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 ✨
Options

Creationism creeeping into UK schools

245

Comments

  • Options
    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.

    Who worked out those odds, and how?

    I'm not suggesting there isnt a god, I'm just saying that the 'unprobable' arguement doesnt hold water. With billions and billions of years, who's to say whats unlikely?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I fully admit that I don't know the answer, because all theories ask more questions than they answer.

    No they don't, there are plenty of theroies that are complete and testabel and have been proven to be true.

    ID is telling us that everything we observe in our lives, all living things at least are the creations of some superbeing that we have no direct evidence for and have no idea where it came from. So for starters it is utterly defunct as a theory of where we came from unless there is a thoery for where God (because it is God you are talking about, calling it a 'designer' is just a con) came from.

    This is a fairytale for people who have seen that (as yet) we can't explain everthing through the scientific method so we will go back to believeing what people did before we had much science at all,, ridiculous.....

    As for the big bang being 'against all scinetific fact' you must realise that this is simply bollocks, don't you?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    It always makes me chuckle
    a 'designer' without saying where the designer came from is laughable.....
    it always makes me chuckle when people believe that nothing exploded ...there was no moment for it to explode as there was no time ...therre was no where for it to explode as there was no space and magicaly it created its own laws.
    now of course ...the theoryb is changing in many quarters to include the belief that ...maybe time and space are eternal ...always been here ...sounds very much like religion to me and the god of the bible who says he had no begining and no end
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    As for the big bang being 'against all scinetific fact' you must realise that this is simply bollocks, don't you?

    So then, Mr Accountant, explain how nothing blew up and became something. Because if Stephen Hawking can't manage it...

    95% of evolutionary theory is nothing more than conjecture. A decent scientist would admit that.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Belief in evolution doesn't preclude belief in God, nor does it mean that everything Darwin produced in the nineteenth century is actually right. Even today there's plenty of bits where scientists argue over how and when evolution oncurred and others where it simply is a black hole.

    This doesn't disprove evolution - all it shows is that like most scientific disciplines are knowledge is expanding and some details of it are wrong.

    Its like the old chestnut that according to the law of aerodynamics bees can't fly. As they obviously can; does that mean there is no law of aerodynamics? or does it just mean that some of understanding of it is mistaken.

    Personally I'm quite happy to accept mainstream scientific opinion that are physical bodies eveolved from single cell organisms, but also to accept Christian orthodoxy that humans have a divine spark in the soul.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry, Roll, but you're saying you believe a super powerful being that can see all time and plan the events of everything in the universe dictated the entire path of eternity - and you find it funny that someone else has a theory that something exploded?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So?

    You can call anything you want God, but the God most people think of was essentially a person, he spoke, he took actions and made choices. Call the laws of the universe 'God' if it makes you happy......
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    So then, Mr Accountant, explain how nothing blew up and became something.

    Because if Stephen Hawking can't manage it...

    'Mr accountant'? What does that mean? If it someone who doesn't believe fairytale bollocks then I take it as a complement cheers.

    As I said in my initial point it is totally ridiculous for us to talk about incredibly complicated astro-physics when we know next to nothing about it. Safe to say that big-bang theory has backing by many scientists and there are good reasons for that.....

    Why has Big Bang got anything to do with ID and evolution by the way?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually think I might bow out of this before I end up having to ban myself ;)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All the life in the universe came from a bang out of nothing, and then kept evolving until it became us.

    I'm sure many people do believe in it, but that isn't the same thing as proof. Getting back to the OP, I think evolution/black hole theory has become a bit of a sacred cow, and that's unfortunate given how many holes the theory has.

    Believing that a God oversaw the creation of a universe is no more "fairytale" than believing that nothing blew up and became something. Especially as no scientist has been able to explain how nothing can explode. Big Bang was created more as an answer to religion than has a serious scientific theory, and its bad for people that its become such a sacred cow. There is no proof for it (an expanding universe is not proof).

    I don't know the answer. But I know that evolution is not unimpeachable fact.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The creation of the universe has no impact on evolutionary theory though - it doesn't matter what happened trillions of years before - evolution is based on the study of living and dead things on earth and is aimed at explaining what has happened on this planet.

    I'm with toadborg - I don't see a relevance as evolution doesn't become revelant until the formation of the planet - before that it's development, not evolution - a response to physics rather than biology.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Intelligent design and creationism are not necessarily the same thing, there's a good brief summary here.

    I believe in intelligent design but I don't think Genesis should be interpreted literally.

    The way that science is presented make it increasingly indistinguishable from religion, and indeed, a very illiberal strand of religious thought at that. Ever more militant atheists who have replaced religion with science are demanding blind, absolute and unquestioning faith in scientific theories such as global warming and evolution - that whilst plausible have certainly not been proven beyond all possible doubt.

    I happen to believe that schools should cover different strands of thought, incite debate and promote critical thought; school should foster the reasoning skills that allow people to make up their own mind. Unfortunately these days geography lessons can encompass little more than the agenda of a Greenpeace pamphlet, science lessons the blind faith of militant atheists and history lessons can sometimes seem like little more than a never ending tirade on how evil Britain's past is. (Thankfully I discovered that the A-level syllabus for my chosen subjects at least had escaped most of this anti-academic nonsense but I fear it's only a matter of time).
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    creationism is not recognized scientific theory, and therefore should never ever be taught in a science class. evolution is a recognized theory, and therefore is, and should be.

    there is nothing wrong with discussing creationism in school in RE, anywhere out of the science class, but it is not scientific theory.

    good scientists should never EVER have complete unyielding faith in a theory. theory is the current most accepted scientifically rigorously researched hypothetical explanation for event x.
    Science is rational thought, research and development and documentation of experimentation.

    religion is blind faith. there is a huge difference. Science is rational!

    science is taught in schools in a way that is intended to improve understanding, and develop an enquiring mind.

    the big bang will probably be out of vogue in the scientific community within the next 50 years, it is just the current most widely accepted theory.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    The creation of the universe has no impact on evolutionary theory though.

    The two are inextricably linked as a double-pronged attack on why God doesn't exist and why anyone who believes in God is an idiot who believes in fairytales and bollocks.

    The two are also directly linked- explosion creates planet creates amoeba creates people.

    Creationsim isn't a recognised scientific theory because the scientists have decided that religion is wrong and that they must scrabble around to prove it.

    The teachers in this case are right; this issue has become a sacred cow, and anyone who hints that it might not be as solid as it seems is labelled a religious nut.

    If scientists are so certain that their theory is right then they should withstand a bit of critique rather than enforcing their beliefs at the expense of others.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    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.
    Really? Even if one of them is thousands of times more plausible and backed up by evidence and common sense than the others?

    Does this mean that anyone who has a theory on how life and the universe were created should have their theory taught to children? Including Scientology? Including the Church of the Flying Spaguetti Monster?

    Some future we're providing for our children!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's backed up by common sense in your opinion.

    There is precious little proof for evolution, and even less for the Big Bang.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    There is precious little proof for evolution, and even less for the Big Bang.

    Is very simple and limited (as is everything on wikipedia) - but as a really basic newroundy overview of a tiny bit of the evidence for evolution it's a place to start -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As long as the school isnt either;

    A) Saying definitely there is no god and that anyone who believes in one is a nut

    B) Saying the World was definitely made in 6 days a few thousand years ago and anyone who believes otherwise is going to Hell

    I dont see the problem.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:

    But I know that evolution is not unimpeachable fact.

    I completely agree but just because the only other theory around is creationism, that does not mean that this is a better theory or that it is sensible to beleive it.

    In fact the very fact that people can be so critical of one theory and accepting of another is possibly the most worrying thing, and as I said, just displays the grip religion still has on people.......
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    As long as the school isnt either;

    A) Saying definitely there is no god and that anyone who believes in one is a nut

    B) Saying the World was definitely made in 6 days a few thousand years ago and anyone who believes otherwise is going to Hell

    I dont see the problem.
    Amen to that.

    Honestly, if both creationism and evolution were taught in schools side by side and the debates surrounding both of them are anything like this one I can only suggest that it would improve the quality of science lessons by forcing kids to think about which one is more likely and why, instead of blindly swallowing whatever is fed to them.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    In fact the very fact that people can be so critical of one theory and accepting of another is possibly the most worrying thing, and as I said, just displays the grip religion still has on people.......

    Who's being critical of one and accepting of another?

    They all have huge holes in them. Which one you choose, if any, comes down to your personal belief system not any scientific "reason". I don't know the answer, and I don't believe anyone else who says that they do.

    I think kids should be taught that there is more than one belief about who we are and where we are from, and kids should be credited with the intelligence to make their own minds up. I'm just as against those who try to claim that creationism is fact as those who claim that Darwinism as fact, but at least those who claim that creationism is fact don't try to cloud the matter with spurious claims of conjecture as scientific analysis.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    There is evidence of changing animals, but there is precious little evidence of "missing link" animals.
    As a wise man once said: 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense'.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    It's backed up by common sense in your opinion.

    There is precious little proof for evolution, and even less for the Big Bang.

    So would you support teaching children about Scientology or the Church of the Flying Spaguetti Monster as well? And if not, why?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Like I said before, anything we say on this matter is pretty irrelevant becasue we don't undersatnd the science.

    As far as i know most scientists would say Evolution is science, ID isn't so it should be Evolution in Science lessons, ID in RE.

    When there are lots of papers on ID in proper academic journals, and a proper scientific (not media) debate on it, then maybe it can be admitted to the calssroom, until then there is no reason to.......
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    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.
    Wowser. That's, like, amazing. Have you ever thought of working on genetically modified crops? We wouldn't have anything to worry about then...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    at least those who claim that creationism is fact don't try to cloud the matter with spurious claims of conjecture as scientific analysis.
    That'd perhaps be because because Creationism hasn't got much in the way of scientific conjecture, let alone evidence, to back up any of its claims...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    'Mr accountant'? What does that mean?
    If you're not an accountant who believes that '95% of evolutionary theory is nothing more than conjecture', then you must be a better than decent scientist, in which case, show us your credentials...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    Actually think I might bow out of this before I end up having to ban myself ;)
    Or vanish in a puff of logic. Lick lick, slop slop ;)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Amen to that.

    Honestly, if both creationism and evolution were taught in schools side by side and the debates surrounding both of them are anything like this one I can only suggest that it would improve the quality of science lessons by forcing kids to think about which one is more likely and why, instead of blindly swallowing whatever is fed to them.

    And Amen to that ;)

    Surely The School of Dogma isn`t the place for the inquisitive minds which tend,in general, I believe, to belong to the young.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ID has some scientific background, but the observations have major, major flaws and I'd say there are more flaws in ID than in Evolution, just my opinion.

    Any scientist that says that something is absolute is not a scientist IMHO.

    In a few hundred years we'll probably have another theory for everything but untill them IMHO Evolution is the best thing we've got to answer it, the evidence (observational and empirical) is too strong for any other new theory to oppose for now.

    If ID didn't have such an open Ecumenical "wedge strategy" I'd see no reason why it shouldn't be taught in Science lessons.

    People will make their own minds up with time anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.