Basically just another form of indoctrination. Children are not taught science so much as science appreciation.
If a group of people believing a random untrue fact is a threat, there are a vast number of threats out there. Far more than the school system can possibly deal with. Misidentifying the age of the earth is harmless compared to things like economic misconceptions and there aren't many school systems making a credible effort to correct those.
I actually had a young earth creationist say that the sun doesn't use fusion and thus its lifespan is more in line with the creationist worldview and I responded with neutrinos emitted from the fusion reactions in the sun.
Chances are she is less "scientifically ignorant" than many people around here, myself included.
Just like my sister's, yours is a specific case. It's sad that they didn't teach you Creation in a way that wouldn't cancel out Science, as Science itself is something profoundly Christian as well.
"O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!..." - Johannes Kepler
Young earth creationists are scientifically ignorant by definition.
There are many scientists out there that believe in that. They are not scientifically ignorant, they just believe different stuff from you, which, mind you, unless you've seen all proof and understand everything about it to the very last detail, you just hold a faith-based belief of what you're told about by a specific bunch of people/books.
People forget that we often know a lot about stuff, but then we discover more stuff which totally changes the stuff we knew and so on.
Not intending to start a flamewar here or anything, but the fact is that even if there's a lot of evidence for many claims about it, the THEORY of Evolution is not failsafe let alone definitely proven.
You can choose to go with it until we have something better, that's your choice.
Allow that same choice for the rest of the people out there.
Not any GOOD ones.
"They are not scientifically ignorant, "
They are actually.
" they just believe different stuff from you, "
They believe very stupid things directly at odds with all evidence. All of modern technology is a result of the exact same logical thought that led to the theory of evolution. If you reject it where do you draw the line? Do you reject fusion in stars because there is no reason for them to last so long?
"People forget that we often know a lot about stuff, but then we discover more stuff which totally changes the stuff we knew and so on."
No. Why would I?
You see? You're jumping to absurd conclusions. The fact that I don't believe in Evolution does not mean I reject the Scientific Method, or technology, or reasoning, or logic.
I'm an engineer. I like and enjoy Science, building things, researching, learning, understanding, reasoning, creating. Don't try to make it incompatible or exclusive.
> Not any GOOD ones.
Maybe you should review a bit your history of Science.
According to the Scientific Method (which I obviously must not understand) an honest researcher would posit an hypothesis (which ideally should be falsifiable, unlike Evolution, or Creation for that matter) and then should rather try to prove that hypothesis false. That's what I do at my SE job. If you are unable to prove a falsifiable hypothesis as false, chances are you're right.
You see, because Evolution and Creation are not falsifiable, they need a certain amount of faith to be accepted. I acknowledge my faith in God, and I acknowledge that I cannot scientifically and undeniable prove the existence of God or Creation through purely empirical methods. That's actually a necessary aspect of it. I do, however, see a lot of evidence which points me to that way, and it points me to that way because of where (or rather, on who) my faith is placed.
You, like it or not, do have faith too, but it is placed in a different set of persons and scriptures. You have faith in Modern Science. It's a faith, a 'trust' if you will, you choose to risk having in a lot of data that, by the way, you cannot possibly have had the chance to validate personally.
I invite you to honestly reflect on that.
This will most likely be my last response because at this point I am not sure this conversation is constructive at all.
Not intrinsic but very highly correlated with WHY they are home-schooling in the first place.
They are Evangelical young earth creationists.
Your thesis seems to be that religious people are anti-science, which is a very outdated and frankly wrong stereotype to be pushing in 2024.
Based on your comment, I would assume you are religious. Quite frankly, religious doctrines are anti-science, or more accurately anti-epistemology. The Young Earth Creationists are a dim example of this, but even your generic Christian believes in lichs based on two-thousand-year-old hearsay. You say this
> is a very outdated and frankly wrong stereotype
but why? It seems more true than any religion. I think you could make an argument that it's impossible to convince people they're wrong, so to avoid fighting you should avoid making such comments, but that's empirically not true.
However, you've now moved the goalpost by stating that "religious doctrines" are anti-science. That wasn't the original argument. We're talking about whether or not religious people, who homeschool, will necessarily produce scientifically ignorant children.
Nonetheless, the more I think about this, the more the conversation is pointless because we'd spend an eternity working out what scientifically ignorant looks like. A person may agree with 80% of the scientific theories in the world and disagree on 20% and someone might say that makes them "scientifically ignorant." Which I find amusing, considering the amount of fraud going on in modern scientific journals.
I'm less worried about people being scientifically ignorant than people who lack the ability to think through ideas (specifically, most religions have built-in thought-stoppers such as "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith"). For example, Socrates was a great thinker, and even though he was terribly ignorant by today's standards, I wouldn't be worried if our society was composed of people like him. I am worried about people who have literally been indoctrinated out of the capacity for reason.
I'm not suggesting these individuals do not exist, but I find it very troubling to make blanket statements like the GP's. As I said, it's a stereotype I often see on HN, and I think it's very distasteful as it eliminates an entire group of people from the conversation because "they can't reason."
- Why do you think gay people shouldn't kiss?
| Because it's wrong.
- Why is it wrong?
| Gay people can't have children / homosexuality is bad.
- Why is that bad?
| The Bible says it's important to have children / The Bible says so.
- So, if you didn't think God was real, or the Bible was accurate, you would think it's okay?
| Eh, but I know it's true. I know acting on gay feelings is wrong. [Counterfactuals don't make sense when the counterfactual is impossible.]
- How do you know this?
| Well, I prayed about it.
- Okay, but lots of people pray and think their religion is the right one.
| Yeah, but you'd expect the TRUE religion to have <specific features about Mormonism>. And only Mormonism has that.
- Couldn't a Muslim or Hindu say something similar?
| No, they don't have all the <specific features>, just some of them. Like, sure, other religions have some of the truth, but we have all of it! Aren't modern prophets great?
- Well, I'd expect a true religion to not have <specific flaws>.
| Those aren't true. Our founder didn't have sex with a bunch of teenagers.
- The second guy, Brigham Young, did, didn't he?
| Um, well, that was normal for the time.
- It really wasn't. You can look at the census data, and even though some teenagers married other teenagers, almost none of them were marrying men 20 years their senior.
| Well, God commanded it, so it must have been alright.
- How do you know God commanded it, and your leader didn't just make this up?
| Because I know the Book of Mormon is true and I have a testimony of Joseph Smith!
- Okay, why do you think so?
| It says right there at the end of the Book of Mormon that you can pray about it to know it is true. And I did, and I've had so many personal experiences that reaffirm my faith.
- Okay, but lots of people pray and think their religion is the right one. Couldn't a Muslim or Hindu say something similar?
| No, they don't have all the <specific features>! Look, I don't know what you've been reading about Mormons, but you can't expect to get accurate sources from random internet sites. If you want to know the truth, you have to read the Book of Mormon and ask God. The devil will try to lead you astray, but you just need to cultivate a seed of faith and hold onto it until it grows into an unshakeable foundation.
- Um... that's circular reasoning. How do you know that's how you can get the truth?
| Oh, I see. You're some anti-Mormon, aren't you? You were never interested to begin with, you were just trying to trick me up. Well I don't want to hear your bigotry anymore. All my friends/family who are Mormon are the best people I know, and even if you don't believe in my religion, you have to acknowledge its fruits are good.
- Didn't we get into this conversation because you said gay people shouldn't be allowed to kiss each other? That isn't a "good fruit".
| No, according to my religion it is. God has a plan, you just have to open up your heart and believe.
Because in the US this is largely true. And young earth creationists are most empathically anti-science. I know because that is how I was raised and I have rejected all of that nonsense.
Such religious people like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, René Descartes, Gregor Mendel, Georges Lemaître?
Yes, there is much more knowledge at least content-wise nowadays than then. Does that make their contributions ignorant, or invalid? Remove what they did in their day, what are we left with?
Yes
> or invalid?
no. I don't really understand what your point is. Are you trying to argue:
> They were Christian, thus you can be a scientific genius in your time and still Christian.
? You have to keep in mind, these people were scientific geniuses in a time where people had recently established that the Earth orbited the Sun. The first periodic table wasn't compiled until 1869, hundreds of years later. Given they had no alternative explanation, is it any wonder they were content with answers from religion? I'm not sure you realize this, but the whole separation of religion and science is a recent phenomenon. They used to be the same thing, just explanations for how the world worked. It was only when empirical evidence and scientific theories started explaining the world better than "the gods" that religion began claiming a separate sphere of influence.
Not accepting it leads to a profoundly WRONG worldview that bleeds into everyday life in many ways.
Existence of vestigial structures in organism. Why do humans get goosebumps when we don't have enough hair to insulate us? Because it's an evolutionary leftover from our hairy ancestors when the reflex would actually cause hair to trap more air for better insulation.
Understanding evolution is crucial for crop management. The development of pesticide resistance in insects follows the same principles as antibiotic resistance. Farmers who don't understand evolutionary principles might not recognize the importance of rotating pesticides or implementing refuge areas to prevent resistance from developing.
Medical research often relies on animal models because of shared evolutionary history. Our biological similarities with other mammals exist because of common ancestry. Without this framework, it becomes harder to understand why medicines tested on mice or primates might work in humans, or why certain diseases affect multiple species similarly.
Human susceptibility to back and knee pain is a consequence of how recent bipedalism is in our evolution. Same for why humans are so prone to chocking, our larynx evolved to enable speech at the cost of making it easier for food to enter it.
I know a couple of big-scale farmers in the US. They are Christian, and believe in Creation. That doesn't stop them from using the necessary pesticides, or choosing the adequate strain of corn seeds, etc.
Believing in Creation doesn't turn you into an illiterate moron. Believing God created everything according to a design and purpose is not incompatible with acknowledging the presence of similarities and design patterns throughout all of Creation, and believing that doesn't suddenly poof take away your rational capabilities to think and understand things.
Either way, I was asking for is a real situation in which someone will be negatively impacted because they hold a Creationist belief.
Will a Creationist live a sad life without fully embracing the misteries of goose-bumps? Will a farmer not use pesticides, or choose the wrong one because Creationism? Will Advil won't work on a Christian because they don't understand that rats and rabbits are our cousins? Will their knees hurt more (or maybe less?) because they think humans were standing up from the beginning?
"Believing in Creation doesn't turn you into an illiterate moron"
You kinda do have to be a moron to be a true young earth creationist. I went to Lutheran schools that taught me that the earth was created by god 6000 years ago and evolution was an evil plot created by Satan. By the time I was 15 I realized how stupid this was and how the theory of evolution fits the evidence and is self-consistent. One of the biggest realizations I had is that the theory of evolution, due to requiring such VAST amounts of time for evolution to occur, actually has nuclear fusion embedded in it as a dependency because nothing else could allow a star to shine for so long. When Darwin first proposed the theory a major and reasonable objection was the timescales needed because at the time it was thought that the Sun was powered only by gravitational collapse which would last less than 20 million years. Then this utterly absurd source of power for stars was discovered that could allow them to last for almost 1000 times as long.
> all of modern technology is a result of the exact same processes that led to the theory of evolution
Could you please elaborate? I'm not sure I understand. Are you referring to the scientific method?
If so, I really feel the need to insist that being Creationist or Christian is not exclusive or incompatible with that. Guess what, I am Christian, I believe in a Creator God and yet I am (surprise, surprise) an accomplished Software Engineer.
I can understand if you think I'm stupid because of my beliefs. That's your opinion and I'm totally fine with it.
What I'm trying to say is that holding these beliefs doesn't make you intellectually impaired, or unable to use reasoning. We're just working with different assumptions.
You have faith in Nothing, from which everything came, I have faith in Something (God) from which everything came. And it is faith indeed, because you don't and can't possibly have definite proven knowledge of the origin of things. You weren't there.
To you, nuclear fusion is evidence of evolution. Fine. To me, alongside the rest of Creation, it is evidence of God.
Therefore, you will reason a certain set of things, and I will reason a different set of things. Because we have different starting points, we will reach different conclusions.
They prove their is something fundamentally wrong with your logical reasoning and evaluation of evidence.
You use God as an explanation for why the universe exists but cannot explain where God came from so you are just adding an extra unnecessary step.
Your software engineering background gives you a unique perspective to understand this: When debugging code, you follow the evidence (logs, stack traces, reproducible errors) rather than starting with assumptions about what should be happening. Evolution works the same way - we follow the evidence rather than starting with assumptions about how life should have developed.
The power of evolutionary theory isn't just that it explains what we see - it's that it makes testable predictions. For example, evolutionary theory predicted we would find transitional fossils in specific geological layers before we actually found them. It predicted specific genetic relationships between species that were later confirmed by DNA sequencing. Just as in software engineering, a theory that makes accurate predictions is more valuable than one that only explains what we already know.
You're absolutely right that being religious doesn't make someone intellectually impaired. But perhaps consider that accepting evolution doesn't require abandoning faith in God - it might instead lead to a deeper appreciation of the elegant mechanisms through which creation could have unfolded.
Not to mention the tens of thousands of people who were killed in the witch trials (medieval and contemporary), among so very many other examples.
Few things are more personally relevant than not getting tortured and executed by your neighbors because you were granted no defense against spectral evidence.
But how about this: the first time that any relevant powers decided that slavery was wrong at a global level was due to Christian beliefs, fancy that. And luckily they went on to impose that moral belief to the rest of the world. (England, France vs. Slavery)
It's true that a lot of evil has been done in the name of Christianity, but that's not of Christianity. If I came to your home and punched you in the face in the name of your mother, would you blame your mother?
But Christianity and the Bible have been abused very wrongly by evil powers as tools for control, something possible through deceiving illiterate, uneducated people.
As some other comments mention, Protestant Evangelicals made a big push for literacy precisely so people could read and interpret the Bible themselves, without depending on interested third parties.
Anyone taking a little time to read the Bible will see and understand that the Crusades were wrong, racism is wrong, oppressing women is wrong, and so on.
As @arkey points out, this happens with atheistic beliefs as well. By numbers communist purges have killed vastly more people than all religions combined just due to the numbers of people involved in modern ages.
The denunciations are very similar with actual evidence rarely being required or needed. Or it’s based on some characteristic of being on an outside group. Netflix’s adaptation of the Chinese authors book “Three body problem” gives a visceral showcasing of what that would’ve been like as one of the characters father is denounced and killed during that time for having “anti-Marxist” beliefs like gravity.
I’ve been to the Pol Pot’s killing trees in Cambodia where they slaughtered millions of people. Anyone who was educated in any way were considered polluted by capitalism and killed. Things like having spectacles was sufficient evidence.
I’ve seen the holocaust monuments in Berlin and Tel Aviv where the ideals of racial purity based on pseudo scientific interpretations of evolution were a key philosophical underpinning.
Actually much of the anti-evolutionary zeal in the US can be partially traced back to progressives (of that period) use of “evolution” to justify mass forced sterilization of “undesirables” by several US states during the 1910-1930’s.
Really humans are pretty flawed with any belief system. You fool yourself if you think “scientific” or “atheist” are any hindrance to these group behaviors.
There are no such things as atheist beliefs any more than there are a-unicorn beliefs, even if many things have been done in its name. The same goes for evolution. And no, communism isn't any more inherently atheistic than German fascism was inherently Catholic (it certainly wasn't atheistic) nor US democracy inherently Protestant. Anyone doing anything "in the name of evolution" is projecting their own hate and small-mindedness onto whatever convenient vocabulary at hand, as has happened over and over and over long before science. Avoid confusing belief with confidence in replicability, not when only one was sufficient for humanity to reach the moon.
No, as a science-minded secular materialistic atheist, xe are burdened with expecting nuance, detail, precision, specificity, and consistency of xirselves and in xir communications. But xe also expect the same of others in kind. Tell xe again how belief will save you from junk forensic science if you are ever accused falsely of a crime? Because actual science has no patience with such nonsense whereas xir original point still stands. We can resume this discussion after that.
That’s just silly. Of course there are atheistic, theistic, along with myriad of other classifications of belief systems. If you decide to try and redefine all commonly accepted terms based on your belief system you’re not participating in a fair discussion.
> And no, communism isn't any more inherently atheistic
Perhaps it’s not, but all the major communist states have embraced atheism as a matter of course and that is what pertains to my comment. Most scholars consider Karl Marx an atheist and he was certainly secularist.
> Avoid confusing belief with confidence in replicability, not when only one was sufficient for humanity to reach the moon.
Confidence in something is a form of belief. You believe something will occur or is a certain way based on prior information.
Again you’re trying to insert your idiosyncratic definition of belief into the discussion.
> No, as a science-minded secular materialistic atheist, xe are burdened with expecting nuance, detail, precision, specificity, and consistency of xirselves and in xir communications.
As I pointed out above a couple of times you are not being precise but rather are injecting your own idiosyncratic non-standard definition of things. Defining your own unique pronouns is a good exemplar of this.
This all comes across to me as you not being open to genuine conversation.
> Tell xe again how belief will save you from junk forensic science if you are ever accused falsely of a crime?
Having fair trials, hearing of evidence in a court, having impartial judges, etc is based on a societies belief that those things are important.
Junk science goes against those sort of beliefs in a country like the USA and has been used to fight against such things.
As a counter, a science minded secular materialism belief system doesn’t have to believe in things like fair trials or the need of evidence to convict. Some rationalist scientific minded have argued that belief in fair trials and equality of people is illogical as common people don’t have the intelligence or expertise to properly judge things.
The CCP for example is arguably generally more scientific-minded secular materialist society than the USA. Yet they have no problems eschewing things such as trials as in their (dare I say logical and self-consistent) belief system the needs of the state subsume those of the individual.
>Antibiotic resistance
...is a micro-scale adaptation, like an organism's immune response. Recognizing it does not require belief in a prehistoric common ancestor for all organisms; it just requires observing changes that happen on a much smaller and more rapid scale.
>Existence of vestigial structures in organism. Why do humans get goosebumps when we don't have enough hair to insulate us? Because it's an evolutionary leftover from our hairy ancestors when the reflex would actually cause hair to trap more air for better insulation.
This is non-falsifiable conjecture about a pre-historic past based on observation of present structures. It is equivalent to "we obviously know that dinosaurs did not have feathers, because their skeletons do not have feathers, and feathers would have made them more visible to predators, so they wouldn't have had feathers."
>Understanding evolution is crucial for crop management. The development of pesticide resistance in insects follows the same principles as antibiotic resistance.
...which, again, is a micro-scale adaptation, like an organism's immune response. You can notice pesticide resistance occurring in pests and rotate your pesticides without having to sign on to the unverifiable claim that this happens because all life derives from a single organism.
>Medical research often relies on animal models because of shared evolutionary history. Our biological similarities with other mammals exist because of common ancestry. Without this framework, it becomes harder to understand why medicines tested on mice or primates might work in humans, or why certain diseases affect multiple species similarly.
This is more non-falsifiable distant-past conjecture based on observation of current structures. Is it necessary to believe a particular set of conjectures about the origins of mammals' biological similarities in order to recognize the fact in front of you that the mammals are biologically similar, and thus some mechanisms of action may apply across species, provided those similarities are retained?
>Human susceptibility to back and knee pain is a consequence of how recent bipedalism is in our evolution. Same for why humans are so prone to chocking, our larynx evolved to enable speech at the cost of making it easier for food to enter it.
...which, again, is non-falsifiable distant-past conjecture that has no bearing on recognizing the existence of the verifiable current-day reality in front of you: humans have back and knee pain. Is it necessary to accept a particular set of unprovable conjectures about the distant-past origins of this particular skeletal structure in order to make decisions about how best to treat a symptom that exists today resulting from the skeletal structure that you see immediately in front of you?
But the micro vs. macro distinction is only one of time and scale and that's the whole point: species aren't "real," even fish aren't "real" in any ontological sense, but the countless organisms that we categorize as such existed, exist, and will continue to exist regardless of how we conceive of them.
The ask of evolution and science in general is to accept the incredibly narrow capacity of human cognition as a starting point for an even deeper understanding rather than an end goal to rationalize towards.
This is an excellent rebuttal to the micro/macro distinction, because it's working in the correct direction, which you've stated well:
>to accept the incredibly narrow capacity of human cognition as a starting point for an even deeper understanding rather than an end goal to rationalize towards.
Using the notion of "species" as a "ground truth", as though it were some biological law, is a self-defeating point precisely because the definition of "species" is "a somewhat-arbitrary taxonomy developed by people to try to group organisms together based on observed common traits."
It is why, being intellectually honest, the theory of evolution as the origin of species is called a "theory" in the academic sense: it's a proposed model that fits the data available on hand, but which has not been experimentally verified in its premise. Short of time-travel, I'm not sure how it can be experimentally verified.
"Falsifiable" means "I can construct an experiment that could yield an outcome that directly demonstrates this idea as false." This is sort of like the difficulty that exists with the four-color theorem [1]: yes, you can run a lot of examples using computer-assisted proof tech, but at best what that tells you is "we haven't found a counterexample yet."
Except, for non-falsifiable claims like the theory of evolution as the origin of species, there is no experiment you can run to provide a counterexample. The theory covers any possible counterexamples by simply saying "that form of life must have evolved from a different origin point and/or under different conditions (regardless of whether we can recreate those conditions)", and tucks any counterexample in neatly into itself without feeling threatened by falsifiability. It is "total" by having an "escape hatch" for any counterexamples.
That stacks it up alongside "a deity made everything, and designed an ordered universe with certain mechanics, including giving organisms the ability to adapt"; both are explanations that fit the available data, but neither can be experimentally verified. Similarly, that theory is "total" by having an escape hatch: "well, maybe the deity did something different in that case." Young-earth Creationists do this with visible starlight that is a million or more lightyears away: "maybe God just accelerated that starlight so that humans would have a pretty night sky."
That tendency is similar to "maybe the [hypothetical] organisms on Mars adapted from a different common ancestor that maybe was made of non-living substances that are similar to the non-living substances that comprised Earth's first organism." Boom, done, no need to re-examine the premise, you just fold it in with "maybe the same magic worked a little differently over there," just like saying "maybe God made starlight go faster in the direction of Earth."
As long as you don't engage in denial of the available data because of your theory, then I don't understand why holding a particular non-falsifiable theory is mandatory.
It doesn't matter if I hold to the theory that the universe began as an origin-less hypercompressed single point of matter suddenly and rapidly decompressing...if I'm in the lab next to you claiming that vaccines cause autism. The problem is not which non-verifiable theory I hold about an unrelated subject, but rather my denial of the available data on hand.
Similarly, it doesn't matter that Louis Pasteur was a Creationist when discussing the mechanisms he discovered by which vaccines work. What matters is his recognition of the reality of the data at hand, and his work to explore and build on it.
Xe were raised young earth creationist and that requires gaslighting your own child on established science, going so far as to regularly test them on their willing to believe or lie about believing patent untruths. Oh, plus the constant repression of one's identity, the lack of exposure to a wider range of perspectives and experiences, and the panopticon of surveillance by people with near total control of your socializing, especially in the suburbs. That really fucks a child up.
That kind of homeschooling is a cult, no matter how much our wider culture has normalized the literal insanity.
Is it though? Any sources to back that?
From what I know CC denialists come in all shapes and sizes, from Christians to Conspirationist Atheists to people who are hoping for the return of the Anunnaki. As well as firmly Creationist Christians that don't deny the climate change at all.
That's an absurd belief and any system of education that results in that level of ignorance in science has failed.
Worse is that the majority pupils around the world will be taught both the Abrahamic creation story, the origin of man according to evolution, and usually a third or even fourth creation story from local pre-Abrahamic mythology. In the same school and from the same teacher. Talk about confusion of the highest order!
The other group are very religious who don't want their children learning about evolution or many other secular things.
The only real issue I have with homeschooling in the US is that regulations vary wildly by state. Some states have so little enforcement that it is possible to teach a child essentially NOTHING by the time they are 18 and face no punishment for ruining that child's life.