Slashdot Mirror


Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools

sandbagger sends this news from io9: In what's being heralded as a secular triumph, the U.K. government has banned the teaching of creationism as science in all existing and future academies and free schools. The new clauses, which arrived with very little fanfare last week, state that the "requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school." So, if an academy or free school teaches creationism as scientifically valid, it's breaking the funding agreement to provide a "broad and balanced curriculum." ... In addition to the new clauses, the UK government clarified the meaning of creationism, reminding everyone that it's a minority view even within the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

7 of 649 comments (clear)

  1. Yep. by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because sometimes, just sometimes, we actually have a brain.

  2. Headline should read by Sasayaki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Britain Rules Teaching Children Known Falsehoods In Science Class For Religious Reasons Now Deemed Inappropriate

    Good. Honestly, though, this isn't a huge deal for Britain. Almost every developed country has this policy either formally or de-facto.

    If this came out of the US, though, holy balls it would be big. The US seems to be the only country where a sizable body of Christians are allowed to lie for Jesus to impressionable children, or worse, genuinely believe creationist excrement and are still permitted to use their authority to teach it to others.

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
  3. Re:Evolution isn't science by hsthompson69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You found a modern rabbit fossil in the Precambrian? Pics, or it didn't happen.

    Oh, and "the fossil was obviously disturbed and moved to a different strata in the earth" is a *valid* explanation.

  4. Re:Science is not consensus by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh please! There are thousands of things in climate science that are falsifiable. It's going to take falsifying more than a few of them to discredit AGW. I suggest you get started.

  5. Re:A minority view? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    can you think of a repeatable experiment that would prove or disprove that there is a creator?

    Can you think of a repeatable experiment that would prove or disprove that there are magical unicorns?

    See, it's not up to science to prove some imaginary thing you or anyone else comes up with. It's your idea, so you prove it. If you can do that, science will suddenly become interested. But, seeing as how the "God" superstition has exactly as much fact backing it up as the magical unicorn idea, that is to say, none whatsoever, the balls in your court. Not in science's.

    Here's the metric: reproducible, consensually experiential, testable. None of "I had an idea", " I read it in an old book" or "someone swore to me it was true" equals "it's Science!"

  6. Re:A minority view? by able1234au · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry you lost your wife and son. I think experiences such as yours shows the background and reason why humans had to invent gods. Originally those gods were in the Sun, or Rocks or Trees or anything else mystical, and they gave comfort to humans. Which is fine, but let's not confuse that comfort with something that actually exists.

  7. Re:A minority view? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow. There isn't a better post one could write as an example of cognitive dissonance.

    I feel sad for you. Trapped in a belief system that you will see you dead family again instead of actually moving on.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect