Turkey's new school year: Evolution out, jihadism in for elementary school kids

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Sad to see that Erdogan is turning one of the only secular powers in the Middle East/North Africa region to another Islamist hell hole.

[RFayette]

Sad to see that Erdogan is turning one of the only secular powers in the Middle East/North Africa region to another Islamist hell hole.

[DC Al Fine]

Frankly, parents ought to have the right to determine what their children learn unless there is a major overriding reason for the state to interfere. Otherwise we get this creepy Orwellian vibe of the state 'owning' children. Frankly, evolution isn't anywhere near important enough to intervene. If the bulk of parents don't want their children learning it the state should respect their wishes.

While I generally agree with the first part, I don't think I can agree on the second.  Sure, for sh**tty authoritarian hell holes like Turkey in 2017 it probably don't matter too much if they learn proper science or not, but what about Alabama in the 70s?....probably now too sadly.

It's not THAT important for a regular human to know. Neither is Jupiter, Calculus or the fact that Earth is shaped like a sphere, but we should still teach our children these things no matter what the parents believe.

You're two bolded statements contradict themselves. Do parents have the primary authority over their children's education or does the state?

If it's THAT important to the parents, I have no problem with them taking their kids out of public school and educating them the way they see fit.  I just think public schools should teach science, even the parts that disagree with the predominant (or otherwise) religion.

And poor parents are just SOL? This isn't American healthcare, most of the world is running a "single payer model for K-12 education. Choice in education is the prerogative of the rich and a small minority of extremely dedicated people.

[DC Al Fine]

Frankly, parents ought to have the right to determine what their children learn unless there is a major overriding reason for the state to interfere. Otherwise we get this creepy Orwellian vibe of the state 'owning' children. Frankly, evolution isn't anywhere near important enough to intervene. If the bulk of parents don't want their children learning it the state should respect their wishes.

While I generally agree with the first part, I don't think I can agree on the second.  Sure, for sh**tty authoritarian hell holes like Turkey in 2017 it probably don't matter too much if they learn proper science or not, but what about Alabama in the 70s?....probably now too sadly.

See, this is where progressives lose me. Proponents of this argument usually assume that it is self-evident that evolution is so important and rarely explain why parental opposition to it must be ignored.

A lot of modern medicine, and understanding of climate change is dependent upon evolution. Also it's incredibly unfair to discriminate against children for having ignorant parents.

You ignore the value of cognitive dissonance. I personally know at least three physicians that are six day creationists. Creationism is by no means a handicap to life.

Your latter point is exactly the kind of malarkey I'm talking about. This sort of reasoning could be applied to all sorts of authoritarian stuff. Your great great grandparents were probably hopelessly ignorant of eugenics. I don't think they would have done their kids a disservice if they didn't want it taught to them in state schools.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Frankly, parents ought to have the right to determine what their children learn unless there is a major overriding reason for the state to interfere. Otherwise we get this creepy Orwellian vibe of the state 'owning' children. Frankly, evolution isn't anywhere near important enough to intervene. If the bulk of parents don't want their children learning it the state should respect their wishes.

While I generally agree with the first part, I don't think I can agree on the second.  Sure, for sh**tty authoritarian hell holes like Turkey in 2017 it probably don't matter too much if they learn proper science or not, but what about Alabama in the 70s?....probably now too sadly.

See, this is where progressives lose me. Proponents of this argument usually assume that it is self-evident that evolution is so important and rarely explain why parental opposition to it must be ignored.

A lot of modern medicine, and understanding of climate change is dependent upon evolution. Also it's incredibly unfair to discriminate against children for having ignorant parents.

You ignore the value of cognitive dissonance. Creationism is by no means a handicap to life.

Your latter point is exactly the kind of malarkey I'm talking about. This sort of reasoning could be applied to all sorts of authoritarian stuff. I don't think they would have done their kids a disservice if they didn't want it taught to them in state schools.

This^
Sidenote atop all of that: homeschooling ought to be legal in Turkey. Sadly it isn't? Dunno for sure, online sources conflict on the issue.

[RFayette]

Your latter point is exactly the kind of malarkey I'm talking about. This sort of reasoning could be applied to all sorts of authoritarian stuff. Your great great grandparents were probably hopelessly ignorant of eugenics. I don't think they would have done their kids a disservice if they didn't want it taught to them in state schools.

I agree that not believing evolution is hardly a handicap in real life, but is eugenics really a fair comparison to evolution?  Eugenics is all about how things ought to be whereas evolution is simply a scientific theory about the origins of life - if one were promoting social Darwinism in economics courses (which is obviously highly related to eugenics), it would seem to be a more apt comparison, and that would be obviously inappropriate.  I think the strongest argument for teaching evolution is that if you think students ought to learn the basics of biology in high school (which seems reasonable), then it would make sense that they should be exposed to what the majority of biologists consider to be the foundational concept of the discipline.  I'll fully concede to being biased here - I love science and shudder at the thought of such an exciting subject being off-limits to people, but I do think there is nothing wrong with teaching what is an extremely well-supported theory accepted by the vast majority of biologists and banning it from the classroom seems unreasonable. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Can somebody take their children out of history classes because they are devoted Anti-Semites who don't believe in the Holocaust?

[DC Al Fine]

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Can somebody take their children out of history classes because they are devoted Anti-Semites who don't believe in the Holocaust?

Certainly not. In my original argument, I said that parents should have control over how their children are educated unless there is a very important reason to override their wishes. Examples of a "very important reason" include: the child has to learn it to be a reasonably well functioning member of society, or what the parents are teaching is likely to lead to violence. Holocaust denial is a good example of the latter reason.

In the case of evolution, it's often assumed that children need to learn about evolution regardless of the parent's wishes. I just don't see the need for it. Creationists are functional members of society, nor are they violent like neonazis. The whole "children must be made to learn evolution despite their parents wishes" trope strikes me as primarily virtue signaling and cultural imperialism rather concern for a child's welfare.

Your latter point is exactly the kind of malarkey I'm talking about. This sort of reasoning could be applied to all sorts of authoritarian stuff. Your great great grandparents were probably hopelessly ignorant of eugenics. I don't think they would have done their kids a disservice if they didn't want it taught to them in state schools.

I agree that not believing evolution is hardly a handicap in real life, but is eugenics really a fair comparison to evolution? 

snip

I'll fully concede to being biased here - I love science and shudder at the thought of such an exciting subject being off-limits to people, but I do think there is nothing wrong with teaching what is an extremely well-supported theory accepted by the vast majority of biologists and banning it from the classroom seems unreasonable. 

I think you're missing my point. This is about the authority of the state to overrule the wishes of parents in education, not whether eugenics or evolution are true.

[dead0man]

You seem to be proposing just NOT teaching Evolution, correct?  You don't want to teach Creationism in schools do you?  I suppose I wouldn't be against an "opt out" on learning about Evolution day in middle school, but man, that seems like it might be cruel to some kids in that situation.


On the other hand, if you want to teach Creationism in school as "option" to Evolution, well, no, I'd fight that.  Leaving something out is bad, but they leave a lot out, one more thing probably isn't the end of the world for anybody (especially in K-12).  But intentionally adding in something science tells us is complete BS?  No chance.  There is enough of that in there on accident (or out of ignorance), we don't need anymore.

[America Needs R'hllor]

You seem to be proposing just NOT teaching Evolution, correct?  You don't want to teach Creationism in schools do you?  I suppose I wouldn't be against an "opt out" on learning about Evolution day in middle school, but man, that seems like it might be cruel to some kids in that situation.


On the other hand, if you want to teach Creationism in school as "option" to Evolution, well, no, I'd fight that.  Leaving something out is bad, but they leave a lot out, one more thing probably isn't the end of the world for anybody (especially in K-12).  But intentionally adding in something science tells us is complete BS?  No chance.  There is enough of that in there on accident (or out of ignorance), we don't need anymore.

This. Teaching creationism is like teaching Harry Potter like a possible fact.

[RFayette]

The context of this was about public school curriculum.  Are you saying that all public schools should not teach anything that might be seen as controversial by parents?  I think that allowing parents to "opt out" and study an alternative subject during that time would be a reasonable compromise, I suppose, but banning a cornerstone concept of biology from public schools to assuage the concerns of some parents a bridge too far.  

In any case, there is a bit of a slippery slope here  - if the majority of parents in a country deny the Holocaust, does that mean that the Holocaust should not be taught in history classes, important as they are?  You can be a well-functioning adult without being taught about the Holocaust, which is why it seems tougher to draw a line here than it might seem over what is an essential interest of the state.  If we agree that teaching biology is important (or history, or math, or any subject), then it would seem that the basis for deciding the curriculum - whether it be at the local, state, or national level - should be what is actually true according to the methods of the discipline (at an appropriate conceptual level for the age of the students - obviously teaching relativistic corrections or the like to middle schoolers when teaching kinematics would be silly).  If we remove evolution based on parental concerns as opposed to factual ones, where do we draw the line when it comes to deciding a curriculum?  

Also, this is more related to the idea of parental opt-outs as opposed to what should be part of the standard curriculum, but I think it raises some interesting questions.  I haven't fully thought about the issue so I can't say I have a definite opinion on it, but one argument against opt-outs is that giving kids an exposure to all scientific disciplines would enable them to pursue that field in the future.  If a child's parents do not want their kids exposed to a scientific theory, does that necessarily mean the kid shouldn't be taught it, especially when he or she is in high school?  The idea of education is to have a common body of knowledge that all citizens should know, including exposure of students to various scientific fields that they can then explore deeper in college if they wish, perhaps becoming experts in the field?  As you alluded to earlier (how important is it for society that kids know evolution?), I think that while one can contest the importance of evolution specifically, the principle that citizens ought to be scientifically informed seems uncontroversial, and parental rights that hinder such may be a step too far.  

[Mopsus]

In my original argument, I said that parents should have control over how their children are educated unless there is a very important reason to override their wishes. Examples of a "very important reason" include: the child has to learn it to be a reasonably well functioning member of society,

Well under that criteria, governments in Muslim countries could force even non-Muslim children to receive Islamic educations. Do you think that would be defensible?

[TDAS04]

Wow, I'm agreeing with RFayette on a social issue!

[pbrower2a]

wonderful to see children in Turkey are spending less time learning about that trashbag Kemal Ataturk.

So you believe children should be taught to memorize prayers in American public schools?

Turkey is an overwhelmingly Muslim country. As long as non-Muslims can opt out of having to learn the Quran and associated Muslim things, I don't see a problem.

So you'd be fine with teaching Jihad to children just because "muh majority"? And oppressing scientific facts like evolution is ok too? Come on, Erdogan is absolutely atrocious, don't try to defend him just because you have something against Ataturk.

Frankly, parents ought to have the right to determine what their children learn unless there is a major overriding reason for the state to interfere. Otherwise we get this creepy Orwellian vibe of the state 'owning' children. Frankly, evolution isn't anywhere near important enough to intervene. If the bulk of parents don't want their children learning it the state should respect their wishes.

Evolution is the canary in the coal mine in America as well as in the Islamic world. If political leaders can reshape the educational syllabus to promote religious or ideological doctrines, then they can do anything. They can distort history. They can promote immoral doctrines as consummate morality.