Atheist indoctrination?

Question

I've been reading a lot of questions on evolution/intelligent design/creationism lately. Why is it that Athiests want to completely eliminate the second two options from schools? When I was in school I was taught all three, and it was left up to the students to decide which to believe. There was no forcing of any beliefs. (For the record, I believe in intelligent design which, at least as I understand it, is a mix between evolution and creationism. Or in other words, I believe in the same science atheists do, I just think that's how God moved things along, you can call it whatever you want.)

I agree that there should be a separation of church and state, but I think that trying to completely eliminate these other two teachings makes athiests the hypocrites they constantly accuse Christians of being by trying to force their beliefs on others. What's wrong with putting all three out as suggestions? It's not like intelligent design and creationism are minority views.

Okay, I can't speak for creationism because I don't believe in it, but you can't disprove intelligent design.

My problem with what you all are saying is that by taking intelligent design out of the mix, you are in affect saying that religion is bogus. And although that's what you believe, it's just your belief. You can't prove religion is bogus, at least not all of them (there are some).

Confirmed Atheist, I am not a bible literalist, did you read the entire question? I don't disagree with any of the science of evolution!

Answer 1

.I don,t believe in any think at all ,and I firmly believe that

Answer 2

Were you taught Intelligent Design/Creationism in Biology (a scientific field)? How come, neither of those are biological theories? There's only one scientific theory. When a student asks the teacher, 'how old is the earth?', what is she's supposed to answer? All 6 billion people's different opinions on the subject or an answer actually based on evidence?

If you want 'all sides' being taught, how about teaching competing theories of WW2 history? One side says the Holocaust did happen, another one (revisionism) says it didn't. Can you give me a good reason why we shouldn't teach revisionism in history while Intelligent Design in biology is acceptable?

The point secularists are making (and they are by no means all atheists, far from it) is that belief shouldn't be a factor. Evolution is not a belief, it is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is merely an objection to Evolution, certainly not a scientific theory.

--
Edit: No, we're not saying religion is bogus, only that there are some things that we can determine using the scientific method. If your religion stipulates that (for instance) the earth is about 6000 years old when we can easily demonstrate that it is vastly older, your religion (which isn't everyone's flavor of Christianity) is in opposition to reality. Something has got to give, and reality isn't going to budge.

What would you have us do? Allow an alternative explanation to be taught about thunderstorms? Some people really do believe it's Thor riding his chariot, you know.

Answer 3

Hello. Creationism is not a science. It claims that the earth is 6,000 years old according to a literal account of Genesis. That is speculation from the dark ages, and not a part of science. The earth is clearly billions of years old, as is our universe. I suggest studies in astronomy, biology, and geology to start.

Intelligent design isn't a science either, and a watered down version of creationism. It doesn't poke holes in evolution, simply says "there could be a god." But science is about testing a hypothesis and accumulating physical evidence. I.D. sounds reasonable without a background in the sciences, and the idea of "debate" sounds noble, until one realizes that it is not supported by science and that evolution is overwhelmingly confirmed by fossil evidence, DNA, and geological layers.

It's not about eliminating debate. It's about not financing someone's religion in a public school with tax dollars. Would you teach the "alternate" view that the Holocaust never happened, though the evidence is otherwise? What if, say a significant proportion of the Iranian public is told this by their mullahs and they accept it? Are the facts democratic?

The facts support evolution. This does not mean that the teacher is preaching atheism. Big mistake. I've never heard any instructor say "there is no god," in a course, but I have heard many of them talk about god, and I am an atheist.

Evolution simply discusses a scientific theory and the evidence that confirms it. There is practically no debate (98%) among scientists who have studied evolution, yet the only ones opposed are from fundamentalist Protestant groups in the U.S., most without a science background.

Answer 4

Well, the second two are really the same thing, ID is just a psuedoscientific way of saying Creationism. As for why I personally don't want them in school, because it holds as much educational value as the beginning of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but is much less entertaining. I know this may seem like an insult, but it really isn't. In time, perhaps you'll see that the creation story is not to be taken literally.

After all, many great christian scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo who are considered the fathers of todays science have held the position that not all of the bible is to be taken literally, but still held their faith in god (despite the torture and persecution they faced from fellow christians like yourself who stated that all of the bible is absolute truth). As it turns out, they were right and the bible literalists were wrong. Today you accept the the world is round and orbits the sun (and say it doesn't contradict scripture) based solely on their findings and centuries of verification of their findings.

In two hundred years, the world will think the position of creationism/ID is just as silly as the world being set on a foundation and the sun orbiting the earth. I'm sure you can see why those teachings should not be in schools, but if not, teach your children what ever religious doctrines you wish, just don't try to teach it to mine.



Edit: I didn't intend for you to think that I implied you are a biblical literalist, I simply meant that you were a fellow christian, just as the biblical literalists of the time were when this controversy was taking place. There are several different views on science and religion held within the religious community, but all christians identify themselves as christians, and therefore are fellow christians, despite their differing views. Again, please look at Galileo and Copernicus, both fellow christians and scientists, and see how in their time their views were perceived as contradictory to the bible, even though today you would be hard pressed to find an American believer that thinks as the church did in those days.

Your religion and science can co-exist, they just have to be treated as separate entities or your religious views have to make allowances for scientific discovery.

Answer 5

I am a scientist and have been a Christian, though now I am not a Christian. Even as a Christian however I knew enough science to know the factual data goes against intelligent design. The problem is we teach science at such a low level and in a "Newtonian" manner so we end up with a mismatch between what science is actually observing and doing and what we are teaching at the secondary school level.

Second, there are problems with intelligent design that are a bit non-obvious. If you don't think them through then intelligent design makes tons of sense, but if you do then intelligent design is contrary to the observable data set.

Finally, there are issues of philosophy and probability at hand. Philosophically, adding an assumption that in no way alters the view of the data is needless, but adding an assumption that is contrary to the observation requires dropping the assumption. Likewise, although it is philosophically correct to say it is impossible to disprove God in the pre-Newtonian sense, limit theory when combined with probability and game theories permit a way to "disprove" god using a concept called a weakly perfect Bayesian equilibrium. It is normally used as a way around the 0/0 problem, but it works out well for the God problem too. One can construct a disproof of God or at least intelligent design using this weaker concept that is quite useful and it is mathematically sound, if one really wanted to.

Let me provide some specific observations that can make this clear.

Biological systems have been borrowed by engineering for a number of applications. Biological systems often do things naturally in a manner superior to designed solutions. Because of this a lot of research on the two processes have been performed. One interesting observations is that biological systems fail on a statistical curve called a bathtub curve while intelligently designed systems fail at increasing rates as time or usage increase. The only time you see a bathtub curve in intelligently designed systems is when the designer is either an amatuer, a student or an incompetant engineer. I would provide a citation but I don't know where I put the journal, but if you have an academic library near it was in the Proceedings of the IEEE, or I am pretty sure it was.

In quantum physics, there are observations that have important implications for a god. If there is a god then the God cannot be omniscient. An omniscient God would have to violate, every single moment, the laws of physics and in doing so would actually and measurably alter the observations. The fact that there was an omniscient god would actually be observable.

This in some ways shouldn't be a shock, after all if there is a God who makes miracles then the effects of these miracles should be obvious. In the prescientific world of the bible, many miracles can be shown as impossible as some would actually destroy the Earth or at least all life on it. Two come to mind immediately, first God stopping the Sun to allow Joshua time for battle. What would have to happen is the sudden stopping of the Earth's rotation. The force required would instantly kill everyone and everything and completely devastate the planet. The second is Noah. If the Noah story is true then where did all the water go? Conservation of energy requires the mass went somewhere, the conversion from water to other matter would require a nuclear reaction of such extraordinary measure as to kill everything and devastate the planet. Even some of the Jesus miracles have real consequences if you just think them through.

Much of intelligent design thinking requires a Newtonian framework and must use pre-Newtonian math. It is Newton who set the death of God in motion. Newton was a deeply devout person, though his writings would today and then be rejected as non-Christian. Newton would not have began to estimate the impact of his math on the theology of God, but it would end up being profound. Einstein, Poincare and the various quantum physicists take this to a point to end the framework in which a God could exist, except possibly the God of the deists (someone created the Universe and walked away never to be seen again.)

Finally, there is a very important aspect of science education you are missing. Science must work equally well for Buddhists, Christians, Jains and Atheists. As such, intelligent design is flawed as not all groups find it as a meaningful expression of the truth. It isn't necessary to explain anything. It could be true, but that truth is irrelevant for the purpose of explaining any aspect of the Universe's existence. The second part is that we do not teach students below the undergraduate level (and only on the surface then) ideas which are contrary to the best of the state of the science.

At the undergraduate level it would be irresponsible not to teach opposing credible theories, but intelligent design isn't credible. At the secondary level, teachers would be teaching things that go against the views of the scientists. Majority rule is irrelevant in science and science education. The majority once believed the world was flat, if the views of the majority mattered, instead of the observable data, then we would still be teaching it.

Finally, it is probably damaging to teach it. It is false, it permits non-scientists who lack professional skills to teach as fact that which cannot be shown. It permits superstition and group thinking to determine content. Secondary and primary science education should alway and only be simplified and usable versions of the doctoral level science which is used by professionals on a daily basis. It is the job of scientists to profess beliefs based upon observable data and the job of education to "force" beliefs upon students so they do not believe the world is flat, the center of the universe or that stars are gods. Education isn't propagating atheists beliefs, but it is propogating beliefs that go against certain Christian groups understanding of the universe. I read an article on the impact of parent's religious beliefs on grades and personal outcomes. It turns out that the impact is large and shocking. Children of fundamentalists in particular, and even more importantly who have fundamentalist fathers, have significantly lower grades, were less prepared for college, failed at a higher rate and were observably less inquisitive about their environment. The economic impact is that future wages will be lower due to the strong link between education and wages in America and society will be worse off since lower wages are from lower productivity.

As Maiminodes the great Jewish rabbi stated (approximately), "if the Tanankh and science are in conflict then it is your understanding of the Tanankh that is false." There may very well be a true religion out there, but if it professess beliefs contrary to the factual data, it is false. Intelligent design is very similar to the cargo cults of Polynesia, to the participants it looks like it is true, but an outsider can see it for what it really is.

Answer 6

So how exactly does one teach creationism/ intelligent design? "Alright, class, pay attention! Goddidit. Class dismissed." The problem with teaching those hypotheses is that there is nothing to teach beyond "goddidit". It isn't science in any sense of the word. There is no data, there is no theory, there is no anything more than "goddidit".
Evolution is not inherently atheistic, it does not even address the question of whether or not any god exists. That question is not in the realm of any science. It is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science deals only with the natural world, religion with the supernatural. Trying to mix those two fields leads to bad science, and worse religion.
You accuse atheists of trying to "force their beliefs on others". Yes, I suppose so, in the sense that we try to force people to "believe" that three times ten is thirty, and not some other number, and to "believe" that there is one and only one correct way to spell "encyclopedia", and to "believe" the myriad of other things we know to be factual and attempt to convey through education.
Are you aware that many of the scientists who profess evolutionary ideas are also believers? Are you aware that many, many clergy persons, including the Pope, accept the very, very strong evidence for evolution? To say that there is some atheistic agenda behind the promulgation of evolutionary thought is ludicrous at best in light of these facts.

"What's wrong with putting all three out as suggestions? It's not like intelligent design and creationism are minority views."

Are you saying that we should "suggest" to students what is correct? Or teach whatever the majority think is correct? "Alright, class, yesterday I explained that we're sort of sure that Columbus' voyage happened in 1518, not 1492 as it says in your history texts. And today we will vote on how much the square root of eighty-one is". Can you imagine how well that would work?
If believers wish to teach creationism, intelligent design, or any other tomfoolery in their houses of worship or homes, nobody, and certainly no atheist, would attempt to dissuade them. But in the public schools, we try to teach facts, and evolution is a fact. Americans are already falling behind the rest of the world in the sciences. Please don't make things worse.

Answer 7

You missed out the key part that the creationists want. They want all three taught in science class.

Traditional creationism is just plain wrong. there are reams of scientific evidence saying it is wrong. It would be against all scientific principals to include something for which there is evidence against.

Intelligent Design, as proposed, has been shown to be creation science under another name. Read the Dover PA school trial transcripts*. Creation science has been proven to be an oxymoron and not an actual science.

I believe what you believe is more of a theistic evolution, as supported by the Catholic church.

This is plausible, but not science. Science is the explanation of natural effects by natural means. Bringing a supernatural undetectable hand into it means that it is no longer science.

So the only one that can be taught in SCIENCE class is evolution.

If you want to discuss this in a philosophy class or comparative religion class, I think most atheists would be for it.


* The ID star witness Micheal Behe admitted under oath that if ID was science then astrology and tarot cards would also have to be considered sciences too.

Answer 8

Science, by definition, has to be provable, observable. Faith, by definition, is believe without proof.

Intelligent design and creationism are not science. They do not belong in a science classroom. I think a simple acknowledgement that a lot of people challenge evolution is all the argument we need. If students want to know about the alternatives, they should be directed to philosophy or religion classes and texts.

Answer 9

So many people are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it.

I have found that most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes anyway. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light).

And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented (that is science). Reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

I agree with George Bush, "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about . . . Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Good science teaching should include controversies!

Oh, and by the way, the phrase “separation of church and state” is not even found in the Constitution (Thomas Jefferson used the term in a private letter to reassure the Baptists that the government would not interfere in the free exercise of their religious beliefs [Jefferson, 1802]). Because we are a post-Christian nation, we are now reinterpreting "separation of church and state."

Answer 10

I had a high school science teacher that got fired because to many Christian parents complained about him holding an evolution vs. creationism debate inclass.

The evolution side of the class won the debate by offering observational scientific proof; so the teacher lost his job. This is why religionous theology should be left out of the classrooms and stay in the churches where it belongs.

Besides, by having schools teach Christianity, you are forcing beliefs upon students who may not believe in that particular religion. That violates our rights for "Freedom of Religion."

Answer 11

Limiting science courses to what can be proven scientifically does not seem to me to be a burden for those who believe in religious explanations for things.

But there are some religious people who want religion taught in schools. Their religion.

Fortuntely, I can resolve this issue here and now. I asked God what He thinks. He told me His opinion about evolution -- but you didn't ask that. He also said he doesn't like to see the minds of his followers harmed by beliefs in things they cannot prove.

I've asked religious people why they think God allows such arguments. After all, he could come down here, go on TV, and present the truth. They said it's not possible for humans to understand God's plan.