This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
"Is teaching creationism to kids child abuse?Lawrence Krauss thinks so ..."Is "child abuse" -- whatever that phrase is supposed to mean -- bad? To be more specific, is "child abuse" immoral? It certainly *seems* to be the case that one of the key premises of Mr Krauss' (ahem) argument is that "child abuse" is indeed immoral. And this is before we even know what Mr Krauss intends "child abuse" to mean. Or what he intents "creationism" to mean. Or, for that matter, what he intends "teach" to mean.So, what *does* "child abuse" mean? Well, at the most general, to abuse a thing (whatever 'thing' is under discussion) is to use or treat it contrary to its natural/inherent or intended/ascribed proper purpose. So, if "child abuse" is to have any meaning at all, it must be the case that either:1) Children have one or more natural or inherent proper purposes;2) Children have one or more intended or ascribed proper purposes;3) Or, both 1) and 2).Now, if option 1) is true, than children have these proper purposes, whatever the purposes are, by their very nature as children. To state this is merely to state a truism, a tautology. Tautological though it is, option 1) is a Dangerous Idea for Mr Krauss even to imply -- for it is directly contrary to his intended metaphysical goal.Worse, from Mr Krauss' point of view, explicitly directly contrary to his intended metaphysical goal, if option 2) is true, then it *must* be the case that there exists someone with the ability and authority to ascribe proper purpose to children. For, the *only* someone who can fill those particular shoes is 'God', the Creator of children. That is, if option 2) is true, then there *must* exist a Person who is to us indistinguishable from the God of Abraham, Elohim/Jehovah.And, of course, there is no logical conflict between options 1) and 2), such that both may be true simultaneously.So, we see that, if the clam that "teaching creationism to kids [is] child abuse" is true, then, at a minimum, it is true that the act of teaching (whatever than means) creationism (whatever that means) to children is an act that is contrary either to the natural/inherent proper purpose of children, or to the intended/ascribed proper purpose of childen, or to both.Thus, we see that Mr Krauss' (ahem) argument depends upon a hidden assumprion which is directly contrary, at least implicitly, and possibly explicitly, to his intended metaphysical goal. That is to say, his (ahem) argument is incoherent.
The question arises: is it *immoral* to engage in acts of "child abuse"? And, specifically, is it *immoral* to engage in the act of teaching (whatever than means) creationism (whatever that means) to children?I don't see how Mr Krauss' (ahem) argument can even get off the ground unless it is true that it is *immoral* to engage in acts of "child abuse", and specifically, unless it is *immoral* to teach (whatever than means) creationism (whatever that means) to children. For, unless it is immoral to do this -- unless that is something one ought not do -- then on what ground do other presume to prevent one doing it?Thus, once again, we see that Mr Krauss' (ahem) argument depends upon a hidden assumprion which is directly contrary to his intended metaphysical goal. That is to say, his (ahem) argument is incoherent.The question now arises: what does Mr Krauss *mean* by "creationism"? Now, we've all been around the block a time ot two: we all *know* that by "creationism" he doesn't mean simply the sort of wooden literalism undergirding "young-earth creationism" -- you know, the sort of "creationism" concerning which folk like B.Prokop vainly image they can earn pats on the head from Krauss and his ilk if only they join in the proper ritual of scorning its adherents. No, no, no: we *all* know that by "creationism" Mr Krauss means *any* idea concerning our origins which so much as implies that we are intended to be and purposefully caused to be.Thus, once again, we see that Mr Krauss' (ahem) argument is incoherent. For, his (ahem) argument comes down to this -- the act of explicitly teaching human children that their species (and by implication, perhaps even they themselves) was intentionally and purposefully caused to exist is an immoral violation of either the intrinsic or the extrinsic (or both) natures of children as children.
Hey, Ilion.I'm not looking for anyone to pat my head. But the YECers are just plain wrong - mistaken on several accounts.1. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe as a whole is somewhat less than 14 billion years old. There's solid evidence for those statements.2. The Bible was never meant to be a science textbook, so it cannot be either right or wrong concerning a subject it isn't even concerned with. So we can still speak of an inerrant Bible and accept the findings of contemporary astronomy.3. The Bible isn't even a book - it's a library. And the various books within it are of radically differing genres, which must be read as they were intended. The Gospels are literally true. Jonah, Job, and Tobit are fiction. And others fall between those two extremes. For books like The Song of Songs or many of the prophets, the question of historical accuracy is meaningless - like asking how red is Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.Jezu ufam tobie!
But YEC isn't the only kind of creationism, in fact a standard move on the part opponents of ID is to identify ID with creationism. So when someone calls something creationism, they aren't necessarily just talking about the hard core fundamentalists. They may have a critics of standard evolutionary biology in mind.
That's a big problem. What is the definition of "creationism"? Does it mean one believes that God is the "Creator of all things visible and invisible"? Then count me amongst the ranks of creationists! Does it mean one believes that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are word-for-word, literally, historically true? Then count me out.
Victor Reppert: "But YEC isn't the only kind of creationism, in fact a standard move on the part opponents of ID is to identify ID with creationism. So when someone calls something creationism, they aren't necessarily just talking about the hard core fundamentalists. They may have a[ny] critics of [the origins myth of atheism] in mind.Ilíon: "The question now arises: what does Mr Krauss *mean* by "creationism"? Now, we've all been around the block a time ot two: we all *know* that by "creationism" he doesn't mean simply the sort of wooden literalism undergirding "young-earth creationism" ... No, no, no: we *all* know that by "creationism" Mr Krauss means *any* idea concerning our origins which so much as implies that we are intended to be and purposefully caused to be."The IDists *are* evolutionists (in fact, so are the YECs). BUT, from the ideological purity perspective of Lawrence Krauss and all other DarwinDefenders, the IDists are not the right sort of evolutionist, for they do not affirm that 0 -1 +0 -1 +0 -1 -1 -1 +0 = 1.B.Pushin'.Scientism vainly imagines that by shouting over and over claims that (while refusing to admit the shaky foundations of the claims): "The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe as a whole is somewhat less than 14 billion years old. There's solid evidence for those statements." -- even though he knows he has no good reasons for believing these things to be true; and, even though, as he well knows, all that "solid evidence for those statements" depends upon first assuming that the claims are true -- he will be spared opprobrium from the DarwinDefenders. But the IDists *also* assert these very things ... and they're still mocked (and persecuded when the DarwinDefenders can manage it) as "creationists".We all know that by "creationist" (Boo! Hiss!) Lawrence Krauss and his ilk mean *anyone* who does not loudly insist that "life, the universe, and everything" is totally the unintended result of the mechanical out-working of chance "Initial Conditions". We all know that Lawrence Krauss' unbalanced and unstable mind, if you are not a proponent of UIND, then you are one of those "hard core fundamentalists" who believes that the Earth was created in exactly six days of 24 hours roughly six thousand years ago, even if, like B.Pushin'.Scientism, you insist that "The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe as a whole is somewhat less than 14 billion years old. There's solid evidence for those statements."
So, if we're through working through the understanding that, as far as Lawrence Krauss and all other DarwinDefenders are concerned, B.Pushin'.Scientism *IS* one of those nasty, ignernt "creationists", can we turn out attention to grasping the essential and irredeemable incoherence of Krauss' (ahem) argument?
If by "creationist" Krauss, et.al., means one who unhesitatingly proclaims that God is "Creator of all things visible and invisible", then I will wear the label with pride.
Well said Ilíon . I think you've covered it pretty well although I don't get the " ahem"part.Krauss would like to destroy everything concerning Christianity in my view . We've heard his debates with WLCraig and it's cheap shot after cheap shot . By the way I am a young earth creationist through and through . More importantly I am a Christian . I do take the first 11 chapters of Genesis to be historical and factual. I make no bones about it . If krauss thinks that I was wrong to teach my daughter ( who is now 20 yrs of age )that the earth is young then I believe he's wrong in thinking I'm wrong .On atheism has no basis for objective morality ,uniformity in nature and laws of logic. God is the basis for those . Watch the enemy try to divide and conquer. If he can get us all to vehemently disagree and cause disunity then he will have achieved his goal. Don't fall for it .By the way Victor, I like this blog. Glad I found it . Some excellent topics . I like the more presuppositional type approaches in apologetics. Your book is excellent .
"although I don't get the "ahem" part."It's verbal eye-rolling in print.
Post a Comment