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

1235»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    As for it "not being science", how do you define science? There is much that is termed "science" that is nothing more than secular dogma.
    Science is the creation of theories about the world around us based on evidence and testing. That is why other forms of theories don't qualify. But it seems to me that you've failed to convince anyone that ID is a valid scientific theory, and now you're now trying to convince us that the definition of science needs changing instead.

    Since we seem to be going round in circles let me ask this of everyone. Assuming that science is science and religion is religion (or theology) and they exist seperately as ways of understanding the world, is it fair that science recieves far more time and importance in the national curriculum? Is it fair that only one subject is essential and is worth twice the time and grades?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    It's more interesting than this property purchase contract I'm supposed to be amending ;)

    You might not think that if you thought about where that "property" originated from ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    is it fair that science recieves far more time and importance in the national curriculum? Is it fair that only one subject is essential and is worth twice the time and grades?

    Is it "fair" that there is a national curriculum ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    You might not think that if you thought about where that "property" originated from ;)

    It's a useful lie ;)

    As for the original post, secular science is taught in RE classes as a theory as to why the religious ideas may be wrong; I fail to see why the reverse is true.

    Science is just what scientists deem it to be- they are not neutral. The Royal Society has as big an agenda as religious leaders, its just a different dogma.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    It's a useful lie ;)

    As for the original post, secular science is taught in RE classes as a theory as to why the religious ideas may be wrong; I fail to see why the reverse is true.

    Science is just what scientists deem it to be- they are not neutral. The Royal Society has as big an agenda as religious leaders, its just a different dogma.


    yes, but you cant teach a non-scientific theory in science classes and call it a 'scientific theory'

    this is exactly what they (truth in science, behind these stupid packs) do, i've read their material since we got it through post (and binned it). I'd be happy leaving RE classes as teaching the BELIEFS and PRACTICES of religion(s) and discussing morals in the context of different religions, philosophy giving a forum to discuss and try to answer the unasnwerable (like when does a pond become a lake?) and science classes to teach a mehodological way of solving and/or modelling situations... what is so wrong in that?

    the Royal Science normally doesn't poke it's nose into things actually, and is quite a benign organisation, and they don't publish religious text/journals claiming to be religious, they publish text whose goal is to help further our EVIDENCE BASED understanding of the world...

    (sorry for caps)


    on a side note http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html a creationist museum with Dinosaurs, which the bible doesn't mention, and nor do the operators actually answer which of the genesis stories they're following or believe in more..... :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    douple post
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Look, there's a time and a place for a time and a place and time and a place isn't the time or the place. Jeez, you guys are so simple!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote:
    Look, there's a time and a place for a time and a place and time and a place isn't the time or the place. Jeez, you guys are so simple!


    exactly, time and a place for everything, personally i dont think sex education as per such should be in science it should be in PSHRE as sex & relationships, though fertilisation should be in science but that isnt actually the sex education that people need
Sign In or Register to comment.