If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Faith school controversy
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
For you.........
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
I recommend everyone read this article actually, it is very good...........
I feel I should defend myself.........
a) the issues have nothing to do with eachother so it ain't double standards.
b) no-one said the state knows best, I personally said that there needs to be a balance.
c) The point I have bee trying to make is simply that it should not be entirtely up to a parent how their kid is educated.
if you do not beleive their are bad parent who, if left to their own devices would seriously mess up their children then you are simply wrong....
if you can't see the benefit of promoting a proper education then there is no popint talking about it............
Should catch up on the thread first
Way ahead of me Aladdin...........................
How do you deal with the point that no 'intelligent design' research is ever published in scientific journals.....
If a theory is published and peer reviewed in proper academic literature than it is not science.....
Simple.
Surely if intelligent design is the theory, timeframe is simply irrelevant?
So Adam and Eve are ridiculous, whereas evolution from primordial slime and eventually from apes (give or take the missing link) is perfectly logical?
No one has mentioned facts - just theories based on observations - is that not Science?
Is there really?
The Flood referred to in the Bible was no global by any means- at most affected parts of the Middle East. But even if there had been global floods millions of years ago, and even if man had been around to remember them and pass the story for thousands of generations, the main issue is not that. The main issue is the breathtakingly absurd claim that the land animals that exist today are the descendants of a pair that was put into a boat by a man acting on the orders of a deity to save said animals from drowning.
I really hope you will not be wanting to discuss the plausibility or 'science' behind such incredibly silly tale...
Yes. Is it that puzzling?
Science is based in study, research, in intelligent deductions, and backed up by millions of manhours of work and pieces of evidence whenever possible.
Religion on the other hand relies in little else than word of mouth, old wives tales, superstitions and a necessity to 'have faith' in what one is told 'just because'.
The two can't possibly be compared.
But I will discuss two scientifically researched theories for the state of life on earth.
You are right that you can never stop people having sex. That's why abstinence (though a more accurate term would be 'denial of existence') education is both pointless and doomed to failure.
Care to provide a link then? For an unbeliever like me who has no faith and require proof, like...
But what are we discussing here? I thought we were discussing whether teaching religious tales as facts or describing them as science is right. I make no distinction between the tale of Noah and the Ark, and the tale of the Creation of Earth and Mankind by a deity. And nor do religious schools happy to teach children the earth and the creatures within it were created overnight by a superior power, I should think.
Er no, I simply want children not be taught things that are, at best, highly dubious if not outright rubbish. You may think that a child being brainwashed into believing the incident of Noah's Ark and the Flood and the animals saved from drowning really happened would not harm the child at the end of the day. But that is not the point at all. Children have a right to a proper and sensible education and not to be programmed in such ways.
Not quite the same difference as suggesting the entire mankind was descended from a single couple created in an instant. Couldn't be more different if you tried.
Please show me some scientific research that supports creationism or 'intelligent design', because to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever seen it.
This is not to say that abstinence-only education is the solution, of course. There is no evidence to suggest that that reduces teenage (unwanted) pregnancies or STI spread, and there is some evidence from parts of the US that suggest an increased incidence of STI with such programmes. :rolleyes:
Why should I bother if you're not even willing to critique it as a scientific theory? Just for a minute, imagine that we're not talking about religion. Imagine, if you will, that we are talking about two ideas about the state of life on the planet earth. You don't want kids taught about things that are highly dubious? You want to censor the textbooks to exclude everything you disagree with?
You call it 'brainwashing', which is an emotive word that demands agreement with whatever you go on to say. Do you think being told such stories that children are somehow harmed; that this so-called brainwashing is limiting knowledge of the 'real' answer to this question of the origin of humanity? So it's just a timeframe issue for you?
There is ongoing research and published, peer-reviewed papers. Despite the 'brainwashing' of Richard Dawkins et al in The Guardian, you can't deny it's existence.
Seeing as I mentioned Europe- infinitely closer to the British model than Uganda could ever be- you could perhaps learn a bit about their own approach.
Because if you present me with a reliable scientific source that tells me that there once were global floods I'd had little reason to doubt it.
But I must say I have never heard of such event. Are you sure you're not mixing it up with the planet initially being completely covered by water, rather than the whole of the earth's land mass being under several feet of rain?
If both said ideas had a similar weight and plausibility and scientific evidence behind them, then students could learn about both.
But that is not the case is it? If we are to 'teach' children Creationism solely on the basis that some people on this planet happen to believe in certain unfounded stories and tales, can we teach them as well that the world sits on the back of four elephants carried across the Universe by a giant turtle, as told by the prophet Pratchett?
Er... no. Just things that are 'highly dubious'. Why would anyone want their kids to be taught things that aren't true???
With regard to being harmed: the belief that the earth was created by a deity would not strictly speaking harm a child (even though it is still not quite right to teach children something that is at best highly dubious as fact, I hope you will agree). But unfortunately it doesn't stop at that does it? People who have been brainwashed into that have also being brainwashed into believing other things, things that have definitely harmed them and others. Such as that the very same God that had created mankind has a problem with premarital sex, contraception or of course homosexuality. I'm sure you will realise how many millions of lives have been ruined, if not 'terminated' by homophobic prejudice alone.
With regard to limiting knowledge to the real answer to questions? Well, you only need to take a look at places like America (where around 40% of adults are said to believe in Creationism only and where undetermined numbers also believe sex out of wedlock or same-sex relations are wrong because God is apparently against them) to realise that such religious teachings can indeed impair the mind and close it to anything other than the mantra it has been forced into it at an early age.
99.99% of all sites talking about intelligent design amount to nothing else than biased drivel I'm afraid.
And as for the rest, I'm not aware of a single issue or question put forward by the Creationists that cannot be rebutted or explained. I must say I find the whole concept rather bizarre. ‘‘This seems so grandiose the only explanation for it’s existence is that it has to be work of God’’. The same thing has been said for thousands of years about many a thing, from solar eclipses to earthquakes. It doesn’t sound as terribly scientific to me, just wishful (and comforting) thinking.
There is geology to prove that high mountains were once underwater and if you belief in the theory of global warming, you may understand how water levels can rise rapidly, and imagine how - without the help of satellite imagery and high tech computing - the subsequent flooding may be blamed on excess rain. Why should both theories have the same "weight and plausibility" in order to be discussed and taught as theories at school? As for scientific evidence, you know as well as I do that that depends on your definition of science and the logical development of observations into a coherent theory. If millions people across the world believe that the world is sitting on elephants and a turtle then children should be aware of that, yes. I know you find it difficult to understand how people can believe in creationism or even intelligent design, but your own scepticism of that particular theory is not reason enough to exclude it from the syllabus. Untrue or dubious? Do be clear about what you mean here. Millions? Your use of hyperbole is impressive but it's the same old point. You're digressing from the issue at hand into a lot of religious stuff that is simply irrelevant. Intelligent Design is a theory quite separate from the Christian Church that you are most outspoken in condemning for the world's woes.
But to answer the points - no one is harmed through abstaining from premarital sex; contraception is freely available in this country (although, granted, frowned upon by the Roman Catholic Church); homophobia is not exclusively associated with the church and it is unacceptable to suggest that it is. You are fond of picking out faults in America and Americans. But that isn't our concern. The thread is about faith schools in the UK, and if you are suggesting that hearing about controversial as well as more established scientific theories whilst at school (e.g. Intelligent design and Darwinian evolution) somehow leads to a 'closed mind' then you are simply wrong. Should we not have been told about Thomson's "Plum Pudding" model of the atom at school despite now knowing it to be false? Should we pick the wave or the particle theory of electrons? Which has more evidence? You misunderstand and underestimate the theory then. Have a read.
No, there isn't. The rocks that were once on the bottom of the sea bed are now at the top of mountains. They know this because of observation of the fossil record as I recall. It's one of the reasons we know about continental drift, mountain formation and why the oceans don't grow more salty with time.
Mankind isn't old enough to have witnessed the splitting of pangea into it's modern continents and that happened so slowly as to be undeterminable by humans even if they were there. Unless we used to be near immortals or something, of course.
Yep. I agree with this. It should be taught as a belief though, not as a fact. It should also be joined with the other rubbish - that there are "nations" and "countries" etc. A much more dangerous cult, because it's so big that most people can't see it at all.
If life is so complex that it must have required a designer (the basis of the theory)
Then where did the designer come form seeing as it would have to have been as laest as complex as that it was creating?
:chin:
That sure would be a start.
Flood: An overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry.
You cannot 'flood' something that is already covered in water can you?
The event described in the Bible refers to the entire world, by then already containing the continental mass and land animal species including man, become covered in water by the means of flooding through 40 days and nights of continues rain, as a way of punishment from God for man's wicked ways.
An entirely different proposition from the earth initially being covered in water, when no land, and certainly no man could exist to witness it (or to be killed by God).
Because we're trying to educate children.
Ah, but why would they believe that? Because they were told the story as children. There would be no other reason whatsoever. No proof, no evidence, no theory, no indication, no real possibility whatsoever of it really being true.
You know having sex with a virgin doesn't cure AIDS. I know the same. But if those people in Southern Africa who do believe such nonsense one day became a global dominance force and eventually taught that nonsense to everyone else, should we advocate teaching it in schools, seeing as enough people now believed in it?
I was being polite Kentish, but yes you are right. Time to call a spade a spade. It's untrue. It's, simply, bollocks. I shouldn't need to be polite on these issues, seeing as believers have never had any problem making statements that they are right and everyone else is wrong- and until very recently, killing said unbelievers in rather nasty ways.
Are you denying that millions of people through recent history have been persecuted, prejudiced and in many cases imprisoned, tortured or killed as a result of their sexual orientation? And that in the immense majority of cases such persecution derived directly from religious beliefs that God does not approve of homosexuality?
Many people who should have had sex before their marriage- just to realise that they were not made for each other- have not, and ended up living unfulfilling marriages and lives. Many gay people brought up religiously have led tortured, awful and fake lives because their upbringing and brainwashing have prevented them from coming out of guilt. Etc etc ad infinitum.
No, of course Religion does not have an exclusive reign in homophobia. But it has been and still is its biggest sponsor.
You keep ignoring the fact that intelligent design is not a science of any kind and simply has no place in a school classroom. Intelligent design is nothing more than Creationism window dressed for the 21st century.
How the hell can you prove intelligent design, scientifically?
I defy you to think of a way...........
Here is the amzing science behind the theory..........
One paper, in a low ranking journal
:eek:
and accepted by a possibly biased editor, good shit guys.......... :rolleyes:
and to top it all off it is not a paper supporting intellignet desing, it is arguing that evolution is wrong, the two are not the same..............
If you cannot admit that people support this 'scientific' theory because they have religious motivation then you are deluded............
It's all down to DNA. There is no evolution, it's all intelligent design. By our DNA. It knows what it's doing, it communicates between itself on a cellular level and decides to make certain types of people, animals etc according to it's grand plans (whatever they are).
Evolution is pretty simple to disprove. Look at it this way -
All I have is glasses of water. One day a glass of whiskey arrives by "mutation". The whiskey is then mixed half and half with a glass of water. We then do it again. And again. And again. Finally we will have many many glasses of very weak whiskey and water mixture.
Inherited traits grow weaker with time, unless there is some force at work picking and choosing traits to have and introducing more and more whiskey to our mix. So it's got to be DNA.
i agree with the mixing etc causing 'weaker' traits but on the mutations
it could just be a random process as well determined by probability and the environment
ID isnt actually a theory since it doesnt try to prove by any observable features or side effects, its just a statement using the fact its CURRENTLY un-disprovable
Yep I agree. I was just raising the whole "who's doing the designing" issue, because even if ID was proved to be true, it doesn't mean that it's god doing the designing.
Lots of scientific theories have been debunked but are still in vogue for their usefulness. Some, like the early ideas about electricity are still in vogue because of the fact that even while wrong, they let electricians put lights in your house and are useful.
The discovery of relativity should have a complete re-writing of chemistry due to "chemicals" actually all being made of the same stuff but having relative properties to each other as well as different structure. The current thinking worked well enough to make toothpaste and dynamite consistently so was left alone.
Others are still there because of education lag, or because of debate between experts within the field. Paleontology has many many of these battles over theory as an example, often on quite big issues - big impact or disease causing dinosaurs to die off is still relatively undecided as an example.
And then we have theories like evolution and ID. Big, life changing, socially explosive theories that are held as much for their value to the individuals already held beliefs as their merits.
There is no "proof" for evolution, there is no "proof" for ID. Only one of these creates a working hypothesis for experimentation though, so only one of them is a scientific theory.
No there isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_flood
Not when the 'theory' in question amounts to nothing else than religious drivel masquerading as something plausible.
I'm not sure what Shakespeare, modern art or roast beef have to do with scientific theory and education. Sorry don't get the analogy.
No I know that because I am aware of what is fact and what is fiction. I'm aware of the existence of HIV and AIDS and that it is caused by a virus. I am also aware that having sex with a virgin does not kill or affect viruses or any other medical condition. Never has, never will.
I object to brainwashing and religious education (certainly when it is taught as fact rather than the historical aspect of it), be at home or at school. Since we have no control of what goes on at home, we can at least ensure that at schools children are given a balanced education that is not going to mould them in any way and prejudice their thinking and attitudes for the rest of their lives.
Why would it be confined to the philosophy classroom?
You keep trying to equate Creationism and 'intelligent design' with scientific theory. They are nothing of the sort. And that's why they have no place in the classroom.
Did you bother reading it?