Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

I think they are anti-science, because they were taught religion as scientific fact. Which kinda proves the entire necessity of governmental intervention banning the teaching of religion as scientific fact.

Thank you guys, for inadvertently proving quite succinctly, why this law is actually necessary.

a reply to: stumason

For the record, as it has been mentioned a few times in this thread (not by your good self), I am not an Atheist but rather an Agnostic.

Thanks for clearing that up. For the record...I'm not Christian, I'm Wiccan and I don't personally take God as literal to the terms of the Bible. One single life form with all knowledge, power and interest to do whatever, wherever, and however many times at the very same instant is just.. Well...not my belief system.

However, I do believe we were created by intelligent design and I firmly believe the complexity of life down to the cellular level speaks stronger to that than any book or opinion ever could.

I also think Evolution of physical form to outside influences or survival needs is how we continue to evolve and change over time...which probably began the day after life beyond single cell level and with any degree of awareness first appeared.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

Science says so therefore it MUST be true...

Science doesn't say anything. Hypothesis supported by evidence can strongly imply something......

Has Science become a Religion

Any question that begins with "Has..." can be answered "No".

originally posted by: BMorris
Science doesn't have all the answers, and probably never will. Each question it answers, leads to two new ones.

However what science can answer, is supported by masses of testing, or evidence, or both. That's something religion can't do. It can't be tested, nor is there any real hard evidence. Thats why one is religion, the other is science.

One other thing that differentiates science from religion. If data appears to prove an existing scientific theory wrong, in general, the data gets verified and reverified, and if the data is found to be accurate, the theory is adjusted to fit the data, or even discarded entirely, and a new theory proposed.

Religion just buries its head in the sand and says 'no no no no no no... go away'.

it seems it's science's problem that they can't get anything straight the first time.

and why do people want to hold religion to the same disciplines as science?

isn't that like jamming a square peg into a round hole?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

The law most certainly is banning certain forms of speech. A science teacher in a science class is not allowed to say "there is an alternative theory to evolution called creationism whereby the Earth is less than 20,000 years old". That is banned now in the UK and that is the point of the law... to ban that speech when made a science class by a science teacher. Your argument that "you can say it in another context therefore it isn't banned" is incorrect. If the UK were to create a law saying "you may never call the king "a fool" in science class, then in fact calling the king a fool is certainly banned in at least once circumstance... science class. And that ban by definition the point of the law.

And while a communities contribution towards a national fund is most certain for the nation, by definition, the portion by that nation designated to that community should be spent however the community wishes. If I'm the head of a household paying into a family health care plan, how about the portion of it going to me... to my own health care, being spent how I see fit on my own health care. Likewise, if a community is paying taxes to a nation and the nation then places it back into the community for their education, the community itself should decide how they invest the money in their own education.

Who cares about the eduction of a community more... the nation at large or that community? That community. Therefore the community should decide how the education money delegated to them is spent. In the same way if I'm in a family health-care plan, I still want to decide how my own portion of that fund is spent on my own health.

a reply to: wayforward

No we still have compulsory Re lessons in which creation can be discussed.
I think if we had a referendum on it the populace would agree science for science classes and religion in Re lessons.
Most people in the uk accept evolution so why dumb science lessons down by teaching myth in a factual science lesson?.

a reply to: wayforward

First of all, Creationism is not an "alternative theory to evolution" in the slightest. It doesn't even qualify as a "theory", it is in the realms of a hypothesis, if that. So no, it isn't banning "freedom of speech" but instead it is banning idiocy being taught in a Science class. Creationism has bugger all to do with Science, so why should it be taught? It's like teaching electronics in an Art class - totally unrelated and a waste of time.

Secondly, you seem blissfully unaware of how the UK education system works, but then I wouldn't expect anything else from someone clearly not from this country. God forbid you actually educate yourself about a subject before forming an opinion.

In the first instance, any school taking State funding (and there is certainly no obligation for any school to do so) has to adhere to the National Curriculum - end of.

Now, if a "community" wants to educate it's youngsters in another fashion, then they are entirely free to set up their own school and fund it out of their own pocket. They could teach Creationism in Science or that the Moon is made of recycled condoms, as long as it's with their own money, then it's only their own Children's futures they are harming.

Not to mention the fact that parents are on the Board of Governors for Schools, which decides how the School is run, so they do have input.

So all this babble about "Communities" deciding is totally irrelevant - they can. Clearly you need to read up on how the School system runs in the UK as you evidently don't have a clue what your chatting about.

originally posted by: wayforward
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
The law most certainly is banning certain forms of speech. A science teacher in a science class is not allowed to say "there is an alternative theory to evolution called creationism whereby the Earth is less than 20,000 years old". That is banned now in the UK and that is the point of the law... to ban that speech when made a science class by a science teacher.

Indeed - the science teacher cannot tell het lie that creationism is an alternatie theory (because it isn't) in a SCIENCE CLASS....but it does not ban the science teacher from saying so elsewhere - so the speech is not actually banned.

Where it can be said is limited - but that is the case for many types of speech and places, and quite rightly so.