Jump to content
IGNORED

Top scientists suggest creationists should be ‘imprisoned’..


FloraDoraDolly

Recommended Posts

That is insane. You can't lock people up for thinking something different than you. :/

Of course I'm not a creationist. And I think the parents that keep other ideas and theories are wrong for it. But that alone isn't criminal.

Hopefully that was just this guys attempt at humor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do believe YEC is mentally damaging, I wouldn't support a prison sentence for creationists.

Setting aside he moral issues with doing that, our prisons are already overcrowded enough as it is.

Does the US really need to open more prisons?

Besides, they'd just get a persecution complex.

And what about non Christian religions who teach a different origin? I don't has any examples but I'm sure they exist. How many different religions are we going to have to lock up?

It would be a statistical nightmare.

And all that is, of course, setting aside that that is a morally horrific idea in the first place. I just wanted to point out that even from a cold and heartless perspective, it makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is insane. You can't lock people up for thinking something different than you. :/

Of course I'm not a creationist. And I think the parents that keep other ideas and theories are wrong for it. But that alone isn't criminal.

Hopefully that was just this guys attempt at humor.

From the article:

“If the state is going to provide education, it has an obligation to try and educate children,†he said. “That means parents have a limited — it seems to me — limited rights in determining what the curriculum is. The state is providing the education, it’s trying to make sure all children have equal opportunity.â€

“And parents of course have concerns and a say, but they don’t have the right to shield their children from knowledge,†Krauss continued. “That’s not a right any more than they have the right to shield their children from health care or medicine.â€

“And those parents that do that are often tried and imprisoned when they refuse to allow their children to get blood transfusions or whatever is necessary for their health. And this is necessary for their mental health.â€

One could infer that he suggested parents who want schools to teach creationism should face consequences. But the way I read it, he was making an argument about keeping religion out of schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Keep jail for people who do things that make them dangerous to the population, as in, really dangerous, like rapists and murderers. I don't even think people should be sent to jail for doing drugs. Sending people to jail for small crimes doesn't make them learn their lesson, in fact, being around the worst people in society is a bad influence on them and can make them then start doing even more immoral things.

Also, it is wrong to imprison someone for their beliefs, even if their beliefs are stupid and wrong. They have every right to have their beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is as stupid as the idea the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Hey, I know! Let's start criminalizing stupidity. It's bad for my mental health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Dawkins was arguing in favour of sending people with creationists beliefs to jail.

Preventing them from limiting children's intellectual development, on the other hand... Let's face it, children who have been taught to ignore the facts in favour of religion aren't likely to grow up to become doctors, scientists, etc. why keep them away from potentially brilliant futures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. This is the bookend to Huckabee's "Teach them bad history at gunpoint" comment.

And it will be used as proof of culture wars at homeschool conferences and on Christian Radio for the next decade, at least.

There are a lot of ways they could have stated this, but all they did is give ammo to the paranoids who believe "government" schools want to take over ownership of the parent's kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"One could infer that he suggested parents who want schools to teach creationism should face consequences. But the way I read it, he was making an argument about keeping religion out of schools."

You would probably need to hear the entire speech to get the full picture. But be connects people that believe in creationism and advocate for that to be taught in schools with medical negligence. And, based only on the article, I'm not certain he is only talking about people that want it taught in public schools. That one quote doesn't specifically say You can disagree with creationists without being an extremist. Hopefully it was just bad wording or if you read the entire speech it would be clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relax. It's only Richard Dawkins being annoyingly outrageous yet again. He likes to hit the headlines every few days.

Dawkins is as radically Fundie in his atheism as many of the Fundies we snark on here are about Christianity. He gives atheists a bad name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relax. It's only Richard Dawkins being annoyingly outrageous yet again. He likes to hit the headlines every few days.

Dawkins is as radically Fundie in his atheism as many of the Fundies we snark on here are about Christianity. He gives atheists a bad name.

People who live on any extreme do nothing to help "their cause." I also can't imagine how one allows themselves to become so entrenched in their own beliefs that they can't possibly see how harmful their beliefs are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"One could infer that he suggested parents who want schools to teach creationism should face consequences. But the way I read it, he was making an argument about keeping religion out of schools."

You would probably need to hear the entire speech to get the full picture. But be connects people that believe in creationism and advocate for that to be taught in schools with medical negligence. And, based only on the article, I'm not certain he is only talking about people that want it taught in public schools. That one quote doesn't specifically say You can disagree with creationists without being an extremist. Hopefully it was just bad wording or if you read the entire speech it would be clearer.

Fair enough. I didn't read the entire speech, just the article. And based my reading on that, to me, it sounded like he was using a bad comparison to make a point about equal educational opportunities in schools. If he really thinks that gaoling anyone with a different opinion is an answer to anything, he's just another extremist, who missed a good opportunity to keep his mouth shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawkins is one of those annoying "experts" who has some legit training and expertise in one particular field, but regularly sounds off on his pet causes which are largely unrelated to that field.

It's the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

In plain English, "top scientist" is a questionable label to put on Dawkins, and it's not relevant to the merits of this argument.

Lack of proper scientific education can be an issue, but it is not equivalent to health care. If you skipped the lesson on Darwin as you were growing up, you can learn it as an adult. If you skip medical care, you may not live long enough to become an adult.

The comment about mental health was idiotic. Clearly, these "scientists" are not trained psychologists or psychiatrists. There are environmental factors that can have a bad effect on a child's mental health - extreme neglect, exposure to domestic violence and/or severe parental conflict, etc. Lack of exposure to evolution is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article:

One could infer that he suggested parents who want schools to teach creationism should face consequences. But the way I read it, he was making an argument about keeping religion out of schools.

I took it the same way, as to the imprisonment comments. I thought it was tongue in cheek. Although, I do feel it is criminal to deny a child a proper education or to crush critical and analytic thinking skills, because of ignorance regardless of whether or not it is tied to religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a helpful argument. I know he is upset that so many Fundy kids are undereducated but it goes along with Fundy philosophy of not questioning and not allowing yourself to be challenged. The Duggar children are prime examples of that. But if there is a long-term plan for Christian Dominionism, which I think is on their wish list, raising kids this way is a plus in achieving their goal. Personally, I think Jim Bob is kidding himself if he thinks all this children will continue along the same path he has outlined for his kids. In the world we live in today, it is really hard to remain so isolated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawkins is one of those annoying "experts" who has some legit training and expertise in one particular field, but regularly sounds off on his pet causes which are largely unrelated to that field.

It's the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

In plain English, "top scientist" is a questionable label to put on Dawkins, and it's not relevant to the merits of this argument.

Lack of proper scientific education can be an issue, but it is not equivalent to health care. If you skipped the lesson on Darwin as you were growing up, you can learn it as an adult. If you skip medical care, you may not live long enough to become an adult.

The comment about mental health was idiotic. Clearly, these "scientists" are not trained psychologists or psychiatrists. There are environmental factors that can have a bad effect on a child's mental health - extreme neglect, exposure to domestic violence and/or severe parental conflict, etc. Lack of exposure to evolution is not one of them.

The "imprisonment" and mental health comments were actually made by Physicist Peter Kraus of Arizona State U's Origins Project, not by Richard Dawkins. A bit of hyperbole perhaps, but a lack of basic science education can be extremely limiting educationally and catching up is harder than you seem to think.

Having said that, and I'm no fan of Dawkins, I think the bolded is rather ridiculous. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science Emeritus. As such, he is both an established "expert" in his field and a "top" educator. Certainly, as an evolutionary biologist and educator, sounding off about creationism is in his field. Of course, he is also a conceited jackass given to sweeping statements and a sexist, racist, classist twerp. He is the worst kind of atheist, IMO.

It would be interesting if Steven Pinker weighed in on this one as a psychologist and cognitive scientist. He has been criticized for bashing religion many times but is not as polarizing as Dawkins nor as given to hyperbole as Kraus seems to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "imprisonment" and mental health comments were actually made by Physicist Peter Kraus of Arizona State U's Origins Project, not by Richard Dawkins. A bit of hyperbole perhaps, but a lack of basic science education can be extremely limiting educationally and catching up is harder than you seem to think.

Having said that, and I'm no fan of Dawkins, I think the bolded is rather ridiculous. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science Emeritus. As such, he is both an established "expert" in his field and a "top" educator. Certainly, as an evolutionary biologist and educator, sounding off about creationism is in his field. Of course, he is also a conceited jackass given to sweeping statements and a sexist, racist, classist twerp. He is the worst kind of atheist, IMO.

It would be interesting if Steven Pinker weighed in on this one as a psychologist and cognitive scientist. He has been criticized for bashing religion many times but is not as polarizing as Dawkins nor as given to hyperbole as Kraus seems to be.

I stand corrected - Dawkins and Krauss were speaking together, and it was actually Krauss who made the mental health comment. As a physicist, commenting on mental health seems out of his expertise.

Dawkins talking about genetic evolution and the reasons that creationism doesn't make scientific sense is within his scope of expertise. Dawkins saying anything about women, arguing that religious is evil, or arguing that apes deserve "human" rights is NOT within his scope of expertise. He can say what he wants, of course, but mentioning his academic background doesn't automatically make his statements in those areas more valid.

As for educational neglect - laws vary wildly, but there are already basic rules in place for private schools and homeschoolers. Complete educational neglect is a problem. Calling one particular omission from the curriculum a mental health issue is ridiculous. Even claiming that failure to teach a second language causes irreparable harm would be a more fact-based argument (still extreme, but research does show that ability to learn languages later in life is diminished and we can lose the ability to distinguish and say certain sounds if they are not learned before a certain age). Not having certain things in the curriculum is an educational gap - no more and no less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are bigger areas where hardcore Christian parents are failing than where we came from. It's more important that kids learn about their reproductive health than about where we came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I do feel it is criminal to deny a child a proper education"

Who gets to define that?

Ok, let's say in America we all agree not teaching your child to read is criminal neglect? But is not teaching them science also neglect? How far should it be taken?

I not actually arguing. I just...idk, it just seems like people are speaking in a very abstract way about something that is real.

Christians are not the only ones that do not believe in the scientific way the earth the formed. Native American beliefs are a good example. I'm perfectly fine with people having their child sit out of class, or not take, an Earth Science or any class that would teach contrary to their beliefs. I don't think Reading, Computers, Math, etc..are more important. It is not worth it to require evolution to be taught at the expense of their entire education. Ok so they will probably never be a Geologist. But if they never finished high school because their parents pulled them out, they aren't even be able to go to trade school and be, for example, a plumber.

There are some areas of America where you could teach evolution and not one would bat an eye. But there are some places, many places, where parents say "if they try to teach you anything that goes against the Bible, walk out of the classroom".

I don't know these thoughts follow exactly. But I don't like the idea that parents are given too many rights either. These guys seems like they may not know the reality of public schools and the variety of people and religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand corrected - Dawkins and Krauss were speaking together, and it was actually Krauss who made the mental health comment. As a physicist, commenting on mental health seems out of his expertise.

As for educational neglect - laws vary wildly, but there are already basic rules in place for private schools and homeschoolers. Complete educational neglect is a problem. Calling one particular omission from the curriculum a mental health issue is ridiculous. Even claiming that failure to teach a second language causes irreparable harm would be a more fact-based argument (still extreme, but research does show that ability to learn languages later in life is diminished and we can lose the ability to distinguish and say certain sounds if they are not learned before a certain age). Not having certain things in the curriculum is an educational gap - no more and no less.

As I said, I think Kraus was just indulging in a bit of hyperbole. Rhetorical over-exaggerating to make a point and not expecting to be taken seriously on both the imprisonment and mental health comments. I suspect he would have chosen his words more carefully had this interview been with a US rather than an Irish publication. Hyperbole is all too common in academia - and in politics - but is always rather dangerous if your audience takes you literally.

Seriously though, if everyone were limited to expressing opinions solely within their area of "expertise" as defined by their primary degree or employment we'd lose out on a lot. People can have knowledge and excel in more than one area. Similarly, outlawing hyperbole and other rhetorical devices would make life rather dull and have a very negative effect on oration and literature. :)

ETA. I see you edited your last post and we agree about Dawkins overstepping his bounds sometimes. My point is that people cannot simply be channeled into only one area of expertise. For all we know (although I sincerely doubt it) Kraus is a physicist with a PhD in psychology as well. It does happen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you would be exaggerating on something serious. Then no one knows exactly what your opinion/thoughts/suggestions actually are. I think an exaggeration, if they had one, would have just been limited to one comment. They go on and on about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you would be exaggerating on something serious. Then no one knows exactly what your opinion/thoughts/suggestions actually are. I think an exaggeration, if they had one, would have just been limited to one comment. They go on and on about this.

To the bolded, they do? Really? Where did they do that? I watched the (brief) video and read the story. Are you perhaps indulging in a bit of hyperbole yourself?

Eh, hyperbole is rather dangerous but there are multiple examples of it everywhere I look, Including on FJ. I agree with 2xx1xy1JD that Dawkins oversteps himself but he is pretty much an also-ran these days. Many died-in-the-wool and card-carrying atheists have lost all patience with him. The video here was one of his better moments.

My apologies to Prof. Strauss. I got his name wrong above. He is this guy: https://asunews.asu.edu/20141204-krauss ... f-the-year As an educator, I think he has the right to state his opinion on education. He is not a mental health expert though and should chose his words a lot more carefully. Still, I'm rather intrigued by his book on the physics of Star Trek.

I'm bothered by the likes of PP, the vile Reconstructionist Theonomists, and the (armed to the teeth) sovcits spouting off about killing teh gayz and resisting Ebil Govmint. A mild-mannered and law-abiding scientist or two indulging in a bit of genuine frustration and hyperbole over creationist teaching parents "shielding" their children from genuine education really doesn't bother me at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can express their thoughts on anything. I just don't like anyone giving those thoughts more weight simply because they are seen as an expert in another area.

Found Krauss' CV online (and it never ceases to amaze me what gets posted online): http://genesis1.asu.edu/cv.htm He's an expert in astrophysics, no significant background in mental health.

Lots of examples of this, of course. Dr. Laura, for example, puts the emphasized the doctor part without clarifying that it was a Ph.D in physiology that has nothing to do with the marriage and family advice that she gave.

I'm often the first of argue that something is hyperbole - but it's a bit fuzzy here. Compulsory education requirements exist, to various extents. Both Dawkins and Krauss are atheism activists - they don't simply lack religious belief, they are "evangelical" about their lack of belief and seek to persuade others. Dawkins has actually stated that religion is evil. For some, the idea of believers facing prison seems totally far-fetched, but I know people who have lived that reality. It's not impossible that their words could ever influence public policy. Does mild-mannered mean that someone's words are harmless? Could you just as easily argue that they are seen as credible and mainstream and are more likely to influence public policy than some fringe whackadoos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To the bolded, they do? Really? Where did they do that? I watched the (brief) video and read the story. Are you perhaps indulging in a bit of hyperbole yourself?"

Between the 2 of them they have several quotes. More than what I would consider exaggerating or just kidding. But I'm not denying it is possible. I didn't watch the video, just read the article. So I know the tone could mean a lot too.

"For some, the idea of believers facing prison seems totally far-fetched, but I know people who have lived that reality. "

Yes. There are people in our own neighborhoods that have experienced this. My guess is these guys need to talk to others outside their academic circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



  • Trending Content

  • Recent Status Updates

    • 47of74

      47of74

      I don’t think that came out the way you intended dude. 

      · 0 replies
    • livinginthelight

      livinginthelight

      So..my son is getting married at the beginning of March and I tried on dresses today. I need to lose weight. I'm about 60-70 pounds overweight and I absolutely have to. I'm not one to post statuses but I'm doing everything I can to hold myself accountable. I'm sitting here wanting to stuff my face and I know this isn't the answer. I can do this. I will be okay. I'm going to make myself check in regularly. Whether or not anyone sees this, I am going to be posting.
      · 4 replies
    • PennySycamore

      PennySycamore

      Is anyone here from Moore County, NC?  I hope they catch the domestic terrorists that shot up the power substations.  All to stop a drag show!  Throw the fuckers in jail.
      · 1 reply
    • VooDooChild

      VooDooChild

      Today, I dusted everything but the ceiling fans.  Sorry Maxwells!
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      · 2 replies
    • Maggie Mae

      Maggie Mae

      What do people do in the Sonoran desert? I've hiked the hikes I wanted to do. Seems like all that is left is golf, shopping at chains that exist everywhere, and stuff I've done. Oh and eating. I can only eat so many times a day. It's too cold to rent a paddleboard or swim. 
      · 7 replies
    • KnittingOwl

      KnittingOwl

      First snow storm of the season hit today. It got windy tonight, and we lost power. Somehow this continues to be a shock to PSE. Why they refuse to upgrade the infrastructure or do something so that 10s of thousands of people don’t lose power and heat literally every time it’s windy, I do not understand. We live in the Pacific Northwest. It gets windy!
      · 3 replies
    • louisa05

      louisa05

      Nebraska's new football coach is an evangelical bullshit artist who participates in "Man Up Ministries" conferences in the off season. Their motto is "Fighting for Biblical Manhood". Excuse me while I go vomit. 
      · 2 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Don't know I'd charge quite that much though.
       

      · 0 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Wisconsin’s first thanksgiving 

      · 0 replies
    • mango_fandango

      mango_fandango

      Long time no visit…
      COVID has finally caught up with me. Dad tested positive first, last Friday, then my mother, brother and I all tested positive today. Main symptom is feeling really really tired. Hopefully it doesn’t get much worse 🤞 
      · 1 reply
  • Recent Blog Entries

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.