Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Education Message-ID: <566@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 15-Dec-84 16:02:42 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.566 Posted: Sat Dec 15 16:02:42 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 17-Dec-84 03:46:52 EST Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 85 >>> [Martin Taylor] >>> I conclude that Q-Bick (what an appropriate pseudonym) has neither >>> interest nor appreciation of elementary physics. It is this kind >>> of argument that leads me to answer Paul Dubois that indeed, creationists >>> should NOT be allowed to determine how their children are schooled. >>> The children should not be punished by a denial of their potential >>> heritage, simply because their immediate family glories >>> in their ignorance. >> >> This is certainly an interesting idea. Because I am alleged >> to be ignorant, Mr. Taylor proposes that I shall no longer have >> a say in my children's education, and that instead he should >> be the arbiter of what is taught to them. >> >> Accepting for purposes of this posting the equivalence of creationism >> and religion (though I don't usually), it's always interesting to >> observe how the religious are told to keeps their hands off of >> everybody else's mind, but the non-religious, notwithstanding the >> continual noise about tolerance, etc., delegate to themselves the >> authority to final rule on issues of paramount importance to the >> religious. >> -- >> Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois > > An excellent example of Creationist hypocrisy. They see nothing wrong with > cramming their view of religion down my childs throat (sorry, Paul, > Creationism is solely based on religion), but they start sounding like > liberals when somebody advocates doing it to them. I also note, with some > little amusement, how they equate non-belief in Creationism with being > non-religious. Nothing like the old straw man, is there? > Mark J. Miller I will begin by agreeing that my terminology could have been more wisely chosen (since there are non-creationists who are religious), and I will restrict myself to "creationists" and "non-creationists" here. But no straw man (at least not intentionally): My statements were not entirely without merit. Certainly they were not completely false. I note as well, with little amusement, Mark's admission that what is being forced down creationist throats is religion. But perhaps that is not what he meant to say. In any event, I will not agree to a charge of hypocrisy. I sounded like a "liberal" in an attempt to demonstrate to non-creationists what it is like to be on the receiving end of their own style of rhetoric. I notice that Mark did not seem to like it too well! Another point was this: Non-creationists continually discuss freedom of education and so forth, particularly with respect to not having creationists dictate what their children learn in a public school. No doubt a good deal of this discussion is sincere, but to the creationist what it generally amounts to is keeping the schools free *from* creationism. I wish to point out the contradiction in holding that position at the same time that one declares for oneself the right to decide what creationists' children shall learn in a *public* school. (This was advocated by Martin Taylor, above. I should mention, however, that I have received from Martin, via email, some comments to the effect that this statement was more extreme than his general views. I wish to acknowledge such comments here, and would be remiss if I did not.) In any case, the charge of cramming religion rings false to my ears. This sounds, to me, more like a trumped-up party line intended to impart negative connation while stultifying thought. Creationists do not, by and large, say that teaching of evolution should be "outlawed" in public schools. It may be said that *some* do (there are always extremists, such as the example given by Lew Mammel, which was promptly denounced by Ray Miller) but this is a minority viewpoint within creationist circles. What creationists definitely *do* say is that it is poor public policy to teach the monolithic doctrine "evolution is a fact" or (less rigidly) "evolution is the best theory", meaning it's so far ahead of creationism that we only need to mention the latter by way of saying it's so outdated that no one in their right mind believes *that* anymore. Well, maybe it is. But surely you do not expect that the result of an attempt to silence my views on public policy will be sympathy on my part for your own? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." Psalm 104:33