, but can you have a perfectly good science class without teaching science? This is the central issue - those who want science to remain in science classes and those who want to blot out a scientific theory simply because of theological objection to it.

 

[charityagape]

Not to biology. Evolutionary theory is THE most important, central aspect of biology.


Or, rather, the constitution.

Just wondering. I took a two biology classes in college and we never discussed evolutionary theory.

 

[Beastt]

Well, I look at it from the angle of the child. Giving parents the right to keep their children at home and indoctrinate them with wierd ideas (or just not learning them stuff that they'll need later in life) might be good for the freedom of the parents, but what does that mean for the freedom of the child? Basically, you'll be screwed if you're born into such a family.

And the whole "already screwed after birth" scenario is one I would like to minimise in my ideal world.

Ofcourse, letting the government regulate things is less than ideal for reasons you already mentioned. But seeing as how the government is already perfectly able to maintain schools, it isn't such an added problem to simply force everyone to attend it. The system has been working just fine here in Holland for the past 100 years

As for where to draw a line.. that's always hard to say (maybe even impossible), since it basically is a fully subjective subject matter. There is no "ideal" amount of government influence in parenting. The two conflicting "rights" here would be equal treatment of all children, and freedom of the parents. I would say that we should at least strive to get some consistency in our legislation (forcing kids to go to school because we want to treat kids equally, but not giving any monetary support to poor families is inconsistent for example, and thus a nono). But the exact rules will always remain subjective, and I think that many people will just find what they've been brough up with the "right" way.

One must always remember that governments change. And I think that can be said for every government. Certainly Germany wasn't always ruled by the Nazi ideal, nor is it ruled by those concepts now. America was certainly never as restrictive as it is now. Where most here used to value freedom above all else, we're now happily trading away freedom in the name of security. We got scared by the attacks of September 11th and "Give me liberty or give me death", was pitched right out the window.

Knowing that every government eventually changes and that those changes might very well be in stark contrast to your personal beliefs, how secure do you feel in the hope that once government has complete control over what every child is taught, they will continue to force them to learn what you feel is appropriate for them to learn? You can't really go back within a generation to the kind of government you started with once it begins to stray. And I think it's safe to say that all governments will eventually stray, be over-thrown or be subject to changes in social viewpoints.

In my opinion, people should be individuals first, and members of society second. You can't do that when government is appointed the role of enforcer of cookie-cutter education. Despite what we feel warm and fuzzy about believing, not all children are born with equal intellect, equal enthusiasm or equal parents. There are only so many ways to try to grant them equality. And when you grant them equality by taking parental rights away from the parent and granting those rights to government, society begins to lose control of government. No political entity reacts honestly to the will of the society it is supposed to serve. That's the pretty picture politicians try to paint but 10 minutes within even a small political entity shows the reality to be very different.

"Force" is a word that governments should restrict from use against the people it is supposed to serve. And certainly "force" shouldn't be applied against parents when it comes to their children. Those children belong to the parents first, and society second. Once you grant government the right to force any chosen education upon children, you're only one step away from removing the child from the home of the parent to avoid having that precious, equal education from being tainted by parental ideas and concepts.

"[State-run] education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." --Joseph Stalin​