Teaching Religious Views as Science

  
By:  TᵢG  •  3 months ago  •  143 comments

Teaching Religious Views as Science
No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Critical Thinkers

Critical Thinkers

Answers In Genesis is probably the most influential Young Earth Creationism organization.   It is an organization with about $172 million in assets which aggressively promotes religious indoctrination of children into a literal interpretation of the Bible, most notably that the Earth is ~6,000 years old.

The organization holds that anything in science, philosophy, history, etc. that contradicts scripture is simply wrong:

800

Because so much does indeed contradict the YEC position this organization works hard to prepare propaganda that twists science and history to their narrative.   And, unfortunately, millions of Americans believe this nonsense and allow their kids to be exposed to it.   To emphasize why this is a problem, consider this actual 4th grade science quiz in which the student earned an A+ (100% correct) grade.

800

800

This quiz was fact checked and found to be authentic.

This is an isolated event and clearly we do not run the risk of the US education system falling to these depths, but this does illustrate what Young Earth Creationists desperately want the next generation to believe.    As such, it shows what could happen if religious views are allowed to be taken as science.

The point of this article is to encourage discussion on religious beliefs being taught as science.   

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
TᵢG
1  author  TᵢG    3 months ago

There are about 30 million YECs in the USA - people who actually believe the Earth is ~6,000 years old and the implications that come with that.   If they had their way, what would our science classes be teaching the next generation?   Even though the numbers are waning, about 38% of Americans still think that human beings were created rather than evolved.   

What is the proper way to deal with forces seeking to teach the next generation religious views when those views contradict well established science?

 
 
 
epistte
1.1  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 months ago

Deny them the ability to reward a GED or high school diploma because they do not teach accredited subject matter. 12 years of Bible study masquerading as K-12 education does not create an educated adult able to function in the 21st century. As soon as employers and post-HS colleges understand that these students cannot do the job or complete expected coursework their parents will be forced to send them to accredited schools.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @1.1    3 months ago

And those who seek to indoctrinate the next generation religious with views that contradict well-established science, history, logic, etc. should be challenged by people in every forum (such as this one).

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  epistte @1.1    3 months ago

Good to see you back, epistte.  We were worried.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.3  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    3 months ago

We need to add logic or critical thinking course in public schools so their own peers have the ability to seperate lies from facts.  Religious literatists need to be shunned by society, even if it does exacerbate their persacution complex.  I'll stop exposing them as the fraud that they are as soon as they publicly admit for all to see that they oppose logic and facts.

Their supposed sincere religious beliefs have the very same facts supporting them as a child's belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Exactly none.

 I had a hellish last week because I was forced to deal with people who are shockingly stupid while I was nice to them. These people have raised incometence from a terminating offense to a de facto department policy. They also make a compelling argument for life after brain death.

 I'm not that smart and I continually search for people who are much smarter than I am because I want a mentor, but these people make me wonder if someone needs to remind them to breathe on a semi-regular basis.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.4  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.2    3 months ago
Good to see you back, epistte.  We were worried.

Thanks.

I'm OK, occasionally. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @1.1.3    3 months ago
We need to add logic or critical thinking course in public schools so their own peers have the ability to seperate lies from facts. 

Totally agree.   My son was allowed into a special curriculum for 'gifted' kids which actively taught critical thinking skills.   I thought that was outstanding and wondered why it was not part of the normal curriculum.

I had a hellish last week because ...

Bummer.   I can relate.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.6  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    3 months ago
Bummer.   I can relate.

I let loose on one person and was told that informing them of their intellectual failings was not PC. I remarked that I could draw Venn diagrams and explain it to them in their favorite shade of crayon...........

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.7  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @1.1    3 months ago

The irony is that private and home schooled students generally test higher than their public school counterparts and many of them have been taught creation as well as the pseudoscience of the theory of evolution.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.8  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @1.1.3    3 months ago

Society isn’t going to shun Biblical literalists so you can drop that fantasy right now.  

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.9  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.8    3 months ago

The facts say otherwise,

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) now believe the Bible is "the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word," similar to the 26% who view it as "a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man." This is the first time in Gallup's four-decade trend that biblical literalism has not surpassed biblical skepticism. Meanwhile, about half of Americans -- a proportion largely unchanged over the years -- fall in the middle, saying the Bible is the inspired word of God but that not all of it should be taken literally.

From the mid-1970s through 1984, close to 40% of Americans considered the Bible the literal word of God, but this has been declining ever since, along with a shrinking percentage of self-identified Christians in the U.S. Meanwhile, the percentage defining the Bible as mere stories has doubled, with much of that change occurring in the past three years.

Still, while biblical literalism has waned, the vast majority of Americans -- 71% -- continue to view the Bible as a holy document, believing it is at least God-inspired if not God's own words.

The latest results are based on Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll, conducted May 3-7.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.10  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.7    3 months ago
The irony is that private and home schooled students generally test higher than their public school counterparts and many of them have been taught creation as well as the pseudoscience of the theory of evolution.  

How many of those high scoring students are the result of religious fundamentalism being taught in home schools?  Not all home schooled students are religious fundamentalists, so you cannot claim their successes as proof of your religious liberalism creating intelligent and functional citizens in mainstream society.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1.11  WallyW  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.7    3 months ago

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Yep, some who should know better call valid and real science....pseudoscience....while not understanding what pseudoscience really means.

"Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited. The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization."

The above definition perfectly describes young Earth creationism and intelligent design.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @1.1.4    3 months ago

Very glad to see you back.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.13  author  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.7    3 months ago
The irony is that private and home schooled students generally test higher than their public school counterparts and many of them have been taught creation as well as the pseudoscience of the theory of evolution.  

You fail to deliver stats on those private and home-schooled students who are taught nonsense.   This article does not deem private or home-schooling to be inferior but rather notes how poor our science education can be especially if the curriculum weaves religion into the science curriculum.

The larger point is that society needs to push back on people who stubbornly profess scientific, historical and moral nonsense derived from religious beliefs.   Given there are still adults in civilized society who in spite of overwhelming facts to the contrary inexplicably believe that evolution is pseudo-science means we still have work to do.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.14  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.12    3 months ago
Very glad to see you back

Thanks 'Trout.

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
1.1.15  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  epistte @1.1.14    3 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.16  epistte  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @1.1.15    3 months ago
[ removed for context ]

 You're always a ray of sunshine. 

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.17  JBB  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @1.1.15    3 months ago

How, um, charm free...

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @1.1.4    3 months ago
I'm OK, occasionally.

Hey Epistte, it's good to see you. I hope you are doing well. You've been sorely missed. jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

You're always a ray of sunshine.

I'm almost sorry I missed the particular line of dialogue which warranted the CoC violation.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.19  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.18    3 months ago
Hey Epistte, it's good to see you. I hope you are doing well. You've been sorely missed.
You're always a ray of sunshine.
I'm almost sorry I missed the particular line of dialogue which warranted the CoC violation.

Thank you.

PM me and I will paraphrase his classy response.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.20  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.7    3 months ago
The irony is that private and home schooled students generally test higher than their public school counterparts

Cite some valid statistics to support that assertion, especially with those dealing with necessary educational courses like math and science!

and many of them have been taught creation

So they've ben taught mythology.

as well as the pseudoscience of the theory of evolution. 

Still waiting for you to demonstrate to the scientific community how evolution is "pseudoscience." 

Society isn’t going to shun Biblical literalists

Maybe not, but they should. I myself just laugh at their absurdity.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.21  Bob Nelson  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.7    3 months ago
the pseudoscience of the theory of evolution

What is your definition of "pseudoscience"? How does evolution fit that definition? How does Young Earth Creationism not fit that definition?

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.2  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 months ago

Those quiz photos are stomach turning.

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.1  JBB  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.2    3 months ago

Teaching kids that crap should be illegal. It is child abuse but we allow it...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.2    3 months ago

They alarm me

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 months ago
What is the proper way to deal with forces seeking to teach the next generation religious views when those views contradict well established science?

My advice is to get over it.  It's rather inconsequential in the big picture although it may not appear so to someone obsessed with the topic.

 
 
 
epistte
1.3.1  epistte  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.3    3 months ago
My advice is to get over it.  It's rather inconsequential in the big picture although it may not appear so to someone obsessed with the topic.

It is not inconsequential because these students don't mature in a way that they are able to function in a diverse technological society where they have to be able to hold a job and support themselves. We are a very interdependent society and we need to have educational policies that support that critical concept.  If you want to teach your kids the Bible do it on Sundays but you cannot brainwash your child with obvious lies because of your religious literalism.

Should we equally allow American Shia Muslims to teach their children Sharia law that is in opposition to secular law and then not expect there to be a problem when they become adults that cannot function outside of a very small religious community, or is it different when it is your brand of Christianity?  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.3.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  epistte @1.3.1    3 months ago

 No I know them and they function just fine so your argument goes nowhere and  the bottom line is it really is inconsequential.

 I think mostly this is mostly about his anti-religious bigotry 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 months ago
What is the proper way to deal with forces seeking to teach the next generation religious views when those views contradict well established science?

Know the Bible - and its contradictions - better than they. Confront them - gently - with those contradictions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.4.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.4    3 months ago
Know the Bible - and its contradictions - better than they. Confront them - gently - with those contradictions.

Most skeptics I know do seem to know the Bible better than most theists.   

How would you approach something like this?:

KAG @1.1.7The irony is that private and home schooled students generally test higher than their public school counterparts and many of them have been taught creation as well as the pseudoscience of the theory of evolution.  

This notion that evolution is pseudoscience is predicated on YEC teachings of a ~6,000 year old Earth.   (Came from Ken Ham — the original source for the 'science' quiz.)  If a mature adult holds such nonsense as truth, what course of action do you think would reach such an individual?   What facts?   What logic?

My answer:  IMO there is no chance for a change in mind because all information to the contrary is dismissed without the slightest investigation.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.4.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.1    3 months ago

Obviously, there are some misconceptions on what pseudoscience means.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.4.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.4.2    3 months ago

I would say there are a great many misconceptions on a great many things.   But for a misconception to be corrected the misconceiver must at least consider information that is contrary to held beliefs.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.4.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.1    3 months ago
Most skeptics I know do seem to know the Bible better than most theists.

Yes. Most theists do not really know their sacred texts very well... which leads to all sorts of suppositions...

  • They're afraid of what they might learn...
  • They're too lazy to invest the time...
  • They want to be told what to believe...

I agree that the contrast is striking. On the one hand, they often are quite vociferous... and on the other it is easy to show that they don't know what they're talking about.

It says something about me, I suppose, that I can be very patient with YEC, while slamming Trumpists' illogic on the spot...  jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.4.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.4.4    3 months ago
I can be very patient with YEC

I have found YECs (the individuals I have encountered online) to be impossibly stubborn.   They KNOW they are right and nothing will change that.   I suppose if one can take a position that is at odds with major findings of science because the Bible (literally) MUST be right therefore any contradiction of same MUST be wrong, there is no hope for any learning.   

To wit, I have no patience for YECs.    No reasoning ever offered; mere parroting of what they have been told.

YEC leaders such as Ken Ham are, IMO, despicable.   Not as bad as the televangelists, but despicable nonetheless because they are purposely trying to misinform the next generation about science, history, etc.

 
 
 
epistte
1.4.6  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.5    3 months ago
YEC leaders such as Ken Ham are, IMO, despicable.   Not as bad as the televangelists, but despicable nonetheless because they are purposely trying to misinform the next generation about science, history, etc.

They know what they are selling is a lie, but as long as they stick to the story they think others will believe it.

 
 
 
katrix
1.4.7  katrix  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.4.2    3 months ago
Obviously, there are some misconceptions on what pseudoscience means

That's one problem.  People like the young earthers try to redefine terms in an attempt to give validity to their irrational views.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.4.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @1.4.6    3 months ago
They know what they are selling is a lie

That is my conclusion too.   I see no way that YEC leaders such as those in AiG could produce their 'rebuttals' to science without having a rather good understanding of the actual science.    For example, they hold up their 6,000 year old Earth claim by dismissing radiometric dating as 'flawed' with the major claim that we do not really know that the rate of radioactive decay is constant.     ( Ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. )

Ultimately this is obvious.   If one is determined to uphold a belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old, one has no choice but to distort science to fit the scenario.   Why people believe this nonsense is another question.

 
 
 
epistte
1.4.9  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.8    3 months ago
Ultimately this is obvious.   If one is determined to uphold a belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old, one has no choice but to distort science to fit the scenario.   Why people believe this nonsense is another question.

They are trying to protect their social power by prolonging the conservative Christian majority in society. They ultimately have a goal of imposing their religious views as secular law so convincing people that the bible is literal fact is the first step.  Making money from religious simpletons by selling their lies is obvious

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.4.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.5    3 months ago
mere parroting of what they have been told.

This is the most frustrating. Much too often, these people do not understand what they are saying; they have learned a few bullet-points by heart, without understanding them.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2  Ed-NavDoc    3 months ago

This falls under separation of church and state. Keep any and all religion out of public schools, period.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1  epistte  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2    3 months ago
This falls under separation of church and state. Keep any and all religion out of public schools, period.

There can be no form of public funding, in the form of vouchers or charter schools used to push these religious lies.

It is debatable if parents have the legal right to teach these lies in home schools because the courts have ruled that a religious parent cannot deny their child access to medical care if the parent's religious beliefs forbid medical care because of their own religious beliefs. Our religious rights are logically limited to ourselves and do not apply to others, who have equal secular and religious rights, so a parent's religious beliefs are not sufficient to brainwash and intellectually hobble a child for life because they chose to teach bible literalism instead of facts. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  epistte @2.1    3 months ago

On this we are in agreement. I know we do not often agree on politics, but welcome back.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.2  epistte  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.1    3 months ago
On this we are in agreement. I know we do not often agree on politics, but welcome back.

Thank you.

I'm frankly surprised that anyone missed me.  It seemed that I was as PITA to more than 50% of the forum and they possibly cheered when I was mentioned on the back of a milk carton.

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
2.1.3  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  epistte @2.1.2    3 months ago

Ed has it right. Welcome back.

I've always thought you author valuable and authentic opinions. Yes, we asked where you went on many occasions.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.4  epistte  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @2.1.3    3 months ago
Ed has it right. Welcome back. I've always thought you author valuable and authentic opinions.

Thank you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @2.1.2    3 months ago

You were missed!

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.6  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    3 months ago
You were missed!

I talked to you the night before I left and explained how I was feeling. A few hours later I came to the conclusion that it was time to just walk away because I was most likely just annoying others and beating my head on a brick wall with my arguments.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    3 months ago
You were missed!

And very much so.

 
 
 
charger 383
2.1.8  charger 383  replied to  epistte @2.1.4    3 months ago

yes, you were missed. happy your back

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.9  epistte  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.8    3 months ago
yes, you were missed. happy your back

Thank you.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
2.1.10  Phoenyx13  replied to  epistte @2.1.6    3 months ago
I was most likely just annoying others and beating my head on a brick wall with my arguments.

i personally enjoy the majority of your comments and arguments - i'm glad you are back again jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  epistte @2.1.2    3 months ago

Actually, you help keep the rest of us on our toes. And I mean that as a compliment.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.12  epistte  replied to  Phoenyx13 @2.1.10    3 months ago
i personally enjoy the majority of your comments and arguments - i'm glad you are back again

Thank you. Did Shrekk ever return?

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
2.1.13  Phoenyx13  replied to  epistte @2.1.12    3 months ago
Thank you. Did Shrekk ever return?

i haven't seen Skrekk in quite a long time jrSmiley_5_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.14  epistte  replied to  Phoenyx13 @2.1.13    3 months ago

The last time that I remember him posting he said he was working on a military base and he didn't have an open internet connection because of security reasons.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.15  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  epistte @2.1.2    3 months ago
I'm frankly surprised that anyone missed me.  It seemed that I was as PITA to more than 50% of the forum and they possibly cheered when I was mentioned on the back of a milk carton.

Absolutely not true. You have been very missed including by me.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.16  epistte  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.15    3 months ago
Absolutely not true. You have been very missed including by me.

I still have the email that you sent me. I should have apologized for being so terse in my reply. I was having a bad day and I wasn't very polite to you when you wrote and asked if everything was ok. I'm sorry. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.17  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  epistte @2.1.16    3 months ago

That's OK. We all have bad days, including me. I was just concerned since you just disappeared suddenly after being so active, and I got worried about you. You have always been very personable in the past, and I am just glad you are fine and jumped right back in. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @2.1.16    3 months ago

Before you take a leave of absence the next time, I insist on a note.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.19  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.18    3 months ago
Before you take a leave of absence the next time, I insist on a note.

Do you have my email address?  PM me if you want it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @2.1.19    3 months ago

just sent you a PM with my email address

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
2.1.21  Phoenyx13  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.18    3 months ago
Before you take a leave of absence the next time, I insist on a note.

a note ? can i order a symphony ?? jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    3 months ago

The school in question was a private Christian school, so the quiz doesnt involve any constitutional violations of separation of church and state. 

It's sad, and the kids are the ones who suffer from being taught such nonsense. 

The private Christian school that gave kids this quiz evidently went out of business later for economic reasons. 

The Blue Ridge Christian Academy has since closed due to a lack of funding.
 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 months ago

I'm sorry, but nowhere in the article above did I see any mention that a private Christian  school was involved. Did I miss something?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1    3 months ago

John followed my fact check link:  This quiz was fact checked and found to be authentic.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    3 months ago

Okay, I saw that. My thanks for the clarification. As a suggestion, it might have been more helpful just to have included that in your write up.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.2    3 months ago

I did not include it because my focus here is not on one or even a few schools but rather the more general question of weaving religious beliefs into subjects such as science.   As noted in my article, this is a relatively rare occurrence that illustrates, by example, a more subtle, general problem.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.3    3 months ago

Understood.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.2  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 months ago
It's sad, and the kids are the ones who suffer from being taught such nonsense. 

True but its even sadder when some bureaucrat in DC thinks they know whats better for kids than their own parents.

They are welcome to try and tell us what we should or shouldn't do with our kids but they are also welcome to kiss our ass when we disagree.

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.1  lib50  replied to  Sparty On @3.2    3 months ago

Funny, its your party that thinks it has the right to actually control women's reproduction, politicians think they have more voice than the woman in the most personal decisions.   And not sure why anybody in the christian world of Trump would be pushing their 'values' on to kids.   Thanks, but no thanks.  No tax dollars to any religious schools. 

 
 
 
WallyW
3.2.2  WallyW  replied to  lib50 @3.2.1    3 months ago
its your party that thinks it has the right to actually control women's reproduction

And it's your party that thinks it's OK to abort up to the moment of birth....and beyond.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  lib50 @3.2.1    3 months ago
Funny, its your party that thinks it has the right to actually control women's reproduction, politicians think they have more voice than the woman in the most personal decisions.

Whats my party?   Yours appears to be Democrat from your position here but since i don't want to assume things i know little to nothing about i won't.   You should try the same.   [Deleted]

   And not sure why anybody in the christian world of Trump would be pushing their 'values' on to kids.

I think we need to come up with a new law.   The TDS law perhaps.   How many online posts before Trump hate is mentioned on an unrelated topic?   No need to postulate.   These days its stronger than Godwins law by far.

   Thanks, but no thanks.  No tax dollars to any religious schools.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.4  epistte  replied to  WallyW @3.2.2    3 months ago
And it's your party that thinks it's OK to abort up to the moment of birth....and beyond.

There is nothing to support this conservative hyperbole. 

How can you possibly abort after birth begins?

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.5  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @3.2    3 months ago
True but its even sadder when some bureaucrat in DC thinks they know whats better for kids than their own parents. They are welcome to try and tell us what we should or shouldn't do with our kids but they are also welcome to kiss our ass when we disagree.

Children need to be effectively educated with facts so they can be functional adults instead of being intellectually hobbled with religious literalism that limits their life choices and even their ability to function.   Who pays for this child when they cannot hold a job or obey secular law because of their parent's refusal to educate them. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @3.2    3 months ago
True but its even sadder when some bureaucrat in DC thinks they know whats better for kids than their own parents.

Well, some parents are idiots too.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.2.7  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.6    3 months ago

True but they free to be idiots or not.   Better than being told by some faceless idiot in DC with no skin in the game.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.2.8  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @3.2.5    3 months ago
Children need to be effectively educated with facts so they can be functional adults instead of being intellectually hobbled with religious literalism that limits their life choices and even their ability to function.

Lol .... i was "hobbled" with "religious liberalism" and have managed just fine.   Most people do manage just fine in that regard.   Your attempted characterization isn't even close.

Who pays for this child when they cannot hold a job or obey secular law because of their parent's refusal to educate them.

Same people who will pay for those the public schools system failed and can't get or hold a job.    The same people who will pay for those our colleges have failed and who can't get or hold a job.   The people who can get and hold a job.    And that includes a whole lot of people who got a "hobbled" education outside of the Public school system.

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.9  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.8    3 months ago
Lol .... i was "hobbled" with "religious liberalism" and have managed just fine.   Most people do manage just fine in that regard.   Your attempted characterization isn't even close.

What is religious liberalism?

Same people who will pay for those the public schools system failed and can't get or hold a job.    The same people who will pay for those our colleges have failed and who can't get or hold a job.   The people who can get and hold a job.    And that includes a whole lot of people who got a "hobbled" education outside of the Public school system.

Our public school system is far from perfect but they aren't teaching obvious religious lies as fact.  Just because one system isn't perfect doesn't mean that the other idea is the correct choice as an alternative. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.2.10  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @3.2.9    3 months ago
What is religious liberalism?

My bad, i was using your term.   Thought i typed literalism and liberalism came out somehow.   I see the site spell check doesn't like it.   maybe it autocorrected

 Just because one system isn't perfect doesn't mean that the other idea is the correct choice as an alternative.

Exactly.   The same applies in both directions

Luckily parents have options other than Public schools in most places.   The more options, the better i say.   Public schools are their own worse enemy in many places and need the competition IMO if they ever have a chance to improve.   i completely understand some folks problem with that.   especially folks who are part of the Public School system.   School options threaten their golden goose.

 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.7    3 months ago

Idiocy is idiocy, regardless of the source.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 months ago
The private Christian school that gave kids this quiz evidently went out of business later for economic reasons. 

I think this is actually one way in which truth may eventually triumph over these liars and their poisonous indoctrination. It's going to come down to economic reasons. If I was a student who had gone through that sort of education and then gone into higher education later and felt embarrassed by my lack of actual knowledge and facts as other students would no doubt laugh if I raised my hand in a college class and answered "False!" to both "Is the earth billions of years old and did dinosaurs live millions of years ago?" questions. I believe virtually every court in the land would rule in my favor after I sued the school and my parents for causing me emotional distress and financial losses as their lies caused me financial damages later in life.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4  Nerm_L    3 months ago

What is the point of teaching about dinosaurs?  No school child will encounter a dinosaur during their lifetimes.  Science has turned dinosaurs into pop culture icons but what is the educational value of pop culture icons?

The example cited in the OP has the rather obvious intent of indoctrinating children to believe a particular religious (and political) viewpoint.  However, if the purpose of teaching science is to overthrow religion then science education becomes political indoctrination rather than disseminating useful information.  Have our classrooms become nothing more than political indoctrination centers?

The value of education should include measures of practical application.  Knowledge has little value if education does not teach children how to utilize knowledge.  Rote memorization of  encyclopedic knowledge doesn't have any more useful value than rote memorization of Biblical scripture.  The only thing rote memorization accomplishes is to turn children into books on shelves.

Growing peas would have more practical educational value than dissertations and rote memorization about creatures that no longer exist.  A practical demonstration of genetics in action would provide the basis for understanding evolution.  And if the child is not interested in genetics, at least they would learn how to grow peas.  In today's world dinosaurs are fictional characters found in pop culture.  Dinosaurs aren't any more real than Noah's ark to a child.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4    3 months ago
However, if the purpose of teaching science is to overthrow religion then science education becomes political indoctrination rather than disseminating useful information. 

The purpose of teaching science is to explain contemporary understanding of how reality works and to cultivate critical thinking skills.

Science has turned dinosaurs into pop culture icons but what is the educational value of pop culture icons?

Science classes in schools do not dwell on dinosaurs.   This is more the work of biblical literalists like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind and Hollywood.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @4.1    3 months ago
The purpose of teaching science is to explain contemporary understanding of how reality works and to cultivate critical thinking skills.

Science is not a substitute for philosophy.  Philosophy is about how to think critically.  If critical thinking is important (and it is) then the subject of philosophy should be taught before science.  Philosophy teaches how to ask questions, formulate hypothesis, and use inductive and deductive logic to develop conclusions.

Ken Ham's nonsense can compete with science because science education is not teaching how to think critically.  

Science classes in schools do not dwell on dinosaurs.   This is more the work of biblical literalists like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind and Hollywood.

No, that explanation does not pass the critical thinking test.  Dinosaurs would not have become a pop culture icon (and a symbolic representation of science) among children by simple magic of commercialization.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.1    3 months ago
Science is not a substitute for philosophy.

True.   Why did you make this obvious statement?   I made no such claim.

If critical thinking is important (and it is) then the subject of philosophy should be taught before science. 

Are you arguing just for the sake of argument?   What a petty nit-picky point is this?

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.3  katrix  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.1    3 months ago
Dinosaurs would not have become a pop culture icon (and a symbolic representation of science) among children by simple magic of commercialization.  

Really?  I had plastic dinosaurs as a kid and loved Land of the Lost and the Flintstones.  More recently, kids saw Jurassic Park.  Dinosaurs have been commercialized for kids for decades and that's a huge reason kids love them.  And we see dinosaurs at museums and such, plus they're discussed in school because of their extinction and how it ended the Cretaceous era ... and how birds are their only living descendents ... so they're part of the discussion on evolution as well. And since evolution is a key principle of biology ... well, see how it all ties together.   Science is awesome!

Intense interests are a big confidence booster for kids, agrees Kelli Chen, a pediatric psychiatric occupational therapist at Johns Hopkins.
They’re also particularly beneficial for cognitive development. A 2008 study found that sustained intense interests, particularly in a conceptual domain like dinosaurs, can help children develop increased knowledge and persistence, a better attention span, and deeper information-processing skills. In short, they make better learners and smarter kids. There’s decades of research to back that up: Three separate studies have found that older children with intense interests tend to be of above-average intelligence.

A dino obsession, then, can be a kid’s way of taking in a new subject in a way that feels familiar to them: through the business of having fun. “Asking questions, finding answers, and gaining expertise is the learning process in general,” Chen says. “Exploring a topic and mastering it is beneficial because that’s how we form careers as adults. A kid’s primary occupation is play, so they’re going about their job of playing through the lens of this thing they’re interested in learning about.”

https://www.thecut.com/2017/12/a-psychological-explanation-for-kids-love-of-dinosaurs.html
 
 
 
katrix
4.2  katrix  replied to  Nerm_L @4    3 months ago

How are you going to know what field a child will go into unless you expose him/her to a broad range of facts?  And it IS important to know about geology, and dinosaurs fit into that conversation - because the plants and animals that lived during various eras are part of the discussion.  Besides, dinosaurs make things more interesting for kids, especially since dinosaur fossils are easy to take your kids to see. 

It's a shame you don't find science to be useful.  And just because science often does overthrow things taught in religious books doesn't mean it's political indoctrination.  Facts are amazing things and science is useful for everyone to learn.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  katrix @4.2    3 months ago
How are you going to know what field a child will go into unless you expose him/her to a broad range of facts?

Then the emphasis should be on vocation.  What do geologists do?  How do geologists use science?  How does a mining engineer, a construction engineer, or an environmental engineer use geology?  Geology is important to many vocations besides geologists.

It's a shame you don't find science to be useful.  And just because science often does overthrow things taught in religious books doesn't mean it's political indoctrination.  Facts are amazing things and science is useful for everyone to learn.

The utility of science is in its application.  Simply knowing facts is useful for a contestant on a game show.  

Science education only exposes children to one vocation; how to be a scientist.  That approach diminishes the value of science for other vocations.  If a child is not interested in becoming a scientist then what is the value of learning science?

If a child is not interested in becoming a writer then what is the value of learning about literature?  If a child is not interested in becoming an artist then what is the value of learning about art?  If a child is not interested in becoming a mathematician then what is the value of learning mathematics?

Children are expected to pursue a vocation as adults.  So, it seems reasonable that children should be exposed to a variety of vocations and how the knowledge being taught is useful for a variety of vocations.

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.2  katrix  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.1    3 months ago
Science education only exposes children to one vocation; how to be a scientist. 

That's totally not true.  Science is useful for many different vocations. 

A well rounded education is crucial.  I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.1    3 months ago
Then the emphasis should be on vocation. 

When do you think a child figures out their vocation?  Often times that is not really clear until the sophomore year in college.  How can a child determine that which is of interest unless exposed to it via education in K-12?

Science education only exposes children to one vocation; how to be a scientist.    ...    If a child is not interested in becoming a mathematician then what is the value of learning mathematics?

Are you serious?  jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

So, it seems reasonable that children should be exposed to a variety of vocations and how the knowledge being taught is useful for a variety of vocations.

Agreed.   So exposing children to economics, history, psychology, biology, algebra, chemistry, English, physics, geology, trigonometry, sociology, political science, geometry, cosmology, etc. is a good thing.   

 
 
 
JBB
4.2.4  JBB  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.1    3 months ago

In this case they are teaching verifiable lies. No wonder many lose all faith...

Does, "Thou shall not bear false witness", not apply to what teachers tell the children they are charged with teaching? Is it really okay to straight up lie to school kids as long as your lies are consistent with a Bronx Age book? I fail to understand any justification for that nonsense coming from anyone bearing the honorific title of, "Teacher". I am stunned anyone would even try to defend this travesty...

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.5  Nerm_L  replied to  katrix @4.2.2    3 months ago
A well rounded education is crucial.  I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

You can throw that strawman around all you wish but the strawman isn't going to transform a lie into truth.

I'm not advocating for Ken Ham's nonsense.  I am stating that today's method of education doesn't have any more value than Ken Ham's nonsense.

The only reason Ken Ham's nonsense can compete with science education is because education is missing something crucial.  Modern education has difficulty competing with nonsense.  The attention paid to Ken Ham and his flea circus is symptomatic of improper education.

Science education is in direct competition with a razzle-dazzle commercial entertainment venue; it is a pop culture competition.  Ken Ham is pitting a flea circus tourist attraction against science education and teachers have to defend what they teach?  Yeah, right, the problem is Ken Ham.

 
 
 
JBB
4.2.6  JBB  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.5    3 months ago

No, math and science are basic building blocks of an adequate education.

Who is more in demand, medical doctors or doctors of divinity? Sheesh...

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.7  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.3    3 months ago
When do you think a child figures out their vocation?  Often times that is not really clear until the sophomore year in college.  How can a child determine that which is of interest unless exposed to it via education in K-12?

A sophomore in college is no longer a child.  If adults don't have some idea of what they want to pursue in life then has education really prepared them for being adults?

Agreed.   So exposing children to economics, history, psychology, biology, algebra, chemistry, English, physics, geology, trigonometry, sociology, political science, geometry, cosmology, etc. is a good thing. 

There seems to be a distinct lack of liberal arts in that list.  But is that knowledge being disseminated to prepare for academic vocations?  Is primary education only preparing students to become secondary students?  Perhaps that's why children don't have an idea about vocational interest until they become adults.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.8  Nerm_L  replied to  JBB @4.2.6    3 months ago
No, math and science are basic building blocks of an adequate education. Who is more in demand, medical doctors or doctors of divinity? Sheesh...

Who is more in demand: auto mechanics or medical doctors?  Somehow we have lost sight of the fact that auto mechanics can utilize science, too.  And mathematics is probably more relevant to an auto mechanic than to a medical doctor.

Education isn't supposed to be a competition between vocations.  Education is supposed to be of value for all vocations.  If educators cannot show the relevance of what they teach to both auto mechanics and medical doctors then what is the value of that education?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.9  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.7    3 months ago
A sophomore in college is no longer a child.  If adults don't have some idea of what they want to pursue in life then has education really prepared them for being adults?

Non sequitur.   My point was that prior to sophomore year in college most kids do not know what they want  to do.    The younger the child the less likely that they will be prepared to zero in on a vocation.   To wit, your notion of focusing on vocational skills at an early age is impractical.

There seems to be a distinct lack of liberal arts in that list. 

It is not an exhaustive list.   Note the use of etc. at the end.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.2.10  r.t..b...  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.9    3 months ago
focusing on vocational skills at an early age is impractical.

Interesting discussion. I may disagree with this assertion as there is no reason we should consider secondary education the end all. Aptitude testing can determine the best course of education for the individual, and it is incumbent on our system to realize those realities and thus offer vocational courses to provide an array of options to best fit the students in their charge. Providing courses, instructors, and facilities to meet the vocational needs of our population seems a natural part of the process. 

 
 
 
JBB
4.2.11  JBB  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.8    3 months ago

Medical doctors make about 10 times what auto mechanics do...

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.12  author  TᵢG  replied to  r.t..b... @4.2.10    3 months ago
as there is no reason we should consider secondary education the end all

Agreed.  My point was regarding expecting a child to know what vocation s/he might pursue.   Aptitude testing in high school in preparation for advanced education is currently done and makes sense as it helps guide the student in choosing wise electives.    But the student's interest remains paramount.   If one has a high aptitude for mathematics yet is interested in being an auto mechanic, the student will likely pursue the more interesting electives rather than take pre-calc.   Having suitable electives in high school makes good sense but not at the expense of a foundation based on science, mathematics, writing, history, etc.

Providing courses, instructors, and facilities to meet the vocational needs of our population seems a natural part of the process. 

Of course.   But not at the expense of general education;  not too early in the process.   Back to my point that children generally do not know what they want to do.   They often change their minds as they develop.  Often in college.   I know that I had imagined being an attorney, an architect and a scientist growing up.   Hate to think that my early thoughts of being an attorney would have set a curriculum favoring law rather than letting me naturally develop with general education and expand my horizons.   ( I wound up getting an MS in Computer Science and pursued an entrepreneurial career developing commercial software. )

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.13  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.9    3 months ago
Non sequitur.   My point was that prior to sophomore year in college most kids do not know what they want  to do.    The younger the child the less likely that they will be prepared to zero in on a vocation.   To wit, your notion of focusing on vocational skills at an early age is impractical.

My point is that delaying vocational interests until adulthood has lifelong consequences.  The purpose of exposing children to a variety of vocations at an early age is to develop interest, not vocational skills.  Interest provides motivation and purpose for a student to develop skills; an incentive for a student to educate themselves.

Science education teaches students the vocational skills of an academic scientist.  Other subjects are being taught in the same manner.  However, the knowledge of each subject is relevant to more than academic vocations.  And the academic vocational skills may not be useful for other vocations.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.14  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.8    3 months ago
And mathematics is probably more relevant to an auto mechanic than to a medical doctor.

Not true.

Auto mechanics do indeed use arithmetic and do so often.   But fractions and unit conversion is as far as their mathematics needs to go.

Physicians, in practice, also use mostly arithmetic (fractions and unit conversions just like mechanics) and will use basic algebra.   However, anyone who wishes to go to a medical school will have to take advanced courses in mathematics (at least Calculus) and will be required to get better than decent scores on the SAT or ACT to get into a decent university for their undergraduate degree.   So even though an MD will likely never calculate a partial derivative in practice, the practical requirements of learning math far exceeds those of an individual aspiring to be an auto mechanic.

In most vocations nowadays algebra and arithmetic will cover the bases.   Engineers and scientists (and teachers) of course are the notable exceptions.   But anyone pursuing college has a practical need for more advanced mathematics in high school.

Bottom line, it makes little sense to try to tailor high school (and much worse, K-8) education towards a child's potential vocation since that could change dramatically.   Providing elective options in high school (especially 11-12) makes very good sense but even then it is coarse:  e.g.  work directly out of school, trade school or college (or equivalent) are the biggest factors.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.15  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.13    3 months ago
My point is that delaying vocational interests until adulthood has lifelong consequences. 

I am not arguing to delay vocational interests.   You missed the point.

The purpose of exposing children to a variety of vocations at an early age is to develop interest, not vocational skills. 

I agree.   Part of my point.

Interest provides motivation and purpose for a student to develop skills; an incentive for a student to educate themselves.

Correct.

Science education teaches students the vocational skills of an academic scientist. 

Hardly.  K-12 science is fundamental stuff.  Basic, basic, basic stuff.   Barely enough for them to follow an article in Scientific American.    Barely enough to hold onto issues such as climate change, renewable resources, etc. in order to establish a political position and thus a sensible vote.

Other subjects are being taught in the same manner.  However, the knowledge of each subject is relevant to more than academic vocations.  And the academic vocational skills may not be useful for other vocations.

Yes, much of general education does not translate into vocation.   That is not its purpose.   The purpose is to expose the student, to broaden perspectives, to develop the mind (mathematics vs. music vs. historical analysis vs. creative writing vs ...)     For example, we insisted that our children learn at least one musical instrument to develop that aspect of their minds (learning to read music, to translate abstract notation into properly executed musical sounds, etc.) yet never had any intention of encouraging them to pursue music as a vocation.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.16  Nerm_L  replied to  JBB @4.2.11    3 months ago
Medical doctors make about 10 times what auto mechanics do...

Drug dealers make 10 times what medical doctors do.  Why else would some medical doctors become drug dealers?  If education is only about making the most money then perhaps more criminals should be recruited into the teaching profession.  

See how silly that sounds? 

A flimflam pop-culture huckster like Ken Ham can make more money than a science teacher.  If education is only about the money then pop-culture God-stars have an advantage.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.2.17  r.t..b...  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.12    3 months ago
But not at the expense of general education;  not too early in the process

I agree about not labeling 'pre-college' vs. 'vocational' too early in the process. However, there were peers in my  high school that had as little interest in Shakespeare, Churchill, or the periodic table as others had in carburetors, animal husbandry, or welding. I'll never argue against a well-rounded education, but forcing it upon every student as a means to an end garners neither the student, the teacher, nor the system much in tangible results. Of course, just my opinion.

 
 
 
JBB
4.2.18  JBB  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.16    3 months ago

We are not talking about criminal enterprises. The pay scale for medical doctors is entirely a product of the relative demand for their services and their availability. Supply and demand, the same as the market for all marketable skills just like that for plumbers, electricians or auto mechanics. All of which need a comprehensive education to succeed. Hell, without math skills regarding billing, collections, credit, taxes and accounting none of those trades would be possible much less profitable. The idea that math and science are not vital parts of any good education is pure utter nonsense. In this case though, children are being blatently misinformed. Lied To...

Look, I am not going to wast time arguing about this. You are plain wrong.

 
 
 
JBB
4.2.19  JBB  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.16    3 months ago

Just FYI, sales, whether in legitimate business or even illicit drugs is the top paying profession which necessarily demands both math skills and technical knowledge in order to be successful. Last I checked professional sales, or more plainly business, is the highest paid profession there is ahead both doctors and lawyers. The logic you are pursuing is ludicrous...

Over a long career I sold a billion dollars worth of highly engineered manufactured industrial equipment. If you think that a general knowledge of math and the sciences was not absolutely vital to my success you would be, what? Wrong...

 
 
 
pat wilson
4.2.20  pat wilson  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.1    3 months ago
"Then the emphasis should be on vocation.  What do geologists do?  How do geologists use science?  How does a mining engineer, a construction engineer, or an environmental engineer use geology?  Geology is important to many vocations besides geologists."

Geotechnical engineering uses principles of soil mechanics and rock mechanics to investigate subsurface conditions and materials; determine the relevant physical/mechanical and chemical properties of these materials; evaluate stability of natural slopes and man-made soil deposits; assess risks posed by site conditions; ...

Mining and construction engineers need geotechnical engineering before any construction can take place.

If our own Dowser were here she could explain in very clear terms what geologists do. I miss her.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5  Dismayed Patriot    3 months ago

The whole test is truly an abomination of lies, but I find the last question the most hilarious and depressing knowing that this was being taught to kids in this school just 6 years ago.

"The next time someone says the earth was billions (or millions) of years old, what can you say?" and apparently the answer they studied was "Were you there?". So not only are they teaching kids their lies, they are also teaching them to be condescending little shits with no actual reasoning skills. The question had nothing to do with even teaching them that the earth isn't billions of years old as they wrongly claim, it's teaching them to mindlessly defend their indefensible beliefs with nothing but snark.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5    3 months ago

The Answers in Genesis site has entire articles devoted to how to respond to rational people when they provide you with facts.  It would be funny if it weren't so depressing.  Talk about promoting willful ignorance.  If I ran the Internet, I'd shut that site down.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  katrix @5.1    3 months ago
If I ran the Internet, I'd shut that site down.

And you'd have screams of religious persecution. The fact is, a parent has every right to teach their kids their own invented language if they wanted to, they could even speak only Klingon in their home if they wished. But if they expect their children to leave the home and survive in the world around them, they might want to also teach English, at least here in the US. Otherwise they are setting their child up for ridicule and derision as they try to communicate with those outside their bubble. So when irresponsible parents teach their kids lies like the earth is only 6,000 years old, they are setting them up for ridicule and derision if they don't also teach them the actual facts about the age of the earth. As long as they teach them that virtually every other sane human on the planet knows the earth is just over 4.5 billion years old, at least they'll have a choice to give the correct answer when asked easy questions like that one later in life and won't have to resort to rhetorical nonsense like "Were you there?".

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.2  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.1    3 months ago
And you'd have screams of religious persecution.

If I ran the Internet, I wouldn't care ;)   My sister and nephew are young earthers and I'd consider it doing the human race a favor to try to help keep others from catching that disease.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.1    3 months ago
a parent has every right to teach their kids their own invented language if they wanted to, they could even speak only Klingon in their home if they wished

One other similarity occurred to me between teaching a child Klingon and religious indoctrination. In the fantasy Star Trek Universe, the Klingon word for adversary is "Jagh". That is the truth, not a lie. In YEC's fantasy universe, the earth is only 6,000 years old and that, to them, is also not a lie. That's why they get so defensive and angry when you say they are lying, it's like telling a Star Trek fan they're lying about the Klingon language. The difference is, I doubt there are any Star Trek fans out there willing to take their school to court when the school doesn't allow Klingon words in the spelling bee, they are aware of the fantasy realm they choose to inhabit and can clearly draw a line between the two. They don't just send in their tax returns with a statement that says "The Federation of Planets no longer recognizes US paper money as a form of currency".

The point being, no one is preventing anyone from participating in any variety of fantasy, and fantasy is readily available around the globe in virtually every format. The difference is that some YEC's and other evangelicals appear to be demanding that their beliefs not be considered "fantasy" regardless of the lack of evidence supporting their beliefs, or even the mountain of evidence to the contrary of their beliefs. They get bitter and angry when their beliefs are laughed at or dismissed but what exactly were they expecting when they started articulating their fantasy universe and their kids were telling other kids things that simply aren't true?

Freedom of speech means you can get up on any street corner and proclaim the earth is just 6,000 years old, or that the Klingon empire will rise and conquer humanity, that's your right, but don't expect "free speech" to be free of consequences. Accept the reality that if you are pushing an idea that has ZERO physical evidence supporting it, you're going to be laughed at, ridiculed and dismissed as crazy, insane or just plain stupid. That is everyone else's free speech in response to your own. Just because some categorize their fantasy as "religion" doesn't give it any extra rights to be heard or believed.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5    3 months ago
they are also teaching them to be condescending little shits with no actual reasoning skills.

You know, it occurs to me that this might actually be a goal.  Even the most challenged kids in most classes can parrot back a few phrases like "Were you there?"  If they can do that they test just as well (on these stupid tests) as even the valedictorian (providing the valedictorian is also thoroughly indoctrinated, of course).  Memorize the "facts" well, which is simple enough to do, and now they're "smart".  They have the grades to "prove" it.

 
 
 
JBB
6  JBB    3 months ago

I shudder to imagine the embarrassment those kids are going to suffer in life. 

Probably a disproportionate number of them will end up killing themselves...

Parents allowing kids to be so educationally abused should be horsewhipped.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JBB @6    3 months ago

I don't know if they'll end killing themselves but they're not going to fall into high paying jobs, either....

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.1  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    3 months ago

I see lots of drugs, drinking, disfunction and disappointment in their futures.

I knew lots of kids raised by rabid fundies and most had big bad problems...

There are good reasons I used past tense. But, then again, I am getting old.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.2  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    3 months ago

What kind of relationships do you imagine them having with their parents?

I'd expect lots of bitter resentment from those kids as they become aware...

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.3  katrix  replied to  JBB @6.1.2    3 months ago
I'd expect lots of bitter resentment from those kids as they become aware...

Not in my experience.  My nephew changed his vocational goals from really cool stuff (that would also actually pay the bills) when he was younger, to wanting to be a Christian camp counselor now that he's an adult.  And he adores his mother .. because he's bought the BS hook, line, and sinker.  He firmly believes exactly what the main sentence of this article states.  If you're brainwashed enough, you will never become aware.

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.4  JBB  replied to  katrix @6.1.3    3 months ago

Your experience is different than my own then...

 
 
 
epistte
6.2  epistte  replied to  JBB @6    3 months ago
I shudder to imagine the embarrassment those kids are going to suffer in life. 

Probably a disproportionate number of them will end up killing themselves...

Parents allowing kids to be so educationally abused should be horsewhipped.

This is child abuse just as surely as beating a child is.  Religion is and has always been a problem.

 
 
 
JBB
6.2.1  JBB  replied to  epistte @6.2    3 months ago

Is brain fucking kids really all that much different than butt fucking them?

Either way you end up with damaged goods. Sadly some kids will get both.

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
7  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉    3 months ago

I just want to say I love these discussions. The internet is amazing.  I always thought he rode a donkey but I learn something new every day.

384

384

 
 
 
katrix
7.1  katrix  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @7    3 months ago

Your second comic is incorrect.  You see, dinosaurs were vegans until after the whole Ark thing.  We know this is true because the other animals still exist, so clearly they were all vegans, or they would have done exactly what's shown here.

 
 
 
JBB
7.1.1  JBB  replied to  katrix @7.1    3 months ago

By that logic there would be no cattle or chickens today...

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  JBB @7.1.1    3 months ago

Sorry for straying here but... Did you ever notice that chicken breasts have no nipples? 

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.3  katrix  replied to  JBB @7.1.1    3 months ago

Yes, but you're talking about logic.  There is none when it comes to Noah's Ark.

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2  MrFrost  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @7    3 months ago

That litter box must have been huge. 

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
8  Phoenyx13    3 months ago

unfortunately, i can think of a couple NT members who would advocate for that kind of "4th Grade Science Quiz" as an alternative to the "pseudoscience" being taught jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
KDMichigan
9  KDMichigan    3 months ago

I hate these religion posts. 

In my opinion parents can teach there kids whatever they want. If they are raised ignorant and stay ignorant then it is what it is, I see plenty of college educated that are dumb as hell.

But I'm for less Government so there is that, but if people want to raise children and send them to schools that teach them as the parents believe that is there choice.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scientology-schools_n_5a2d8b9ee4b069ec48ae4109

 
 
 
MrFrost
10  MrFrost    3 months ago

Question #18.... wow. "Were you there?" <cough>

#19 "Did God create the universe?"

A: "Yes!!!!"

Rebuttal: "Were you there?"

SMH. 

Ken Hamm needs to have someone slam his nuts in a car door. The ignorance is simply shocking. 

My X married a YEC lunatic, weird dude.  

 
 
 
epistte
10.1  epistte  replied to  MrFrost @10    3 months ago

My ex tries to rationalize YEC beliefs that the church teaches with scientific facts. Such ideas as the 7 days of Genesis were really a million years long.............. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.1.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @10.1    3 months ago

That is what the Old Earth Creationists hold.   YECs actually consider creation taking place in 6 24 hour days.

A brilliant Old Earth Creationist is Dr. Hugh Ross of 'Reasons to Believe'.   If you want a laugh, watch this debate between Dr. Ross and the nutcase YEC Ken Ham:

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
10.1.2  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  epistte @10.1    3 months ago
Such ideas as the 7 days of Genesis were really a million years long

You should point out that 7 million years is still just a blip in the grand scheme of things, and not nearly enough time for the carbonate rock formations of limestone, chalk, and dolomite to form across the North American interior (not to mention all the other places around the world). That particular kind of rock forms from life-rich reef sediment under sea water, and we'd have to go back at least 80-90 million years to allow for some of the most recent stuff in the Niobrara Formation, which formed during the last time there was in inland sea covering parts of North America, the Western Interior Seaway.

Or better yet, identify some local rock that has tens or hundreds of million-year-old fossils in it, maybe some easy-to-access bluffs or road cuts in the area, and ask him to explain how 7 million years would be enough time to explain the fossils, let alone the rock itself. Your state geology department will probably have lots of information about your local formations.

Just for fun, here's an animation showing continental drift in reverse. Check out where North America was when the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian limestone deposits found today across much of the US formed, about 300 to 350 million years ago. We were at or on the other side of the equator! How cool is that? That rock was laid down when we were a tropical paradise. :)

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.1.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @10.1.2    3 months ago

And to again illustrate the despicable nonsense of those who wish to dumb down the next generation, here is how Answers In Genesis discusses the various supercontinents.   Note that most all of the continental changes in our history occurred during the one year of Noah's flood.

Moving Continents Exhibit

 on October 31, 2016
Some creationists have presented this model of how the earth’s continents may have looked in the past.

Rodinia

Most secular and biblical geologists believe that all the land has been together more than once. One of these supercontinents is called “Rodinia” (from the Russian word for “motherland”).

When God spoke the dry land into existence on Day 3 of Creation Week (GENESIS 1:9–10), He may have created a landmass similar to Rodinia (scientists continue to debate its exact shape).

Dr. Kurt Wise believes that much of the area of the pre-Flood continents was covered in shallow oceans where invertebrate animals lived. A hot-water reef was located at the edge of the continents, while sand dunes were found along the beaches. (K. Wise, “The Hydrothermal Biome: a Pre-Flood Environment,”Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism. Creation Science Fellowhip, 2003, pp. 359–370.)

Pangaea

The Flood began with a breakup of the “fountains of the great deep” and an opening of the “windows of heaven” (GENESIS 7:11). This may have been the result of the breakup of the original supercontinent into huge plates of the earth’s crust. These plates split, moved, and collided throughout the duration of the Flood.

Evidence suggests that, after the breakup, the land again smashed together, forming another supercontinent called Pangaea. This temporary supercontinent formed and broke up entirely during the Flood.

Laurasia And Gondwana

Still during the Flood, Pangaea broke apart, first into Laurasia and Gondwana and finally into the continents we have today. At the end of this period, the Indian subcontinent slammed into the Eurasian plate, forming the Himalayas.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
10.1.4  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.3    3 months ago

Elsewhere on their website they claim that the flood happened in 2348 BC, so they think Pangaea existed just prior to that and was broken up by the flood? 2348 BC was a couple centuries after the Great Pyramid was built. Odd that the Egyptians noticed neither the flood, nor the rapid movement of what would have been large, neighboring continental land masses after the flood. Not to mention the formation of the Mediterranean.

I don't understand how this organization even exists. Who is funding this crap? Can people really be this stupid? It's astonishing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.1.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @10.1.4    3 months ago
I don't understand how this organization even exists.

Same here, but there is no denying their existence or their success.

Who is funding this crap? 

This is the largest Young Earth Creationist organization in the USA (possibly the world).   They are funded by the ~30 million YECs in the USA (and who knows how many worldwide) who buy their nonsense in the form of exhibit tickets, videos, and other merchandised items.

Can people really be this stupid? It's astonishing.

Yes.   Remember that religions are authority-based.   So if the authority says something is true many are conditioned to simply accept (and parrot).

 
 
 
epistte
10.1.6  epistte  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @10.1.4    3 months ago
Elsewhere on their website they claim that the flood happened in 2348 BC, so they think Pangaea existed just prior to that and was broken up by the flood? 2348 BC was a couple centuries after the Great Pyramid was built. Odd that the Egyptians noticed neither the flood, nor the rapid movement of what would have been large, neighboring continental land masses after the flood. Not to mention the formation of the Mediterranean.

The Sumerians, Indus valley civilizations and the Mayan also never mentioned a great flood.   You'd think that people living in the Indus valley would notice their land mass slamming into Asia. It might cause earthquakes............

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
10.1.7  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.5    3 months ago
They are funded by the ~30 million YECs in the USA (and who knows how many worldwide)

It's so depressing. I know I've seen the statistics several times before, but it's always a bit of a shock to be reminded.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.1.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @10.1.7    3 months ago

... and to engage those who actually believe this nonsense.

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  epistte @10.1    3 months ago

On a positive note, people missed you...as did I. 

 
 
 
epistte
10.1.10  epistte  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.9    3 months ago
On a positive note, people missed you...as did I. 

I needed to take a break. I appreciate the kind words of everyone.

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @10.1.10    3 months ago

Nothing but love for you epistte. jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Jack_TX
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Tessylo
Save Me Jebus
JBB
Jim Greene
devangelical
zuksam
PJ
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom



91 visitors