14
   

Creationism in schools

 
 
Reply Mon 6 May, 2013 03:38 am
For all that the NSW primry school syllabuses claim to be inclusive there is a distinct lack of ethical and moral teachings in the science sections. Our children aren't gaining an education that is well rounded.

Does anyone else share my concerns about this issue?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 14 • Views: 4,330 • Replies: 29

 
contrex
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 May, 2013 04:10 am
Inclusiveness doesn't have to mean catering for every cranky cult and set of beliefs, especially if the public's money is being spent. You made the title of this thread "Creationism in schools" but creationism has nothing to do with ethics or morals. If your purpose is to start an argument about religion, where you (and probably others) bash the Bible, and others slag them off, there are far too many of those on A2k if you ask me.

0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 May, 2013 04:11 am
@MORALeducation,
MORALeducation wrote:

For all that the NSW primry school syllabuses claim to be inclusive there is a distinct lack of ethical and moral teachings in the science sections.

I'm ok with leaving Ethics and Morality out of science class because Science class is for teaching Science. Other classes teach other things, and parents can teach ethics and morality on their own at home (or anywhere, purely by example). Science class is for science.

And even if I desperately wanted to add something else to a science class, Creationism would be the very last thing on my list.
gungasnake
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 6 May, 2013 04:21 am
@MORALeducation,

Newt Gingrich once stated the problem of evolutionism and morality about as succinctly as is possible in noting that the question of whether a man views his neighbor as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random processes simply has to affect human relationships.

Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it. A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the evolosers) have a favorite term ("quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.

My own response to that is to note what I view as the ultimate evolution quote by the noted evolutionist (actually, FORMER evolutionist) Jeffrey Dahmer:

Quote:

"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…"

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.




Dahmer converted to Christianity before he died. The basic tenets of true religion appear to be inprinted upon most of us biologically which is the only reason that Islammic societies and "secular humanist" societies like Britain and Canada function at all. A psychopath like Dahmer is basically somebody on whom that imprint did not take. For those guys, it has to be written down somewhere, and it has to be written down accurately; the bible does that. Telling somebody like Dahmer that we all evolved from "lucky dust" is a formula for getting people killed.

Evolution was the basic philosophical cornerstone of communism, naziism, the various eugenics programs, the out of control arms races which led to WW-I and WW-II, and all of the grief of the last 150 years. Starting from 1913, Europe had gone for a hundred years without a major war. They didn't even have to think. All they needed to do was act cool, go to church, have parades, formal balls, attend board meetings, and they'd still be running the world today; they'd be so fat and happy they'd not know what to do with themselves. Instead, they all got to reading about Darwinism, fang and claw, survival of the fittest and all the rest of that nonsense, and the rest as they say is history.


The most interesting analysis of that sad tale is probably Sir Arthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics"



Keith apparently viewed belief in evolution as some sort of duty of the English educated classes, nonetheless he had a very clear vision of the problems inherent in it and laid it out in no uncertain terms:

From Sir Srthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics:




Chapter 3

The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942

VISITORS TO GERMANY IN 1934 FOUND AN emotional storm sweeping through masses of the people, particularly the more educated. The movement had much in common with a religious revival. The preacher in this case was Adolf Hitler; his doctrine was, and is, tribalism; he had stirred in the emotional depths of the German people those long-dormant tribal feelings which find release and relief in mutual service; men and women who had been leading selfish lives or were drifting aimlessly were given a new purpose in life: service to their country the Third Reich. It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.

The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into

10.

modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!

We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific basis for ethical or moral behavior. As a source of information concerning Hitler's evolutionary and ethical doctrines I have before me Mein Kampf, extracts from The Times covering German affairs during the last twenty years, and the monthly journal R.F.C. (Racio Political Foreign Correspondenee), published by the German Bureau for Human Betterment and Eugenics and circulated by that bureau for the enlightenment of anthropologists living abroad. In the number of that journal for July 1937, there appears in English the text of a speech given by the German Fuhrer on January 30, 1937, in reply to a statement made by Mr. Anthony Eden that "the German race theory" stood in the way of a common discussion of European problems. Hitler maintained his theory would have an opposite effect; "it will bring about a real understanding for the first time." "It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." I may remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer, like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution as God's mode of creation. God having created races, it is therefore "the noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it." Here we have expounded the perfectly sound doctrine of evolutionary isolation; even as an ethical doctrine it should not be condemned. No German must be guilty of the "greatest racial sin" that of bringing the fruits of hybridity into the world. The reproductive "genes" which circulate within the frontiers of Germany must be kept uncontaminated, so that they may work out the racial destiny of the German people without impediment. Hitler is also a eugenist. Germans who suffer from

11.

hereditable imperfections of mind or of body must be rendered infertile, so that "the strong may not be plagued by the weak." Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, taught a somewhat similar evolutionary doctrine namely, that if our nation was to prosper we must give encouragement to the strong rather than to the weak; a saving which may be justified by evolution, but not by ethics as recognized and practiced by civilized peoples. The liberties of German women are to be sacrificed; they must devote their activities to their households, especially to the sacred duty of raising succeeding generations. The birth rate was stimulated by bounties and subsidies so that the German tribe might grow in numbers and in strength. In all these matters the Nazi doctrine is evolutionist.

Hitler has sought on every occasion and in every way to heighten the national consciousness of the German people or, what is the same thing, to make them racially conscious; to give them unity of spirit and unity of purpose. Neighborly approaches of adjacent nations are and were repelled; the German people were deliberately isolated. Cosmopolitanism, liberality of opinion, affectation of foreign manners and dress were unsparingly condemned. The old tribal bonds (love of the Fatherland, feeling of mutual kinship), the bonds of "soil and blood," became "the main plank in the National Social program." "Germany was for the Germans" was another plank. Foreign policy was "good or bad according to its beneficial or harmful effects on the German folk now or hereafter." "Charity and humility are only for home consumption" a statement in which Hitler gives an exact expression of the law which limits sympathy to its tribe. "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.

I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.

12.

Even in that result we may harbor a doubt: can unity obtained by such methods be relied on to endure?

There are other aspects of Nazi policy which raise points which may be legitimate subjects of ethical debate. In recent years British men of science have debated this ethical problem: an important discovery having been made a new poison gas, for example is it not the duty of the discoverer to suppress it if there is a possibility of its being used for an evil purpose? My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics. A man of science is responsible for the accuracy of his observations and of his inferences, not for the results which may follow therefrom. Under no circumstances should the truth be suppressed; yet suppression and distortion of the truth is a deliberate part of Nazi policy. Every anthropologist in Germany, be he German or Jew, was and is silenced in Nazi Germany unless the Hitlerian racial doctrine is accepted without any reservation whatsoever. Authors, artists, preachers, and editors are undone if they stray beyond the limits of the National Socialist tether. Individual liberty of thought and of its expression is completely suppressed. An effective tribal unity is thus attained at the expense of truth. And yet has not the Church in past times persecuted science just in this Hitlerian way? There was a time, and not so long ago, when it was dangerous for a biologist to harbor a thought that clashed in any way with the Mosaic theory of creation.

No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany. So strong are the feelings roused that it is difficult for even science to approach the issues so raised with an unclouded judgment. Ethically the Hitlerian treatment of the Jews stands condemned out of hand. Hitler is cruel, but I do not think that his policy can be explained by attributing it to a mere satisfaction of a lust, or to a search for a scapegoat on which Germany can wreak her wrath for the ills which followed her defeat of 1918. The Church in Spain subjected the Jews to the cruelty of the Inquisition, but no one ever sought to explain the Church's behavior by suggesting that she had a

13.

lust for cruelty which had to be satisfied. The Church adopted the Inquisition as a policy; it was a means of securing unity of mind in her flock. Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions. When the Huguenots fled to Germany they mingled their "genes" with those of their host and disappeared as an entity. The Jews are made of other stuff: for two thousand years, living amid European communities, they have maintained their identity; it is an article of their creed, as it is of Hitler's, to breed true. They, too, practice an evolutionary doctrine. Is it possible for two peoples living within the same frontiers, dwelling side by side, to work out harmoniously their separate evolutionary destinies? Apparently Hitler believes this to be impossible; we in Britain and in America believe it to be not only possible, but also profitable.

It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.

Chapter 4

Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End

IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).

14.

It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:

If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."

If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed. Clearly the form of evolution which Dr. Waddington has in mind is not that which has hitherto prevailed; what he has in mind is a man made system of evolution. In brief, instead of seeking ethical guidance from evolution, he now proposes to impose a system of ethics on evolution and so bring humanity ultimately to a safe and final anchorage in a Christian haven.

contrex
 
  6  
Reply Mon 6 May, 2013 04:30 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent


... which rules you out threefold.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 May, 2013 10:33 am
Morality should be taught in the home by parents and in which ever church one attends. Evolution is a scientific study which should be taught in science classes. Useing the Bible as a factual reference isent reasonable because while some of the Bible references are factual many are fantasy. The fact that there are hundreds of different religions much different from each other based on the Bible proves that one can prove whatever religious belief they want by cherry picking what part of the Bible they believe proves their point of view. Since all religions cant be the true one than I would think none of them are. Especially the creation part of the Bible cant be true.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  5  
Reply Mon 6 May, 2013 10:39 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
I'm ok with leaving Ethics and Morality out of science class because Science class is for teaching Science.


I missed that point. You are absolutely right. In science classes I want my kids to learn about magnetism and the periodic table and frogs' insides, not ethics and morality. That belongs in civics or religious studies. To say otherwise is to push forward a religious agenda that has no place in State (or private) education.

0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  6  
Reply Mon 6 May, 2013 12:07 pm
If we're gonna lard up science with so-called morality lessons (in what?), then I say we should mix everything up! I want French in my gym class, and wood shop in calculus, and let's not forget driver's ed during art!

And, dammit, now you people made me get peanut butter in my chocolate....
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 12:03 pm
I think it's wise to discuss ethics along with science but I don't think morality has a place at the table.

I don't think creationsim should be considered science at all.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 May, 2013 05:52 pm
@rosborne979,
Hi-yah rosborne979,
just out of interest, what would you like to add and why plus what would you expect the repercussions of your actions to be in this context?
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 May, 2013 05:56 pm
@jespah,
Well, calculus in wood shop could be viable (albeit geometry might be the better choice).
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 04:25 am
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:
Hi-yah rosborne979,
just out of interest, what would you like to add and why plus what would you expect the repercussions of your actions to be in this context?

I don't really think anything should be added to science class other than more science (if something is missing). That last sentence was just to point out that Creationism is the worst possible thing you could ever hope to add to a science class if you were forced to add something.

For the existing science curriculum I would just hope that the subject material is covered well and in a way that doesn't turn kids "off" of science in general. I would also like to have science classes spend a bit more time talking about the scientific method rather than doing particular experiments (demonstrations).
0 Replies
 
Messenger of GOD
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2014 09:03 am
Our schools need to get back to teaching the teachings of GOD because if they don't, this country will just keep on going down the road to HELL. All of so called SCIENCE these days is just a LIE from SATAN to try and send us to HELL. Do you really want to send your children to HELL? If you do, then just keep on letting them learn about SCIENCE FICTION LIES. The LORD made the Earth 7000 years ago as said in the BIBLE and I PRAISE GOD that I know the TRUTH. We need to be teaching this abSOULute TRUTH to our children, otherwise all of the DEVIL WORSHIPING "SCIENTISTS" have won
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2014 10:40 am
@Messenger of GOD,
Messenger of GOD wrote:

Our schools need to get back to teaching the teachings of GOD because if they don't, this country will just keep on going down the road to HELL. All of so called SCIENCE these days is just a LIE from SATAN to try and send us to HELL. Do you really want to send your children to HELL? If you do, then just keep on letting them learn about SCIENCE FICTION LIES. The LORD made the Earth 7000 years ago as said in the BIBLE and I PRAISE GOD that I know the TRUTH. We need to be teaching this abSOULute TRUTH to our children, otherwise all of the DEVIL WORSHIPING "SCIENTISTS" have won

As I read that I thought it was the best bit of comic trolling I've seen in a while, but then I noticed that you capitalized "SOUL" in "abSOULute" and figured only a true zealot would be twisted enough to do that, so now I weep for the future of humanity, knowing that probably represent the majority of people out there. Yikes.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:22 am
What ever happened to the concept of parents teaching morality and ethics in the home? Are the religious nut bags in a panic, and feel the need for the state to back them up in their lunacy? I suspect New South Wales doesn't feel obliged to cater to such people.

It is just amazing the extent to which this site attracts religious loonies.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:25 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

What ever happened to the concept of parents teaching morality and ethics in the home? Are the religious nut bags in a panic, and feel the need for the state to back them up in their lunacy? I suspect New South Wales doesn't feel obliged to cater to such people.

It is just amazing the extent to which this site attracts religious loonies.


Now you know how I feel in the feminism thread.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:38 am
@maxdancona,
Hey asshole, as i said in that thread, if you don't want me to say nasty things to or about you, don't start sh*t with me.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:44 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
if you don't want me to say nasty things to or about you, don't start sh*t with me.


I love you Setanta! I love it when you get nasty with me!

I see you crouched over your keyboard, veins bulging from your temples, literally spitting on your screen as you type about "bitch fighting" in a feminism thread... you are so much fun! If you weren't so nasty, I might feel a little bad about getting under your skin... but as it is I don't.

Creationism is just like Feminism, an ideology based on strongly held religious beliefs that can't be questioned.

Let's have some fun, Sweetheart. Say your worst.



Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:46 am
@maxdancona,
Your attempt to correlate my statement in a thread on creationism and your whining and maundering in the feminism thread is the clear cut evidence of your stupidity. Your witless fantasies about me are a matter of indifference to me.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:47 am
@Setanta,
Come on sweetheart. Surely you can do better than that Sad
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

is there a fundamental value that we all share? - Discussion by existential potential
The ethics of killing the dead - Discussion by joefromchicago
Theoretical Question About Extra Terrestrials - Discussion by failures art
The Watchmen Dilemma - Discussion by Sentience
What is your fundamental moral compass? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
The Trolley Problem - Discussion by joefromchicago
Keep a $900 Computer I Didn't Buy? - Question by NathanCooperJones
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Creationism in schools
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2019 at 10:43:01