Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Really!! Really??

Look at your lead sentence:

That statement in itself shows such a massive ignorance of how evolution works.

Now tell me, who is ignorant? Is worshipping at the altar of science not its own form of fanaticism.

Ridicule is Not going to bring me 'round. Evolution is virtually unprovable scientifically. It has certainly failed to date, though there has been massive amounts of time, money and effort expended to 'prove' it. You folks that have bought into it hook, line, and sinker ... are as close-minded as the religious zealots who believe only theirs is the one true god.

I truly marvel at how you make this all about me. Have I even once said I support creationism? Have you seen me say that creationism is more plausible than evolution? No ... of course not. But, I cast the slightest bit of aspersion on evolution and look what comes out of the woodwork.

I know exactly how 'evolution' is supposed to work. All I've said ... and it's so simple ... is that I have seen no _evidence_ of evolution ... and neither has a single honest soul on this planet ... ever. LOL

a reply to: Snarl

What you need to understand is in the UK we have RE classes to talk about religion.


So it's right the science stays in the science class room and Religion stays in the RE.

To me that's a nice separation and see no reason for overlap.

a reply to: crazyewok

It's one hilarious balancing act, isn't it?

Thing that kills me about either topic is that neither side can afford to openly admit they might just be wrong. The competition to be right is childish. Watching grown people act in such a manner is totally amusing. I'll never tire of it.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: crazyewok

It's one hilarious balancing act, isn't it?

Thing that kills me about either topic is that neither side can afford to openly admit they might just be wrong. The competition to be right is childish. Watching grown people act in such a manner is totally amusing. I'll never tire of it.

Only really hilarious thing is your comment - how something based on huge amount of evidence, verified by number of top scientist can be wrong??

Watching grown people talk about science while not grasping its concept - now you talking about really hilarious thing... like today's USA politicians...

If something has been proven in science being wrong - everyone accepts it... Look at age of universe - it was believe that it is 16, 15 and now 14 billion years. Some view this as science not being sure - but this is just adjustment based on new evidence.

I should place this probably in my signature, as lately I had to use this quote quite often:

“Science adjusts its views based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”
― Tim Minchin

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

Yes, there is a tenuously viable argument that Science is a form of religion, in that its a belief system. However, its a belief system with verifiable facts to back it up, and thats why its not classed as a religion.

Yes, there are some aspects of theoretical science, where the underpinning evidence is circumstantial, and not empirical, however those theories have been subject to substantial peer review, and modification where needed, as new knowledge replaces the old.

Creationism, has not been subject to substantial peer review, and anyone who challenges the tennets it provides, are branded as "closed minded". This is why creationism isn't and shouldn't be considered a scientific theory. Its a religious theory.

They aren't saying it shouldn't be taught, they are saying it shouldn't be taught as a science. Schools are still free to teach it as a religious theory in religious education class. Hell, they can still teach it in philosophy class if they want. They just can't teach it in science class.

a reply to: shauny

religion doesnt cause conflict, people having different opinions on any subject matter causes conflict.
the only way a subject wouldnt cause conflict is if everybody agreed on it, which is never gonna happen.

It seems to me if the focus was on teaching critical thinking and the ability to independently evaluate truth from fiction and/or the gray that always exists between? We wouldn't need to dictate lesson plans from national political offices or other sources outside a classroom. We could teach both the theory of evolution and the theory of creation as they are taken in society...then let the students determine in their mind which or...more likely..what combination of those two factors, may play into forming the truth.

Instead, we'll just come down like royal decree, forget about critical thinking and protect the dear children from controversial thought of any sort. "Thou shall learn ONE way and NO other way!". Somehow I can't give that a heart felt Amen.

Critical thinking makes the need for censoring ideas and concepts entirely needless. Of course, critical thinking isn't really taught or even tolerated anymore. Conformity is. A sad place we've reached. It really is.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Thats not how it works here in the UK.

Sure creationism banned in the Science room.

But it gets a whole class in what we call RE so students still have a forum and place to discuss it freely and make up there OWN minds.

Science has never had a place in our RE rooms so why should RE have a place in the science class.

It easier just to separate them and have each in there own place. Neither will conflict and they both then have a place in schools.

I try to stay away from Godless people, the hypocrites that they are. It's okay to shove atheism down your throat but don't mention Jesus!

a reply to: Wrabbit2000


There is not much thinking included when you talk about creationism, especially when you talk about young earth creationism.

Using 'critical thinking' as argument is false and does not in any way help science or education. Just imagine, if teacher of physics has to mention that there are people believing that someone can walk on water, before explaining gravity or characteristics of fluid mass. Do you have to incorporate in history at end of each chapter - this was God's will, just to include 'critical thinking' in there as well? If your answer is no - why then biology has to be any different.

Folklore tales you can cover in literature class, science in scientific class.

So please, refrain to use 'critical thinking' as argument - just as I said - this is more like ' bending science to incorporate religion into it' - nothing else. Delusional argument is - delusional...

a reply to: SuperFrog

So please, refrain to use 'critical thinking' as argument

Why? That's what soft-science practitioners do every time they use _consensus_ as foundation for theory.

a reply to: simsumre

Do you think yourself better than Jesus then? He mixed with all manner of people. What honour do you do him, by isolating yourself from people you have judged unfit, which is also against the will of Jesus Christ? What right have you to do these things against His express wishes?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: simsumre

Do you think yourself better than Jesus then? He mixed with all manner of people. What honour do you do him, by isolating yourself from people you have judged unfit, which is also against the will of Jesus Christ? What right have you to do these things against His express wishes?

He also called a hypocrite a hypocrite. You believe in nothing, that's fine. Don't push it on others while at the same time demanding that religious people keep their mouth shut.

originally posted by: Iseestars
I think options instead of restrictions on teachings is the best.
Give the kids an option to chose.

That's just another way to let the parents decide for them.

a reply to: simsumre

I believe in Jesus Christ almighty, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, and my own personal saviour. I also believe in trying to live by his example where possible. That means interacting with people of every walk of life, every social class, every religion and ideology going, and people from every spectrum of the political strata prevalent at the time.

In short, if it was good enough for Jesus to mix with the Godless, then it is good enough for me, and for that matter, for you. Anything else is hypocrisy, of a much grander scale than that perpetrated by persons who have no professed faith. You dirty the name of Jesus when you speak of your faith, so toxic is your method of worship, so isolationist. At least when atheists make an ass of themselves, they do not cheapen the name of a deity in the process.

With people with your attitude wandering about, spouting off at the mouth about how you do not mix with certain folk, you bloody HERO, it's no wonder the faith is looked down upon.

It's faith of your sort that makes Christianity look bad.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Richard Dawkins, the oracle has spoken.

No more debate. The matter has been settled.

#9

originally posted by: pirhanna
Creationism is NOT science. I'm very against overbearing government, but religion has it's place, and it's not in science education. Would you demand that chinese be taught in English class? Or how about scientology in history class? Or how about numerology in a computer class?

Seriously folks.

One day the world will know and understand how men created science falsely called, imbedded their own religious texts into it, then sold it to the west as 'Science'. And a population indoctrinated from infancy to hold these men in white coats up as respectable men and the world's greatest 'scientists', has no clue that it's Jewish Babylonian mysticism. You say "religion has no place".....then why are the descendants of Christian forefathers gulping down Jewish Babylonian mysticism as their 'science'? How can anybody today still believe that organisations like NASA are secular when they freely declare their religion in every mission name, patch and logo...their RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION? Yet, you declare "religion has no place in science education"?? You are right - it doesn't, so let's instead pursue the truth - WE WERE CREATED.

originally posted by: Year1

originally posted by: pirhanna
Creationism is NOT science. I'm very against overbearing government, but religion has it's place, and it's not in science education. Would you demand that chinese be taught in English class? Or how about scientology in history class? Or how about numerology in a computer class?

Seriously folks.

One day the world will know and understand how men created science falsely called, imbedded their own religious texts into it, then sold it to the west as 'Science'. And a population indoctrinated from infancy to hold these men in white coats up as respectable men and the world's greatest 'scientists', has no clue that it's Jewish Babylonian mysticism. You say "religion has no place".....then why are the descendants of Christian forefathers gulping down Jewish Babylonian mysticism as their 'science'? How can anybody today still believe that organisations like NASA are secular when they freely declare their religion in every mission name, patch and logo...their RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION? Yet, you declare "religion has no place in science education"?? You are right - it doesn't, so let's instead pursue the truth - WE WERE CREATED.

Erm by who? A big bearded bloke in the sky? Says who? And please don't mention the bible. It's a book of myths and fairy tales from the Bronze Age.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Snarl
I get you loud and clear. If I were to contest what you have to say, it wouldn't be worth the time to type out. Your bacteria is _still_ bacteria at the end of the day. And no one _ever_ has conducted a scientific experiment (much less repeated it) where a change of species is evident (e.g. breeding two dogs and coming up with a cat).

And therein lies the problem trying to get "creationists" to understand evolution...

It doesn't mean "two dogs coming up with a cat". I tried to make it simple for you in my post on page 1, yet either you ignored it, or simply couldn't refute any of it so glossed it over.

The change is gradual but over hundreds, if not thousands, of generations organisms can and do evolve and, eventually, into something entirely different from their ancestors..

Hi Stumason,

The question is, how many schools in the UK outright reject evolution and instead teach creationism - and by that I mean the whole Earth is 6,000 years old nonsense that the actual Church (any recognised flavour that is not a fringe) has never itself actually approved as a church stance?

I can't say I've heard of more than the odd one or two that even the Daily Mail classed as a more than a bit weird.

As has been posted in this thread but I know a lot of people find it hard to accept, you can have a level of faith and equally believe that evolution is an acknowledged fact - it's never really been the 'either/or' issue that some people love to make it seem.... unless you are a hardcore fundamentalist or an atheist who has no respect for other peoples views.