In popular parlance, “child abuser” is just about the worst thing you can call anyone. So you can imagine my shock when I read the latest comments on one of my own recent threads and found one commenter accusing another of child abuse – a charge he repeated in the Moderation thread. My astonishment grew when I read of a proposal in Moderation to ban child abusers from The Skeptical Zone, on the grounds that people who post porn are already banned, and child abuse is much, much worse.
And what was the alleged offense? Here it is: “admitting to using strawman arguments, fallacious reasoning, and false claims to destroy childrens’ ability to think rationally about certain scientific topics. That’s child abuse.” Except that the person accused made no such admission. Regardless of whether the arguments were fallacious or not, no deceit was involved. It was the accuser who attacked the arguments as fallacious and illogical, not the person he accused.
And what were the arguments about? In a nutshell, abiogenesis. The arguments were presented to a group of six-year-old children and their parents, in an attempt to make them see that the origin of life from non-living matter is astronomically improbable, that macroevolution (e.g. fish to bird) is also vanishingly improbable, and that Intelligent Design is the only rational inference. A detailed description of the presentation can be found here.
I’d like to make a couple of very brief points. First, the term “child abuse” can be defined in three ways. First, could be defined very broadly to mean behavior which actually causes severe and/or life-long physical or psychological damage to children. Second, it could be defined more narrowly to mean behavior which is intended to cause severe and/or life-long physical or psychological damage to children. Third, it could be defined as behavior which the vast majority of responsible people, at the present time, would agree causes severe and/or life-long physical or psychological damage to children.
The first definition is clearly ridiculous, as it would make all of our parents or grandparents child abusers. Think of passive smoking. Or think of spanking: fifty years ago, it was quite common for naughty children to get their little bottoms hit with a belt and sent to bed without supper. The second definition is also unsatisfactory, as it would exonerate parents who refused to take their dying child to a doctor, but took her to a quack faith healer instead: here, the parents didn’t mean to harm their child, but any sensible person would say that they should have known better. That leaves us with the third definition.
So the question that concerns us is: does teaching a child a fallacious argument – assuming that it was fallacious – designed to prove that abiogenesis is well-nigh impossible constitute behavior which the vast majority of responsible would agree causes severe and/or life-long physical or psychological damage to a child? The response to that question should be bleeding obvious: you’ve got to be kidding me. Clearly the person making the ridiculous accusation needs to grow up.
I’d also point out that the person in question actually not only accused a TSZ commenter of child abuse, but also accused him of admitting to it:
Mung,
You seem very, very, upset that I am pointing out that [name redacted]’s real life behavior constitutes child abuse. A good example of him admitting to this is in the thread starting here.
I have to say that’s libelous. The accused person merely admitted to using certain arguments to persuade children. He made no admission of committing child abuse. As I showed above, the only reasonable definition of child abuse is: behavior which the vast majority of responsible people, at the present time, would agree causes severe and/or life-long physical or psychological damage to children. The accused person did not admit to engaging in such behavior; on the contrary, he emphatically denied it.
I think a retraction is in order. And I might add: the accuser is very lucky that the person he accused belongs to a religion that enjoins its followers to “forgive other people when they sin against you” (Matthew 6:14), turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:40) and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44). Very lucky indeed.
And how fallacious were the arguments, anyway? I’ll let readers judge. There was an everyday observation that “dead dogs stay dead dogs,” used to support the conclusion that “life does not come from non-life except by a miracle.” Pasteurization was also cited as evidence against abiogenesis. My response: those are valid points. They don’t demonstrate abiogenesis to be impossible, but the person accused was not trying to establish that. The argument he was making was a rhetorical one, not a rigorously deductive one which you might expect to hear in a college classroom.
There was another argument to the effect that fish don’t evolve into birds because fish give birth to fish. A little simplistic, perhaps, but it’s certainly strong prima facie evidence against macroevolution. Fortunately for evolutionists, there is good fossil evidence for the evolution of fish into tetrapods, some of which later evolved into birds. Scientists therefore have good reason to believe that it happened, but they still can’t demonstrate a mechanism for how it happened, and they still don’t know why it happened. What they have instead are some promising hypotheses which (unfortunately) have not yet been quantified in order to establish that the transition could have taken place over the timescale involved. And I hardly think most parents would consider it “child abuse” to omit to mention the existence of Archaeopteryx in a presentation aimed at six-year-olds, especially when there is an ongoing debate over that fossil’s place in evolution: some scientists argue that it was neither a bird nor an ancestor of modern birds (or even a close relative of that ancestor).
Third, there was an argument relating to a large cup of coins, in which the presenter asked the children to guess whether they would all turn up heads when shaken (answer: “NO.”) The accuser objected that it would have been fairer to ask a child to put all the coins that came up tails back in her cup and shake it again, and repeat the process again and again. But in this case, it it the accuser’s understanding of evolution which is faulty: it is a process that lacks foresight, so it cannot select for a distant, long-term result. Score a point to the presenter.
Fourth, the presenter showed the children videos of Rube Goldberg machines made by man, and then showed them videos of living things, telling the children that they are Rube Goldberg machines, too. That’s arguably true, as far as it goes. Consider the following sentence, taken from a textbook titled, Cell and Molecular Biology: Concepts and Experiments by Gerald Karp (John Wiley and Sons, Sixth edition, 2009): “Cellular activities are often analogous to this ‘Rube Goldberg’ machine, in which one event automatically triggers the next event in a reaction sequence” (p. 7). There are also scholarly papers discussing how such biological Rube Goldberg machines might have evolved – but once again, without any quantification of the degree of difficulty or the time that would have been involved. Is it “child abuse” to neglect to mention these plausible but speculative papers to a class of six-year-olds? No: it’s what lawyers call advocacy.
Finally, the presenter invoked Pascal’s Wager, when giving talks to college students (not six-year-olds):
I then teach them Pascal’s wager and point out, they have less to lose by being wrong about ID and God’s creation than their Christ-hating professors, therefore it’s worth stepping out in a little faith if that’s what they want to do.
I suggest that if they worry the professors are right, I suggest they ask them these sorts of questions. When they see their professors can’t answer, they often say, “then why do they teach evolution is true, they have no proof.” My point exactly.
The accuser’s sharp retort to this exposition was: “I suspect you neglect to mention the god that gets very annoyed with people who try to game it.”
Look. I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and I’m quite familiar with the many objections that have been leveled against Pascal’s wager. But I’m also well aware that the “many gods” objection which the accuser cites (alluding to the “professor’s god“) is far from decisive, and continues to be the subject of vigorous debate. [Defenders of the argument point out, for instance, that since Pascal’s God is an absolutely perfect being, Pascal’s hypothesis is simpler and hence more probable than the highly ad hoc hypothesis of a professor’s god.] And I might add that since college students are not children, there can be no question of “child abuse” in this context. These students are perfectly capable of Googling “Pascal’s wager,” as I just did.
After having examined the arguments, I can find none that constitutes “child abuse” on any reasonable definition of the term. The accuser whom I mentioned also accused the presenter of “attempting to indoctrinate children.” However, the term “indoctrinate” is a highly loaded word. Attempting to persuade children of the truth of a certain worldview, using arguments that a scholarly pedant might take exception to, cannot be fairly described as “indoctrination,” whatever one might happen to think of the arguments themselves.
To sum up: I find the accused not guilty. And I would hope that the majority of readers would agree with my verdict, which is nothing more and nothing less than a victory for common sense.
Before I conclude this post, I’d like to comment on the suggestion made by one commenter that child abusers be banned from TSZ. As we’ve seen, the term “child abuse” has been variously defined by people on this Website, so before such a rule is proposed, we need to agree on which definition of “child abuse” we’re talking about. Now, the notion of clear and present danger is well-established in American constitutional law. If you’re going to actually ban someone from a site encouraging the free discussion of ideas, then I would suggest that your reason for doing so should be a compelling one. If, on the other hand, the suggestion is simply that contributors with a criminal history of child abuse be banned from TSZ, then that sounds much more reasonable. As for the banning of porn: irrespective of how much harm someone may think it does, the practical rationale for banning it should be obvious. Most people think it’s an annoying nuisance. The same goes for spam.
I shall lay down my pen here, and invite readers to contribute their thoughts. I’ve said my piece.
(Image at the top courtesy of all-free-download.com and BSGStudio.)
In my local schools there are kids who aren’t allowed (by their parents) to take biology, or if they take it, they have to be excused from class on days when dangerous ideas are discussed.
I maintain that at face value, threatening kids with damnation for disbelief is child abuse. That’s not evidence. It’s a definition.
Others will disagree.
At least you’re honest enough to admit it petrushka. Patrick thinks he has actual objective empirical evidence of child abuse. Really all he has is an argument he has built up in his own mind. A definition of child abuse. Not an abused child.
According to Patrick’s definition, there may be an abused child. The objective empirical evidence of actual child abuse though, remains sadly lacking.
If one agrees with petrushka’s definition of child abuse, namely “threatening kids with damnation for disbelief is child abuse” then the fact that Sal has admitted to teach the Pascal Wager to kids counts as evidence for child abuse
If you don’t have an abused child, you don’t have child abuse. Produce the child and establish that actual abuse occurred.
Haven’t read the post. A title of ‘cool it’ and a picture of a gavel gets the response ‘fuck off you authoritarian tit, you’ve mistaken this for uncommon descent’.
Let’s say I can’t “produce the abused child” But I can show Sal has admitted to teach that to kids. Would you agree that it follows that Sal has agreed to abuse children under that definition of child abuse?
I wonder if Barry ever accused any of you UD refugees if being a child abuser.
Made up hypothetical definitions of child abuse, like Patrick’s, are irrelevant. He didn’t accuse someone of being a hypothetical child abuser. His accusation was one of actual child abuse. So we need a dose of reality, not a dose of further hypotheticals.
If you don’t have a resurrected Christ, you don’t have a resurrection. Produce Jesus and establish that an actual resurrection occurred.
Was Anne Boleyn actually beheaded? Was she examined by a doctor? Where are the medical records?
</Mung mode>
Sal has proudly admittedly to ongoing behavior, which behavior Patrick has cogently argued constitutes child abuse. The fact that some people confuse “child abuse” with “child molestation”, and therefore “endangerment” might be a less inflammatory term for Sal’s behavior doesn’t change the fact that it is abusive, and he has admitted doing it to children.
Why is this so difficult?
Talking about petrushka’s definition here
Well, you (patrick) have given “evidence” that Sal has committed what YOU call “child abuse.”
Here’s what is generally meant by the term:
What Sal does with kids is ridiculous and he should stop immediately but it’s not what people generally mean by “child abuse” as Patrick well knows.
As I said, they’re both wrong, and neither will admit it or stop, because, well, that’s the way people act on the internet.
It’s not difficult. It’s just not reality based. And further, to name another member a child abuser violates the rules.
If I didn’t have a moral compass I’d be naming everyone here a child abuser and watching to see which of my posts got sent to Guano and which didn’t.
If Patrick succeeds in staining one of us with the label who is next on his list?
I offered to meet Patrick in a parking lot. 🙂
Because the expression has connotations that are serious. If I called you a “molester” because you pick petals off roses, and could make what you call a “cogent case” for using that term, would it be ok?
Patrick is very quick to call people names. He said that I am completely without ethics because I’m a public employee.
WTF?
Yes, someone figured that out around 2000 years ago.
If you are asking me to produce a living (corporeal) body and prove to you that it is the body of Jesus I cannot do that. Jesus ascended into heaven
The analogy to accusations of child abuse is utterly lost on me. Did the child abuse victims Patrick is referring to ascend into heaven to be with Jesus?
Put another way, if you must doubt the resurrection of Jesus, then you must doubt the accusations of child abuse made by Patrick.
However, as a Christian, I believe that there were witnesses to the resurrected Jesus. Perhaps you believe there were witnesses to Patrick’s alleged child abuse, in which case, let them be called to testify.
Disregarding the particular fetish that keiths has for Alan Fox, Patrick is hands down the most divisive moderator at the site. And it’s not for his “hands off” moderation style.
Mung,
So you are saying that it is impractical to provide the definitive evidence that I (in Mung mode) asked for?
How about the medical notes of the doctor who examined Anne Boleyn’s headless body?
So we’ll just have to assess the evidence that is available?
You do realize that you are making my point for me, I hope?
I haven’t taught kids anything in over a year and a half. But anyway, a lot of this is moot. The kids now think evolution is stupid and their mom pulled them from public school and is now home schooling them.
If their entire family comes over, I’ll probably do some card tricks and build rube Goldberg machines with them.
Most kids could care less about the creation evolution controversy. I found that out quickly, so I focused on things like the Rube Goldberg machines that might be of interest to them now, but might mean something to them later.
I’ll be there for them when they grow up if they want to talk about these things.
Additionally, it is much easier to discuss these things anyway after they have a bit more math and chemistry under their belt. In my experience, if a college science student is willing and wanting to believe in creation, it’s pretty easy to persuade them because they already have the requisite knowledge to make it easy to state my case. If they’ve already had some level of molecular biology or physiology, it’s really easy.
Example: I’ll suggest to them to think about how did bacteria transition to a eukaryotic cell. What is the emergence of spliceosomal introns, spliceosome, nucleosomes? How did the insulin regulated metabolism emerge? I then invite them to ask around their fellow students, and if they dare and if they are safe asking, their professors (like after they get the good grade in their class).
I posed such question to a pre-med sophomore Christian Darwinist. I learned a few weeks later that conversation converted him to a creationist.
There’s a reason guys like Michael Behe (biochemist who got his PhD from an Ivy League school), John Sanford (Cornell research professor for 33 years), Richard Sternberg (evolutionary biologist), can diss a lot of mainstream evolutionary theory. It simply doesn’t have the cohesiveness of other scientific theory like theories of electricity or other well-accepted theories.
If evolutionary theory were as good as gravitational theories (either Newtonian or Einsteinian), I wouldn’t have a case, but even by Jerry Coyne’s own admission, evolutionary theory “lurks somewhere near the bottom far closer to [the pseudo science] of phrenology than to physics.”
So apologies in advance that I’m unapologetic, but at least for now I’m not conducting the activities you find so distasteful.
But I will say this, I don’t know of any cases where someone became a creationist and necessarily wanted to kill themselves primarily because of creationism. I do know of cases of the reverse however, where someone was a creationist and became an evolutionist and killed themselves as a result. So from a psychological standpoint, I think there is a case to be made that acceptance of evolutionary theory has had some history of causing harm.
DNA_Jock, you’re my best friend here at TSZ. It would hurt me deeply to find that I have offended you, even if you don’t understand the simplest thing about entropy.
Your first point was about Jesus and evidence for his bodily resurrection. Are you giving up on that line of argument? Because I thought I did an admirable job of taking that on.
You think I’m making your point for you and I think you’re making my point for me. How odd.
Are you saying its’ ok to accuse someone of child abuse even if the child only exists hypothetically?
You do understand, don’t you, that no Christian believes that the resurrection of Jesus was merely hypothetical.
LoL. Next up, Patrick accuses Salvador of parent abuse! Because, you know, we can all come up with a hypothetical definition of “parent abuse” and claim that Salvador admitted to it.
I’m glad to hear that.
I’m guessing there was a lot more going on there. FWIW, I don’t think there’s any actual correlation between suicide and atheistic viewpoints. Probably the craziest people in the history of the world have been theists (and not just here). Check out Anna Robeson Burr’s “Religious Confessions and Confessants” which is available free on-line.
Anyhow, I sincerely doubt you kept any six-year-old from offing himself.
ETA: Just wanted to add that plenty of people have killed themselves because of religious guilt.
It’s really a form of matricide–or at least a “cogent case” can be made for calling it that.
Thank God!
walto:
Thanks for the input.
And FWIW, I enjoy my interactions and confrontations at TSZ far more than teaching the kids. I don’t really need to tell you that, but I guess it’s what little I can say to perhaps offend you less with respect to my activities outside TSZ.
If spending time with kids meant that much to me, I wouldn’t have spent so much time debating Keiths and DNA_Jock over stupid stuff about thermodynamics. 🙂
So, maybe not for the reasons you would want me to stop teaching kids, I already have, and had done so already for a year.
Of course. You’re an insecure little attention whore who craves all the adult attention you can get. That’s why virtually everything you post is Sal talking about Sal.
Right about now you’re looking pretty pathetic!
I’m sure there’s an inverse correlation between your opinions and my giveashit. I’m honest enough to tell you I haven’t read it.
What’s your beef, Mung? He was commenting on the illustration and the stentorian title:
The way Patrick meant child abuse? Barry accuses scientists of lying for immoral reasons therefore abusing man and child.
ETA, maybe not posters but others for the same reason as Patrick.
Metaphorically speaking, it could been some other wonderful ,magical animal.
I don’t think belief is necessary , your are acting as if that God exists for selfish reasons.
Joking about Patrick and child abuse is not funny Newton!
This reminds me, they are making a new Michael Jackson documentary.
“The kids now think evolution is stupid and their mom pulled them from public school and is now home schooling them. / If their entire family comes over, I’ll probably do some card tricks and build rube Goldberg machines with them.”
A sad reminder of distorted USAmerican protestant fanaticism disguised as ‘Christian gambling’. No religious credibility. Just an IDist/creationist. = (
Citation please.
Killed themselves as a result? You know several cases? I’m skeptical of this claim, Sal. How do you know this?
Moved a comment to guano. Probably should move more. I know we are (well, I presume) still suffering from Trump trauma, but could we all make a little effort at either genuine communication or try the ‘ignore’ button.
Oh dear. I’m not sure how I can make this plainer to you, Mung. You have been chiding Patrick for his characterization of Sal’s behavior thus:
Which struck me as rather disingenuous on your part, demanding evidence that you know is not available to Patrick. For a while, I had been considering asking you about Anne or, even better, George Boleyn: “no doctor, no examination, no medical finding of any decapitation, no evidence of decapitation. None”, but when you wrote
the parallels to demanding physical proof of the Resurrection were too much for me to resist. So I teased you with both.
My best explanation for your response is that it was a knee-jerk reaction to what you thought (incorrectly) was an atheist pooh-poohing the Resurrection. Because your “admirable job of taking that on” is absolutely making my point for me.
To wit: your demand that Patrick produce an abused child is disingenuous; in this case, we will have to make do with the perpetrator`s written confession.
I was so happy to see Sal write:
Thank you, thank you very much. I’m here til Thursday — try the veal!
Next up: mercilessly trolling Trump. If he’s in a twitter war, he’s not governing the country…
You want even more?
For heavens sake, have some decency.
Enough is enough Jock.
That stung a bit,didn’t it? Talking about Pascal’s Wager not Patrick or you and child abuse.
Is that how he put it?
It’s nice to see you getting some use out of your degree in tautology.
I’ve explained exactly why Sal’s behavior constitutes intellectual and emotional abuse of children. If you disagree with that assessment, address his admitted behavior and defend it.
Hear, hear!
Again, all you need to do to exonerate Sal is to demonstrate that his behavior does not constitute child abuse. Let’s see your point by point defense of what he has admitted to doing.
I thought it was a Discovery Institute wine tasting.
Likely to end in blood and cops in either case, I suppose.