But is it Abuse?

[Brewer Harry]

I was watching a clip from "The View" (a show I don't watch as shrill stupidity doesn't thrill me - though the occasional clip can be - 'interesting') where Joy Behar claimed, stridently, that if you don't teach your children Darwinism, it constitutes child abuse. Elizabeth Hasselbach, of course, disagreed in equally shrill tones.

This is not a thread about the merits of Darwinism vs Creationism, please be clear on that from the beginning. I'm a Darwinist, many of you are creationists - we've been over it before and we all remain unconvinced of each others' perspectives. The question here is "is it really abusive to teach a child creationism and ignore Darwinism?"

I personally feel that while teaching a child that Creationism is the "Truth" and not teaching Darwinism is stupid, narrow-minded, short-sighted and dishonest, it doesn't really constitute abuse. Yes, it will insure that your child is ill-prepared for life in the real world, but it isn't going to leave any more emotional or physical scarring than many of the things that parents do, like making the kid eat liver or not letting them watch certain TV shows. So, yes it's stupid, no it's not abusive.

Opinions?

(Oh yes, please remember, this is a thread about opinions, not necessarily about facts).

[New Emeline]

I think it's a stupid thing to do, but calling it abuse is also pretty stupid.

[Cekoviu]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it abuse, per se. But it definitely isn't good for kids to indoctrinate them with lies.

[Geneviev]

It is not abuse. Simple as that. It is a bit stupid, yes, but not abuse.

The only exception is if this is paired with more extreme indoctrination.

[Albrenia]

Not abuse, but it sets one up for a number of troubles with learning scientific things in their future.

Still, not abuse.

[Dogmeat]

Lying to your children is a grand and honorable tradition, going back many generations. One of the true joys of parenting.

[Benuty]

I thought in the first sentence it was referring to Darwinism in the sense of social Darwinism, but whatever.

" Now little Timmy what did I tell you about charity to your wretched whore mother?"

[New Emeline]

I thought in the first sentence was Darwinism in the sense of social Darwinism, but whatever.

" Now little Timmy what did I tell you about charity to your wretched whore mother?"

[New Emeline]

Ironically enough, social Darwinism isn't supported by actual Darwinism... altruism and cooperation are some of the reasons humans got to where we are now.

[Benuty]

Ironically enough, social Darwinism isn't supported by actual Darwinism... altruism and cooperation are some of the reasons humans got to where we are now.

Yeah, I know, but in some areas, people avoid calling it Darwinism as if words were capable of being diseased. That's mostly the fault of social Darwinism legacy, and the easy arguments people get into over its unfortunate implications. It's a lot easier to discuss these things without someone going full edge over eugenics, and the like.

[New Emeline]

Ironically enough, social Darwinism isn't supported by actual Darwinism... altruism and cooperation are some of the reasons humans got to where we are now.

Yeah, I know, but in some areas, people avoid calling it Darwinism as if words were capable of being diseased. That's mostly the fault of social Darwinism legacy, and the easy arguments people get into over its unfortunate implications. It's a lot easier to discuss these things without someone going full edge over eugenics, and the like.

Oh, I understand.

[Ceolophysia]

Maybe not vaccinating could be considered abuse, but creationism isn't going to bring back any epidemics. No. It isn't abuse at all. It won't hurt them except for that they might be ostracized or get bad grades.

[The South Falls]

You can teach your children whatever they want. It's not abuse if you don't teach them, but they'll just be not well informed.

[VoVoDoCo]

No it's not abuse. As long as it isn't one of those fundamentalists religions, there's no reason to even consider it that.

[Geneviev]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it abuse, per se. But it definitely isn't good for kids to indoctrinate them with lies.

Only teaching Creationism isn't indoctrination yet. Not until other lies are taught with an intent to change the child in some way is it a problem, as in indoctrination.

[Albrenia]

I'm not really sure why people would call teaching Evolution 'Darwinism', since despite what some will tell you, it's not a religion.

[Cetacea]

its nowhere near to abuse and really is disrespectful of people suffering real abuse

Evolution (as opposed to Darwinism) should be taught, even by Creationist, as Theories should be up for intellectual critique as part of the education process.

That said unless the child grows up to take on a career centered on Biology they wont be harmed by not learnig Darwinism

[Neutraligon]

What exactly is Darwinism. As to whether teaching creationism instead of evolution is in and of itself abuse, no but I do find it harmful to the child. If parents decided to teach kids that Columbus found America in 1922 I would find that harmful, but also not abuse.

[The Parkus Empire]

I'm not really sure why people would call teaching Evolution 'Darwinism', since despite what some will tell you, it's not a religion.

Darwinism is a common pejorative over here for the theory of evolution

[Nioya]

It’s not abuse. It’s just teaching your kid something really stupid. But we’re grown ups, and we all have a right to believe what we want.

[Wallenburg]

Not actively teaching evolution by natural selection is not abuse. It's stupid to not educate your kids on it, but it's not abuse. However, if you are actively indoctrinating your kids with the tenets of creationism, then you are more or less mentally handicapping your own child, so that's a more open question.

[Coolao]

In this case, I assume parents that have promoted characters like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy should be equally as worried.

[Sovaal]

I mean if that’s abuse I wonder what they would call some of the shit that’s happened around where I live.

[Alvecia]

Ironically enough, social Darwinism isn't supported by actual Darwinism... altruism and cooperation are some of the reasons humans got to where we are now.

Yeah, I know, but in some areas, people avoid calling it Darwinism as if words were capable of being diseased. That's mostly the fault of social Darwinism legacy, and the easy arguments people get into over its unfortunate implications. It's a lot easier to discuss these things without someone going full edge over eugenics, and the like.

To me it also implies more of a lack of consensus than there actually is.

Like, we don't call people who think the Earth revolves around the sun Heliocentrists in regular debate. It's just the truth.

[Albrenia]

Yeah, I know, but in some areas, people avoid calling it Darwinism as if words were capable of being diseased. That's mostly the fault of social Darwinism legacy, and the easy arguments people get into over its unfortunate implications. It's a lot easier to discuss these things without someone going full edge over eugenics, and the like.

To me it also implies more of a lack of consensus than there actually is.

Like, we don't call people who think the Earth revolves around the sun Heliocentrists in regular debate. It's just the truth.

Flat Earthers call us Globeheads though. Which I guess would make them Flatheads?