What kind of a subject is Evolution?

[The idea]

It's "potentially offensive."

Source: Dec 13, 2004 Fortune (business magazine)

At the end of the cover story on Google, the following is said about MSN Search:

"Safe search" controls let parents restrict searching on potentially offensive subjects, like sex or evolution.

[LostAngeles]

You must have missed the post where I announced the opening of my evolution and pornography site, talkorgasms.org (http://www.pnc.com.au/~siblu/bunchofbabies.jpg) It was something me and my athiest coven had dreamed of for a long time, but once we finally found a sponsor in Morning Star Industries (http://infomotions.com/gallery/heart-of-texas/Images/DSCN0452_1.jpg) we were able to buy the science texts and hire the science teachers needed to convert good, God-fearing young men and women to our Satanic, athiest ways. Then we got them hooked on drugs and forced them to pose in pictures with the fossil record, skeletons of humans and primates, DNA molecules, the definition of "scientific theory," and those moths. You'd be surprised at what can be done with a double helix. (http://www.hart90.org/images/Kittens.jpg)

HOT! (http://photos1.blogger.com/img/220/1230/640/093.jpg)

[bigred]

I give up: are there any points being made here?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by bigred
I give up: are there any points being made here?

That while blocking sexual websites makes sense, blocking a website about science does not. I just decided to be silly about it.

[bigred]

ah

Well for some this isn't simply a "science topic" but ties into religious beliefs, hence the offense and desire to block it.....not that I agree w/that, but they don't see it as comparable to blocking a site that teaches algebra (as you or I might consider it to be).

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by bigred
ah

Well for some this isn't simply a "science topic" but ties into religious beliefs, hence the offense and desire to block it.....not that I agree w/that, but they don't see it as comparable to blocking a site that teaches algebra (as you or I might consider it to be). What if some religious organization decided that algebra was inconsistent with the teachings of their bible?

[bigred]

Don't know if you're "trolling" or not, as that's hardly the same and I suspect you know it.....

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by bigred
Don't know if you're "trolling" or not, as that's hardly the same and I suspect you know it..... If you don't want to answer just say so, don't make uneducated or ill-informed assumptions.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by bigred
Don't know if you're "trolling" or not, as that's hardly the same and I suspect you know it.....

It is core to most of the opposition to ID and you should see that. The question "what is next?" is constantly on the minds of many opposed to ID as a science.

I understand that the buy-bull clearly states (twice) that Pi=3. What fun we would have if that is pushed as the TRUTH.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by bigred
Don't know if you're "trolling" or not, as that's hardly the same and I suspect you know it.....

How is it hardly the same?

There are all sorts of beliefs that can be interpreted in a manner that runs contrary to science...so there are folks out there who can demand that their children not be exposed to such 'offensive' ideas, even if it is numbers being used to express the ideas.

Opening the door to only teaching what no parent will ever complain about leaves nothing to teach.

[bigred]

Originally posted by DavidJames
If you don't want to answer just say so, don't make uneducated or ill-informed assumptions. Sorry, but I did answer, and my assumption was as educated and informed as it could be, given your response.


Originally posted by crimresearch
How is it hardly the same?
If one doesn't get the diff. between the teaching of evolution and algebra in relation to religious beliefs (or anything else, for that matter), there's no point in trying to explain it.

:rolleyes: cmon y'all. From a very broad, philosophic view, you technically have a point, but a little reality check please. I really kinda doubt any parent has ever taken a kid out of school due to "issues" with algebra. To equate the 2 is ridiculous.

[crimresearch]

Your moving of the goalposts to whether teaching algebra is different from teaching evolution smacks more of trolling than any of the responses you have received.

I've worked with a parent who pulled his kids out of school because he didn't want the girls to learn anything that wasn't useful for following biblical injunctions on being a good wife...therefor studying algebra was a sin for a woman...

And I can easily deduce that other parents who have similar beliefs would also object to allowing such material to be available on computers.

Perhaps you need to experience some of the more extreme belief systems out there before deciding what no parent would ever do.

[bigred]

Either that or be glad that I don't live anywhere near parents such as you describe. Unreal. My bad then, I guess such silliness exists after all (wow I can't believe I just over-estimated people in any way...this is a keeper). Although I'd bet a shiny new dime that the parents you mentioned aren't just very extreme, but (nationally speaking) extremely rare as well. Fortunately.

What's next, Suzy can't take gym because it's "sacrilegious" - ?? I can't imagine what the schools they then parade their kids off to must be like.

[crimresearch]

Actually, I take back what I said about you needing to experience meeting those with extreme beliefs...being aware that they are out there is sufficient.
Just be glad they aren't able to inflict them on you and yours.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Actually, I take back what I said about you needing to experience meeting those with extreme beliefs...being aware that they are out there is sufficient.
Just be glad they aren't able to inflict them on you and yours.

I think anyone who hasn't been living on Mars without a telescope for the past 4 years is aware of the dangers of extreme religious beliefs.

However, the original post merely seems to be pointing out that the search engine allows parents to control what their children can view on the internet. It doesn't seem to have any default parameters built in to exclude evolution or any other subject.

I have noticed an interesting parallel on this forum. Extremists of both the fundie and atheist persuasions want to use the power of the state to force children to learn whatever. Both seem to think the state's wisdom supersedes the parent's. Both seem to have a profoundly low opinion of parent's ability to raise their children well without state intervention.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by bigred
I give up: are there any points being made here?

yes, and you know precisely what they are. You think it is legitimate to be offended by science and truth and you think promoting untruth is a defensible position.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by DavidJames
What if some religious organization decided that algebra was inconsistent with the teachings of their bible?

Then the parents should have the right to block that information on the computers in their own home and in their churches, and in their church schools but not in public schools. Simple.


Originally posted by billydkid
yes, and you know precisely what they are. You think it is legitimate to be offended by science and truth and you think promoting untruth is a defensible position.

No, nothing was said about promoting untruth, either in the article or by BigRed, IMO. And it is legitimate for parents to be offended by whatever, and be allowed to raise their own children in their own home, with whatever parental blocks on the computer they wish.

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by bigred
Don't know if you're "trolling" or not, as that's hardly the same and I suspect you know it.....
Maybe it's unlikely anyone would take issue with mathematics (even a system invented by those "evil anti-Christian towel-heads"), but young-earth creationists and many other IDers take offense to far more than evolution, including, but not limited to, Geology, Plate Tectonics, Biology, Anthropology, Zoology, Botany, Chemistry, Cosmology, Astronomy . . . and the end is listless, as they say.

[bigred]

Originally posted by Psi Baba
Maybe it's unlikely anyone would take issue with mathematics (even a system invented by those "evil anti-Christian towel-heads"), but young-earth creationists and many other IDers take offense to far more than evolution, including, but not limited to, Geology, Plate Tectonics, Biology, Anthropology, Zoology, Botany, Chemistry, Cosmology, Astronomy . . . and the end is listless, as they say. Yeah, point taken. But as I mentioned, there are always absurd extremists on the fringe from all angles about any topic nowdays, whether it's about religion or anything else.....I just think it's worth keeping in mind they are just that, ie absurd extremists, and also (thankfully) extremely rare. Unfortunately, they tend to get much more attention than they merit.....perhaps because they're more colorful than "regular" people and we're bored. :(



Originally posted by John Bentley
Then the parents should have the right to block that information on the computers in their own home and in their churches, and in their church schools but not in public schools. Simple.




No, nothing was said about promoting untruth, either in the article or by BigRed, IMO. And it is legitimate for parents to be offended by whatever, and be allowed to raise their own children in their own home, with whatever parental blocks on the computer they wish.

Good replies on both counts - thanks for trying to explain as I wasn't about to bother (esp. since I barely understood the response in the first place) :rolleyes:

[Oregon_Skeptic]

I’m not so certain that it is “legitimate� for parents to be “offended by whatever.� For example, I don’t think being offended by Huck Finn has much of anything legitimate to it. Speaking as a parent and a teacher, it certainly is not legitimate to allow children to grow up ignorant of subjects like evolution and biology (and so many others that connect to these) in today’s world. Depriving someone of knowledge and perpetrating ignorance clearly lacks legitimacy.

[crimresearch]

The main requirement for parental 'legitimacy' is functional sperm and ovaries.

After that it pretty much takes a court order to de-legitimize them.

And unfortunately, that opens the door for people to wrap the mantle of parenthood around whatever crackpot ideas they want to foist on others.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by Oregon_Skeptic
I’m not so certain that it is “legitimate� for parents to be “offended by whatever.� For example, I don’t think being offended by Huck Finn has much of anything legitimate to it. Speaking as a parent and a teacher, it certainly is not legitimate to allow children to grow up ignorant of subjects like evolution and biology (and so many others that connect to these) in today’s world. Depriving someone of knowledge and perpetrating ignorance clearly lacks legitimacy.

I guess you and I will just have to disagree on this one. Parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, whether anyone else agrees with it or not. As long as they are not physically endangering the child, or abusing it mentally or emotionally, then what is taught to the child is the parent's choice. What they are not allowed to do is to tell you how to raise your children, or force your children to attend their wacko religious schools, or force their wacko beliefs to be taught in schools funded by taxpayer money.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by crimresearch
The main requirement for parental 'legitimacy' is functional sperm and ovaries.

After that it pretty much takes a court order to de-legitimize them.

I can't believe you would have it any other way, so I assume you are exaggerating for effect. Do you believe people should pass a test before being allowed to have children? And if you don't want a court order, then how else would you have parental rights terminated?

And unfortunately, that opens the door for people to wrap the mantle of parenthood around whatever crackpot ideas they want to foist on others.

You seem to be overly concerned about having someone else dictate what you or your kids think. Do you teach in a public school? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really interested because I would like you to clear up some possible misapprehensions that I have if you do.

[crimresearch]

Are you too dense to grasp what I was really saying, or are you just trolling?

ETA:

I'm serious as well, I don't see how anyone could get that out of what I said.

[John Bentley]

Jeez, calm down.

You just seemed to be implying that any Joe and Jane Schmoe could have kids (which is true), and that this was undesirable, in your opinion. I probably would agree with you, I was just pointing out that there really is no other alternative, other than some Draconian legal action.

And you do seem really concerned about kids having forced exposure to weird ideas. Hence, my question about whether you taught at a public school. I really was trying to straighten out some possible wrong ideas I have about the public school system, not trolling.

[Oregon_Skeptic]

Originally posted by John Bentley
I guess you and I will just have to disagree on this one. Parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, whether anyone else agrees with it or not. As long as they are not physically endangering the child, or abusing it mentally or emotionally, then what is taught to the child is the parent's choice. What they are not allowed to do is to tell you how to raise your children, or force your children to attend their wacko religious schools, or force their wacko beliefs to be taught in schools funded by taxpayer money.

You need to more carefully read what I posted. I didn’t say parents could not “raise their kids as they see fit.� I said that parents being “offended by whatever� may not be legitimate. I also said that raising kids in ignorance lacks legitimacy. I agree that parents can raise their kids as they think best, but that does not grant those parents any sense of legitimacy. Kids can be raised in a good home and with lots of love and protection, and still be raised ignorant of the reality of the world. I just don't see this as a legitimate thing to do.

And perhaps a bit of clarity is needed. I’m primarily using legitimate in two senses: reasonable and authentic or genuine (the 3rd and 4th definitions, respectively, from my American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed). Certainly it is legitimate--that is, lawful (the 1st definition)--for parents to raise their children as they see fit. However, this does not always equate to reasonable or genuine. And it may well clash with the 2nd definition: being in accordance with accepted standards. Depending on, of course, just what those accepted standards might be.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by Oregon_Skeptic
You need to more carefully read what I posted. I didn’t say parents could not “raise their kids as they see fit.� I said that parents being “offended by whatever� may not be legitimate. I also said that raising kids in ignorance lacks legitimacy. I agree that parents can raise their kids as they think best, but that does not grant those parents any sense of legitimacy. Kids can be raised in a good home and with lots of love and protection, and still be raised ignorant of the reality of the world. I just don't see this as a legitimate thing to do.

And perhaps a bit of clarity is needed. I’m primarily using legitimate in two senses: reasonable and authentic or genuine (the 3rd and 4th definitions, respectively, from my American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed). Certainly it is legitimate--that is, lawful (the 1st definition)--for parents to raise their children as they see fit. However, this does not always equate to reasonable or genuine. And it may well clash with the 2nd definition: being in accordance with accepted standards. Depending on, of course, just what those accepted standards might be.

Ah.

Well, after terms are defined, I guess we can agree after all. You and I may think a parent's value system is unreasonable, but it is still their right to instill it in their children, however unfortunate that may be for the child.

I used to think differently, but I think any other alternative would have too much potential for abuse by good intentioned people.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by John Bentley

Well, after terms are defined, I guess we can agree after all. You and I may think a parent's value system is unreasonable, but it is still their right to instill it in their children, however unfortunate that may be for the child.


Parents may have the right to instil the value system of their choice in their children, but they don't have the right to insist that I cooperate with them. They may feel, for example, that buttons on clothing are a sign of vanity, but I dress to suit myself, not them.

They may object to lending money at interest, but that doesn't mean that the local TV should stop running commercials for banks.

And they may feel that evolution is objectionable. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea for a Web service to block sites discussing the question.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by new drkitten
And they may feel that evolution is objectionable. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea for a Web service to block sites discussing the question.

Only if the service is to their own home, not to anyone else.

[bigred]

Originally posted by John Bentley
Ah.

Well, after terms are defined, I guess we can agree after all. You and I may think a parent's value system is unreasonable, but it is still their right to instill it in their children, however unfortunate that may be for the child.

I used to think differently, but I think any other alternative would have too much potential for abuse by good intentioned people. .....as opposed to the lack of abuse going on now?

Bring on the "Draconian" methods I say. Parenting should NOT be a "right" but a privilege. (Yeah I know....easy to say, hard if not near-impossible to implement.....)

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by bigred
.....as opposed to the lack of abuse going on now?

What kind of abuse are you speaking about? Just so I don't have to eat my words yet again, let's define that term a little.

Originally posted by bigred
Bring on the "Draconian" methods I say. Parenting should NOT be a "right" but a privilege. (Yeah I know....easy to say, hard if not near-impossible to implement.....)

Wow. It's my alter ego coming back to haunt me!

Seriously, I used to think exactly the same way.
Welfare moms? Make 'em get Norplants before they get their check!
Inheritable diseases that cause chronic drains on public funding?
No govt. money for you, so sorry! You knew the risk when you had a kid!
Etc., etc.
But now I am so mistrustful of "do-gooders" that I wouldn't want to get within a mile of that particular slippery slope.

[bigred]

Originally posted by John Bentley
What kind of abuse are you speaking about? Just so I don't have to eat my words yet again, let's define that term a little.Cmon John, don't get all Clinton on me. ;) You know what I mean. Physical abuse...mental/emotional abuse...pick an abuse, any abuse...

And just in case someone is going to post something brilliant like "oh so you mean if we come up with some kind of screening that it will eliminate abuse???" Obviously not. But minimizing it as much as possible is well worth the attempt IMO, in extreme cases at the very least.


Wow. It's my alter ego coming back to haunt me!

Seriously, I used to think exactly the same way.
Welfare moms? Make 'em get Norplants before they get their check!
Inheritable diseases that cause chronic drains on public funding?
No govt. money for you, so sorry! You knew the risk when you had a kid!
Etc., etc.
But now I am so mistrustful of "do-gooders" that I wouldn't want to get within a mile of that particular slippery slope. I trust "do-gooders," even with all the flaws inherent in both human nature and bureaucracy, a helluva lot more than I trust the type of people you mention above. Again, lack of a perfect system doesn't mean it has no value, although I agree it is a slippery slope. I'm just sick to death, far beyond words, of the lack of common sense and accountability in our legal/social systems today.

God bless your alter ego. :)

[pupdog]

Teaching evolution may offend persons of a particular religious background...

This was one of the reasons for the decision in the Selman v. Cobb County School District case (about the warning stickers in biology texts in Cobb County, Georgia). Because the stickers would mollify those who were brought up in a certain sect (or a few sects), placing the stickers would have the outcome of favoring members of that (or those) sects to the detriment of other students: "Due to the manner in which the Sticker refers to evolution as a theory, the Sticker also has the effect of undermining evolution education to the benefit of those Cobb County citizens who would prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life....Thus, although evolution is required to be taught in Cobb County classrooms as a technical matter, distracting tangental issues effectively dilute evolution instruction to the benefit of the anti-evolutionists who are motivated to advance their religious beliefs." (There were other problems with the stickers as well, pointed out by Judge Clarence Cooper.