We Need Creationism In Our Schools

Now, before I get any further, allow me to make a couple of observations.

I am aware that the theory of biological evolution, and the twin-nested hierarchy of evolutionary common descent that is a logical result of said theory, is probably 100% true.
I am also aware that the Biblical creation story is basically bullshit.
Nevertheless, I maintain that schools need to teach Biblical Creationism.

At this point, you may be asking yourself, "What in the hell is George talking about?" After all, the idea that we should teach our children something which we know to be incorrect is very controversial. I am aware of this. However, my six decades on this rock that we call Earth have also taught me another important lesson: Sometimes the end justifies the means. You may contend that the classroom is no place to conduct a Machiavellian experiment of this kind, but I would counter by saying that the newspaper headlines prove you wrong.

Allow me to expand on this a little bit. Think back to when you were a child. When Christmas rolled around, how many of you honestly believed that a fat man in a red suit would squeeze his ass down your chimney and shower you with gifts .. provided that you had behaved well over the course of the previous year? Come on, let's see a show of hands. Is your hand up? Mine is. And how many of you made a conscious effort to behave well in an attempt to maximize your gift-receiving potential? Again, I find that my hand is up. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Sometimes truth can be irrelevant when the final result is a desired set of behaviors. Sure, we all now know that there is no such thing as Santa Claus, but didn't this belief help keep us on the "straight and narrow" during those formative years when we were most susceptible to misbehavior and general naughtiness? I would submit that the answer to this question is a resounding "yes", and I believe that we can formulate a more general principle from this: There is nothing wrong with lying to children so long as it keeps them docile. There can be little doubt that biological evolution is true, but the fact of the matter remains that most junior high and high school-aged children are ill-equipped to deal with its ramifications.

Fine. The solution is obvious.

Teach them creationism.

Now, I am fully aware of the standard criticisms to this idea. Yes, I concede that it probably violates the First Amendment. Yes, it probably tramples on the rights of non-Christian children. And yes, there's that whole issue about none of it being true. However, I am a "results-oriented" person, and I am willing to dismiss these problems as long as we can clean up some of the behavior in our schools. Our children are shooting and screwing each other at unprecedented levels, and if a belief in a 6,000 year-old Universe and a vengeful Creator can help turn these statistics around, then I'm all for it. Evolution was not taught in classrooms in the year 1800, and I can guarantee you that there were no violent incidents involving mass-shootings or body piercings or Marilyn Manson. Who cares if it's wrong? We can still teach it, can't we?

There is, I think, a scientific precedent to this as well. Almost all high school physics students are required to learn Newton's three "laws" of gravitation. These "laws" are presented as Absolute Truth, and many former students can still recite them from memory. However, we have known since the beginning of the 20th Century that these "laws" are nothing of the kind; Einstein's theory of general relativity is not at all compatible with Newton's "laws", and relativity has been experimentally demonstrated to be correct on numerous occasions. Newton's "laws" break down at large-scale levels (for instance, Newtonian mechanics cannot be used to accurately describe the orbit of the planet Mercury.) Relativity, on the other hand, is consistent and measurably correct on virtually all levels, with the possible exception of situations involving extreme mass and energy where quantum effects can no longer be ignored.

Newton's defenders say "well, okay .. perhaps Newtonian mechanics is not universally correct, but it works very well for situations here on Earth, and in that context it is very accurate." That is all well and good, but the fact remains that Newton was wrong, but physics instructors teach his "laws" anyway. And they are 100% justified in doing so. There is no way in hell that we should expect high school students to be able to understand the ramifications of general relativity. It's weird, wacky, and difficult stuff. Why can't we do the same thing with creationism? Why should we expect these impressionable children to be able to deal with the cold reality that is biological evolution?

So does this mean that we shouldn't teach evolution at all? Of course not; evolution should be part of the standard curriculum at every college in this nation. But my point is that by the time that children go off to college, they are (by and large) mentally ready to handle the theory. They are 18 years old, they are living on their own, and for the first time in their lives, they find themselves in a position of real responsibility. They learn that the world is a bit different than their sheltered illusions have led them to believe, and they grow up quickly. Then (and only then) are they prepared to accept the reality .. so let's wait until then to give it to them.

Of course, you might point out that not all children end up going to college. This is true, but of what use is biology to people who pump gas or dig ditches? These people are inherently ill-prepared to deal with the truth, and they have about as much use for biological evolution as a cat has for pajamas. Here again, society benefits from allowing these folks to have their delusions. When my wife and I go to eat at our favorite restaurant, it makes little difference to me if the guy who parks my car thinks that the Universe is 6,000 years old. So long as my car doesn't get any scratches, I'm not bothered.

As far as the rest of our children are concerned, evolution can wait. Let's hold the theory back until they're ready for it, and in the meantime let's teach them whatever it takes to keep them from killing each other. More now than at any time in our history, we need creationism in our schools. You can disagree with me, but only if you are a certified lunatic that ignores the nightly news. There are times that we have to recognize that the truth is not the most important virtue, and I would submit to you that we are living in one of those times.

	Excellent Article (3.20 / 5) (#2)
	by westgeof on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 02:32:17 PM PST

	This was definately not what I expected, but it makes perfect sense. I also believe that pure creationism is pure crap, regardless of whether or not evolution is valid. Perhaps there was a creator, who created the laws of the universe and let things run from there. (The Genesis myth simply being a dumbed down version of what really happened. After all, people did not have much of a grasp on universal mechanics back then...) However, I've always admired the ideals and morals behind most religions, even while hating to the core any form of organized religion. I don't exactly feel that we should perpetuate this type of religion, but perhaps a compromie would truley be the best thing for our children. Present the idea of religion and faith as something not fully understood. i.e., we know that there is a God of some kind, and that we will be rewarded/punished in some way for our actions while alive. It keeps them under control, without forcing them into any particular doctrine until they are old enough to make a choice for themselves. Upon attending college and learning the truth, they will have the choice to stick with their religion, abandon it entirely, or look for some kind of compromise, usually through agnosticism. As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	so... (none / 0) (#45)
	by nathan on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 04:53:15 PM PST

	You want religion without organization? How is that different from religion without standards? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Standards (none / 0) (#57)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 10:36:36 AM PST

	You want religion without organization? How is that different from religion without standards? Does religion need standards? If so, why? Who will oversee them, who will be the Religious Standards Organization? Vatican? Or maybe IEEE? Join our church! Best-quality religion! We are ISO-9000 certified!

	What is "religion without standards" (none / 0) (#118)
	by JoePain on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 06:19:36 AM PST

	Are you inferring this means that if left alone an individual cannot create his/her own moral judgments? I think what he was saying is that it would be left up to the individual to find his/her own spirituality. Is this tough to understand?

	Liberalism is not spiritual. (none / 0) (#120)
	by tkatchev on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 06:53:20 AM PST

	Spirituality is meaningless if it is only based on your own personal preferences and biases. Spirituality should be something above human material nature, don't you think? Or are you that particular strain of liberalist that thinks that sprituality should only be allowed to exist insofar as it is a useful tool to keep the cattle in line? -- Peace and much love...

	I do not think that word means what you think.. (none / 0) (#129)
	by JoePain on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 04:29:13 PM PST

	it means. From dictionary.com the definition of liberalism (liberalist being one who practices liberalism) Definition 3 An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard. Are you a liberalist?

	snort (none / 0) (#130)
	by nathan on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 07:49:22 AM PST

	Listen, why do you turn to a dictionary when what you need is an argument? You're just making yourself look like an ass. Nathan PS - Definition 3 implies you left two (relevant) ones out, dumbass. -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	actually none of them fit (none / 0) (#132)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 11:51:24 AM PST

	That one was just the funniest. lib�er�al�ism Pronunciation Key (lbr--lzm, lbr-) n. The state or quality of being liberal. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard. Liberalism A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

	noisy signal (none / 0) (#133)
	by nathan on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 12:34:20 PM PST

	A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. This definition is fine, for propaganda. It could easily be restated, from my point of view, as the following: "A political and philosophical theory founded on the false idea of the unsinfulness of the human condition; on the dispersal of the state's authority amongst the rabble; favouring chaos in the press, criminal-positive justice, the brutalization of the lower classes by the pseudo-educated middle and the wealthy rich, and protection from arbitrary authority so long as the superior and the poor conform completely to the norms of the booboisie, at least in public." Next time don't assume what you intend to prove. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	This is all well and good (none / 0) (#149)
	by JoePain on Wed Mar 6th, 2002 at 07:36:03 AM PST

	If you chose to redefine words as you please, so be it. Just remember that you are being ambiguous. fa la to de ib ne auch.

	it's a good bet (none / 0) (#155)
	by innominate on Fri Mar 8th, 2002 at 11:17:34 AM PST

	"(They never come out and really say anything, just make ambiguous replies to other peoples comments in an attempt to sound profound.)" This indicates that the person that posted this, aside from being an unregistered anonymous troll themselves, probably says ambiguous things to everyone they know on a regular basis, trying to sound profound. Isn't it funny how what we do to others is so easily pointed out on them? (takes on to know one)

	Yes. (none / 0) (#157)
	by hauntedattics on Sat Mar 9th, 2002 at 08:09:08 PM PST

	The things that piss me off in others are either the same as the things I hate in myself, or else uncomfortably close. I make an effort to catch my own hypocrisies, but often fail. Pride is such a crafty mofo, ain't it?

	stuff and nonsense. (none / 0) (#150)
	by nathan on Wed Mar 6th, 2002 at 10:29:00 AM PST

	Your definition is propagandistic. Working from it will lead to a slanted conclusion. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Well... (none / 0) (#158)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 9th, 2002 at 09:20:29 PM PST

	You appear to be an idiot.

	oh, I am so dreadfully sorry! (nt) (none / 0) (#159)
	by nathan on Sun Mar 10th, 2002 at 01:24:03 PM PST

	-- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Typical. (none / 0) (#138)
	by tkatchev on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 12:00:33 PM PST

	Typical liberalist mentality -- "it's true because it's in the dictionary, and it's in the dictionary because it is true." Would it help if I used a different word that is less confusing for you? Besides, just because the word "liberalism" is confusing for Americans doesn't mean that it is ambigious for other cultures. -- Peace and much love...

	I know you tkatchev! (none / 0) (#131)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 2nd, 2002 at 11:46:23 AM PST

	Your one of those pesky little 'ambiguous trolls'. (They never come out and really say anything, just make ambiguous replies to other peoples comments in an attempt to sound profound.)

	Hmmm... (none / 0) (#137)
	by hauntedattics on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 11:57:50 AM PST

	Sometimes tkatchev can be ambiguous, but I don't see how you can interpret Spirituality is meaningless if it is only based on your own personal preferences and biases. as an ambiguous comment. It's pretty straightforward to me.

	it's tough for me (5.00 / 1) (#125)
	by nathan on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 11:02:54 AM PST

	(Because I am a Goddist idiot.) But let me try to understand anyway. Mr Westgeof says that we should teach kids that, while we don't really know anything, we have some vague ideas about God and stuff, and it'll keep the little bastards in line until they're old enough to know better; at which juncture they'll decide that religion is mostly bull, but maybe there's some sort of vacuous spirituality they should think about now and then (preferably stoned out of their gourds,) and get on with their lives. I guess this kind of religion is a lot easier to stomach than the kind where you have to change your life, or do things for other people that contravene your material self-interest. That's probably also why it's sucky, wimpy, inane, moronic, and contemptible. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Fuck Christianity (4.00 / 1) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 02:45:52 PM PST

	We need Scientology taught in our shcools. That'll keep the little bastards in line.

	screw scientology (5.00 / 2) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 03:33:56 PM PST

	we need to teach patriotism in our schools. That'll keep the ululating camel fuckers in line. Who cares if it's wrong? We can still teach it, can't we? See what I mean?

	Apparently .. (2.50 / 4) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 06:44:59 PM PST

	We need Scientology taught in our shcools. Apparently we need to teach spelling as well.

	sign a... (none / 0) (#152)
	by innominate on Thu Mar 7th, 2002 at 02:21:54 PM PST

	you mean, have all those children sign a 1 billion year contract, something they won't have any 'real' understanding of at that age, then beat into them that knowing by looking is the best and only way to go? You're as fucked as the theory behind the NEW Scientology church. Hubbard got out just in time; he didn't get to see his creation altered by ignorant power hungry squirrels bent on conquest. Sounds like Marcabia to me. When you grow past the 'knowing by looking' stage, and find that you feel there is something more, go search the FreeZone for something that expands you, not something that 1.1's you down like Scientology.

	The dangers of Evolutionism (none / 0) (#4)
	by moriveth on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 03:04:49 PM PST

	While I find myself largely in sympathy with your viewpoint, I feel your proposal does not go quite far enough in addressing the evolutionary peril. As you correctly point out, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. But while a few believers eventually manage to reconcile their faith in God with their knowledge of Science, the doctrine of evolution has proven to be one of the most fertile grounds for planting the seeds of Atheism in childrens' hearts. And one need only glance at the historical record of Soviet Russia or Maoist China or Pol Pot's Cambodia to realize the peril of an atheist society. From all historical evidence, the cold, inhuman worldview of atheism leads unbelievers to substitude murderous ideologies such as Communism for religious worship. Millions of murdered souls attest that this is no trivial danger. While my ideal solution is similar to yours, you fatally overestimate the maturity of the average 18-year-old college freshman, often an Ayn Rand acolyte or even a radical socialist. Exposed to evolutionary teachings, many of these children will question the existence of God--an act in conflict with the need for a civil society. Plato noted the utility of myths, such as religion, in shaping society; the laborers and soldiers could be led to correct behavior through the force of religion, while the elite Philosopher-Kings could construct the myths and protect the masses from harmful realities through judicious censorship. Creationism is one such myth--a myth that can save the proletariat from violent revolution thorugh the powerfully human force of religion. Consequently, evolution must be completely replaced by Creationism in high school curricula. At the collegiate level, only those students showing sufficiently high aptitude to become the new wardens of society (for example, those attending top 10 universities) need be instructed in the reality of evolution; other may be taught the truth when necessary to provide a sufficient workforce for the biotechnology industry and related fields. To extend the teaching of evolutionary truth further would endanger the future of our society to the forces of Godless atheism.

	The sound of laughter at previous comment... (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 10:47:35 AM PST

	Creationism is one such myth--a myth that can save the proletariat from violent revolution thorugh the powerfully human force of religion. Consequently, evolution must be completely replaced by Creationism in high school curricula. At the collegiate level, only those students showing sufficiently high aptitude to become the new wardens of society (for example, those attending top 10 universities) need be instructed in the reality of evolution; other may be taught the truth when necessary to provide a sufficient workforce for the biotechnology industry and related fields. To extend the teaching of evolutionary truth further would endanger the future of our society to the forces of Godless atheism. I have to sake your hand on this one. That type of comment gives authors like Ayn Rand fodder for their works. Any society that works by denying things to the public 'for their own good' usually backfires. Denying information and liberties is an insult, and once you get a proletariat that sees through it, it will crumble. And it WILL happen. Human civilizations resist against any force that attempts to make it static. The only way to move forward is to make changes: to ideas, beliefs, theories, notions, social attitudes/etc. If we continue to push old notions that some just won't accept, we endanger the REPUTATION of that notion, and even fewer people will follow it. Sure we need a way to 'keep people in line', but we shouldn't be doing it in a totalitarian manner such as this. There are ways to help behavior and politeness without forcing some other person's morals on the child that the child's parents don't agree with.

	Hitler was a godfearing man (1.00 / 1) (#141)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 3rd, 2002 at 12:49:56 PM PST

	these arguments are ridiculous. and you could easily come up with counterexamples where people following the "peaceful" doctrines of christian faith have disregarded other peoples humanity, endangered civilization and the future of our society. maybe you should learn to think for yourself, then you could also figure out for yourself why jesus could be considered a savior. i think you should take some responsiblity for your opinions.

	ah... (2.00 / 3) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 04:27:54 PM PST

	so basically what you're saying is that we should delude the population in order to maintain some status quo (one which, I might add, you opinionatedly feel is `best') sounds fair if you're willing to compromise your own principles to accomplish this (which obviously you are not, since you feel it's perfectly fine to lie to children- it would not surprise me if you were a compulsive liar) the `facts' presented in creationism have their place, but only where they have yet to be rebutted (there are very few points creationists have made that are refutable scientifically)

	Do we ? (3.00 / 2) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 05:25:09 PM PST

	I'll agree with that when the church will teach evolutionism.

	So you admit it!! (5.00 / 2) (#13)
	by tkatchev on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 01:40:02 AM PST

	Does that mean that our public schools are really temples to liberalism? -- Peace and much love...

	Admit what ? (1.00 / 1) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 02:29:21 AM PST

	That just means that anything religious should stop at the school's door. Unless they study religion in the said school, in which case they should study Bh�gavad Gita, Zarathoustra and others, as the Genesis. The public school got to be totally neutral: no religion at all, or all religions.

	Don't backtrack. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
	by tkatchev on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 03:35:14 AM PST

	Your original message clearly and unambigiously stated that public schools are none other than temples to liberalism. Don't try to backtrack now and cover your tracks with your liberalist mumbo-jumbo mantras. -- Peace and much love...

	Let's be clear (1.00 / 1) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 04:02:44 AM PST

	I must have not stated anything clearly and unambigiously since you needed to ask. So to make it clear and unambigious: I will agree with Creationism at school the day they will teach Evolutionism in churches. What is a liberalist? I haven't the slightest idea.