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.
Because sometimes, just sometimes, we actually have a brain.
A beautiful victory for intelligence (as opposed to intelligent design (TM)(R)(C))
INB4 endless butthurt from Cretinists, er, Creationists.
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.
I suppose by creationism, they mean the idea that all animals were created at once, rather than simply the idea that God created animals?
I mean, teach "creationism" in schools? Really.....
no, I don't have a sig
While atheists and even atheism itself was generally frowned upon I have to say as the first Muslim and non-pink person to attend - I was very glad to have gone there and grown.
Despite what people may think the teaching there is some of the best in the UK and even with the deep and sincere commitment to faith you have an equally deep and sincere commitment to scientific enquiry and truth. We were never taught creationism, and any school or teacher considering it would have been politely but firmly shown the door.
I guess the thinking was us kids would need our wits about us out here to survive.
There is not one creationism. To treat it as a monolith is false.
Old-earth creationists are given short shrift in this approach - an approach that is not about being anti-religious. Atheism is not the same thing as pro-Scientific.
Questions of the super-natural are, by definition, outside of the scope of proper science. Science is about the natural.
Personally, I'm Eastern Orthodox Atheist.
But I'm not religious about it. :)
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
Forcing government-run schools, or the private schools needing government's license to continue to exist, is easy. But that is not good enough.
Now a way must be found to prevent parents from poisoning the young minds with things, the government considers incorrect.
This is harder — and may involve asking pupils to report their parents' attempts to teach them wrong things to the government, who may then have to talk to the offenders and, in the particularly hard cases, take their children into protective custody.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
To all creationists, before you sound off, I have one simple question for you:
What peer reviewed evidence do you have to support the existence of a god ?
Until you can answer that question, your ideas have no place in science class.
If education is done right, with teachers and schools that care to really develops a childs mind, then the kids learn the difference between science and religion, what it means for a scientific theory to be credible and widely held, how to evaluate scientific evidence, and what questions that religion attempts to answer that science at least, at this point, can not. They also can go through all the current scientific evidence for and against evolution, creationism, and other theories. Kids learn how to identify their own values and make their own decisions on what to beleve. It isn't hard and parents should be responsible for ensuring their kids find the best schools and teachers, and ensuring that religion and science are both addressed properly in the classroom.
Politicians interjecting themselves into what subjects teachers are allowed to introduce in the classroom and how such subjects must be discussed does _nothing_ to produce an educated population. It is nothing more than blowing at windmills to gain votes on whatever educational topic is popular for the day. The farther education decisions get removed from the parent, the more students become trained to become regurgitators of approved politically correct information rather than becoming adults with adapative minds capable of of grasping subtle connections and knowing truth from falsehood.
And NOT in a science class
It is not a scientific theory, there is no significant evidence supporting any of it's many hypothesis, and should NOT be taught as science.
However, if you want to include it as a part of a history or comparative religion class (since catholics don't have a monopoly on creationism) then I don't have a problem with it. Just keep it out of the science class. It's NOT science.
Teaching evolution as science should be banned from schools. Man-made global warming should also be banned from schools. Neither are real science.
With just one little comma...
"Teaching Creationism, As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools"
Very surprising to hear from UK government where the government actually is insisting on truth. The same day UK government cheekily explains that total surveillance is absolutely legal. I wish somebody could explain and reconcile these extremities, those instances where UK Government is randomly making pro-humanity and anti-humanity moves.
This is a major step forwards in logical thought and scientific teaching, now if the US / Canada could follow.
Can we please have one topic about the UK that doesn't require me to sift through hundreds of comments from people from the US who have no idea how our system works but will gladly jump at the chance to complain how theirs is broken? Just once, I'd like to read about something that affects my country and be able to find comments made by people who are likewise involved.
Agreed. Evolution (as is Creationism) is an attempt to describe history - it is not science. It's not testable, verifiable or falsifiable. This issue is skirted by attempting to equate natural selection/selective pressure with molecules to Margaret evolution - stating they are on in the same, which they are (and they know it too...)
Last sentence should read: "which they are not (and they know it too...)".
So you want the government to mandate and enforce behaviors. Much like the Taliban and other muslim governments do? You must realize that once a government enforces personal behaviors, its a matter of time until someone determines that a belief YOU have is unacceptable.
Schools teaching evidence based science is one thing, forcing parents into your personal pattern of behavior because that is what YOU think is right is so far out of the bounds of our constitution that i am amazed any advanced western intellect would conceive of it.
That assumes that you are an advanced western intelligence. That is obviously arguable.
Now a way must be found to prevent parents from poisoning the young minds with things the vast majority of the scientific community considers incorrect.
That's better, just a minor correction.
There's no reason to outlaw parents from teaching their children mythology as if it were commonly accepted fact, just like they did not outlaw schools from doing so. The school would just lose its government funding. I'm not sure if there would be a similar kind of incentive to get parents to also refrain from spouting mythology and legend as though it were fact, but if so it would certainly help promote the raising of a generation of free thinkers. Requiring schools to stick to actual facts is a decent start though, hopefully it spreads.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
No need to specify individual hypotheses in order to get science right - simply demand that the hypothesis be falsifiable.
This demand neatly excludes creationism, intelligent design, anthropogenic global warming, homeopathy and astrology, while allowing evolution, astronomy, physics, vaccination and chemistry.
Not all ideas are scientific ones - and the way we tell them apart is to look for the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
This only seems to have become a problem since the academies and free-schools bullcrap allowed a bunch of 'Muslim charities' to run schools.
Does advanced western intelligence include the ability to detect sarcasm?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Your unbelievable. And why should I take your belief system (whatever it may be, God not) and use it to teach my kids. The government, or you have no business forcing me to teach my kids anything. And you certainly don't have more authority than the parents. There are many other things besides where we came from. Without introducing anything else, I would argue that you have no scientific foundation for imposing any laws or way of live on someone. What scientific law gives the government or you any authority of me more my children!?
"super-natural" is a buzzword - the real criteria for science is falsifiability.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org...
No form of "creationism" I've ever been presented with has had a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, but I'm welcome to hear one if you think you have one.
Science is the process of approaching the truth through the development and testing of necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypotheses.
There are cases when the scientific consensus is in fact, a religiously influenced doctrine (take AGW for example). The way we discern between science and not-science is by looking for the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
As long as nobody stops me from teaching Lord of the Rings as history.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Its the thin edge of the wedge. Pretty soon they will ban other things too. If dummy parents want to pay & send their kids to schools that teach trash, then let them. Otherwise you are in 1984. Its been a long wait, but it actually looks like its coming.
Who will tattle? The students?
Finally, someone with the strength and will to power to come out and say what must be done in order to bring about our glorious new age of perfect government-approved science and PROGRESS! Are we holding any rallies soon? Where can we sign up? Also, I have an incinerator-making company in need of construction contracts, and some remote campsite locations for sale. Who's with us?
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
Not a creationist here, but a Christian with an actual scientific degree from a respected university.
What peer reviewed evidence do you have to support the non-existence of a god ?
Until you can answer that question, teaching my children that there is no god has no place in science class.
(Leave religion and philosophy to theologians and philosophers - the scientific method can be applied to most anything else, thanks.)
He was kidding, Amicus. You're creeping me out.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
UK = England + Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland. The central government only controls education policy for England, not for the rest of the UK. State-funded schools in Scotland and Wales were never permitted to teach creationism. I don't know the situation in Northern Ireland but it may be different.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Engineers understand Creation, because: 1) that's what they do; and 2) they study the formal laws of physics that govern the process of creation.
Biologists pat animals, and study their shit, but they don't have a clue how to make any animals, otherwise they would.
Now the 2nd law of thermodynamics says: "All natural systems (e.g. nature) progresses from a state of order (creations) to a state of chaos (puddle of mud)".
In other words, shit doesn't magically build itself, any more than it falls upwards.
By exploiting a basic human weakness (we can't comprehend 100 years, a 1000 degrees, or a million dollars), Evolution essentially states that in a million, billion, trillion years, shit will fall uphill; but the laws of physics says: no it won't!
It says: Engineers (intellegent designers) build stuff, using money (energy), intelligence (order), and perserverance.
It says: 99.99% of all species become extinct this century, and yes, we were expecting that.
We call it "the way of all things"
These laws point to the fact that the world as we know it is slowly but surely crapping out.
Sure, you can draw some arbitrary system boundaries between the earth and the sun, to try to prove something relatively meaningless, but apart from some viruses and bacteria that were designed to mutate (in order to destroy stuff better), nothing is going to evolve, ever.
Sorry, the laws of physics are all about crushing your hopes and dreams.
Let me leave you with a quote from Darwin: "In the near future, the civilised races of humans will destroy the savage races"
That's pretty much the crux of it - a psuedo-scientific justification for killing the lower species of humans (and it turns out that the Chinese are the master race, according to their military thinkers).
Essentially, Engineers and Physics are such pussies, they were totally overrun by some nutbag faith-based doctrine - this time it was Athiesm - nice one guys.
FYI - the creator reckons that all mankind are created in his image, that his spirit (breath, word, life) dwells in them, and therefore we are all fundamentally equal, and even our gender-based differences will dissappear in the next life. Oh yeah, and you're accountable to him, and 'defective' units go in the trashcan.
Ps. Can any of you genius's make a working device that can: 1) heal itself; 2) reproduce; 3) feed people in death (join the circle of life).
Its not like you don't have a million working examples to pick from (yeah that number is decreasing, not increasing, so better get cracking).
Jeremy Connell (BE, BSc)
Mike Connell Ministries
Science, at its most basic, requires falsifiability.
The "God" question (or the "which God" question), is not subject to falsifiability, and therefore, clearly doesn't belong in a science class. If that question should come up, it should be clearly answered with "gods are not falsifiable, so they don't belong in science class - ask a theologian or philosopher".
Now if by denying a 7 day creation period for the planet in science class, we're implicitly denying the existence of God, and your kids pick up on that, I'm not terribly sympathetic. Science may not speak to whether or not God exists, but it has no responsibility to avoid contradicting any particular mythology with the scientific method.
I don't see Great Britain as a paragon of scientific virtue. It is the epicenter of the global warming fraud after all.
an ill wind that blows no good
It's hard to detect sarcasm when speaking of this nature about Brittan. The government there already places surveillance cameras in private homes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.infowars.com/uk-gov...
Now I know someone will say but those are slanted and biased sites. Yes they are and they are somewhat polar opposite in their slants so it should mean the story is true. However, for the crazy still needing more, it appears the local governments don't want left out of the fun filled craze.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
I know he's kidding, he was using hyperbole to suggest that this is government overreach. I don't think it is.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I know he's kidding, he was using hyperbole to suggest that this is government overreach. I don't think it is.
Even creepier. Also, I consulted every site on the Internet and a consortium of literature professors, and they told me you don't know what "hyperbole" means. You may have been looking for "satire".
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
Also, I consulted every site on the Internet and a consortium of literature professors, and they told me you don't know what "hyperbole" means. You may have been looking for "satire".
The funny thing about that is that I looked up the definition of hyperbole less than 30 minutes before I wrote that because I didn't want to use it incorrectly somewhere else. Maybe it was just on my mind. I'm pretty sure that's irony.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
"government, or you have no business forcing me to teach my kids anything" well if you live in the uk Im afraid the Government does Your a SUBJECT not a citizen.
The queen through parliment owns you and there are still lots of statute on the boxes to this effect.
Sounds like a great place for all of the United States God-less democrats to move to after they have renounced their citizenship!!!
Creationism is, of course, utter nonsense. But what is currently the mandatory teaching of evolution and banning of creationism may well turn into the mandatory teaching of creationism in the future; or the mandatory teaching of racism, Marxism and other harmful ideologies that used to pretend to have a rational, scientific basis.
School curricula should be primarily determined at the local level, by parents. They shouldn't be determined by central governments and majority vote.
This came out of a row in Britain over an investigation into schools in Birmingham. Unlike the US situation, what brought this about was a charge that Muslims were trying to take over schools in Birmingham and alter the lessons to support Islamic Ideals. The term you can search on to find this is Trojan Horse Investigation, along with Birmingham.
For example: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng...
For a more sensationalist view, we have the Daily Fail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
One of (many) things charged was teaching creationism. Others were teaching in sex ed that wives weren't allowed to "say no" and must submit to their husbands.
How much of this is true depends on who you ask and, no surprise, it's quite a controversy.
But, to put it in context, this came up in response to charges of Islamic influence. Apparently any Christian state funded schools teaching creationism didn't raise this level of concern.
Well you escalated that quickly. I'm an atheist but damn dude, you're talking thought crime levels of stuff here and I'm not liberal enough to go for that!
:) That is funny. The reason I was calling your take on Mi's post "creepy" is because I think the notion of an ordained state-run party of scientists and their opinions is scary, even if they are large enough to make up a "vast majority". It sounds like some kind of whitecoat Spanish Inquisition.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
Then you can demonstrate one such statute.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A bunch of academies in the North east were sponsored by one of Tony Blair's dodgy businessmen mates to teach Creationism. It just goes to show how easy it is to pervert education.
Generally, the argument goes like this: We expect parents (and others) to avoid harming children. Teaching children utter bullshit can (easily and rightfully) be construed as harm. You only get to keep your authority, whatever access you had to children, as long as society sees you as not harming them. Get it now?
Children are not some resource for your private amusement. They are human beings, and they deserve better than being fed bullshit.
England != UK. This is the Dept of Education for England not Scotland, or Wales, or Northern Ireland - all of which are UK yet, strangely, they are not England.
What makes me always amazed about USA: in some respect it is a highly developed country, its science and technology researches are often on a bleeding edge. Yet, at the same time, with all this crap like creationism, televangelists, in general attitude about religion, about sex, and so forth, it is SOOOOO provincial.
Is it okay to teach that it's *NOT* scientifically valid?
Because that's still teaching it.... it's just admitting up front that it depends upon a scientifically untestable premise.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's hard to detect sarcasm when speaking of this nature about Brittan. The government there already places surveillance cameras in private homes.
you spelled guvmint wrong
Most would say that 'creationism' is the belief that a divine entity created the universe. That is definitely not a minority opinion in the Catholic Church, the Church of England, or among Christians in general. All that anyone can say, based on our present knowledege, is that the universe had a finite beginning at a time in the distant past ...and arose (or was was 'created')...from nothing. Neither 'science' nor 'Christianity' nor 'creationism' can prove any sort of causality between the beginning of the universe and anything else. It is not doing students any favors to keep them in the dark about any of that. Certainly it is impossible to legitimately 'teach' students that there is any sort of scientific proof that a divine entity did NOT create the universe.
The LHC didn't exist in the 18th century so if the Higgs boson were proposed in the 18th century would not have been practically falsifiable, but it was still falsifiable in principle
Actually that is not quite correct. The notion of a Higgs boson is not falsifiable in principle. All you need to do is say that it has a higher mass than you can reach with your accelerator. At some point this mass will be so large that your higgs can no longer explain the things that it was invented to solve but that is NOT the same as saying that there is no fundamental scalar Higgs field out there - all it says is that if such a field exists it would no longer be able to explain why fundamental particles have mass.
Least you think that this is a purely hypothetical argument this is the exact situation we have at the moment with a theory called Supersymmetry. So far we have seen no hint of this symmetry but it is arguably the best explanation we have as to why the Higgs has such a low mass. However if after the next run of the LHC we still see no hint of it then it is likely that, if it exists at all, it is probably at too high an energy to explain why the Higgs is so light and so nature likely solves this problem a different way. This is usually when theories get dropped - not because they have been proven wrong but because they have been shown not to solve the problem they were invented for.
Finally an english speaking country that isn't suffering from christian insanity.
"The government there already places surveillance cameras in private homes."
Or to put it another way the government has not placed any surveillance cameras in private homes as described in those articles
I work in an English academy school - things have changed since you went to school, I think. Religious Education lessons cover all the major religions. Last week I was observing an RE lesson and saw a Jewish 13-year old display an impressive knowledge of Sikhism.
There may be some conservative Church of England-run and Islamic schools were religion teaching is worse, but in most schools in England (I have no idea about Wales or Scotland) religion classes are very inclusive. Only atheism tends to draw the short stick; but that may improve with the amount of attention it gets in the media.
Quit repeating yourself, it's dull.
AGW could be falsified in a number of different ways, but why don't you disengage your oral-rectal interface and actually learn something about atmospheric science. You can't just bitch about a theory you don't like, you have to account for the observations it explains in some other manner.
There's a lot of good information that can be found on this site, and ScienceOfDoom has a pretty good (with some exceptions) eight-part series on why CO2 is an issue. Finally, you could actually read the IPCC reports. Understand that we're working from 200 years of observations, and that the properties of CO2 are extremely well known. We know very specifically what wavelengths of radiation it absorbs under various conditions. We can also measure this in the atmosphere directly. It is completely inarguable that a higher partial pressure of carbon dioxide will result in heat retention through absorption of outgoing long-wave radiation. However, if you wanted to try to disprove that, you could start postulating magic fairy dust, or a conspiracy of scientists. Those would be easiest. Next best bet would be that CO2 doesn't behave the way it is measured to behave both in the lab and via satellite. It could be that it only absorbs OLR when someone is looking. Lastly you could accept that CO2 does cause warming but find some other phenomenon which would offset this, and may I say good luck on that one. I am sure that you know enough to know that getting rid of excess heat in space is a problem; we have that problem on a planetary scale.
The AGW theory is the result of, as said, about 200 years of observations. But if you wanted to stick your fingers into the wounds, then head to the Arctic; it's melting like gangbusters. We are rapidly heading towards a future where large icefields will not exist. However, do note that while the fundamentals of CO2-related forcing in the matter of climate change are not in doubt, the effects of a more energetic atmosphere are difficult to predict. It's not an intractable problem, and it's relatively easy to get a ballpark estimate by modeling the atmosphere as a column of air, which is why we're talking about single-digit changes in global temperature per doubling of CO2 as opposed to an order of magnitude more or less.
You have a cognitive bias which is leading you to ignore or reject observations. If you accept the evidence for relativity, or quantum physics, or evolution, or plate tectonics, or the germ theory of disease, or stellar evolution, then you should either accept the scientific basis for AGW or find a better argument. Proceed from the evidence to your hypothesis and not the other way around. If you do not know the evidence, then you are unqualified to discuss it.
Anon for moderation.
Actually, it *is* the UK Department of Education. While education in Scotland is governed by the Scottish government, in Wales by the Welsh and in Northern Ireland by the Northern Irish, it is the U.K. government that sets education policy for England; for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a government for England.
I can't blame Americans or other foreigners for not getting this, hardly anyone in this country does.
"even within the Church of England and the Catholic Church"
Ah, that "even" gives you away! You were actually ignorant enough to think that those two institutions were likely to be creationists? How many other things do you comment on with zero knowledge of the subject?
Yes because what matters is what is written on a piece of paper and not how things work in practice. The worlds republics and constitutional monarchies both have issues, but I will take a paper thin veneer of feudalism the UK has, something which would vanish the second someone actually tried to apply it, to the corporatist state the US has become with massive legalised bribery.
the creationists are right, even partially so.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Try swearing in as a Magistrate or lots of various other offices of the state and note you Have to Pledge your oath to the monarch DIRECTLY and not parliment\ the state directly.
When they restored the monarchy with Charles the II they pretty much went back to the divine right of kings to rule, It was only the fact the following kings were so bad at managing money they needed parliment.
A lot of those powers for the crown are still on the books, as has been said if they would ever be used is another story but until you change them the fact of the mater is the monarchs govenernment still has the right to tell your business.
This is a very controversial thing, which is why it was slipped out so secretly. It's not really about creationism, which has no purchase in Britain. It's about power. This is why it is being heralded, not as a victory for science - I am a scientist myself - but for "secularism".
Because now the militant godbothering atheist has a tool with which to harass church schools.
Just imagine it: Some child asks Mr Jones in science class in some primary school full of 8 year olds whether God made the world. Jones gives a diplomatic answer. Little Johnny goes home and tells his parents. The next thing Jones hears is that he is now on a disciplinary charge for "teaching Creationism".
This is the intention. This is the design purpose of the law; to permit malicious local atheists to harass church schools.
And why do people even want to teach Creationism? Because of all the atheists who did trolling tours of the bible belt sneering, "Science proves your religion is a lie! Har har!"
No society is well served by making ideologically-based denunciations possible. No society is well-served by trying to prevent members of the world's largest religion - which created our society - from running schools and teaching in them.
It's a horrible piece of news. The gloating by the nastier sort of atheists - who would scream blue murder in an instant if treated similarly - tells us what's going on.
The real story in UK schools is that Moslems are trying to hijack the schools in order to indoctrinate suicide bombers. So the government rushes into action and passes a law ... against the Christians. It's appalling.
Can't we all just get along?
I thought this whole creationism thing was strictly a Pig AmeriKKKan problem!
Did you actually read the posts you linked to?
Engineers understand Creation, because: 1) that's what they do; and 2) they study the formal laws of physics that govern the process of creation. Biologists pat animals, and study their shit, but they don't have a clue how to make any animals, otherwise they would. Now the 2nd law of thermodynamics says: "All natural systems (e.g. nature) progresses from a state of order (creations) to a state of chaos (puddle of mud)". In other words, shit doesn't magically build itself, any more than it falls upwards. By exploiting a basic human weakness (we can't comprehend 100 years, a 1000 degrees, or a million dollars), Evolution essentially states that in a million, billion, trillion years, shit will fall uphill; but the laws of physics says: no it won't! It says: Engineers (intellegent designers) build stuff, using money (energy), intelligence (order), and perserverance. It says: 99.99% of all species become extinct this century, and yes, we were expecting that. We call it "the way of all things" These laws point to the fact that the world as we know it is slowly but surely crapping out. Sure, you can draw some arbitrary system boundaries between the earth and the sun, to try to prove something relatively meaningless, but apart from some viruses and bacteria that were designed to mutate (in order to destroy stuff better), nothing is going to evolve, ever. Sorry, the laws of physics are all about crushing your hopes and dreams. Let me leave you with a quote from Darwin: "In the near future, the civilised races of humans will destroy the savage races" That's pretty much the crux of it - a psuedo-scientific justification for killing the lower species of humans (and it turns out that the Chinese are the master race, according to their military thinkers). Essentially, Engineers and Physics are such pussies, they were totally overrun by some nutbag faith-based doctrine - this time it was Athiesm - nice one guys. FYI - the creator reckons that all mankind are created in his image, that his spirit (breath, word, life) dwells in them, and therefore we are all fundamentally equal, and even our gender-based differences will dissappear in the next life. Oh yeah, and you're accountable to him, and 'defective' units go in the trashcan. Ps. Can any of you genius's make a working device that can: 1) heal itself; 2) reproduce; 3) feed people in death (join the circle of life). Its not like you don't have a million working examples to pick from (yeah that number is decreasing, not increasing, so better get cracking).
Jeremy Connell (BE, BSc) Mike Connell Ministries
"[A]ny doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory."
The issue is what balance between the bounds of science, religion, and the state.
The state has an interest in advancing science and promoting harmony.
Doing so may also be advancing a particular religious belief system.
History shows that the state choosing a belief system leads to problems.
(I think because when it comes to belief systems, with humans, there is never one.)
Creation is a theory supported by faith. (and some say a bit of physical evidence as well)
Evolution is a theory supported by physical observational evidence. (and probably also the faith of some scientists)
There are many religious belief systems which bring many different creation stories.
Science brings us basically one (evolving) story.
With a literal interpretation of the creation story, these theories are in conflict.
Which says a thinking person has to choose, or find a way to reconcile them.
Personally, I think there there are two creation questions.
The big Creation question is who who created God, or what setup the conditions for the big bang.
The little creation question is what happened after this.
For the little c, religion offers many belief systems with conflicting stories.
I contend that science offers the only consistent story.
For the big C, science provides little help.
The best answer we have is that it, he, or she just was.
One has to take this on faith. (Perhaps a faith that some things are just unknowable.)
I contend that this is pretty much how all the religious creation stories start.
For a public school, there are great teaching opportunities here
1) The scientific method and the difference between observation and faith as confirming evidence.
2) The idea that science can not provide all the answers and that some things are a matter of faith.
It's not clear how best to divide this issues between a science and philosophy classes,
but I'd like to think in this day and time, the whole story should be taught.
As opposed to the US, where folks who ought to be living in some third-world country, where they could be where they want, in the forefront of the 14th Century, instead of the US are running rampant, including over our political system.
mark
In general I agree, but when it comes to science I'm a little more relaxed about that, assuming that they stick to actual science without politicizing it. If they adhere to generally accepted scientific knowledge, and they design in a way to change the regulations as scientific consensus changes, then I like the idea. If they try to set anything in stone then I wouldn't be a fan, one of the best things about science is that our understanding can and does change all the time. When Einstein showed evidence that general relativity was correct, scientists around the world looked at Newton and his 200 year old ideas and had to acknowledge that he was not entirely correct. That must have been very humbling for a lot of people, including Einstein, but I love the fact that scientific theories can get torn down with little ceremony when someone discovers something new. One of the things that I dislike most about politics is that people are lauded for their unchanging attitudes, "sticking to their guns" or whatever, and derided for changing their mind, or "flip-flopping". It's ridiculous. So I'd like to see government take science a little more seriously, and politicians should feel free to change their views without fear of being ridiculed for it. The US especially needs that shift in attitude. Human-caused climate change is a great example, more and more data is coming out but people refuse to publicly acknowledge it or else get labeled in a negative way.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Next thing you know, they'll outlaw the teaching of hubris. I thought that within the scientific method one could only disprove rival hypotheses regarding controllably repeatable phenomena. It would seem to me that the creation of the universe, or for that matter the origin of species, even for the unestimably gifted evolutionists, would be out-of-bounds for strict sense scientific mthod science. I would be careful as well to not use the term "evidence based" as a substitute for the more rigorous specifications of scientific method science. Extrapolating forward or backward in time is anyone's prerogative, mind you, but use of the word "science" should be carefully scoped in any discussion. Thank you and I'll take my beatings off-line.
Do we really need to go again, through the fine examples of what that venerable "vast majority of the scientific community" once considered incorrect — but does not any more?
The reasons are (or would be) the same as banning schools from doing it. If you ban one without another, you are leaving a "dangerous loophole" — and all that.
Distinction without (or with little) difference. With taxes as high as they are in today's Western world, loss of government funding by an enterprise currently receiving it mean certain bankruptcy.
But this a good — if unexpected — point. Nobody wants taxpayers' monies spent on unscientific matters taught as science. But whether a particular thing is, indeed, unscientific, remains a matter of opinion. Though we seem to have the opinion in this case, do you and I feel confident enough to force our opinion on other people's children? I do not...
Which all boils down to the fact, that taxes should not be spent on education — tempting though it may be, it leads to this sort of oppression, where the government taxes everybody, but spends the taxes as only some deem correct.
Hence the Libertarianism...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I didn't see sarcasm. This is exactly the kind of this the current administration in the US wants. An entire party wants to control the way people think. Everything from the ridicule of religion to the islamic "religion of peace" rhetoric, to the "what difference does it make" coverup of governmental incompetence, to the "illegals are the future of the nation" bs. Thought control, behavior control. Its what the entire left is about.
Ever head of Lysenko? The greater the share of research, that is funded by the governments (as opposite to private entities), the easier it is to portray one's scientific opponents as not merely stupid, but as "enemies of the people" and "saboteurs".
And that share does need to reach 100% (as it was in the USSR), for "politicizing" to begin. Heck, the climate science is a fine example already — while actual climatologists are still discussing, there are already calls to arrest "climate change deniers"... Still feeling relaxed?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Do we really need to go again, through the fine examples of what that venerable "vast majority of the scientific community" once considered incorrect — but does not any more?
We can if you want, that's one of my favorite things about science actually - new evidence comes along, and suddenly the universe is not the same as it once was. Changing ideas is a central concept of the scientific method, that's the beauty of it. I wish I could say the same thing for politicians or religions, with politics people like to talk about how little their positions change, and the entire point of many religions is that every law is sacred and unchangeable.
But whether a particular thing is, indeed, unscientific, remains a matter of opinion. Though we seem to have the opinion in this case, do you and I feel confident enough to force our opinion on other people's children? I do not...
It really is about having enough confidence, so the question becomes what is the acceptable level of confidence. Should the scientific community have a consensus of 60% to teach something as fact? 75%? 90%? 95%? 99%? I don't know what the answer to that is, but I imagine that scientific consensus concerning creationism is pretty high.
Which all boils down to the fact, that taxes should not be spent on education
That's something I don't agree with. On that quiz I score high as a libertarian, but I believe that wealthy governments have a duty to provide education and healthcare for everyone who wants it. I consider healthcare and education in the same bucket as roads and firemen when it comes to things that a wealthy government should provide. Not that the US is necessarily doing either of those correctly, but that's what I believe.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
Governments have no wealth of their own — their source of income is the taxes collected from their constituents. At gun-point, I might add... Spending those taxes on what even some of the taxpayers consider wrong — whether it is certain teachings or abortions — is oppressive.
Now, wealthy people, who think everybody is entitled to this and that are free to pay for it on their own. But forcing others to participate in whatever program you deem wonderful is tyranny...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
There go the British. The Queen and the Crown should step in and mandate that all Brits get a primary education in religion, as part of their heritage. Britain has a long history in the Protestant religion that goes back over 500 years.
When I said wealthy governments I was referring to governments of wealthy nations. And I do believe that governments have a duty to provide essential infrastructure to their people. I consider education and healthcare to be essential infrastructure in an advanced civilization.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Still feeling relaxed?
I sure am. No one is going to get arrested for thinking that humans don't cause climate change. But if someone is launching a campaign to spread that idea, even though they know that the contrary is true, and they are trying to deceive the public in order to enrich themselves (like tobacco companies), then they do deserve to be charged with a crime and ordered to reimburse their victims. But no one cares if someone just doesn't believe that people can cause climate change.
The greater the share of research, that is funded by the governments
I'm not necessarily advocating that governments should fund and engage in research, just that they should seek out the consensus of the private scientific community when deciding matters of policy. There might not be a consensus on the issues they're deciding, but seeking out that consensus would be much better than what we have now, where they seek out the people with the largest checkbook and then decide policy based on what that person wants.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
sep church/state was always about preventing "you have to do this, follow this God, believe these things", it was a puritanical reaction to the pope+king connection.
that's it.
everything is butthurt atheists bending the notion to their whims. doesn't really bother me that much, but that's what it is
Creationism must be so feared that we the common folk should not be allowed to consider or even know an alternate theory exist, even with representation from all the scientific fields, and evidence. What are they trying to hide from you?
What they don't tell you is you and your children are being force fed the Gov't religion because they will use this new world view to change and promote new laws that may previously been considered unethical.
Really, believing in a loving God is so dangerous they have to try to eliminate it from the culture in any form, and prevent you from hearing anything positive about it.
They have a right to believe what they want to, but they want to control what you believe also. There went your freedom, and it barely made a noise....
They are threatened by it, but do you know why?
catholic church pope was in tight with the imperial rulers enforcing obedience to the catholic church.
the level of truth bending you people will go through to smear history into your own farcical concoctions is exactly why the religious folk hate you.
just. be. cool. about it all. there really aren't that many westboro baptists around. if you stop applying pressure they won't have anything to get all angry over...
and then they grow up to be greedy little fuckers willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead, including trashing society, their workforce, the economy, etc.
anyone ever worked for shitheads like this?
at least the Godfearing believe you have value and shouldn't be shit on.
genetic code does nothing but deform and get dirty. how am I supposed to believe it somehow mutated into a giraffe blood valve in its neck that shunts blood flow when he bends down? i mean that just takes faith. God would be impressed
There are so many Americans who have no idea how to decipher valid science from junk science. They listen to celebrities anecdotal evidence and then hook their children up for chelation treatments to cure various maladies. God is not part of science. I believe there may be a God but I don't see how it fits into science curriculum.
WTF do Giraffes have to do with the second law of thermodynamics. That is what we were discussing.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Only on the elementary and secondary education level does the US stink. Once kids get free from their ignorant parents into a freer academic sphere, does the US education system mature.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Well, there are a few minorities like the streng gereformeerde but these are frowned upon and considered even more asocial as radical muslims are.
And no way they teach their crap even at their own schools: Schools here in the EU have to include a series of matters in their curriculums and here in Holland failure to do do means that the schools are closed. Even failure to reach the standards means that schools can be closed. That we have already seen with the closure of a bunch of Islamic schools a few years ago and the possible closing of a group of evangelic schools right now because of not meeting a minimum of quality requirements.
There was some hype in the UK as these creation-nuts gathered some media attention, but that was actually not the type of attention they would have wanted, specially knowing the British character.
Europe is unfortunately (for these creat-ins) not ripe for Evangelization yet. Better prepared people tried it already (the Vatican started a re-evangelization campaign a few years ago with no visible results).
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Actually I think that the enlightenment is a critical part of scientific history and I also believe that the history of a particular subject should not be extracted into a separate disconnected class. Science (or any subject for that matter) is much easier to comprehend if you know it's history. It's one thing to know the speed of light, it's an entirely different thing know how we know that fact. Science does not operate in a social vacuum, so why do we all defer to religious sensitivities and act like it does?
Really, why do we pander to them? - To paraphrase someone else I heard; If I claim Elvis is my God, a stack of pancakes is his body, a jug of maple syrup is his blood, then breakfast is my holy sacrament. The difference between that activity and what a Catholic does with crackers and wine is virtually nil. The reaction from society to the two activities are virtually polar opposites.
And like it or not, Science is a philosophy class, Newton was never called a scientist by his contemporaries, he was a "Natural Philosopher". Ignoring the creation myth and hoping it goes away is what people have been doing for the last 500yrs, what makes you think it will work now? I'm firmly in the Sagan/Tyson camp and have been for at least half a century, I refuse to conform to the religious stereotype of an Atheist/scientists. Demonstrate to kids that Science is the only philosophy that has ever informed us about the real world. Don't pretend religion doesn't exist, get the kids to do an experiment that tests the scientific claims of other philosophies. For example, treat Genesis as a serious hypothesis for how the world works and let the kids pull it apart themselves.
Once the kids are scientifically literate and have been formally "indoctrinated" with the simply philosophy behind the unrivaled utility of Science (ie: first year HS), then you can send 'em to a philosophy class to learn how politicians and priests think (or don't, as the case may be).
"Forget the kids, fix the adults and the kids will be fine". - N dG Tyson.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
In reading thru the comments, I was amazed about the false things associated with Christian.
For example, racism was brought up many times.
There is no support for racism in the Bible. A person's skin color, eye color, or hair color is not an issue. We are all humans and our actions or God's actions did not have any bearing on race.
Where do you see race enforced and encouraged is in evolution. It defines and promotes the idea that races exists and one must be better than another. See hitler and similar evolutionists.
You also see it from groups that claim to be christian, but they must ignore large sections of the Bible, and embrace evolution teachings about race.
But if you actually look in the Bible, you find we are all just human, that should all be treated the same.
I looked at many of the supposed verses that are reported to support racism, but when you look at the actual text, and the context, you see that it is actually against racism.
So there are many posers that claim they are christian, but do not represent what the Bible says.
They claim may weird things and are designed to control, but do not come from a clear understanding of the Bible.
The claims that racism is promoted by christian beliefs is not true.
Yet many ignore that evolution promotes and encourages racism is supported by Darwin and all his followers.
Many of the other things used to put down Christians are not even Christian related.
This is one thing that some people don't like but is Christian.
Jesus Christ the Creator, came and died on the Cross for our sins, that man, if he is willing to admit he is a sinner, and needs a Savior, can agree with God, ask for God's forgiveness, and ask to be saved (save from Hell and to Heaven)
This process is referred to as adoption, citizenship, redeemed, to name a few.
Any human can accept Jesus Christ's forgiveness.
Now if you hate that then you are actually hating something that is Christian.
Many of the other things that are attributed to Christians may not be true either.