Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

Creationism creeeping into UK schools

Dozens of schools are using creationist teaching materials condemned by the government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum", the Guardian has learned.
The packs promote the creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution called intelligent design and the group behind them said 59 schools are using the information as "a useful classroom resource".

A teacher at one of the schools said it intended to use the DVDs to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at Bluecoat school, in Liverpool, said: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."

But the government has made it clear that "neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories". The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology select committee, the Lib Dem MP Phil Willis, said he was horrified that the packs were being used in schools.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1957858,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

Fucking disgusting and disgraceful.

Those responsible should be sacked and the schools put under new management.

Poor children... :( :mad:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1345

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who promotes it as fact? Darwinism is taught as scientific theory.

    Creationism or so-called "intelligent design" are of as much scientific validity as the Tooth Fairy.

    There is a place for Creationism: religious lessons. To try to pass it off as anything of scientific importance is a disgrace. It should not be told in science lessons. It should not be offered as an alternative view on how the Earth and life on it came to be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My school certainly did.
    Did it? You should write to them.

    Then again there aren't any other plausible theories worthy of mention.
    Why? Because you don't like it?

    Science should be full of opposing theories. Science should be about looking at things objectively and encouraging students to think for themselves as to whether each theory holds water or not.
    Science should be full of opposing scientific theories.

    Creationism and ID are nothing of the sort. They are religious beliefs with no scientific base whatsoever. Therefore they should be taught in religious lessons alone.

    Unless of course the religious lobby is happy to return the favour, and to allow science to enter religious lessons and to explain to students the plausibility of the many claims made by the holy books.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Although i do agree with Aladdin that Creationism should only be taught in Religious classes and not passed of as fact. I think it should be taken into account the sheer odds of random chance evolution to intelligent life forms are in itself, a starting point at proving their maybe a superior "Being" pulling the strings on designing life in the universe or at leats on Earth. Just because someone doesn't believe in a theory does not mean it is not a possibility and although it is not as scientific as such, it could be if looked at from a certain perspective. But i still say it should be taught as religious theory not scientific theory.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To promote creationism as recognised fact is horribly wrong. To promote Darwinism as recognised fact when it is still only a theory surely doesn't rate much higher...
    It rates a teensy bit higher than your post suggests...

    'Only a theory' applies if you aren't using the scientific definition of 'theory'. Darwinism is a theory which has been confirmed by various means, to the satisfaction of most scientists working in the field of biology ans paleontology. It will always be described as a 'theory' because that's how scientists work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I find it really fucking funny (not) that the religion lobby teach their beliefs to children as The One and Undeniable Truth in religious lessons and then get all worked out about Evolution being only "a theory" and demanding the right to put their beliefs alongside it.

    As I said, perhaps when the religion lobby agrees to have scientific theory to make counter-points to all their claims during religion lessons they might have more of a right to demand their beliefs are put forward in science lessons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've got no huge issue with both theories being put to the kids, my objection would come when only a creationistic approach was taken.

    It entirely depends how it is taught, after all, darwinism doesnt rule out the existance of a Creator.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is no proof of Darwinism.
    There is no proof of Creationism.
    There is no proof of "Intelligent Design".

    Darwinism certainly hasn't been proven to the satisfaction of all; there is a huge amount of argument about what evolved from what, and there is still no concrete fossilised proof of the "missing link" (Vernon Kaye doesn't count).

    What's your point? If we're only going to teach proven fact then 95% of the scientific syllabus should be ditched.

    All should be taught equally, leaving people to make their own mind up. Personally I think that the whole Big Bang/Darwinism theory does not disprove a God, especially as nobody has been able to explain how nothing can suddenly explode into something with no outside help.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My point this that evolution is a scientific theory, and an almost universally respected one at that.

    Creationism/ID are NOT scientific theories but religious beliefs. And as such if they must be taught to children, it should be done so at at religious education, not at science lessons.

    You would think it couldn't be simpler. Though for some people in the religious lobby this is not enough.

    Perhaps we should demand the introduction of scientific alternative explanations to every religious claim taught to children during religious lessons as well. It would only be fair.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Critique is important in science, and pointing out other theories to the prevailing one is an important critique. Evolution/Big Bang theory has an awful lot of holes in it, after all.

    Critique is important in religion, too, and pointing out other theories to miracles is important. For instance the parting of the Red Sea is often regarded as simply the result of a tidal estuary and mudflats; Noah's Ark is widely regarded to be localised flooding in the Caspian Sea. I was taught about possible natural reasons for the miracles, and I went to an evil Catholic school.

    I don't understand why you are so upset- evolution is just a theory, and there isn't really any more proof for it than there is for any other theory. There's certainly no concrete evidence of evolution.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's worth bearing in mind that the word theory has two different understandings - which is what most people are trying to point out.

    Scientific theory is based upon evidence and although they are not seen as absolutely proven, as they never are, there is evidence of evolution. The issue is whether Darwin's understanding of the issue is absolutely correct, and whether a Darwinian explanation takes into accounts other issues with the theory that have been revealed.

    And Kermit, your casual dismissal the years of scientific research, the mountains of skeletal evidence, fossiled evidence, and examination of varied flora and insectal development over small geographic areas that all points towards the real presence of an adaptive development of creatures based on random mutation and isolated natural selection is shocking.

    Aladdin's issue is with what you've said, the easy casual dismissal of the very basis of scientific thought - all because you haven't examined any of that evidence.

    You've heard that evolution or ID are just equal theories arguing it out and as a result ignore any scientific fact or study. ID is a theory based on no evidence, though that doesn't mean it can't be true. But to rate it as equal, to base decisions on nothing, on no evidence, on no study, to simply see everything as the same because things haven't been 100% proven?

    That's the end of reason, that's scarificing the most important principals of the society we live within

    :grump: rant over - sorry can't stress how fucking vital this issue is to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am upset because there is no place for religion in science lessons. It's as simple as that.

    And frankly, to suggest that because evolution cannot be proved 100% we should tell children "but it is possible that all of this is wrong and that the world and everything in it was created by a deity" is ludicrous and it has nothing to do with improving teaching standards or broadening up the minds of students by encouraging debate.

    The two are not comparable or compatible within the context of scientific research and study. Because one of them is not science.

    Let's be honest here: The efforts to introduce creationism/ID into science have absolutely fuck all to do with improving teaching standards in science. They are simply an attempt by the religious lobby to infiltrate as many areas and subjects as possible in order to reach as many children as possible and expose them to religion as much as possible.

    That is bad for teaching standards, not good. And it should not be allowed.

    Incidentally, whatever scientific theory might have been mentioned in religious lessons would have been very small and very carefully selected.

    Many important claims made by the Bible for instance, from Adam and Eve to the existence of different languages (the Tower of Babel tale) to Noah's Ark to the age of the planet could be every easily and comprehensively dismissed. Now, this does not necessarily mean there is no God, and indeed science and religion could co-exist if the religious lobby was tolerant enough. But the people who are pushing for teaching Creationism in science lessons tend to be the same people who claim the Bible is the literal and full true word of God and will refuse to admit that some of what is claimed in it is simply not true and never happened.

    As I said, it's bad news all around, it has nothing to do with improving teaching standards and broadening the mind, and everything with trying to influence and reach as many children as possible in areas where it shouldn't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    It's worth bearing in mind that the word theory has two different understandings - which is what most people are trying to point out.

    Scientific theory is based upon evidence and although they are not seen as absolutely proven, as they never are, there is evidence of evolution. The issue is whether Darwin's understanding of the issue is absolutely correct, and whether a Darwinian explanation takes into accounts other issues with the theory that have been revealed.

    And Kermit, your casual dismissal the years of scientific research, the mountains of skeletal evidence, fossiled evidence, and examination of varied flora and insectal development over small geographic areas that all points towards the real presence of an adaptive development of creatures based on random mutation and isolated natural selection is shocking.

    Aladdin's issue is with what you've said, the easy casual dismissal of the very basis of scientific thought - all because you haven't examined any of that evidence.

    You've heard that evolution or ID are just equal theories arguing it out and as a result ignore any scientific fact or study. ID is a theory based on no evidence, though that doesn't mean it can't be true. But to rate it as equal, to base decisions on nothing, on no evidence, on no study, to simply see everything as the same because things haven't been 100% proven?

    That's the end of reason, that's scarificing the most important principals of the society we live within

    :grump: rant over - sorry can't stress how fucking vital this issue is to me.
    warra a load of bollox!
    there is actualy more evidence for creation than there is for evolution ...you hjave been brainnwashed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Post it then, now, you always claim this - so put your money where your mouth is and post a link.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can you point us in the direction of some please?

    ETA: ^^ what he said.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I believe in evolution and creationism at the same time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    And Kermit, your casual dismissal the years of scientific research, the mountains of skeletal evidence, fossiled evidence, and examination of varied flora and insectal development over small geographic areas that all points towards the real presence of an adaptive development of creatures based on random mutation and isolated natural selection is shocking.

    Aladdin's issue is with what you've said, the easy casual dismissal of the very basis of scientific thought - all because you haven't examined any of that evidence.

    There is evidence of changing animals, but there is precious little evidence of "missing link" animals. The evidence that is there is contradictory and vague; the idea of evolution is based on wild conjecture as much as anything else. They find a bit of one skeleton, and then a bit of another, and suppose that that means that one evolved from another. There is no such proof.

    I'm not saying that I think the theory is wrong, but to try and claim that its been reached at through scientific proof and reason is ridiculous. There is precious little proof of evolution, and what proof there is isn't agreed on because its so vague.

    To then go and teach this as fact, and to use this theory as proof that religious beliefs are wrong, is what is truly shocking.

    The theory is very long on conjecture and very short on cold hard facts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    warra a load of bollox!
    there is actualy more evidence for creation than there is for evolution ...you hjave been brainnwashed.

    Brainwashed with the truth, I say!

    The evidence speaks for itself. There's no eliminating evidence, but it is clear which theory outweighs which (hint: by a massive marginal). I won't dismiss either though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    Post it then, now, you always claim this - so put your money where your mouth is and post a link.
    just read a great one recently by the jojo witnesess while on a hairy plane.
    next time one knocks on your door ask for a copy of the evolution or creation book ...more science than religion you'll be relieved to know.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If I have time, I'll do so. But for now ask you to consider the bacterial flaggella (which I can never spell)

    A single celled organism propells itself with a mini propeller that spins at 10,000RPM can stop in a quarter turn, and accellerate to 10,000 RPM in the opposite direction. Sounds like really good engineering to me.

    I have seriously considered things, and decided that random chaos is prohibitivly unlikely, and that ID is a much more probable way of things coming about.

    Another quick example are the laws of physics, considering the theory for the origin of the universe, the Big Bang, had that eruption flung out matter a few percent one side or the other of the way it apparently did, either the universe would have expanded too fast, and no matter would have coellecesed (which I also can't spell) meaning no stars, no planets and definately no life. Or it wouldn't have had sufficient acceleration and would have collapsed back on itself. Which sounds like a controlled explosion to me.

    I don't know how God did things, but I am utterly convinced that, based on current scientific evidence, that there is more proof for Him being in charge of things, than everything being random.

    ETA: There are more genetic differences between Men and Women than between Leopards and Cheetahs, and we share 50% of our DNA with bananas. Genetic similarity doesn't mean Humans evolved from Apes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    I have seriously considered things, and decided that random chaos is prohibitivly unlikely, and that ID is a much more probable way of things coming about.

    Isnt that just because we cant imagine time distances long enough for these things to happen.

    Take the lottery, its stupidly unlikely that we'll win it, but if we played the same numbers long enough we would win.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    the chromosone stuff is realy valid seeing as all life seems to share pretty much the same.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    Isnt that just because we cant imagine time distances long enough for these things to happen.

    Take the lottery, its stupidly unlikely that we'll win it, but if we played the same numbers long enough we would win.
    The odds of it randomly happening are 1 in 10^15. There are fewer stars in the sky than that 1 with 15 zeros after it.

    It'd be more likely for you to randomly pick scrabble letters and spell out shakespeares othello by chance first go.

    Well and truely, it's prohibitivly unlikely.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The theory isn't that it was likely or that it isn't remarkable - the evidence is of what has happened since.

    And the idea also isn't that we evolved from apes - it's that we are an ape.

    The question for me isn't what started things - it's how things have developed since. If ID is true how do you explain random negative mutations that lead to death - or the bigger question - why did the creator behind ID create alzhiemers, extinction, etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It always makes me chuckle when I see these threads where a group of people who know almost nothing about Biological sciences getting into serious debate about what is some very complicated science, it seems rather futile....

    Having said that it is plainly obvious that ID is not science.

    To criticise evolution for not having evidence and then proposing a 'designer' without saying where the designer came from is laughable.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    The odds of it randomly happening are 1 in 10^15. There are fewer stars in the sky than that 1 with 15 zeros after it.

    It'd be more likely for you to randomly pick scrabble letters and spell out shakespeares othello by chance first go.

    Well and truely, it's prohibitivly unlikely.

    Why apply this kind of thinking to evolution but not to your own beliefs?

    What are the odds of their being a designer? Where did he come from? What was before the designer.

    It is utter bollocks and the fatc that people can take it seriously just tells you about the depressingly strong hold that religion still has on the minds of so many......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I fully admit that I don't know the answer, because all theories ask more questions than they answer.

    The problem with evolution especially stem from the beginning, and how the Big Bang is argued to have occurred out of nothing, against all scientific reason.

    At the same time, the problem with the idea of ID is that it assumes that we are the pinnacle of development, that everything was planned so that we exist. What proof there is casts doubt on that- there are many abortive adaptations that have died away, and we are that flawed its hard to say we're a pinnacle of everything.

    Creationism, and the idea that everything was made in six days, is disproved by just about everything we've found since.

    That's why I have so many concerns when people try to use one theory to disprove another- there's no proof for any of them. None of them should be taught as fact, and none of them should be chosen ahead of the others. They should all, therefore, be taught, with the pros and cons pointed out, so that people can choose their own.

    I think people who only see the scientific must lead a very dry life.

    I personally believe in ID.
Sign In or Register to comment.