Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here

Creationism creeeping into UK schools

124

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    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?
    From my own perspective. I think that the evidence for evolution is insufficient because that's what I found out on my own. Just for the record.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    From my own perspective. I think that the evidence for evolution is insufficient because that's what I found out on my own. Just for the record.

    Does a lack of evidence for theory A make theory B true?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well no. I'm not saying that, I have other reasons for believing in ID though. Not just that I think there's a lack of evidence for random chance
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And more to the point, is there any evidence at all available to support theory B?

    Just because theory A is not fully proved does not mean we should choose theory B instead. Why not choose theory C, D, E, or F?

    Or even better, why not stick to science and simply tell students that theory A has not yet been proven 100%, and if there are no alternative scientific theories available to offer, leave it at that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Well no. I'm not saying that, I have other reasons for believing in ID though. Not just that I think there's a lack of evidence for random chance

    And that's fine, I respect that belief, but its a belief and not a scientific theory which can be tested. But then I am not suggesting it cant be raised as part of the discussion, I just dont think it should be given as much time as evolution/adaptation.

    To be honest I'd doubt the Big Bang theory is covered in any depth, I very much doubt even the teachers understand it let alone the students.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    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.

    We were taught it as fact not a theory. I don't know if my school was typical but when we covered this it was only very briefly; I don't think we spent any more on it than one lesson. (And to think how much time and money is spent lobbying...)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    And that's fine, I respect that belief, but its a belief and not a scientific theory which can be tested. But then I am not suggesting it cant be raised as part of the discussion, I just dont think it should be given as much time as evolution/adaptation.

    To be honest I'd doubt the Big Bang theory is covered in any depth, I very much doubt even the teachers understand it let alone the students.

    Struggling to remember my own school days, but if I remember the teacher talked about creationism, to put into context that Darwin was the first person to seriously bring into the mainstream a challenge that the orthodoxy that the world was created in 6 days and to offer evidence for an alternative.

    The teacher mentioned Archbishop's Usher's work that the world was created in 4004BC as the alternative before Darwinism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And of course, if anyone from either side of the discussion feels strongly enough to rant about it -

    http://www.thesite.org/community/reallife/getinvolved
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    And that's fine, I respect that belief, but its a belief and not a scientific theory which can be tested. But then I am not suggesting it cant be raised as part of the discussion, I just dont think it should be given as much time as evolution/adaptation.

    To be honest I'd doubt the Big Bang theory is covered in any depth, I very much doubt even the teachers understand it let alone the students.

    Which is a fair point, quantum physics is fairly obscure. The thing is, while you can't test religious belief, that is, whether christianity is more correct than islam or whatever, you can test ID against Evolution, you can look at the odds, you can look at life. Personally I think as soon as you come across something that is irreducibily complex, like the bacteria flagella, you're looking in the face of engineering, not chance. It can be tested. I think it's much more reasonable to say that something made things the way they are, than to say everything happened because it happened because that really is incredibly unlikely, possibly, but unlikely, as I've said before, prohibitivly so.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Personally I think as soon as you come across something that is irreducibily complex, like the bacteria flagella, you're looking in the face of engineering, not chance. It can be tested. I think it's much more reasonable to say that something made things the way they are, than to say everything happened because it happened because that really is incredibly unlikely, possibly, but unlikely, as I've said before, prohibitivly so.

    But can it be tested? I suppose it can if we have a few billion years, but without that I dont see how it can.

    There is clear evidence that things adapt and change to their enviroment (see MRSA for example) so if they do that, why not more complex changes?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Which is a fair point, quantum physics is fairly obscure. The thing is, while you can't test religious belief, that is, whether christianity is more correct than islam or whatever, you can test ID against Evolution, you can look at the odds, you can look at life. Personally I think as soon as you come across something that is irreducibily complex, like the bacteria flagella, you're looking in the face of engineering, not chance. It can be tested. I think it's much more reasonable to say that something made things the way they are, than to say everything happened because it happened because that really is incredibly unlikely, possibly, but unlikely, as I've said before, prohibitivly so.

    Where did the creator come from?

    God, is pretty complex himself right? So where the hell did he come from?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We were taught it as fact not a theory.
    No, all through science, students are taught to compile evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion based on that evidence (and then are taught about various scientific theories that have been concluded using the same process). Anything that deviates from this is not scientific, and therefore cannot be taught in science classes (not should not, but actually cannot). No-one is saying that the scientific way of understanding the world is any more valid than any other.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    Where did the creator come from?

    God, is pretty complex himself right? So where the hell did he come from?

    Similarly, where did the big bang come from? Comically put, "there was nothing which exploded making everything".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    Where did the creator come from?

    God, is pretty complex himself right? So where the hell did he come from?

    Religion believe that God is uncaused. The parties disagree on whether it is possible for Him to have always existed. Some say that everything with an effect has to have a beginning of time.

    Instead, one can simply say that the universe has never been created and that matter has always existed. There's no evidence against either arguments which makes either more valid. That's the same with ID and the theory of evolution.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    Where did the creator come from?

    God, is pretty complex himself right? So where the hell did he come from?

    If we do not even understand how the Big Bang happened, we would have no idea on how to understand the existence of a supreme creator - especially if you are thinking of one in relationship to time.

    Maybe the creator is not bound by time. Maybe the creator just is. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ok lets take each theory and think about it logically

    We don't know where god came from. Who was there before God? Why did he create the world as it is and why? Etc etc...we do not know

    We dont know how the big bang happened and how it vreated the universe. We don't know what was there before the big bang. We don't know how life came to be on the earth HOWEVER there is evidence to back up this theory. Not to prove it but to support it. Genes, natural selection, evolution. It is PROVEN that animals adapt to suit their environments, both long term and short term adaptions. This supports the theory of evolution and suggests that it is possible

    Both theories start off pretty shaky. ID could quite well have happened, there's no reason why not. But what evidence is there to support the idea? Not a lot. There is a lot more evidence to back up the idea of evolution
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    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?

    It's something that I've come to believe through reading around the subject. No doubt my source will be mocked, but Bill Bryson's book was most informative about the subject.

    I do believe in Intelligent Design, of sorts, because I think that there are too many holes to fill by saying it was all just random chance.

    As for evolution itself, I'm not sure about what I think. There is evidence of sorts to show natural change, but at the same time there is precious little evidence to suggest that we evolved from apes who evolved from amoeba. There is no evidence of a "missing link" which would show that evolution took place, there are some huge gaps filled with nothing more than speculation and conjecture. I've already been through this.

    As for my teaching, it did raise questions which I went away and researched. Most of it I discounted.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just because we cannot fully understand or explain something it does not mean it must be the work of a mystical and powerful being.

    If we had stuck to that mentality as a species would would still believe earthquakes and eclipses (amongst countless other ocurrences in every possible field) were just the gods showing their displeasure.

    To suggest that beause something is very complex it must be the work of God requires a leap of faith and belief. But it is not science at all. If anything it stands against the very principles and basic pillars of science.

    Frankly I cannot believe we're still discussing whether Creationism/ID should be even mentioned in science lessons. You might as well demand witch doctors must be allowed their say in a medical conference discussing how to beat the HIV virus.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Just because we cannot fully understand or explain something it does not mean it must be the work of a mystical and powerful being.

    It equally doesn't mean that it did just happen by chance.

    My belief is that it didn't happen by chance. I don't want that taught as fact, but I don't want a hypothetical and speculative idea taught as fact either.

    There is precious little proof that we evolved from anything.
    To suggest that beause something is very complex it must be the work of God requires a leap of faith and belief. But it is not science at all. If anything it stands against the very principles and basic pillars of science.

    I don't know, most science work in this field requires a massive leap of faith. It's just a different faith- the desire to prove the clergy wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    To suggest that beause something is very complex it must be the work of God requires a leap of faith and belief. But it is not science at all. If anything it stands against the very principles and basic pillars of science.

    To suggest that something came from nothing, and life came from nowhere and that an a single celled organism made the random leap into something more complicated requires a similarly massive leap of faith. Whether you want to admit it or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are already tons of evidence to support that. We still have to fill a few blanks, but all the information, knowledge and evidence we have gathered so far supports that theory.

    Whereas, I am sorry to say, there is not much of anything to support Creationism or even the existence of any Deity. That is why one of the pillars of any religion is faith. Because there is little else to go by.

    Now, there might still be a God, he could still have created the Universe and science could be completely wrong. But the point remains that unless any scientific evidence of that surfaces, religion should be confined to religious lessons, and science to science lessons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well where did God come from them? Thats equally something from nothing
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    To suggest that something came from nothing, and life came from nowhere and that an a single celled organism made the random leap into something more complicated requires a similarly massive leap of faith. Whether you want to admit it or not.

    Is it a similarly massive leap of faith?

    ID believes that things have been designed by a creator of some sort - but there is nothing other than the idea that its very unlikely to support this.

    However, evolution has some evidence to suggest it could work, there are things we can test, measure, study, prod and poke to evaluate the theory.

    Having said that, of course when you are talking about the first 'spark' or bang or whatever then both science and religion are basically at a bit of a loss as to how it could happen, it just did.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You guys seem to be going around in circles. ;)

    I was never taught that Evolution was a fact. A lot of my peers and me included assumed it was at some point but whenver we said so we were corrected and told the difference between fact and a theory. In Icelandic it's even called '(Darwin's) Evolution Theory'. The theory bit is never left out.

    Given what I was taught in Science classes I don't see any reason to include Creationism or ID into classrooms. Sure, if the topic comes up in class then it can be discussed, but it should not be a subject pushed by the school. It's religion, not science. If science is taught well, the kids should be more than capable of applying logic to make up their minds in their own time. I know I did.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :thumb: What Jaloux said
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Similarly, where did the big bang come from? Comically put, "there was nothing which exploded making everything".

    Why do you and kermit keep bringing Big Bang into it?

    What has that got to do with ID?

    The starting premise is simply that there is some matter, and we want toknow how the living world around as came from that matter?

    Where the matter came from in the first place is not directly relevant.

    Nor is any theology or religious guff, remember this is 'science' :rolleyes:

    Your theory is incomplete without saying where the creator came from...........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jaloux wrote:
    You guys seem to be going around in circles. ;)

    It's more interesting than this property purchase contract I'm supposed to be amending ;)

    Evolution and big bang are directly related. We all evolved from the same amoeba which came from the big bang, according to the theory.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, all through science, students are taught to compile evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion based on that evidence (and then are taught about various scientific theories that have been concluded using the same process). Anything that deviates from this is not scientific, and therefore cannot be taught in science classes (not should not, but actually cannot). No-one is saying that the scientific way of understanding the world is any more valid than any other.


    it's 'fact' as in its the best explanation, and explains a lot of things


    i'll be frank here, i think the science education in this country is a joke, went to a technicians health and safety thing today where a newly built academy doesnt even have a functioning prep room with a fume cupboard

    and i'm very happy to see children taught the limitations of many scientific theories, evolution (as we know it) has many flaws, but it is the best working model, and teaching kids that all science effectively does it try to build up a working model of things would be a wonderful thing

    sadly though, i find it inexcusible to bring in 'faith based' teaching such as ID which technically is a non-provable hypothesis and not a scientific theory and thus belongs in the realm of philosophy, which i'd like kids to take part in as it broadens the mind so to speak which is a good thing

    as said before i wouldnt teach german in a french class, so i wouldnt teach a non-scientific idea in a science class

    and yes school science is way too simplified, but thats what you get for wanting to teach 'real life' science as opposed to how ideas and theories have developed


    in regards to development of species as a whole, people are working on it, and will be working on it for a long time past my to explain life on this planet, that doesnt mean it is beyond the scope of human intelligence, it just means it takes time - much like newton provided us with a simple model of gravity which works, almost all of the time - einstein has further improved our knowledge of how gravity works, like explaining how mercury's orbit is different to a newtonian orbit due to it's closeness to the sun - but still einstein's relativity theories don't hold in some circumstances, like what happens in extremely small yet large massed objects, or even a more basic question of 'What is Mass'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    It's more interesting than this property purchase contract I'm supposed to be amending ;)

    Evolution and big bang are directly related. We all evolved from the same amoeba which came from the big bang, according to the theory.


    according to the current theory that is.... ideas develop, people always seem to think we're at our peak scientifically, there's always more to learn

    there's a time and a place for philosophy, and science lessons aren't it
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Similarly, where did the big bang come from? Comically put, "there was nothing which exploded making everything".


    it's not an 'explosion' as we know it, it's just an expansion of 'space-time' - i can't get my head around it, it's like drawing a graph, and then scaling it up in size, same information different size


    and on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibly_complex and the flagellum

    one function can alter into another, like a wire can be turned into a spring into something else, and just becuase you see say a series of springs working to form a clock, doesnt mean they were always springs, as is the case with flagellum, but with a molecular motor probably being a toxin needle before
    Mainstream scientists regard this argument as having been largely disproved in the light of fairly recent research.[26] They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as salmonella use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has many elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing most of the proteins that make a flagellum work. Thus, this system seems to negate the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. This has caused Miller to note that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."

    and a lovely quote i read somewhere
    The lack of a detailed current explanation for a structure, organ, or process does not mean that science will never come up with one
Sign In or Register to comment.