I wouldn't want a list of names. Any quantity so small it could be listed would be utterly irrelevant in the scientific consensus of tens of thousands of professors and millions of past and present postgraduates in the relevant fields.

I'm more than a bit puzzled why Ken Ham might top such a list too, he has an undergraduate degree in applied science, not a PhD and certainly did not come to his view by looking at the scientific evidence. It sounds like you're making a pretty good case that there is an unchallenged scientific consensus of an old Earth as well, which is probably good, because that's the case. And that's why it's perfectly appropriate to teach it in schools and in a different category from either atheism or any religion.

There are lots of beliefs that make you an outsider (e.g. believing the Queen of England is the latest in a line of ruling alien lizard people won't make you popular in the history department, belief that pi=4 won't make you popular in the mathematics or physics departments, believing that AIDS is a hoax won't make you popular in the medical school etc.), that is not a virtue. It's not indicative of anything, especially not educational value or merit in deciding curricula at primary or secondary schools.

Chris Putnam wrote:

And that's the source of the problem : believers accept bullshit as evidence, as long as it suits their narrative. We don't need to take their opinion in consideration when building such system, since it's already biased. I know it sounds radical put like that, but at some point, if you want to move forward, you need to loose your dead weight.

But I can here the Fundamentalists describe you with the same words as you describe them. They will stand and argue their point, fully believing it is justified. They will wish to train their kids accordingly. I just can't help but think that restricting peoples ideological parameters in relationship to how they desire to raise their kids will eventually end up giving great power to people who most certainly should not have it.

Thank you for your input. Perhaps this thread has run its course.

Believing it is justified =/= justified. That's the point of the discussion.

The subject is not up for discussion in this country. Another American who thinks America is the norm. It is no where near it.
Home teaching is highly exceptional here. The education inspectorate is very tough on home education and it seldom lasts long and only at primary level.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I'll take religious indoctrination over being raped by a family member throughout childhood. Any damn day.

The two often go together.

Chris Putnam wrote:[
...
Truly though I wish to redirect his thread to its original intent. To discuss kids being indoctrinated into a belief system of a religious nature and a belief in the fundamentals of that faith system. Multitudes of kids are taught young earth creationism, Noah's flood (thousands visit the Ark Encounter), Moses, and the fundamentals of biblical Christianity. The bible becomes the "inerrant" guide that they live by. These kids frequently have loving kind parents that provide well (no abuse) and they may excel academically. Regardless, is the practice of educating kids this way acceptable?

Please continue and thank you for your posts

I think it should be illegal. Period. A requirement. Kids as property is no longer viable. Further, Muslims and Christians should be shit upon in every possible way until they get a grip and acquire some basic reasoning skills. No more 'right to believe'. Let's go all Hannity on these motherfuckers.

Chris Putnam wrote:
But I can here the Fundamentalists describe you with the same words as you describe them. They will stand and argue their point, fully believing it is justified. They will wish to train their kids accordingly. I just can't help but think that restricting peoples ideological parameters in relationship to how they desire to raise their kids will eventually end up giving great power to people who most certainly should not have it.

The idea is to not restrict anything. Removing restrictive cellular(bubbles) closeting of children. My nephews wife would not have gotten away with the rape of my great-nephews body or mind were he not strictly home-schooled. The inspiration for home schooling can have two sources. One, to provide a better or 'greater' education. Two, to prevent ideas from hitting the children in the face. There is a censorship culture concerning children and it is the root of this evil.

Nothing wrong with augmenting your child's education with some home schooling. I did a ton of that. But I never felt compelled to prevent my kids from going to the mostly christian leaning public schools in our neighborhood. My instincts were good and much like exposing your children to a healthy amount of filth strengthens their immune response my sons exposure to 'christian values' in the community strengthened their critical thinking. Had I just kept them home in our scientistic shell they would not have been balanced.

SpeedOfSound wrote: No more 'right to believe'. Let's go all Hannity on these motherfuckers.

I agree. People feeling "entitled" to what they believe, is a bulwark against reason.
"I'm entitled to believe whatever bullshit I believe, so I can ignore whatever facts I like."

People should be taught, early, the importance of believing only that which can be demonstrated to be true through facts/evidence. Indeed, there is an obligation to only believe such things, if one wants to be considered a rational and reasonable human being.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Chris Putnam wrote:
But I can here the Fundamentalists describe you with the same words as you describe them. They will stand and argue their point, fully believing it is justified. They will wish to train their kids accordingly. I just can't help but think that restricting peoples ideological parameters in relationship to how they desire to raise their kids will eventually end up giving great power to people who most certainly should not have it.

The idea is to not restrict anything. Removing restrictive cellular(bubbles) closeting of children. My nephews wife would not have gotten away with the rape of my great-nephews body or mind were he not strictly home-schooled. The inspiration for home schooling can have two sources. One, to provide a better or 'greater' education. Two, to prevent ideas from hitting the children in the face. There is a censorship culture concerning children and it is the root of this evil.

Nothing wrong with augmenting your child's education with some home schooling. I did a ton of that. But I never felt compelled to prevent my kids from going to the mostly christian leaning public schools in our neighborhood. My instincts were good and much like exposing your children to a healthy amount of filth strengthens their immune response my sons exposure to 'christian values' in the community strengthened their critical thinking. Had I just kept them home in our scientistic shell they would not have been balanced.

Could you please correct your quote ? I didn't write that

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I'll take religious indoctrination over being raped by a family member throughout childhood. Any damn day.

The two often go together.

And they very often don't.

Sendraks wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote: No more 'right to believe'. Let's go all Hannity on these motherfuckers.

I agree. People feeling "entitled" to what they believe, is a bulwark against reason.
"I'm entitled to believe whatever bullshit I believe, so I can ignore whatever facts I like."

People should be taught, early, the importance of believing only that which can be demonstrated to be true through facts/evidence. Indeed, there is an obligation to only believe such things, if one wants to be considered a rational and reasonable human being.

I watched this thing last night: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coF5Ia8be4g&t=5288s
It was fucking unbearable. Watching reason get raped by Knechtle left me without hope. When I lose hope I want to punch people. Does that make me a bad person?

Yeah. I'm a little sick of this entitled to belief bullshit. Fox news has no problem with tossing it out. I watched that shitstorm a little last night as well. I think I was trying to test my spirit somehow or maybe I was trying to inch closer to putting that gun in my mouth?

Postmodernism is breathing strong again as well.

aban57 wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

aban57 wrote:
But I can here the Fundamentalists describe you with the same words as you describe them. They will stand and argue their point, fully believing it is justified. They will wish to train their kids accordingly. I just can't help but think that restricting peoples ideological parameters in relationship to how they desire to raise their kids will eventually end up giving great power to people who most certainly should not have it.

The idea is to not restrict anything. Removing restrictive cellular(bubbles) closeting of children. My nephews wife would not have gotten away with the rape of my great-nephews body or mind were he not strictly home-schooled. The inspiration for home schooling can have two sources. One, to provide a better or 'greater' education. Two, to prevent ideas from hitting the children in the face. There is a censorship culture concerning children and it is the root of this evil.

Nothing wrong with augmenting your child's education with some home schooling. I did a ton of that. But I never felt compelled to prevent my kids from going to the mostly christian leaning public schools in our neighborhood. My instincts were good and much like exposing your children to a healthy amount of filth strengthens their immune response my sons exposure to 'christian values' in the community strengthened their critical thinking. Had I just kept them home in our scientistic shell they would not have been balanced.

Could you please correct your quote ? I didn't write that

That's on you. I fixed it but look at what I quoted from. Your quoting makes it look like you wrote that.

Yes, my quote propagated the error

aban57 wrote:Yes, my quote propagated the error

So let natural selection sort it out. Great example of mutation copying we provided.

Sendraks wrote:I agree. People feeling "entitled" to what they believe, is a bulwark against reason.
"I'm entitled to believe whatever bullshit I believe, so I can ignore whatever facts I like."

I feel ambivalent about that. People are entitled to believe whatever they like.

That doesn't mean, as Chris suggests, that it can be taught in schools. If PhD scientists really were split on questions like "is the Earth flat?", "Is the Earth 10,000 years old?", "Did humans evolve from earlier species of animal?", then there really would be a dilemma here.

But they aren't. We teach the things that are backed by an overwhelming body of evidence and supported by an overwhelming majority of relevantly qualified experts. It really is as simple as that.

Thommo wrote:

Sendraks wrote:I agree. People feeling "entitled" to what they believe, is a bulwark against reason.
"I'm entitled to believe whatever bullshit I believe, so I can ignore whatever facts I like."

I feel ambivalent about that. People are entitled to believe whatever they like.

That doesn't mean, as Chris suggests, that it can be taught in schools. If PhD scientists really were split on questions like "is the Earth flat?", "Is the Earth 10,000 years old?", "Did humans evolve from earlier species of animal?", then there really would be a dilemma here.

But they aren't. We teach the things that are backed by an overwhelming body of evidence and supported by an overwhelming majority of relevantly qualified experts. It really is as simple as that.

I just find the power to control people over ideologies like this is a powerful tool in the hands of unscrupulous persons. As I said earlier the fundamentalist is going to use his or her reason and conclude they are right and complain about he other side. Fundamentalist does not mean low IQ. I know of a Christian high school in Northern California that boasted that their creationist based curriculum for teaching biology was accepted by the University of California system as adequate for UC preparatory education. I also know lots of the curriculum for Christian home school is also approved by lots of colleges. This is one of their selling points. State universities frequently accept these courses. Professors and scientists are very overwhelming in their support for the theory of evolution, but the general public is far less unified. I heard a quote from a news agency (please don't ask me to verify this. I heard it on the radio last year, so take in for what it is worth) that even in the UK there is strong belief in some form of creation, and the results of the survey where very disappointing to the scientific community. In the US the percentage it is no doubt higher. Scientist have a viewpoint and so do the common rank and file public. They don't always influence each other.

Thank you for the comments. This thread has gone much farther than I anticipated when I started.

Chris Putnam wrote:I just find the power to control people over ideologies like this is a powerful tool in the hands of unscrupulous persons.

It is, that's exactly why creationism, flat Earth, pi=4, and so on should not be taught in schools. They are ideologies driven by unscrupulous persons with no scientific or empirical merit.

To be taught in school (as science) that criteria takes out the leverage of unscrupulous persons.

Chris Putnam wrote:As I said earlier the fundamentalist is going to use his or her reason and conclude they are right and complain about he other side.

They aren't though. There are no scientific reasons to teach creationism.

And let them complain. It's a free society, let's support their right to believe what they want and to say what they want.

Chris Putnam wrote:I heard a quote from a news agency (please don't ask me to verify this. I heard it on the radio last year, so take in for what it is worth) that even in the UK there is strong belief in some form of creation, and the results of the survey where very disappointing to the scientific community.

It depends what you mean, it probably polls somewhere in the sub 20% area. But ignorance among the public isn't a reason to actually teach people to be ignorant.

Chris Putnam wrote: In the US the percentage it is no doubt higher. Scientist have a viewpoint and so do the common rank and file public. They don't always influence each other.

Again, that's fine. But schools are institutes of education and learning, it's still zero reason for teaching things that are untrue.

The things taught in science classes are the things that science has concluded. Most people prefer scaly dinosaurs to feathered ones. Lots of people want Pluto to be a planet. Too bad.

Suppose we change course here. Lots of parents send their kids to traditional public schools, and they teach them the fundamental of their faith at home and in religious meetings (Church). They explain to them why their teachers at school are wrong about some of the science that they were taught. They give a religious interpretation of history. They teach them the principles of behavior taught by their faith. I know families where the kids did go to public school and college, and their parents and church were able to persuade them otherwise on issues such as evolution, geology and the bible. Nice kids and very bright productive people. There are lots programs to "unteach" what kids are taught in schools.

Any thoughts here? It has been an interesting discussion so far. More that I expected.

Just remove religion from society. Your country is so backward.

They explain to them why their teachers at school are wrong about some of the science that they were taught.

What they do, actually, is explain to them why THEY BELIEVE their teachers at school AND THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN GENERAL are wrong about some of the science that they were taught. No prizes for guessing whether they present their views as untested hypotheses, competing theories, or fact.

Do they bother to explain to them that theirs is an extreme minority view laughable to the rest of the civilized world, and that it is only because of their trust in a religious text that cannot be verified that they hold such views? Do they mention that even the vast majority of first world Christians do not hold such views?

I have to admit that the portrayal of this as a debate between the religious and atheists made me raise an eyebrow. The world's largest Christian Church (Catholics) openly agrees with the scientific consensus on evolution by natural selection and a 4.5bn year old Earth. As an aside I read just the other day that the pope said hell doesn't exist.

The question is about whether science classes should teach either (a) science or (b) one very specific theology. And the answer should be obvious, and should be consistent with maths classes teaching maths, English classes teach English, Geography classes teaching Geography and so on.

Imagine the fun we could have if flat Earthers got to write the geography textbooks. Just the other day I heard that Australia is a hoax!