I voted no and I feel empty now because it didn't convey one percent of the emphasis I need to deliver.

I agree, but I don't think that is the point. If a person wants their money to be spent on an "education" based on astrology (because they think it accurately describes reality), I may think it is silly or even think it is to the overall detriment of society, but I don't think I should be able to forcefully stop them, or forcefully make them pay money for a non-astrology education.

So again, the question is, given the current state of affairs, by which money is being forcefully taken from people, is it "better" or more "right" to spend that money on what some specific segment of the population thinks is best (We can even say that it IS best ("best" being based on anything other than how well it represents preferences)), or is it "better" or more "right" to spend that money on what the people who it was taken from want (even if what they want is, in our opinion, stupid)? Should the money be split to better represent these preferences?

It might sound like I am arguing for specific answers to these questions, but I am not. I just think it is worthwhile to consider questions like these because I think they get down to important issues.

*again I should note that when considering children, I think these issues get much more tricky (and I don't accept that parents should own their children in the same way they can own other forms of property)...but for the sake of argument let's assume that parents should be able to teach their children whatever they want.

If you, as an individual want to teach your child these things, then I don't think anyone should be able to forcfully stop you.* And yes, of course I don't think it is ok for you to force other people to pay and other parents' children to be taught these things. They should not be able to force you and you should not be able to force them.

I am simply asking, given the current state of affairs, by which force IS used, can we still say it is "better" or more "right" for a specific viewpoint to be taught (even if it is considered correct by nearly 99.9% of scientists and 90% of the population, for the sake of argument), rather than have it split in some way (because we intend to get as close as we reasonably can to a good representation of what the people (who the money was taken from) want?

Now, that does not have to mean teaching all opinions to all children, but maybe it means allowing an option? (Allowing the option for private school is not enough if we still force them to pay for public school)

again, I am not arguing either way.

I agree, but I don't think that is particularly relevant.

---------------------

EDIT:The existence of a system by which these decisions are made or constraints are placed on these decisions (a separation of church and state, for instance) changes things if the people involved voluntarily accepted them. Does endorsing the system of appropriation (most non-voluntaryists, non-anarchists, etc.) mean that a person has agreed to these constraints (such that we should not consider their preferences, since they have agreed that their preferences are not what should ultimately matter)?

It's the only thing that is relevant if you ask me.

I think a private school that teaches that creationism is science should be forced to close, and on the same ground I think a school which teaches that sledgehammers are good tools for brain surgery should be closed. In the US I guess that could be controversial, but around here I think it's more common to think that such a school would be infringing more heavily on people's rights than closing it down would.

Needless to say I don't see application of force in itself to be a big ethical consideration. How and what would be much more important questions to me. This is not a political discussion however.

Nor do I see it as a problem that we're relying on the knowledge of experts to determine what is what as long as we know there is a solid framework of review and falsification surrounding their work, and that we know the teachings we derive from it can be put in rather solid models of predictability.

Will there be grey areas? Yes ofcourse. I hardly think the world is black and white, and two different shades of gray might be just as right. This particular discussion is not a gray area in any way that I can see however.

Okay, we have more basic disagreements, so it is not surpirsing that we disagree.

I see it as probably the biggest ethical consideration.

I used to wonder why evolutionists would so often say, repeatedly, "it's not SCIENCE!" when arguing against creationism, intelligent design, etc. Took me a while to realize that it's because most of them have a very dogmatic view that nothing other than SCIENCE! should be allowed to be taught in the schools. And sometimes even the more radical view that nobody should be allowed to believe anything that they don't consider SCIENCE! I think they give science a bad name. "If it's not science, you can't teach it" is nothing other than coercive political dogma. These people want to control what you're allowed to believe. tame_deuces' above post about how creationism shouldn't be allowed even in private schools is a prime example of this.

The proper response to "It's not science" in these debates should be "So what?" In a free society, people get to act according to their beliefs, even non-scientific beliefs. As long as they aren't harming anybody else, nobody has the right to force them to do otherwise. And some folks prefer astrology or religion to science. As long as they aren't forcing their views on me, they can do as they like.

And I'm an atheist. I consider evolution to be scientifically well-established and have no significant doubts about the general correctness of the theory. If I had kids I would insist that they be taught evolution, not creationism which I consider to be complete nonsense. I just wouldn't be insisting that everybody else's kids must be taught evolution also.

I appreciate what you posted VforVoluntary. The intellectual freedom component of the evolution v. creationism debate is a funny thing, I tend to find more common ground with the theists than with my fellow atheists, and I suspect you'll find the same thing. For the most part all the theists want is the right to teach their children what they believe, and they're content to leave everybody else's children alone (obviously there are exceptions to this). They might proselytize, but that's still a voluntary social interaction. They don't tend to insist on the state institutionalizing their views as law (yeah I'm aware of the Taliban, I'm talking about modern western societies). Whereas science has been co-opted by an extremely dogmatic authoritarian stance that says, "Here's what everyone MUST believe whether they like it or not."

Evilsteve,

some of these guys are trying to get intelligent design into SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS to teach it side by side with evolution. That's why they're saying it's not science. If christians said we'll teach it in an optional theology class, no one would give a rats ass

This was exactly what I was looking for in this thread. (hope I didn't miss it previously).

I posted earlier in the thread my views on public education. In my opinion it shouldn't exist, and this issue is a good example of the type of endless ideological skirmishes it creates. There's no curriculum that all the parents will be able to agree on, and not just on the evolution issue, but on lots of other issues as well (ie, try keeping politics out of history books - even the best intentioned authors are going to imbue the presentation with their political perspective). If parents are forced to pay for a one-size-fits-all public education through their tax dollars, lots of parents will see their values undermined every day their kids are in school. Simply because not all parents have the same values. Not all parents want their kids raised the same way. There's no way around this problem as long as everyone is forced to fund the public schools.

There are various ways to compromise, some better than others, but the root of the issue to me is that public schools shouldn't exist. Let the parents decide what they want for their children. As I recall, at least 50% of Americans currently don't believe in evolution. Putting a cultural elite in charge to shout "This is science!" and run roughshod over their wishes is very wrong. And it doesn't matter that I happen to agree with the views of the cultural elite on evolution. I can still see that it's wrong to tell 50% of Americans that they must allow their children to be taught something they themselves don't believe.

Edit: And having an optional theology class in public schools seems like a reasonable compromise, but atheists are likely to object that they don't want their tax dollars to fund this superstitious nonsense. And I'd agree with the atheists (heck, I am an atheist - I don't want MY tax dollars spent on superstitious nonsense - although given the existence of public schools I'd be willing to relent on this point because I do think it's a decent compromise that at least gives the creationists something).

Edit 2: Oh, but this theology class probably isn't teaching creationism as fact, is it? That's not going to do a very good job of satisfying the creationists, if it's taught as mythology. And especially if the biology class is still teaching evolution. Which, if my kid is in that school (ie if I couldn't keep them out of public school), I'd expect the biology class to teach evolution. The fight never ends, there is no good compromise. Public schools ftl.

Wow I think the above is totally wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but that strategy is going to promote and propagate stupidity. Just because 50% of Americans are clueless doesn't mean we should allow them to raise their children to be clueless as well.

EvilSteve,

Where did you get the idea that scientists don't want anything that's not science not be taught in school? They teach history in school and no scientist objects to that. They just don't want intelligent design in science textbooks.

i think most atheists (on this forum at least) don't care if creationism is taught in schools, just not in a science class because it is not "SCIENCE!"

theology class, history class, sociology, philosophy, w/e i don't care. schools always have classes on greek mythology that are always popular. even in high school, i remember learning greek mythology in history classes. it's interesting and cool, but if I was sitting in a biology class and learned about evolution, and then was taught creationism and/or greek mythology i wouldn't be too happy about it because creationism and greek mythology are not "SCIENCE!"

this is the problem. supporters of ID/creationism want it to be taught in a biology class side by side with evolution as an alternate and perfectly valid theory. that is just flat out wrong and ****ed up to do

So you think the state should have authority over what children learn, not their parents. A lot of people share this view, it's just not my idea of a free society.

+1 on horrible horrible abomination of a thought process on EvilSteve's behalf.

What? It's like creationism/ID is the only big fight, and it's well on its way to being neutralised. Apart from that do you ever really see a major sore disagreement about what to teach in school? All the other important arguments are about HOW to teach, not WHAT to teach.

YES. A good portion of parents are CLUELESS about what's going on in the world. You do NOT want to give that positive feedback.

Education is in this day like the core of what allows you to pursue an enjoyable and safe life. Denial of proper education is like denial of food and water and medical attention. Saying that state should have no authority over what children learn is a step away from saying state can't prevent parents from feeding their children sand or forcing them to do hard labour or opting for prayer instead of life-saving medicine.

Besides, it's not like the parents can't teach their children whatever they want. They just can't DENY their children what the state wants to teach them.

The thing is, creationists want to teach it as TRUTH. They don't actually want it to be taught as science, simply they have resorted to it in lack of a better option. It's all just an attempt to squeeze religious indoctrination into school curriculum, and evolution vs creationism is the irrelevant vessel probably because it induces the most emotions and layman intuition. Sure, atheists won't care if it's taught as a part of mythology or factual religion class about all world religions, but neither do the creationists, see?

With all due respect, this is ridiculous. For every problem you solve with getting rid of public education, you create many many more.


We have public schools because that is the best way we have come up with to help educate our kids and give them some basic skills that they need to succeed in this world. Of course we can debate how well we're doing it, and of course its not perfect, but ask yourself what removing public schools would do our society as a whole? How many kids would not learn how to think, how to analyze, etc. How many kids would just not go to school at all? Make it all private and what kind of education would our poor get?

If parents want their kids to learn about religion, send them to their various religious institutions, what's the problem in that? The fact is, the 50% of people who don't believe in evolution are wrong. It is for that reason we SHOULD teach evolution. Now, should it be mentioned in class that there is debate over the mechanism? I have no problem with that. They can be directed to their parents to discuss the debate further.

I'm rambling here and having a bit of trouble getting my thoughts in order. But the anarchic bull**** of VFV's Voluntarism (no offence!) and ES's "we should let all parents personal beliefs completely dictate what they learn", is really bugging me.

We have a duty as a society to educate our kids. We have a duty to make sure every kid gets a decent education. Will there be room for debate? Sure, but the main purpose of school is not the specific information they are being taught, but the fact that they are learning how to think critically, to analyze data, and prepare themselves to go out into the real world. You want to teach creation in comparative religion class that's fine. But teaching kids that they should ignore the scientific method and just make decisions based on how they feel about any given issue seems disastrous to me.

You do realize that 'free society' is an oxymoron.

There was a time in the US were the savage natives were being taught things by their parents the state didn't approve of. So we put them into reeducation camps to straighten them out. Was that the right thing to do?

It should at least be an option for people to not have their tax dollars going to teach their kids things they dont want their kids learning.

Obviously. "Free society" is an oxymoron - society is by definition NOT free - it's a collection of human beings with RULES (and those rules are for the most part designed to benefit the society as a whole).

edit: lol, luckyme beat me to it

Not really. Unless you're going to say everyone should be free to steal and kill and rape, etc. And that wouldn't be much of a society.

In a free society, as I understand it (and I think this is how the term is generally used), people are free to do as they wish, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. You have a right to life so I'm not allowed to kill you. You have a right to your personal property, I'm not allowed to steal from you. That sort of thing (yes, I'm being vague but I think you get the gist of it). And now several million semantic objections could be raised, but I'm not interested in continuing that conversation. Forcing parents to educate their children according to the dictates of the state isn't something that happens in a free society.

Oh don't be silly. The good guys are in charge now. They're scientific and enlightened and stuff. Nothing bad could possibly result from them pushing their benevolent agenda on the ignorant and unwilling.

Freedom is relative. In educating our kids despite the parents wishes we give them freedom later on to make better choices rather than locking them in to whatever path their parents decide to set them on.

It's a free society not because you can DO whatever you want, but that you can think whatever you want. No matter what we teach the kids at school we are not going to prevent the parents from teaching other stuff or sending them to extra education to learn other stuff. That is what as free. As opposed to a society where the state controls your beliefs, and outlaws certain beliefs.

Exactly the same thing applies to teaching your children whatever you want (and not having required subjects).

Wow. You have a lot of rules for a 'free' society !
They are also a lot different than other 'free' societies.
Does it simply come down to Free society=plays by Esteves rules?
You have no rules about what a parent can or can't do with their children in the area of mucking with their mind? Children don't have the right to ...x or y or z? yuck. Is one of your rules "you must live with your parents and they can brainwash you but not beat you with a stick?"

They are not semantic objections. cheeesh, it's about the laws and powers of the society vs the individual.
Who grants these "rights" and can they change their mind about them? Should they perhaps get together every so often and discuss them? The whole 300 million in a big field, or send representatives?

Sure, what constitutes a free society is not completely cut and dried, I can accept that. In particular there's going to be a lot of debate about where a parent's rights end and the child's rights begin. That's a hard issue and I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I do think it's clear that when the state dictates what the child will be taught, rather than the parent, then you're not talking about a free society anymore.

And who's to say that a "free society" is even desirable? If the state appointed experts know best, shouldn't we listen to them instead of the parents? A lot of people would say yes, when the parents are wrong about something they shouldn't be allowed to teach it to their children, and the state is justified in seizing authority in such cases. I happen to think that's an extremely dangerous position to take. Give the state this type of authority and it may or may not be used for the child's best interests. It will certainly be used for the best interests of the state, and to advance further statist control (for example, I haven't looked at any public school history textbooks lately, but I wonder what they have to say about the history of public education. Bet they say a lot of nice things about public education, probably present it as something no civilized society could do without.) I'd much rather trust the parents to keep the best interests of their children in mind, rather than the state, even if the parents get some stuff wrong.

And one more thing. Children are going to be indoctrinated into the views of their parents or the views of the state, they're going to get some of that either way. They're going to have viewpoints foisted on them before they're old enough, or mature enough, to properly evaluate those views for themselves. But in a "free society" where the indoctrination is under the control of their parents rather than the state, I think they have a better chance of seeing through this indoctrination later on. Because not everyone will be receiving the same indoctrination.

If there's no central control of the educational system, there will be a diversity of viewpoints available. Some kids get a religious education, some kids get a secular education (and yes, some of them don't get a formal education at all) - but later in life they will at least have the opportunity to interact with people from different backgrounds and maybe this will challenge the received worldview from their childhood. If everyone attends the same state schools though, there's the danger that the state indoctrination will be mutually reinforced when they interact with other people who got the same state education.

Executive summary: Diversity good. Central control bad.

That's pretty much the gist of it right there.

An indoctrination against indoctrination isn't much of an indoctrination IMO.

You are speaking as if we have are about to choose between giving the parents unlimited authority, and having centralised education system, forgetting that our whole society is built on the latter. I am yet to see where in western democracies indoctrination by the state is a huge problem. The education system is built on anti-indoctrination. The only possible way to make indoctrination a problem is to change the existing system.

This is starting to look like a conspiracy theory. The state is not out there to get you. Or should I say, if you are in a situation where the state is out there to get you, it's not like you wouldn't be ****ed with any other arrangement.

I repeat, it's not like the state doesn't allow you to teach creationism to your children. The fact that you insist on trying to make it look as if things are like that makes you seem paranoid.

What's the worst that can happen when your kids are taught the understanding of top experts in their respective fields as judged by the state? The only thing you can possibly make an argument for is waste of time and frankly I don't see how it could be very convincing.

What kind of indoctrination do you see in state schools? Indoctrination against racism? Indoctrination against intolerance? Indoctrination for valuing human rights?

Entertainingly the main instances of indoctrination stem from the parents' demand for it.