Or: On the Hoodwinkification of Children
Daniel Dennett, professor of philosophy at Tufts University and author of Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon is part of a sect of atheists who believe that it is child abuse to raise one’s children according to one’s faith.
Daniel Dennett wrote:
On the one hand, many declare, there is the sacred and inviolable right of life…On the other hand, many of the same people declare that, once born, the child loses its right not to be indoctrinated or brainwashed or otherwise psychologically abused by those parent, who have the right to raise the child with any upbringing they choose, short of physical torture, Let us spread the value of freedom throughout the world-but not to children, apparently.1
From Gary Wolf’s interview with Daniel Dennett:
Dennett gives no quarter to believers who resist subjecting their faith to scientific evaluation. In fact, he argues that neutral, scientifically informed education about every religion in the world should be mandatory in school. After all, he argues, “if you have to hoodwink – or blindfold – your children to ensure that they confirm their faith when they are adults, your faith ought to go extinct.”2
The reason for teaching all “religions” in public school appears to be state sponsored forced theological education so that children are not just indoctrinated by their parents.Thus, children are not to be denied an education consisting of every theological point of view. However, when it comes to Prof. Daniel Dennett’s chosen worldview quite a different scenario is presented.Daniel Dennett commented regarding:
_those who don’t yet appreciate just how well established the theory of evolution by natural selection is. According to a recent survey, only about a quarter of the population of the United States understands that evolution is about as well established as the fact that water is H2O.3
He refers to this as an “embarrassing statistic.” There is much to be said for his statements:
1. He does not cite the survey: who conducted it, what was asked, how were the questions posed, how may people were asked, what is the margin of error, what have political scientists made of the survey and its results, etc. are unanswered questions.
2. He refers to “evolution by natural selection” yet, natural selection is an aspect of the theory of evolution. Even the most Bible-thumping-fundi-evang-YECers do not necessarily have a problem with natural selection; at least not when the term is used to mean something to the likes of observing that if we took a Saint Bernards and a Chihuahua to the North Pole one is very much more likely to survive.
3. One reason why knowing what questions were asked in the apocryphal survey is that “evolution” can simply mean living organisms changing or it can mean that God does not exist (just ask Prof. Richard Dawkins who looks through a microscope and infers atheism).
But what of the belief of three fourths (according to Prof. Daniel Dennett’s apocryphal survey) of Americans who believe that “the theory of evolution is false (or at least unproven)”? Daniel Dennett writes, “there are no reputable scientists who claim this. Not a one.”4
Of course, the logical question would be: has Daniel Dennett surveyed every scientist on the planet (and throughout history, perhaps) and ascertained their position on the matter? Although, perhaps he did not need conduct any such survey. Perhaps his criterion was simply that if they disagree with him then they are obviously wrong. If a scientist believes that “the theory of evolution is false (or at least unproven)” then they are obviously not reputable.
Daniel Dennett then offers the following recommendation:
Educate yourself in evolutionary theory_
Suspend disbelief temporarily in order to learn what an evolutionist makes of religion as a natural phenomenon.
Incidentally, it seems worthwhile mentioning that the overwhelming majority of American theists have studied the Darwinian theory of evolution for a minimum of a dozen years and have also had exposure to criticism of the Darwinian theory of evolution. Daniel Dennett even helps us along by recommending his favorite works that seek to prove what he believes.
Personally, I could not agree more with him. Indeed, educate yourself (even more) in the Darwinian theory of evolution (here I mean the concoction of actual observation and atheist cooption of it as atheist propaganda) since there is no better way to understand a house of cards than inspecting one for yourself. But remember to define the terms.
It is also important to mention that out of the vast amount of science literature it is very easy to pick and choose those bit that suit your worldview. Since Daniel Dennett can recommend science literature we will do the same in recommending the plethora of statement that we quote in Atheism is Dead‘s parsed essay Scientific Cenobites.
Moreover, Daniel Dennett wrote:
Since 2002, schools in Cobb County, Georgia, have put stickers in some of their biology textbooks saying, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact,” But a judge recently ruled that these must be removed…This makes sense.5
The stickers were described by some as being “anti-evolution stickers” that “undermine the teaching of evolution in biology classes.” Since “parents sued arguing that the policy promoted religion in science classrooms and violated the separation of church and state” the removal of the stickers was declared an “absolutely a victory for the parents and the children in Cobb County school” by Debbie Seagraves, executive director ACLU of Georgia.6
Certainly, the wording “Evolution is a theory, not a fact” was an unfortunate misnomer but still; imagine the scandal of making it clear that evolution is a theory for whatever reason. It is simply intolerable to ensure accuracy in education, right?But just how do the stickers undermine the teaching of evolution in biology classes? It seems that it merely places evolution in its correct context.
And just how do the stickers violate the non-constitutional separation of church and state? It seems that student may wonder if there are alternative theories, the real problem of which would be that the alternative theory is illegal in public schools; only atheism is acceptable in our public classrooms.
So, why was it a victory for the parents and the children alike? Because the atheist presupposition regarding origins is Federally funded and atheist parents want their worldviews taught to the impressionable and undiscerning children of parents who disagree that in the beginning of life was abiogenesis (which circa one and a half century of experimentation has disproved).
But let us not be capricious; students are to be given every chance to approach the subject matter with an open mind and they are to study the topic carefully and critically.
At this juncture it ought to be pointed out that Daniel Dennett conveniently quoted only part of the sticker, the full text of which states:
This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.7
Precisely what part of the statement is inaccurate?That evolution is a theory? It is.That it is not a fact? While atheist activist scientists like Prof. Richard Dawkins extrapolate atheism from biology, when scientists speak purely from their discipline they make it clear that science does not deal in fact but can only tell us what the best guesses are thus far.Of course, some scientists, being also activists for their own worldviews, openly proclaim that they will purposefully deny any evidence that interferes with their beliefs. Scott C. Todd from Kansas State University’s Department of Biology is one such scientist as is made clear by his statement:
Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.8
See Omni-Science for a detailed dissection of his comment.
Thus, our circuitous statement comes to its logical conclusion:
On the one hand, when Daniel Dennett expresses an opinion regarding the beliefs of others, children should not be hoodwinked or blindfold. That sort of indoctrination only comes to prove that your faith ought to go extinct.
On the other hand, when Daniel Dennett expresses an opinion regarding his own beliefs, children should be hoodwinked and blindfold. They should be discouraged from accurate representations of the scientific methods and should be discouraged from having an open mind, studying carefully and critically. That sort of indoctrination should, apparently, not go extinct but should be state sponsored.