Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I don't mean to sound like a dick but there's a larger issue going on here than whether or not Creationism is good science. We all know it isn't. No credible scientist would claim it is. It's a non-issue that's already been decided on. It's ultimately the reason this issue is absurd; that they'd challenge a scientific theory with theology in a school system. I think there's a much more complex and relevant problem going on here then whether or not Creationism is a scientific theory.

The issue is ultimately the strong streak of anti-intellectualism which is prominent in contemporary American society. An example of this is the fact that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, not a couple thousand years old. The margin of error there shows a staggering amount of stupidity that is inexcusable and shouldn't be excused but because the claim that the Earth is so young is a faith-based claimed it's off limits to mock and criticize it. This creates a problem in the average intelligence of a society and whether or not it can progress. If superstition is allowed to dominate public discourse (as it does) then children in schools will be forever brainwashed inside tax exempt cult institu-I mean churches. I'm going to preface the basis of this argument with a quote as I feel it sets up most of what I have to say and summarizes it well enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins
I think that religious upbringing is immensely powerful and if it's hammered into you as a young child it can be really quite difficult to get rid of in later life. Especially if when you were a child you were told "the devil will come and will try to persuade you of error; remain steadfast, don't listen..." Sometimes they're even told things like "don't believe when people bring something they call evidence. Faith is more important than evidence."
We all know young children are impressionable. Teaching them religion is a fact is just as proper as teaching them that the Earth is flat (which of course isn't proper at all.) Religious education is important, but it should be something introduced after critical thinking and philosophy and only in upper level academia. It should be taught purely as a study of history and beliefs. It's something that has to be understood I think as it role in society and place in history is important but it shouldn't be forced on young children who are unable to form rational arguments against the "values" and "sins" that are forced upon them.

I believe teaching the "morals" in the Bible is basically psychological abuse. I was raised Catholic and there are many things, from self-pleasure to contraceptives, that I still feel guilty over; despite the fact masturbation is natural and I know, that rationally having sex without condoms is stupid (though religion is of course anti-sex before marriage and even anti-sex in general. This is obvious and has been prominent in all religions. Many gods were born of virgins (impossible) or something else that is sexless, or even not of the birth canal. There's a prominent hatred of menstrual blood and foreskin in religions pertaining to the God of Abraham, and so on.) There's more to it then that though it instills a simplistic approach to morality in children and teaches them to judge things in a far more basic manner then problems in the world can be judged. It also teaches them to externalize they're blame and that they're far more important then they actually are. These values that are forced upon children are dangerous and scarring.

This is ignoring the obvious intellectual damage and anti-science bias that is instilled by teaching children about magical books and mammals being able to survive their own deaths which is even more problematic but ultimately it all comes back to the fact that religion is damaging. This is basically what I'm getting at whenever I say religion is intellectually damaging. Science adjusts its views based on observation, faith denies this to preserve belief. Which I'd consider the very definition of anti-intellectualism.