Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools

a reply to: Sharted
Hell one of the dangers we are facing right now is because antibiotic drugs are having a hard time keeping up with mutations because those lil bugs adapt and mutate,that's actual evolution you can witness under a scope.

oops

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Must say, I like it.

Creationism isn't science. It's faith. Nothing wrong with faith, so far as I'm concerned. But it ain't science. Not in any shape, fashion, or form.

I suppose that each can influence the other...but they are, faith and science, two totally different things. One can inform the other, but should never be colored the same.

a reply to: seagull
Agreed.
I'm actually shocked with the posts in this thread crying 'tyranny' or other such silliness.
Lets all be clear:

*Anyone can start a private school in the UK and teach whatever rubbish they like if they fund it themselves.
*All state funded schools are legally required to teach religious education in dedicated classes.
*All state funded schools are prohibited from teaching creation myths (from any religion) as scientific theory.
*No parents are forced to send their kids to any school because homeschooling is legal in the UK.

The religious victim types in this thread sound like lost lambs bleating on the hillside in my opinion, desperately looking for something to cry 'oppression' about, when the oppression is simply not there.

I could easily start a private school teaching the Norse creation myth as a scientific theory:

The first world to exist was Muspell, a place of light and heat whose flames are so hot that those who are not native to that land cannot endure it. Surt sits at Muspell's border, guarding the land with a flaming sword. At the end of the world he will vanquish all the gods and burn the whole world with fire.

...would the same emotional Christians be crying for me that the UK state would not be prepared to fund my school?

Of course not, absolutely ridiculous.

a reply to: Sharted

We do witness viruses evolve and adapt and mutate, so you can witness it with your own eyes if you become a microbiologist...

What makes you think I am not a microbiologist? LOL

Just between you and me, I am aware of one complex organism which may have met the 'scientific' criteria for evolution. The problem for me is I know about it and yet it hasn't been brought up one time in this thread. So ... either it's simply not common knowledge ... or ... it comes close but doesn't meet the strictest definition, and so the soft-science evolutionists worry about being debunked and ridiculed for making 'another' false assertion. There's a huge difference between mutation and evolution ... at least there is when scientists use the terms.

Mutation is not uncommon at all. If an organism mutates 50 times, it is an organism which has mutated 50 times ... not one that has evolved. During my internship at the UNC Memorial Hospital my work focused on synthesizing Hepatitis viruses. They 'mutated' into new strains. They did not evolve.

Evolution virtually requires climactic change ... the scope and scale of which have not even been well estimated. We're talking Earth to solar system scale gravitational change, radical shifts in atmospheric gas composition, temperature or salinity levels in the ocean permanently slewed, etc. Basically, things which guarantee an extinction level event and a shift in environment where a new matrix of life can take hold and become dominant in it's preferred niche.

So ... I'm still waiting for someone to present definitive proof of evolution ... not argument. I'll go you one further and settle for an example of self-sustaining man-made life which is capable of reproduction ... something that doesn't piggy-back off of any former biological life form. LOL Be careful with your research or you may have to adopt creationism into your belief system.

Here's something else to ponder. Man has developed the ability to create an extinction level event (might already have unleashed one with Fukushima). These capabilities have existed for decades. The closest we've truly come to causing 'safe' evolution is potentially in GMOs ... and how long have they been out?

a reply to: grainofsand
Virtually everone on this thread is simply totally wrong. The freedom of speech takes precedent over the right to tell communities what they have to teach in order to receive benefits of their own tax money. Oh how generous of you to offer to give people their own money back if they shove your idea of an education down their kids throats? No.

What you imply is that if 5,000 people in a single community ALL believe the Earth is flat and ALL want their children to be taught that, you are going to take away their children's free education unless it complies with YOUR program and YOUR opinions on the curvature of Earth. That is wrong. What you are doing is using your majority power to force your unwelcome views upon a minority who does not wish to receive them.

The whole premise of your laughter is that its just so obvious that majorities should be able to dictate speech over smaller communities of minorities. Its nothing more than strong-arming minority pockets of disagreement. Those minorities paid their taxes and yet you dictate how they must spend it from your high perch outside their community.

The problem I have with that is that the schools are forcing their opinions down the throats of the communities. If the communities are contributing to the school funding then it is their own say what the school teaches. If they contributed 50% of the funding then they should get to decide 50% of the educational program vs. your belief they should have as little as zero say in the matter. Is that a not fair deal? I really don't care if its 2,000 miles or 200 miles. Its other people who have nothing to do with each other, yet telling each other what they have to say. That is an infringement on the freedom of speech.

You believe in centralized government and I believe power should be in the hands of localities. I'm not sure what is so funny to you about a community that pays taxes to schools deciding what is taught at the schools they are paying for. Contrary to your statements, by definition, the average state-funded school IN ENGLAND is, funded by the body of parents who are sending their children to school there. You quite simply don't believe in the freedom of speech. This is a strange new idea I have, to allow communities to have control over their own tax money. And I guess you laugh at it but I think it is good.

originally posted by: shauny
And religion doesn't cause conflict

It causes conflict in small forums like this, in our cities and countries.
And on a Global scale religion has had it's turn, time for something new.

Just to add, it's the people within religion, religion it'self isn't the issue, it's the nutters who want to argue about it.
"Thee who cast the first stone" and all that..

I am just delighted my Daughters when they go to School here in Scotland don't get brainwashed by any of this.
They will learn and decide when and if they are ready

Exactly what i was going to type...

No problem with my kids being told of other peoples beliefs , as long as its not being spoon fed down their months as scientific truths...

Personally , any person that belives in creationism should drag their arses out of the dark ages ... but thats my personal view and i wont force it on my kids...

AWESOME, now we just need this in the US so so so badly, religion is not science,
using a lie to get their way is supposed to be against their beliefs, keep it in religious
or philosophical classes and im all for it. Science should not be forced by religion to
capitulate and lie in their name.

originally posted by: wayforward
a reply to: grainofsand
Virtually everone on this thread is simply totally wrong. The freedom of speech takes precedent over the right to tell communities what they have to teach in order to receive benefits of their own tax money. Oh how generous of you to offer to give people their own money back if they shove your idea of an education down their kids throats? No.

Except non-one is being stopped from teaching creationism - schools can espouse it all they want - they just aren't allowed to ball is science - they aren't allowed to lie any more.

They can also choose to continue to lie and not take taxpayer money.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Thank you, my sentiments exactly.
Yet another example of a whinging religious type desperately seeking something to cry oppression about when the oppression really is not there. Lame, probably doesn't approve of all the main religions being taught about in dedicated religious education classes at state funded UK schools either.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Must say, I like it.

Creationism isn't science. It's faith. Nothing wrong with faith, so far as I'm concerned. But it ain't science. Not in any shape, fashion, or form.

I suppose that each can influence the other...but they are, faith and science, two totally different things. One can inform the other, but should never be colored the same.

Would it be faith in lunacy? This is the issue I have with parading nonsense like 'creationism' around. You take young impressionable minds and fill them full of religious mumbo jumbo (think Islamic and Christian extremism too) and it is no wonder they come out with some rather skewed world views. By all means explain that there are other ideas of how the earth came in to being but don't go suggesting that they are fact — however veiled the attempt may be.

a reply to: LarryLove
State funded UK schools are still free to brainwash their kids about whichever faith they like in dedicated religious education classes, just not in the science lessons.
Amazing how so many rabid Christians in this thread are still crying 'tyranny' though, ridiculous, and rather tragically amusing.

*Edit*
Is acting like a victim a prerequisite to having religious faith? I'm beginning to think so, the longer I'm a member of ATS lol

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

1. You make expression more popular by banning it.
2. By making laws over trivial matters, you get a system of thousands of pages of laws that only lawyers can understand.
3. A community should have the right to spend their education money how they wish.
4. Telling people what they can and can't say is a dangerous concept, in contradiction with the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech is designed to protect controversial speech. Obviously if nobody is disagreeing with you, who is going to ask for your speech to be banned?

Once again, laws should not be written that ban individual pieces of speech and here is yet another reason: Its counter-productive, as anything that is banned is simply made more popular. This banning of creationism will merely result in more people putting more time learning about it. Is that what you want?

The banner of the class is merely a piece of speech. They should be able to name their classes whatever they want. If the community wants to use their share of education money to name a class where you learn 1 + 1 = 3 as "Music Class" then fine, that is how they want to be foolish with their own money. So let them. It should be up to their own community to spend their own communities share of the education money. And if the state refuses to allow it, then they should get their money back.

How is it legal in the UK to teach 1 + 1 = 3 in music class when it is illegal to teach that creationism in science class? 1 + 1 = 3 is neither accurate nor music. Its very obviously more damaging to teach a child that 1+1=3 than teaching them that dinasours were only around for 5,000 years before Noah's flood wiped them out after too much sinning was going on. And while its true that it isn't happening now, there will constantly be more stupid things being taught in class a lot worse and a lot more damaging than thinking evolution never happened. The answer is that this UK effort is nothing more than an a majority strong-arming against a minority they disagree with. Laws should not be written that single out specific pieces of speech. My point is that you are supporting a burgeoning law system dedicating thousands and thousands of pages of laws on education. Is that what you want? An education system where only lawyers can know what is and isn't allowed? Because that is what you get when you ban trivial pieces of speech here and there. Without even having to look I know the UK education law must be thousands of pages of trivial nonsense like this. Care to challenge me on that? We could look at the law book size.

One in how many occupations require knowlege of the order of evolution for more than 10,000 years into the past where the tenants of creationism pertain to? 1 in 1,000,000? Yeah, I'd say 1 in 1,000,000 occupations require knowledge of evolution more than 10,000 years back where creationism differs with popular science. You are going to make laws every time you see a 1 in 1 million chance of something bad happening?

It is only fair to say any community in favor of teaching creation as science should be banned from doing so IF you give them the option of having their money returned to them. But that is not the case in the UK, therefore this move by the UK is nothing more than a majority strong-arming minority groups into submission. Not cool.

So there are four good reasons that the UK should reverse their decision. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." I think the fact that the UK did this only proves that politicians are truly useless idiots. If they were to do this, then they should have done it decades ago when it may have made a difference, even though the difference would have been the reverse of what was intended as is nearly all political efforts. Now that hardly anyone in the whole UK is saying evolution never happened, now they ban it. Oh wow, how useful. Not.

originally posted by: wayforward
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
1. You make expression more popular by banning it.

It is not banned - see the posts above.

2. By making laws over trivial matters, you get a system of thousands of pages of laws that only lawyers can understand.

there are no laws made AFAIK - just enforcement of the education department's right and duty not to waste taxpayer money on lies. I am sure they would also object to teaching 1+1=3 in any class ....but ther is little demand to do so because there isn't a movement to teach that particular nonsense.

A very poor strawman there.

3. A community should have the right to spend their education money how they wish.

They are free to do so. However taxation is not "the communities money" - it is the country's money for the maintenance of wider society.

If you do not like wider society then go play by yourselves.

4. Telling people what they can and can't say is a dangerous concept, in contradiction with the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech is designed to protect controversial speech. Obviously if nobody is disagreeing with you, who is going to ask for your speech to be banned?

no speech is banned.

You can say that creationism is science if you want - you just can't use taxpayers money to tell lies.

Special pleading and whining - is there actually any difference?

a reply to: LarryLove

...and how is your attitude any different?

Religious mumbo jumbo? Really?

I'll grant you, that religion, or some of those who practice it, has caused more than its fair share of problems. But religion, or rather some of those who practice it, have also brought great beauty into the world, as well.

You might look at the white, as well as the black, before rendering judgement on the mumbo jumbo.

a reply to: uncommitted

The recent Trojan Horse scandal in the UK has highlighted that there were several schools in one City alone outright rejecting teaching evolution and, instead, taught the fairy tale that is Creationism in their science classes. I've seen copies of the text books they used, leaflets they posted around school and eyewitness accounts - it is horrendous to think there is a generation of kids being brainwashed like this.

That said, CoE and Catholic schools don't teach this, so not all "religious" schools should be labelled as bad - this does seem to be a counter-thrust to "fundamentalist" schools. My own kids go to a CoE school precisely because of the standard of education that they offer, which is excellent.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
* Oh..an additional thought.. Many seem to take this wild and outlandish idea (in my view) that Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive concepts? Why is it impossible to say there was inspiration for the origins of life in a puddle of goo ..or not..to be the point here ..and then, by the way of nature as we see it every day, THAT life evolved into the endless variety we see now over millions of years to change? I've never seen it as Either/Or by any stretch.

Another misunderstanding about evolution..

Evolution does not - and never will - deal with the act of creation/first life. This should be evolution 101, really.

originally posted by: TonyS
In UK, aren't "Public" Schools the "Private" schools?

Erm, yes, I think so. If you're a "Public School Boy", then it is usually a derogatory term to describe a toff or posh twat.

originally posted by: TonyS
So this would apply only to the Church of England run Schools?

Nope - ALL schools. They all must be inspected and meet standards. CoE schools are "state" schools anyway, just part funded by the CoE.

originally posted by: TonyS
And if so, I have to wonder how the Muslims are going to react to that.

Who cares? This is probably why the new rules have been brought in because of the Trojan Horse affair.

originally posted by: angelchemuel
Well going by the headline, this whole subject only applies to PUBLIC SCHOOLS.....that's fee paying schools. So that leaves state schools...(government run) exempt then?

C'mon Jane - you can't be this simple, surely? You live in the UK don't you? Yet, you have confused "public" with "private". The aticle is probably written by an American, hence the ever so slight confusion, but if you read the article (which you clearly didn't) it makes it clear this applies to any state funded school, be that a Comprehensive, CoE, Academy run by Islamists or what have you...

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

No I am exactly correct. Creationism has never been taught in any way shape or form for the last 40 years in any government funded state school myself, my children or my friends or their children have attended.

Instead of 'picky' read pedantic and semantics then.

Goodnight....

Maybe not, but in some schools it was being done, such as the one's in Birmingham recently.... This is legislation expressly forbidding it.