Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Mandates the Teaching of Evolution As Scientific Fact
An anonymous reader writes "A story at the BBC explains how the UK government has put an extra clause into a funding bill to ensure that any new 'free schools' (independent schools run by groups of parents or organizations, but publicly-funded) must teach evolution rather than creationism or potentially lose their funding. 'The new rules state that from 2013, all free schools in England must teach evolution as a 'comprehensive and coherent scientific theory.' The move follows scientists's concerns that free schools run by creationists might avoid teaching evolution. Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said it was 'delighted.' Sir Paul told BBC News the previous rules on free schools and the teaching of evolution versus creationism had been 'not tight enough.'"
I agree. Life is too complex to have evolved by chance. Only a Giant and a Cow can explain it. (http://www.thepaincomics.com/Science%20vs.%20Norse.jpg)
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Most educated christians and muslims and Jews have no problem with evolution, despite the stereotypes thrown about on slashdot by people obsessed with a certain minority. While establishing his theory of evolution, and for many years after Charles Darwni himself continued to be a practicing Christian
What the fuck? You can't believe in God and also believe in evolution now? What was your teacher trying to prove?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
People should be taught both and then left alone to decide which one makes more sense.
That's frankly, the stupidest solution possible.
If this reasoning were applied:
1. Physics classes would teach "the 4 elements", and all the other crap the Greeks believe just because Aristotle said it.
2. Chemistry would teach the "grand arcana" and how you can live longer by drinking mercury.
3. Astronomy would teach the "crystal spheres" theory, the "circular orbits with epicycles" theory, and the "the gods just move things around at their discretion" theory.
4. Any student could derail any class at will by making some shit up and demanding that the class dedicate time to teaching it and letting everyone make up their mind.
The truth is that Creationism is not a valid theory (it's a story from a book that was probably fiction when it was written*), and if you want it to be taken seriously as a competitor to evolution by natural selection the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it 1) explains observed behavior at least as well as evolution and 2) makes falsifiable predictions which conflict with evolution that are verified by experimentation.
*No historical evidence exists to corroborate the events aside from the text who's authenticity is in question, and many of the events are believed to by physically impossible. Occam's Razor indicates it's more likely those events never actually happened, than that there is an as yet not understood mechanism that allows them to be true.
The whole point of teaching science is to hope that people will find that things are wrong with it and improve on it. But without a solid understanding on the scientific method, what we observe now, how we interpret that evidence and why the current body of knowledge is accepted, people cannot possibly understand WHY the science is wrong (when it's wrong) and how to fix it.
No, wrong. The whole point of teaching science is teaching kids the proper way to think and approach problems. The appropriate way to think does not include clinging to one particular viewpoint because it's fashionable, whatever that viewpoint may be.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
No, bad.
Just because it is the supported theory, and all the archeological evidence does support it, and we of the scientific community hold that it is the 99% best supported explanation, it is not a fact.
If it was truly a fact, then no more resources would be spent studying evolution. And, it is way too soon to close that checkbook.
I really think it is bad when politicians and fools get involved with science.
and that's why you at least read the summary, instead of the terribly written title:
"...all free schools in England must teach evolution as a 'comprehensive and coherent scientific theory.'"
They aren't required to teach it as fact, they are simply required to actually teach it (no hand waving or "the evil overlords that oppose us require us to tell you about their lies").
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
I disagree. I think teaching children about fictional all powerful beings as if they were real is a form of abuse. This perpetuates a society which can't distinguish between right and wrong, real and imagined, and fosters abuse of the minority (be it communists, pedophiles, African Americans, gypsies, jews, or some other group).
Then teach your children without public funding. That's what this is all about. It doesn't appear that privately funded "free schools" are required to teach evolution.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
I disagree. You may teach your children as you like, but to never teach them about evolution is abuse.
I'm a biology teacher at a Christian school. I do teach evolution - with far more rigour than I ever taught it in public school - because I think that it's important for anyone who wants to hold a dissenting view on something considered to be this foundational to be really, really well informed about what they're disagreeing with. That said, I also work with students who have actually been abused by their parents - real abuse... emotional, physical, sexual, etc. Dogmatically stating "never teaching a child about evolution is abuse" just seems silly and insulting to anyone who has actually encountered abuse. Let's not throw the term "abuse" around so lightly.
I could easily come up with dozens of scientific theories and concepts that are certainly more important to be taught than evolution. ... The theory of evolution is just not that important.
I'll put it this way: Trying to do modern biology without learning evolution is like trying to do modern chemistry without learning how the periodic table works.
I am officially gone from
I could easily come up with dozens of scientific theories and concepts that are certainly more important to be taught than evolution.
Do you consider it abuse to not teach kids about Newton's laws of motion?
No one is teaching their kids that Newtonian Dynamics is bunk and all objects move only because god will it.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
That's absurd. There's no agenda to atheism. By definition, *there's nothing to believe in*.
If I told you I was an a-unicorn-ist (that is, someone that doesn't believe in unicorns) would you think that I have some sort of agenda? Some sort of RELIGION?
At best, you can describe atheism as a philosophy, but it's more accurate not to call it anything at all. It's like the number 0. It's there, it's useful to define the absence of something (i.e., I have 0 oranges at my desk), but in the end, there's literally no belief structure tied to it at all.
You can make the point that there are ANTI-religious people and that THEY have an agenda, but don't tell me I have a religion specifically because I don't believe in any of them.