Bill Nye: “Creationism is not Appropriate for Children”

[JarodRussell]

It's what fundementalist religions do: appeal to the illiterate. And if you can't find any, make sure future generations are illiterate.

Science and education are dangerous to religion because they are able to rip the religious texts and ideas apart, so they can't be taken literally anymore.

[iguana_tonante]

Yminale wrote:

---

Please keep this civil. No holy wars.

Can we have secular ones? They are my favourites.

Nerys Ghemor wrote:

---

I think that a false comparison is being made in this thread, by equating believing in creationism with being a racist.

Of course, nobody did that. What RoJoHen said was:

RoJoHen wrote:

---

Whether it takes another 10, 20, or 30+ years, eventually today's children are going to be the ones calling the shots.

This doesn't just apply to creationism vs. evolution. This also applies to things like racism, homophobia, etc.

He said that racism and homophobia will go extinct in the same way creationism will go extinct: by new generations embracing different ideas from their parents (not that I agree, but still). But why stick to the fact when you can make up stuff to feed your persecution complex?

Nerys Ghemor wrote:

---

I clearly recall being about 5 or 6 years old, noticing the "apparent issue," and sitting down and reading both the science books and the Bible together, and coming to the understanding of what is called theistic evolution. I did not go to my parents and ask them this question myself. Simply being provided all of that information with the full support of my parents was enough for me to discover the truth by myself. (Emphasis mine)

Well, I guess philosophers and scientists everywhere can just stop guessing, Nerys Ghemor, age 5, discovered the Truth™. Lulz. I wonder when people will realize that "your" truth (i.e. what you believe) is different from "the" truth (i.e. what actually happened).

RoJoHen wrote:

---

But I think that ultimately the point is this: leave religious beliefs out of school. If parents want to instill their Creationist beliefs in their children, that is their right, but the children also need access to the other side. This scares them because, all things being equal, the majority of kids would side with science.

This is also why homeschooling should not be allowed.

[Rhaven]

Deckerd wrote:

---

Soapboxing aside, I'd say the OP's article is correct. Religious indoctrination has no place in school.

Agreed.

Religion should be kept out of the public schools. In most cases, once a child is old enough, they will choose whether to accept the science or the religion based version of where we came from.

[RoJoHen]

When I equated creationism to racism and homophobia, what I meant was their scientific application and understanding.

Racism existed because certain groups of people thought they were inherently, biologically better than others. This is scientifically false.

Homophobia exists because a group of people decided that homosexuals were inherently worse than straights. Again, there is no scientific basis for this opinion.

The same with creationism. It goes against what we know of the world, what we've learned through science.

Thousands of years ago, it made sense that God or Gods created the world because we had no other way to perceive what was going on around us. The more we learn, however, the less weight those kinds of opinions hold.

[JarodRussell]

Rhaven wrote:

---

Agreed.

Religion should be kept out of the public schools. In most cases, once a child is old enough, they will choose whether to accept the science or the religion based version of where we came from.

Nothing wrong with religion in schools. Actually, I think it's very important to learn about religions. ALL religions. Education, not indoctrination. Otherwise you get homeschooled regarding religion, and that's mostly a bad thing, because there you have your indoctrination then.

Non-education on a topic is never the right answer.

[RoJoHen]

Religious history classes are quite interesting. Unfortunately, such things rarely exist before you get to college.

[Rhaven]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Nothing wrong with religion in schools. Actually, I think it's very important to learn about religions. ALL religions. Otherwise you get homeschooled regarding religion, and that's mostly a bad thing.

Okay, learning about other religions is an appropriate subject in public schools. I spent my first years in a parochial school. It didn't teach evolution. Since I choose to believe Mr. Darwin, the nuns had a hard time with me.

[Deckerd]

Rhaven wrote:

---

Agreed.

Religion should be kept out of the public schools. In most cases, once a child is old enough, they will choose whether to accept the science or the religion based version of where we came from.

I have no objection to schoolchildren learning about religions. That's a different thing altogether. Do not confuse them.

[iguana_tonante]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

Religious history classes are quite interesting. Unfortunately, such things rarely exist before you get to college.

We have one hour a week of "Catholic religion" in high school. You can opt out if you want: you just get a free hour to read by yourself in the library (cannot leave the school, obviously). No social stigma, and no consequences in your curriculum either (the course has no tests and no grades). So what is it good for? It depends on the teacher: some use this hour trying to indoctrinate the students (haha, good luck with rebellious 15 years old), others to explain the gist of most religions, their history, differences, and similarities, or to talk about teenagers issues (drugs, sex ed, conflicts with parents and adults, etc.) I had one of the good teachers, and I really enjoyed the discussions we had (I was already a godless commie). He moved in the last year, and we got stuck with an old nun that tried to involve us in the exegesis of the finer points of the Ecclesiastes. You can guess the results.

[RoJoHen]

Sounds terrible.

Luckily, most public schools don't employ nuns.

[Robert Maxwell]

While I would be fine with teaching religion as culture (the same way it would be presented in, say, a mythology or sociology class), the problem is that in the US, those pushing for it in public schools really just want it as a backdoor to convert and indoctrinate.

Why not have a comparative religious studies class, in which students study the Christian Bible, the Torah and Talmud, and the Qu'ran? Somehow, I suspect that would get less support than a class simply teaching the Bible.

[RoJoHen]

I'm pretty sure I learned more about religions from playing "Assassin's Creed" than I ever did in school.

Actually, I learned quite a bit during the Art History classes I took in college. It sunk it a lot better because I actually had images I could link with different historical events.

[Carcazoid]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

The same with creationism. It goes against what we know of the world, what we've learned through science.

What if there are things we don't know? What if there are forces in the universe that we aren't yet able to understand? What if "what we know of the world" changes? What if we learn something new, through science, that disputes what we thought we knew and believed to be fact?

Closed-mindedness can exist on either side of an issue.

[Robert Maxwell]

Carcazoid wrote:

---

What if there are things we don't know? What if there are forces in the universe that we aren't yet able to understand? What if "what we know of the world" changes? What if we learn something new, through science, that disputes what we thought we knew and believed to be fact?

Closed-mindedness can exist on either side of an issue.

That is why the work of science is never done.

That doesn't mean we can't have partial explanations for things. We don't know how life originally began. We do know how species evolve and diverge over time. Just because we lack an explanation in one area doesn't mean we can't explain anything else.

[RoJoHen]

Of course, anything is possible, but we should base our beliefs on the evidence currently available. If something is discovered that contradicts that evidence, we'll re-evaluate our beliefs.