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

135

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I don't know the answer, and I don't believe anyone else who says that they do.

    Amen (or the Darwin equivalent :D ) to that too.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Replicant wrote:
    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.
    The irony is that those who insist that evolutionary theory makes more sense are castigated as dogmatic, even as just anther variety of religious zealot. As if anyone who criticises a rock solid belief in something must have an equally dogmatic 'belief'. It's a bit like critics of the Iraq invasion being dismissed with 'Well, have you got a better solution?' after the best solution, don't invade in the first place (i.e. prevention, not cure), was ignored point blank.

    One doesn't need to be in possession of all the answers to know a completely unscientific argument when it's presented.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    at least somebody is doing something about it

    How about if we went further and we started to send DVD packs to religious lessons putting a few alternative ideas forward to pupils?

    I think we ought to.
  • 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.
    I could accept such an approach, if Last Thursdayism were also included.
  • 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.

    Interesting and balanced piece on one of the most central arguements between the different theortical positions - The Whale's Leg - or the problems in the transition from sea to land and back to sea, and the apparent lack of transitional animals.

    And goes a long way in showing just how critical the scientific community actually are of Darwin - even when he gets things right by fluke. After all remember most Scientists aim to dispprove and alter each other's theories, otherwise they'd just be lab assistants.

    https://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0510b&L=ecolog-l&P=6664
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not a lot of people know that hippopotamuses are more closely related to whales than horses. I don't have the precise statistics to hand, though.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    Interesting and balanced piece on one of the most central arguements between the different theortical positions - The Whale's Leg - or the problems in the transition from sea to land and back to sea, and the apparent lack of transitional animals.

    And goes a long way in showing just how critical the scientific community actually are of Darwin - even when he gets things right by fluke. After all remember most Scientists aim to dispprove and alter each other's theories, otherwise they'd just be lab assistants.

    https://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0510b&L=ecolog-l&P=6664

    exactly
    that's science, of course there's massive flaws in darwin's work, but evolution as a general theory is quite good at explaining most things around us, for example bacteria, weeds and how they develop resistance to chemicals - most mutations are negative, very few are positive so generally the best way from what i've read, that we have a massive species 'pool' is that it's the mass extinctions which allow one species to spread apart to enhance their genetic differences

    humans have been around for so little time, of course we don't know everything, the problem iwth an intelligent designer argument, is that if were to show it, what does it tell you? to stop trying to understand it and put up and shut up?

    then there's the problem of testing for design, when scientifically you would never prove it either way, much like the existence of a god, or of heaven, or of all the greek gods and demi gods, or flying spagetti monsters! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The validity of each theory is completely irrelivent to this debate. Science lessons are about teaching children to think about the world in a certain way. It's about teaching kids to analyse things using scientific process, and frankly it doesn't matter which theories you use for this, (though obviously they want to teach a bit of general knowledge as to the major theories while they're at it). But they have to be theories in which scientific process can be used to record, prove or disprove certain claims, as the child has learned throughout the year. And you can't do this with a religious theory such as intelligent design. That doesn't make it any less valid, it just means that it is not a scientific theory, and therefore not only shouldn't, but can't actually be taught in a science class.

    It's the same as something like maths. When you want to teach a child addition, it doesn't matter whether you use 4+5 or 5+6 but it has to be a mathematical question that the child can use their new-found skills to answer, or you're not teaching them anything.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote:
    I could accept such an approach, if Last Thursdayism were also included.

    I think you interpreted GWST`s post far differently than I.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The validity of each theory is completely irrelivent to this debate. Science lessons are about teaching children to think about the world in a certain way. It's about teaching kids to analyse things using scientific process, and frankly it doesn't matter which theories you use for this, (though obviously they want to teach a bit of general knowledge as to the major theories while they're at it). But they have to be theories in which scientific process can be used to record, prove or disprove certain claims, as the child has learned throughout the year. And you can't do this with a religious theory such as intelligent design. That doesn't make it any less valid, it just means that it is not a scientific theory, and therefore not only shouldn't, but can't actually be taught in a science class.
    .

    exactly what I was trying to get at :yes:


    oh, on a vaguely related note: here's a good (very long) video: Richard Dawkins reads excerpts from The God Delusion and answers questions at Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia on October 23, 2006. This Q&A features many questions from Jerry Falwell's Liberty "University" students.
    more concerned with the origin of morality, but the main point is he is an atheist/darwinist and is good at debating with a predominately christian audience. here
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I'd disagree with Scientology because its a cult, rather than a religion, but I wouldn't have any problem at all with Raelism being taught providing that it is not taught as fact.

    I don't see why people are so upset. If evolutionism is so blatantly the answer, then the science will stand up to scrutiny and will stand up against other theories. I don't see why it should be such a sacred cow. It is the duty of teachers to provide more than one scientific viewpoint.

    My physics teacher was a born-again Christian and it didn't harm my education to have his viewpoint presented to me too- it helped me consider the facts laid before me by scientists.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I don't see why people are so upset.
    Okay then. Maybe we should start teaching french in german classes, history in geography classes? The point it that it contributes absolutely nothing to educating children about science and scientific process, and if anything simply confuses them as to what constitutes a scientific theory. It shouldn't be up to people to give reasons why ID shouldn't be included in science classes. It should be up to those who claim that it is a valid scientific theory to prove how they come to that conclusion. And we're still waiting for the evidence of the scientific process and evidence that led them to that conclusion.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Well I'd disagree with Scientology because its a cult, rather than a religion, but I wouldn't have any problem at all with Raelism being taught providing that it is not taught as fact.

    I don't see why people are so upset. If evolutionism is so blatantly the answer, then the science will stand up to scrutiny and will stand up against other theories. I don't see why it should be such a sacred cow. It is the duty of teachers to provide more than one scientific viewpoint.


    because the people promoting it are promoting an agenda, they get slated in real scientific press in the sense of the fact they ignore the majority of cases where evolutionary theory has helped a lot

    ID doesnt help anywehre, other than in a philosophical debate, of which i would love to be done in a scenario like that as it is a good way of discussing things lke that
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    I think you interpreted GWST`s post far differently than I.
    How so?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I don't see why people are so upset.
    I don't see why you keep saying that people are upset. Are you upset?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Completely beside the point, but that link was hilarious! I had never read on the 'teachings' of the Pastafarians :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote:
    Completely beside the point, but that link was hilarious! I had never read on the 'teachings' of the Pastafarians :lol:


    nope it has everything to do with it sadly enough

    i think we should polythetic relgiions in science also if you can teach ID, why be unfair to those who believe in roman and greek gods
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Someone give me one good reason why any of the big three religions should be given precedence to Scientology, Flying Spaguetti Monster or anything else.

    If the Church gains a right to infiltrate science lessons, then everybody else also does.

    How fun and educational will science lessons become...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    3 big religions?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That was more of a general question than relating to this particular case- i.e. why should any of the 'established' religions take precedence over any other faith, cult or belief in the classroom.

    But yes, sticking to this case, I don't see why Creationism and the Christian view of how the Earth and life on it was created should take any precedence over anything else. If we must allow non-scientific beliefs to infilitrate science lessons (and I think that would be a fucking abomination) then we should allow for all other known claims and beliefs.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yes agreed.

    When ID is a in serious academic journals on a significant scale (which I doubt it ever will) then it can be in a science text book, before then, No.....
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    If we must allow non-scientific beliefs to infilitrate science lessons (and I think that would be a fucking abomination) then we should allow for all other known claims and beliefs.

    I don't see it like that. Currently one theory is taught as absolutely unquestionable fact - and it's not. I don't think we should substitute it with another unproven theory that lacks empirical evidence. Both theories are indisputably popular strands of thought, even within the scientific community beliefs in both theories exist. I think lessons should reflect the differences in opinion and cover both theories - and importantly, the criticisms of both. Education should promote enquiring minds and critical thinking and when it does fears of children being 'brainwashed' by either side are baseless.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, all that has to be said is the truth, which is that all theories are open to revision if new evidence comes to light, which is simply a statement which would be clear if the scientific method were clearly conveyed.

    Evolution would simply be taught as what is our best understandin given the current state of knowledge, as is every other scientific theory........
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Which I add, is why believeing things according to science is different to beleiveing things through religion.

    An obvious flaw with ID being 'scientific' is that for the vast majority of its proponents, even if the scientific evidence clearly pointed to evolution incontrovertibly, they would still believe in God..............
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But the theory isn't taught that way is it Dis? I mean, that may be your experience of the teaching of evolution and I'm sorry your school taught it that way, but my experience was different - we examined where the idea came from, why the conclusions were made and spent a long time looking at the problems and recent theories and evidence that altered the ideas. As Toadborg mentions, I was taught it as a scientific theory, which is to say, it can ever be absolutely correct, but is always open to change and development.

    On a side note, there is one fundamental difference between Intelligent Design and Evolution - Evolution expressly removes the possibility of intelligence - it's a hit and miss process with no overarching meaning or purpose based on random chance and mutation. Intelligent design implies a continued development based on a specific plan for all eternity - something that the vast number of extinctions and dreadful negative mutations don't seem to suggest as possible.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    because the people promoting it are promoting an agenda

    And the Royal Society aren't pushing an agenda? :lol:

    Evolution is not fact, it is conjecture. Big Bang theory is not fact, it is just conjecture. It should be taught as a theory, with the relevant pros and cons pointed out.

    If a science teacher wishes to discuss the merits and problems with the Pastafarian theory, then that's fine. I imagine it would be a very short lesson. I wouldn't object to it.

    Evolution shouldn't be such a sacred cow, it should be put open to enquiring minds, just as ID should be, just as creationism should be. There is a significant body of scientists who do believe in creationism- my physics teacher was one of them- and I don't see why their ideas should be barred from the classroom because the secular mafia don't like it.

    JimV- the national curriculum expressly states that evolution should be taught as fact.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    And the Royal Society aren't pushing an agenda? :lol:

    Evolution is not fact, it is conjecture. Big Bang theory is not fact, it is just conjecture. It should be taught as a theory, with the relevant pros and cons pointed out.

    If a science teacher wishes to discuss the merits and problems with the Pastafarian theory, then that's fine. I imagine it would be a very short lesson. I wouldn't object to it.

    Evolution shouldn't be such a sacred cow, it should be put open to enquiring minds, just as ID should be, just as creationism should be. There is a significant body of scientists who do believe in creationism- my physics teacher was one of them- and I don't see why their ideas should be barred from the classroom because the secular mafia don't like it.

    JimV- the national curriculum expressly states that evolution should be taught as fact.
    Explain how it's a scientific theory, and you might have a point. But you haven't, so you don't.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Evolutionary theory is taught as fact, you seem confused as to what a scientific fact is - it's not a religious fact, it doesn't stay the same, it isn't based on dogma or blind faith - it's a fact because you can point at the evidence, and as a scientific fact it can be altered whenever something that better explains the evidence comes along.

    No one is saying a religious belief shouldn't be tought. The issue is that why should Chrisitanity be taught as science and Islam, Bhuddism and Scientology not be?

    Scientologists have a theory about the universe with exactly the same basis in fact as intelligent design. They believe - a space giant named Xenu enslaved the other member's of the giant interstellar alliance, had their souls frozen then dropped in a volcano in Hawaii - which released their souls so they had to be caught in giant soul catchers then attached the souls of cavemen, which now causes depression.

    Most countries recognise Scientology as a religion - but I don't believe that it should be taught as SCIENCE, I believe it should be discussed as RELIGION and an issue of faith.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh, and can I ask Kermit, do you believe that there is no evidence for evolution because you were told that by someone who believed in creationism?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    There is a significant body of scientists who do believe in creationism- my physics teacher was one of them- and I don't see why their ideas should be barred from the classroom because the secular mafia don't like it.
    Who says (other than perhaps me with my stance against religious education for children) that their views should be banned? Their views have always been and will continue to be allowed in the classroom- at religious education lessons.

    Science lessons however should be devoted to science. Creationism/ID however are not science- something that all of you who would like to see such creeds enter science lessons keep forgetting.

    Bringing religious beliefs into science lessons is wrong- and I suspect deep down you all know it. There is a place for religious dogma. And it isn't at science lessons.
Sign In or Register to comment.