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
And just because evolution hasn't been proven beyond reproach it means you can teach children about any odd alternative... specially when it is very improbable and without foundation.
The only reason why some people want ID/Creationism to be taught to children is because it conforms with the religion of their choice, not because there is any evidence to support it as a plausible theory.
Many a 6-month baby raped in Africa has... :rolleyes:
And your nearest church will be happy to explain the beliefs to the full. Church. Not school.
So how does ID qualify then?
No, not really, but never mind eh?
What other theories would you teach on the origin of humankind? What a ridiculous statement.
How were you harmed by hearing about that phenomenon? Should art be confined to galleries? archaeology to museums? books to libraries? Ha ha.
Incidentally, I'm positive children are also taught- in history at least- that man used to think God had created the earth and man and would accept no other explanation, before mankind became more advanced and civilised and science made its discoveries. So children will be aware of Creationism; it just won't be taught to them as fact or a plausible explanation for our existence- and rightly so.
You could've fooled me.
Unless there are serious doubts about Evolution and there is another theory/belief that is plausible, why would you want to teach children anything else?
Should tell children that there is a possibility the centre of the earth is made of Belgian chocolate being continuously stirred by oompa loompas? Seeing as no one has seen what's in there, to teach children that the core is made of molten iron and not to offer the Belgian chocolate theory as an alternative is neither fair not beneficial for the education of the child, right?
That I weren't harmed is completely irrelevant. The fact is that people have been harmed by its existence.
And in any case, are you suggesting that so long as children are not harmed by it, can we teach them anywhere we please???
Poor analogy. You're getting things rather mixed up.
Sorry took so long to reply but not been around anyways do you really 'think' that I am not going to teach her what I 'think' is right and wrong ?
Do you really 'think' that she will grow up never knowing that me and her Dad lived together before we were married ?
Do you really 'think' that when she gets older I wont be telling her about the abortion I had when I was younger ?
Do you really 'think' that I am going to sit here and just let her get pregnant by not speaking to her about the pill etc ?
NO, you just seem to 'think' that because a child goes to catholic school they will be brainwashed in some kind of way. You forget to see the fact that she has a Mother and Father who will both influence her a lot more than school could ever do....in my opinion.
You have this idea in your head that Cathlics are brainwashed blah blah, well tell me this then : Why is one of my good mates who has been brought up with a catholic education right through to secondary school so laid back ? she was pregnant before she was married, she actually got married when she was approx 3 months pregnant. She is the life and soul of the party and has numerous lesbian freinds. I could go on, but hopefully you get what im saying.
We are not back in the 60's you know, I think its time you woke up and gave your head a shake and realised that things have changed now and having a catholic education is nothing like it used to be.
If she wasnt taught religion then id be making her feel excluded and segregated within her class. As a Mother would that be right of me ? The only thing she has been not allowed to do was 1st holy Communion, but she wasnt the only one as this school has a few non catholics.
Im not suggesting its a better school because its a catholic, its a school which I felt she would get a better education at and as far as im concerned her education is the priority here.
You should also bear in mind that the word 'Theory', always present when talking about the Theory of Evolution (and certainly every schoolchild will have heard it) is a dead giveaway that it has not been proven beyond reproach- yet.
Are you aware of a religious book called The Bible?
Not much need explaining, no. I'm sure it will with time as more discoveries are made. The fact remains that Evolution is about a thousand times more likely than the next best suggestion (therefore making it almost certainly the truth, and the only one worth teaching children), and that Creationism/intelligent design is so extremely improbable (or to be brutally honest, impossible and not true) it is really not worthy of a classroom. Not any more than the suggestion the earth is carried on the back of four elephants sitting on the shell of a giant turtle anyway.
What evidence is there for Creationism/ID?
As a matter of fact, what evidence there is for the existence of God?
You know, I find it breathtakingly funny that religious people see it as an appropriate form of defence to ask their opponents to supply extensive, undeniable and total proof of just about everything, when they themselves haven't been able to provide, in more than two millennia, of even the slightest trace of anything resembling evidence that there is a God, or that he is alive today, or that he is responsible for the creation of earth, man and the universe. Not one trace of evidence. Nothing whatsoever.
Why should anyone even consider entertaining your beliefs, in the classroom or anywhere else in life, when you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to back up your beliefs (and seeing as you are the first one to demand proof and evidence of anyone else)?
I think it's you who miss the point. One of them isn't a theory at all. It's utter rubbish.
But of course they are! Do you think people are born homophobic, prune and bigoted?
No. I'm intolerant of brainwashing children. If an adult chooses to believe in Creationism or anything else they please, fine by me. Just give the kids a chance to receive a good education eh? They can always adopt whichever beliefs they wish when they reach adulthood and can make an informed decision.
Obviously not your case but I fear for those children whose parents delegate all education matters to the child's religious school.
Do you make this argument about economic theory, or is it just your anti-religion views that dictate what you can investigate (and allow to be investigated)?
Since you were saying either that education doesn't harm children, what exactly is the harm in children believing evolution is the only possibility? It's only logical to teach children the only plausible explanation if there is only one.
If one day in the future someone makes a discovery that disproves evolution and proves something else, we can all change our minds.
Er... other than a few deeply religious people 'man' or even 'mankind' now knows that earth was formed as a perfectly natural geological process taking millions of years, instead of in 6 days by a deity.
Evolution seems perfectly adequate to explain the development of humankind to me. The creationists spend their time attempting to pick up holes out of desperation- seeing as they don't have a hope in hell of ever producing the tiniest trace of evidence to support their beliefs, they try the best next thing: to discredit the 'opposition'. Without much success, I should add...
So, basically, still no evidence whatsoever.
But unfortunately it's based on nothing, cannot be supported or proved in anyway, it's not science, the possibilities of it being true are next to nil and therefore it has no place in the classroom.
Either at school or at home, religious beliefs are almost invariably first absorbed during childhood and youth, yes.
If you somehow managed to raise 1,000 people in a completely isolated island and they had never even heard of 'God', let alone religious beliefs, and then those 1,000 people reached adulthood, moved here and were exposed to religious beliefs, how many of them do you think would take up religion?
My estimate is far below 1%. At the end of the day, it is a very, very far fetched proposition....
And that is exactly why some are so hellbent in exposing children to religious beliefs from an early age.
Seeing that most of the scientific community and indeed many (I daresay a very clear majority) of parents are against the infiltration such religious mantra in science lessons, it is only you and a few others who appear to be concerned by children being denied the chance to "weigh up arguments".
Should we teach children the Nazi doctrine regarding race superiority at school and allow them to make their minds? Yes/no?
You might have heard of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. [Following paragraph's from today's Guardian:] The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a satirical 'religion' created by Bobby Henderson, a physics graduate of Oregon State University. He wrote to the Kansas Board of Education in June 2005, alerting them to the many people who believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, and demanding that science lessons be split three-way: "One third time for intelligent design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
Henderson's point is that the concept of a Flying Spaghetti Monster is every bit as rational a concept as intelligent design. He has received sympathetic reponses from members of the board who also oppose intelligent design, as well as attracting overwhelming support from 'followers' all over the world.
So one last question for your Kentish: would you object to the Flying spaghetti Monster 'theory' being taught alongside Evolution and Intelligent Design in our schools? Yes/no?
Show them where the library is and let them investigate for themselves.
It seems to me whichever method you choose to tell, or even if you tell them all you are providing explanations that you really don't need to. Christ knows enough kids can't do the basics to make such education a waste of resources.
Whichever you teach you are providing the lessons that authority and spirituality are things you are taught externally rather than things you are born with and develop as you go. Sounds dangerous to me.
Of course it does fit with the "get you to stop thinking" method of education which the "state" favours.
Schools should be allowed to teach the idea of intelligent design because:
1. A lot of people believe it, religious or not
2. It is being investigated scientifically and provides an alternative to evolutionary theory, which is accepted to have flaws
3. There is genuine evidence to support some of the biblical accounts of creation
The facts of Nazism should be taught in school, of course. As should the Flying Spagetti Monster theory because it is a typical tactic used by the pro-evolutionists to discredit and scoff at intelligent design theorists. Of course there is no basis for the Flying Spagetti Monster, so it couldn't be taught as a theory, just an interesting aside.
However the 'scientific' investigation has shed no evidence whatsoever to sustain the belief (and mark my words, it will find none) and at the end of the day the alternative in question is still piss-poor and with no more merits than the aforementioned Flying Spaghetti Monster 'theory'.
One fact remains that you continue to ignore: Evolution is still infinitely more plausible than anything else on the planet, be Creationism, ID, spaghetti monsters or Terry Pratchett novels. Just because Evolution has 'flaws' (or rather, still-unexplained facts) does not mean we should allow anyone with a political or religious axe to grind to elbow in their theory or belief. Evolution stands alone as the only plausible, scientifically backed theory. And as such it should remain the only theory taught to children at schools.
Not exactly, no. Like any other religious text, the Bible contains tales and stories based on historical facts (the proverbial Flood being a prime example of this). But we know today that the planet and the species within were created in a completely different way and timeframe as described in the Bible.
Frankly I don't see any difference between Creationism/ID and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, other than the former have been around for longer and count with more supporters. But in the way of scientific evidence, it's neck and neck between the two.
Intelligent design theories and creationism should continue to be taught in religious studies classes though.
Then why have you been arguing that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution? Even if this wasn't your intention, many particularly in America, are trying to get intelligent design taught in science classes.
Let me ask you this? Do you ever wonder why they don't campaign for it to be taught in university biology courses? It's because they know that the proposal would be laughed out of the building. But if they can get enough parents, with their more limited scientific knowledge (most of them), to agree then the campaigners can squeeze their religious beliefs into our children's science classes.
If intelligent design can be taught in science lessons, then why not astrology, or the existance of ghosts? After all plenty of people believe in them.
I don't think anyone has a problem with creationism being taught in religion classes as a religious theory, but it has no place in the science classroom, because it has no basis in science.
On the main question of faith schools, I went to a Roman Catholic primary and secondary school, and I have to say that it's not the brainwashing faculty that many seem to think it is. It's just having to say amen every now and then, and saying a prayer at assemblies. They still have to follow the curriculum, and that includes evolution.
I have to say the sex education was a bit lacking. They just taught the actual biology of it, without going into relationships or contriception. In fact, they didn't promote abstinance or even mention homosexuality etc. Despite what some think, the teachers are not all devout conservative christians, out to promote thier own point of view.
The main problem I see with faith schools, though, is that in an area where religious boundaries exist (Northern Ireland etc.), it creates even more barriers between the two groups. I think mixed faith schools would promote integration and understanding between the groups, whereas separating the groups will just fuel ignorance. This is especially important now with the current perceptions of Islam among certain groups (not helped by some aspects of the media, I might add).
At the end of the day, I think most parents just want the best quality schools, which is more important than what 'faith' the school belongs to, since this can be taught and practiced at home on an individual basis.
As for the teaching of it in schools, science is always taught as an ever changing subject, where new discoveries are constantly being made. I don't think a teacher has ever been afraid to say "we don't know this yet," but that's no excuse to teach alternative theories which do not have their basis in science.
You still haven't answered my question though. If this debate has any merit whatsoever, why is it not being held in relation to universities as well?
As for universities, I would imagine that all the evidence is assessed but I've never studied biology or geology at degree level, so you're asking the wrong person.
Why?
Because it doesn't lead to any experimentation or allow you to predict anything based on future evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory, because you can create experiments using it - fruit fly mutation being one that springs to mind.
It's also not a scientific theory because it has untestale elements.
In order for a theory to be scientific, there has to be reproducable experimentation and physical evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
ID is none of these.
Have a scientific theory - all previous theories have been overturned by new evidence and understanding. So will the ones we have now. Including this one. :crazyeyes
I honestly don't know why you're still trying to make the argument that something that cannot be proved can't be science.
Nope. I am pointing out why evolution is a scientific theory and ID isn't. Personally I think evolution is bullshit. I've outlined the reasons why earlier in the thread - it's still a scientific theory, while ID isn't and neither is the monster theory.
Atomic theory is unproven. It's still a scientific theory because it allows useful, constructive experimentation and workable models to make bombs and power your house. It's also a scientific theory because it allows you to predicate the future based on the past.
ID can't do any of these. Even if you were to bend the rules to include it as "science" then it's still a pointless waste of mental energy and time because it's of no use whatsoever. Unless you have an emotional need to support with it, of course. It's still useless in and of itself.
Which bit?
I used Wiki's.
"The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations and recursions of the following four steps:
Characterization (Quantification, observation and measurement)
Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation of the observations and measurements)
Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
Experiment (test of all of the above) "
I provided a link. If your personal definition of science doesn't tally with everyone else's I have no quarrel with that. You are going to be frightfully misunderstood though and most are going to see you as incorrect.
I think this thread has reached a natural conclusion.
And besides, I have a birthday to celebrate/sorrows to drown